Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as we consider this bill, which will strengthen penalties against kidnapping and aid law enforcement agencies to effectively prevent, investigate and prosecute crimes against children, we should also take this opportunity to reauthorize the Victims of Child Abuse Act. This law, initially passed in 1992, supports grants for programs to assist the victims of child abuse.

Our colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), was involved in the original enactment of this legislation and continues to be very active in the programs administered through this program and deserves a great deal of credit for the activity underlying the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the chairman's comments in that regard. They are similar to comments made by the district attorneys in a letter from the National District Attorneys Association citing the extraordinary value of these programs.

In the interest of time and in the interest of debate and with the endorsement of the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, I would put into the record the statement that I make on behalf of this amendment, along with the letter from the National District Attorneys Association, and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, as we consider this bill which would strengthen penalties against kidnapping and aid law enforcement agencies to effectively prevent, investigate, and prosecute crimes against children, we should also take this opportunity to reauthorize the Victims of Child Abuse Act. This law supports grants for programs to assist victims of child abuse.

Congress passed the Victims of Child Abuse Act in 1992. This Act provided for the establishment of four Regional Children's Advocacy Centers to provide information, technical assistance, and training to assist communities in establishing programs, particularly children's advocacy centers, that respond to child abuse. Since that time, these local and regional centers have served and assisted victims of child abuse heal and recover.

The need for these centers and programs in increasing. In my home state of North Dakota, we have one Children's Advocacy Center (CAC), located in Bismarck. It opened in 1996 and is completely funded by grants. Since its opening, it has assessed and closed over 4,000 cases of abuse and/or neglect. Unfortunately, over 7,000 children have been suspected to be victims during this time. Referrals have increased by 49 percent since 2000 and 72 percent of all victims were 8 and under. As you can see, this center serves a fragile population and addresses a vital need. The Center serves 49 out of 53 counties and all four Native American reservations.

Children's Advocacy Centers are important because they make the process of reporting child abuse and receiving treatment easier on children. They provide consistent and timely response to abuse reports; effective medical and mental health treatment or referrals; and reduce the number of child interviews by prosecutors and investigators, lessening the mental impact of continued exposure to the abuser.

Nationally, there are 464 Children Advocacy Centers in the United States that are members of the National Children's Alliance (NCA). There are an additional 221 programs that are recognized by NCA as being engaged in the process of creating a CAC. The National Children's Advocacy Center (NCAC) in Hunstville, Alabama has had a significant impact on CAC development, and I want to acknowledge Representative Bud Cramer of his outstanding work in developing the first CAC program.

I support Representative Cramer in his work and seek to extend the legislation that helps fund its programs. The authorization for this funding expired in fiscal year 2000. While funding has continued through the annual appropriations process, Congress should reauthorize the program and demonstrate our support for its mission. The amendment would authorize $15 million for Regional and Local Children's Advocacy Centers through 2005, and would provide $5 million for grants for specialized technical assistance and training programs.

This amendment also adds tools for the Department of Justice to evaluate these grant programs to ensure that these funds are being used to achieve the very important goals they were designed for--helping children and families deal with the tragedy of child abuse. These tools are to be used only to improve the current delivery of child abuse prosecution and recovery.

Let's make sure every victim of child abuse has access to the resources he or she may need to assist in the prosecution of their abuser and recovery. I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment.

Alexandria, VA, March 27, 2003.

Hon. Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the National

District Attorneys Association I want to urge the passage of

the Pomperoy amendment to H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction

Prevention Act. This amendment reauthorizes funding for the

National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, a vitally

important resource for the local prosecutors of this country.

The National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse is

dedicated to training prosecutors, police investigators,

medical personnel and social workers on the intricacies of

investigating and prosecuting cases of child abuse and

neglect. Additionally they provide on going technical

assistance to prosecutors in the field--even in the midst of

a case.

Child abuse cases are some of the most complex to

investigate and prosecute. The training and assistance that

the Center provides is crucial to fight this scourge. I urge

speedy acceptance of Mr. Pomeroy's effort to ensure that our

children are protected to the utmost extent of the law.

Sincerely,

Dan M. Alsobrooks,

President.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

I have the greatest respect for the legal skill of my friend and colleague from Virginia. I disagree with his take on this particular amendment, however. I am a cosponsor of the legislation represented by the amendment and am pleased today to speak for its passage.

