Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, after 19 years of legal challenges, the courts found the State of California responsible in an inverse condemnation for the failure of the Linda levee on the Yuba River, and ordered it to pay damages to victims of the 1986 Yuba County flood. Now, constituents in my northern California congressional district are receiving their long awaited just compensation. Unfortunately, an unforeseen consequence has arisen. Depending on the amount of an individual's award, he or she may be subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT), due in part to the portion of the individual's judgment award paid to attorneys in the form of fees.

Attorneys in the suit received their cut of the judgment right off the top, payment for services rendered, as ordered by the court's decision. The attorneys will owe regular tax on this payment. Unfortunately, the actual award recipients may also incur tax liability for this amount, effectively resulting in double taxation--once when the attorneys pay taxes and once if recipients incur AMT liability. Even

though this is money my constituents never physically possessed, as currently written in law no AMT relief can be granted.

Although there is no practical way to retrospectively address the tax treatment of the 1986 Yuba County flood victims, I believe their situation stands on its own as an example of the damaging impacts of the AMT on the American taxpayer. And the scope of the problem is only getting worse. The AMT is not indexed for inflation, meaning that what was conceived in 1969 as a way to compel the wealthy to pay at least a ``minimum'' level of taxes has increasingly become a burden to middle- class citizens. If the current AMT exemptions are allowed to expire, the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT will increase from 3 million in 2004 to 21 million in 2006. Also staggering is the cost of proposed solutions. In fact, the Treasury Department has estimated that by 2013, it would be less expensive to repeal the regular income tax than it would to repeal the AMT.

Though I have long supported the outright repeal of the AMT, I believe it is equally important to highlight the nature in which attorney fees can result in AMT liability, as they may for many of my constituents. For this reason, today I am introducing two bills that would exempt attorney fees from the calculation of AMT tax liability. The first would apply to AMT liability resulting from attorney fees in certain floods that constitute natural disasters. The second would apply to AMT liability resulting from attorney fees in general.

There is no easy fix to the problems encountered by a growing number of Americans due to the alternative minimum tax. It is my hope that in the near future Congress will constructively respond to this problem, whether through overall repeal of this onerous tax, or through consideration of intermediate measures such as these.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in strong support of the underlying bill. The Endangered Species Act is a law with good intentions, but it has spun wildly out of control with tragic consequences for average Americans.

The northern California district I represent has been ground zero for some of the worst examples of the human impacts of this law gone awry. In 2001, a community of family farmers in the Klamath Basin of northern California and southern Oregon had their entire water supply shut off to prevent a perceived threat to two species of listed fish.

Families who for generations had worked the soil to produce food for our Nation were literally left high and dry. To add insult to injury, it was later determined that that decision was not scientifically justified.

Several years ago a levee protecting one of the communities I represent had deteriorated, and the Army Corps of Engineers predicted that in the event of high water, there would be a significant threat to human life. For nearly 7 years, local officials tried to repair that levee, Mr. Speaker, but those repairs were stymied because of the Endangered Species Act. Those delays had tragic consequences. The levee did break, just as the Corps predicted. Tragically, three people drowned.

Mr. Speaker, the impact of this inflexible law have been real and devastating. The reforms proposed by this common sense legislation are long overdue.

I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) on his good work and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, would the chairman of the Committee on Resources agree to enter into a colloquy?

First let me say to the gentleman that I am very appreciative of his efforts here to make the ESA a better law.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the legislation would provide the President the authority to waive or expedite any provision of the act in the event of a major national disaster. I also understand that the legislation would require the Secretary to

develop regulations establishing procedures for an expedited application or waiver of the act for agency actions that would be undertaken to address threats to human health or safety.