I want to commend, in particular, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), who in an exemplary bipartisan manner worked to build this legislation, crafted around a very careful reading of the Supreme Court ruling, a reference by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and then forged the legislative response that will withstand Supreme Court review.

This is not an exercise of making a statement only to be followed by the inevitable Supreme Court ruling throwing out the legislation. This one is written to withstand review to answer the constitutional objections raised about the earlier legislation, and it comes at a critical point in time for our country.

The Internet, as this wonderful new technology is changing so many things, has had the unfortunate effect of enabling child pornographers beyond ever before, at the very time when we have computer technology being used in the creation and dissemination of graphic, completely unacceptable child pornography. The legislation responds to that, includes several different components that go beyond any component of what might be in a free-speech argument, banning the use by an adult to a minor, the exchange of this material over the Internet, commonly used as part of an enticement procedure by perpetrators of those who would exploit children and lure them into contact.

It creates a per se definition that explicit sexual acts depicted between very young children is per se obscene. I believe this will make a very useful contribution to our judges as they evaluate the unseemly cases brought before them.

This is an important amendment. I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I especially thank her for organizing this important hour to discuss the deeply troubling cuts in the funding of veterans' services in this country.

This is a serious night. We are at war. We have young men and women of our country with their lives on the line in Iraq, fighting for all of us, and yet here in the Congress, while we honor their service and to a man and woman serving in this Chamber, I believe we honor their service, we are fighting this partisan fight on whether or not we ought to fully fund the veterans' services.

I find it nothing less than stunning that our Republican friends would bring a budget that takes $28 billion out of the funding of veterans' services over the next 10 years, $14 billion from that portion of veterans' funding that goes to the health benefits for veterans, and $14 billion from that portion of the budget that funds the disability benefits for those who have laid their lives on the line and wear the scars of battle the rest of their lives.

It is unbelievable that this, at all times, would be the time that we would see a budget cutting veterans services to fund those tax cuts, tax cuts that flow so disproportionately to the wealthiest few in this country, contained in the Republican budget. It is wrong.

You do not have to take our word for it, because the veterans of this country have spoken on this matter, and spoken with one voice and great clarity.

The Paralyzed Veterans of America: ``We do not consider payments to war-disabled veterans, pensions for the poorest disabled veterans and GI Bill benefits for soldiers returning from Afghanistan to be waste, fraud and abuse'' worthy of the kind of cuts in the majority budget.

The Disabled Veterans of America state: ``Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?''

The American Legion writes: ``This budget defies common sense. There must be a better way to provide tax relief to the American people than to balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans.''

Mr. Speaker, there are other colleagues here also eager to speak, so I will cut my remarks short, other than to say in my entire time in Congress, I have never seen a worse policy judgment than to cut the funding of veterans services while our Nation is at war and the lives of young men and women are literally laid on the line in battle for our country tonight. We have got to overturn the Republican budget.

Mr. Chairman, I find it very surprising that the leaders of the House would schedule this important national debate today during the first 24 hours of the Nation's war against Iraq. We should be standing in respectful solidarity with the brave men and women carrying out this very difficult and dangerous assignment in Iraq.

Yet the budget before us presents two features that leap out as nothing less than bizarre given the military action under way. First, nowhere in the budget is there any cost provided for the waging of this war or the U.S. taxpayer dollars that will be spent in Iraq when we have prevailed, spent to safeguard the democratic transformation of Iraq, spent to safeguard the welfare of the Iraqi people. What will it cost? $100 billion, $110 billion, $120 billion. Nobody knows. We cannot know on the first day of military action, but we all know it is not going to be cheap. It will cost, and it will cost a lot. Yet the budget plan before us which runs deficits for the next 10 years does not reserve a penny for these costs.

The second aspect of this budget is even worse in light of the mission under way in Iraq. $28 billion is cut over the next 10 years from the budget of veterans affairs. The ultimate impact will be reduce veterans health care services, force cuts in disability benefits for those permanently disabled while serving our Nation's military. Today we have young men and women with their lives on the line. It is wrong, absolutely wrong to cut the health benefits and the disability benefits of those that have served our Nation in the military.

Later today this House is going to consider a resolution of words supporting our troops. Support of words will not provide the health care our veterans need, fund the disability checks of those forced to live with the wounds of battle. Resolutions of support offered while imposing cutbacks in veterans benefits and disability benefits ring hollow, indeed, and, in fact, represent the most hypocritical act I have seen while serving in this Congress. Our Nation's troops deserve so much better. Reject those veterans cuts; reject this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the bill before the House, H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low- Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003. I believe it is important that Congress act to address the medical malpractice crisis that has begun to threaten access to care around the country.

I will vote for this legislation because I view our current medical malpractice system as in a state of crisis, and I think it is important to begin the legislative process needed to preserve access to care for all Americans. I do, however, believe that that the bill could be improved and I encourage our colleagues in the Senate to be open to constructive suggestions that address legitimate concerns from members on both sides of the aisle. For example, I am concerned that the $250,000 cap on non-economic damages in this bill is too low. As a former state insurance commissioner, I recognize that caps can be useful to providing predictability and stability in the insurance market. But I also believe that a higher cap on such damages would be more appropriate without undermining predictability or significantly raising premiums.

I think it is important that we recognize that there are other dynamics of the medical malpractice crisis that need to be considered, and we should view this reform proposal as only one part of a comprehensive solution. Just this week, as my colleagues know, the House passed legislation that I cosponsored dealing with medical errors reporting and reduction, creating what is intended to be a ``feedback loop'' for health care systems. I hope my colleagues will share my view that once the House passes this medical malpractice reform bill, it will mark only the beginning of a dialogue to help stabliize our health care system while protecting appropriate consumer remedies. To be certain, this is a difficult balance to strike within a complex set of issues, and I urge my House and Senate colleagues alike to remain open to bipartisan efforts to improve this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Farm Tax Simplification Act of 2003, legislation that will allow married co- owners of family farms to significantly reduce the amount of time it takes to prepare a correct income tax return and to provide both spouses with Social Security and Medicare coverage.

As ranking member of the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee, I am pleased that we held a hearing on this issue earlier in the month and that, today, we are able to quickly move forward and act to simplify the tax law. I am honored to have the Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Houghton join me in co-sponsoring this bill.

The National Taxpayer Advocate has reported that approximately 3,000 family farmers in North Dakota may not be eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits because of the onerous partnership tax rules associated with preparing the return that allows both spouses to pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems. The IRS estimates that it takes the average partnership approximately 165-200 hours to prepare its return.

As a result, some family farms have chosen to file a sole proprietor return, attributing all income to, and paying self-employment taxes on, only one spouse. Unfortunately, when this occurs, the other spouse will not be covered under the Social Security and Medicare systems. Many, many hard-working couples are getting a bad deal under the current system, and they will not find out about it until it is too late.

For example, take a family farm run equally by husband and wife. If the business files a return with the husband as sole proprietor, he would be awarded Social Security disability benefits if he becomes disabled, alleviating some of the financial burden of his disability on the family. However, if the wife becomes disabled, she is unable to collect Social Security disability. By not collecting this benefit, the business is further financially disadvantaged.

Current law puts husband and wife businesses in a serious dilemma with a difficult choice under our current tax return filing rules. If they file a partnership return which is technically correct they face hundreds of hours in tax return preparation and/or very expensive charges from a tax attorney or accountant. If they file a sole proprietorship return, which is technically not correct, one of the spouses loses coverage for Social Security disability benefits, Social Security survivorship benefits, and Medicare benefits.

The IRS has been ``winking'' at letting couples file as a sole proprietorship since there generally is no tax liability difference between the two approaches to filing. In fact, these couples are subject to serious civil and criminal penalties for filing incorrect returns. This is just a plain, bad arrangement.

The solution is quite simple. The tax law needs to be changed to allow a couple to file a simple return with income attributed to both spouses and both spouses paying into the Social Security/Medicare system.

The Family Farm Tax Simplification Act of 2003 would allow a married couple to elect to file a joint Form 1040 tax return--through which each spouse is treated as a sole proprietor of the business, and each spouse is allocated part of the farm's business income, gain or loss. By offering this election, both spouses are able to pay self-employment taxes and, thus, can both be covered by the Social Security and Medicare systems. With very few exceptions, the proposal would not affect a couples' total income tax liability nor their total Social Security/Medicare tax contribution.

Finally, I have asked the Taxpayer Advocate to provide the Oversight Subcommittee with more information on how legislation, such as I am introducing today, might apply in the case of non-farm small businesses. I will be receiving a State-by-State analysis of such firms and a description of how the commonly-used Schedule C could be modified to simplify returns for these taxpayers. I would hope that tax simplification reforms provided in my bill could be expanded to other types of small family-owned firms.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to help family farmers receive Social Security and Medicare benefits. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Retirement Account Portability Improvement Act (RAPI), legislation that will prevent money from being leaked from hard earned retirement savings by enhancing workers' retirement savings options.

Workers were confronted with a complex series of obstacles that made it difficult for them to take their retirement benefits with them when they switched jobs. That is why in 1998, I introduced the Retirement Account Portability (RAP) Act, which made it possible for workers to move their retirement benefits between and among the different varieties of defined contribution plans. RAP was incorporated into the pension package set forth by Representatives Portman and Cardin, and became law upon passage of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA). However, when working with employees, employers and retirement plan providers, we identified more barriers to retirement savings portability and these barriers are removed in this ``next generation'' portability bill.

First, RAPI will allow rollovers directly to a spouse's retirement plan. It is common for married couples to manage their finances as a single financial unit and to treat their assets as common property. Yet, in the context of one of a family's most important financial assets, retirement savings, spouses are prevented from transferring amounts to one another. Permitting spousal rollovers would allow couples to balance their savings and to act more as a single financial unit. This would be particularly helpful to couples where one family member has taken time out of the work force to raise a child or care for an elderly parent.

Second, RAPI will allow rollovers to inherited individual retirement accounts (IRA) for non-spousal beneficiaries. If a retirement plan participant dies with a non-spousal beneficiary, that beneficiary is often forced to receive plan benefits immediately and incur immediate tax liability. Participants and beneficiaries should have options that meet their needs while making the process as simple, fair, and even- handed as possible. Allowing the rollover to the inherited IRA will avoid the immediate tax hit and allow the funds to be drawn down gradually. By allowing plan beneficiaries to maintain an inherited IRA, the rules will be improved and retirement savings promoted.

Third, RAPI expands the automatic rollover provisions of EGTRRA. When a terminating employee does not want to leave her benefit with her former employer, but has never established an IRA to receive a rollover, her retirement savings are at risk of being cashed out. That employees should have two more choices, that do not acquire additional work on her part, in which to stash her hard earned savings. By facilitating the offering by employers of a specified IRA or life annuity contract, separating employees can easily prevent money from being leaked from their retirement savings.,

Fourth, RAPI eases the administrative burden of rollovers to Roth IRAs. Retirement savings held in arrangements other than an IRA may not be converted directly to a Roth IRA. Therefore, workers who want to rollover their savings into a Roth IRA must first put it in a traditional IRA. By eliminating this unnecessary step of administrative complexity, workers no longer have to jump through the additional hoop in order to convert to a Roth IRA.

Fifth, RAPI enhances rollovers to Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees of Small Employers (SIMPLE) Plans. EGTRRA did not expand the portability rules with respect to rollovers from non-SIMPLE plans into SIMPLE plans. The positive trend of enhanced portability of retirement assets should be extended to SIMPLE plans. Not enacting this change would prevent certain individuals from consolidating their retirement savings.

Sixth, RAPI increases retirement savings by accepting ``use it or lose it'' monies from flexible spending accounts (FSA). These accounts reimburse employees for qualified benefits, however, the ``use it or lose it'' requirement prevents amounts from being carried forward to future years or used for other purposes if amounts are not used by the end of the year. An employer's plan should permit up to $500 in amounts available, but not used for medical expenses, during the plan year to be contributed to a retirement savings account or medical savings account. This would encourage increased retirement savings by creating an additional avenue and source for contributions. At the same time, it would improve the operation of FSAs by removing incentives to use those benefits unnecessarily out of fear of losing them otherwise.

Seventh, it reduces vesting for non-elective employer contributions. By reducing the period of time it takes for employees to take possession of employer contributions made to their 401(k) accounts, workers will be able to build meaningful retirement benefits more quickly in today's mobile economy. RAPI will reduce this so-called ``vesting period'' from 5 years to 3 years.

The final section corrects a provision in EGTRRA allowing the rollover of after-tax amounts in annuity contracts and makes improvements to the purchase of service credit regime used by state and local employees to build bigger pension benefits.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to expand workers' portability options. We must continue to advance proposals that will prevent money from being leaked from workers' retirement savings, and I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this important legislation.