I thank the chairman.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, a terrible situation occurred in my district in Northern California several years ago where a levee that protects one of the communities I represent had deteriorated to such a point that the Corps of Engineers predicted that this degraded levee, without repair, presented a threat to human life. Regrettably, repairs to that levee were unable to proceed in a timely manner due to the lengthy consultation process, even though this very serious warning had been issued by the corps. I am sure the chairman has heard of other similar examples where the application of the Endangered Species Act has complicated or delayed urgent and targeted levee repairs from occurring when they are needed to protect people from flooding.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Secretary currently has in place emergency regulations that allow for expedited consultation in the event of an immediate threat to public safety, as, for example, when the floodwaters are rising and are feet or perhaps even inches away from breaking or breaching a levee.

Is the chairman's understanding that the intent of the legislation is to require the development of additional regulations that would allow the Secretary to expedite the application of the act for agency actions necessary to address threats to human health or safety?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his leadership and years of work he has invested in making the Endangered Species Act a more responsive and effective law.

Offered By: Mr. Herger

Amendment No. 12: Page 54, beginning on line 21, strike

``in furtherance'' and all that follows through line 23 and

insert ``for the purpose of conducting the background checks

required under section 471(a)(20) of the Social Security

Act.''.

Page 55, beginning on line 18, strike ``placement of foster

or adoptive children'' and insert ``licensing or approval of

foster or adoptive parents''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3672. First, let me echo the sentiments of so many of my colleagues that have already been expressed here today to the victims of this terrible tragedy. Please know that our thoughts and prayers are with all of you. You will continue to be in our prayers as you work to recover from the devastation this hurricane has wrought and to rebuild your communities. We hope the steps we take here today will provide a measure of help in that incredibly trying process.

This legislation is designed to assist States provide for the immediate financial needs of thousands of families

affected by Hurricane Katrina. I am honored to support this bipartisan bill introduced by my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). Unfortunately, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) cannot be with us here today since he is in Louisiana with the Vice President, helping coordinate the ongoing response to the hurricane.

The purpose of this legislation is simple: to clear any obstacles that stand in the way of quickly getting money into the hands of the hurricane victims. The legislation before us now addresses the needs of families who either have been on welfare or might need to go on welfare as a result of the hurricane. It ensures that States have the resources to help them, and it removes the bureaucratic obstacles that might otherwise stand in the way.

In terms of funding, this bill immediately makes available more than $4 billion in Federal welfare funds which States would otherwise have to wait until October to access. So States have that money to spend now when so many families are in need in the region.

It provides additional Federal funds for the hard-hit States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and it reimburses other States for the cost of providing emergency benefits to the many families that have left the States directly in the path of the hurricane.

To ensure families can focus on getting their lives back together and States can focus on providing immediate help, this legislation also waives program rules that might otherwise tie States' hands in providing for the immediate needs of affected families.

Mr. Speaker, these changes provide more State flexibility in meeting the needs of families, including for basic cash assistance right away. And as communities start to get back on their feet, this flexibility can and should be used to help parents find and keep new jobs to support their families.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the richest agricultural districts in the world in Northern California, in the northern Sacramento Valley. And this CAFTA agreement will create important new export opportunities for the Northern California farmers and ranchers I represent.

Three nations have already ratified this one-of-a-kind agreement. However, if this enacting legislation fails, the prospects of approving any similar agreement for the Central American countries fail as well.

Placed in a broader historical context, in May of 2000, I joined 308 of my 435 colleagues in lowering or eliminating completely the tariffs on products entering the U.S. from CAFTA nations. At the time there was no reciprocal treatment, and our U.S. products continued to face high tariffs in CAFTA nation markets.

The ratifying bill now before us will immediately zero out tariffs on 50 percent of U.S. agricultural products exported to the region, with the remaining scheduled to be reduced and eliminated over time.

This is vitally important to all U.S. agriculture, especially in my home State. California produces 350 different agricultural commodities and is America's largest agricultural exporting State. When fully implemented, it is estimated that CAFTA could help boost U.S. agriculture exports by $1.5 billion.

I firmly believe trade must be a two-way street. Currently, our Nation's agricultural exports like rice, almonds, pistachios, and dried plums, grown in my district, face average tariffs of 35 to 60 percent.

As I previously stated, we already allow 99 percent of CAFTA nations' imports duty free. Mr. Speaker, CAFTA will level the playing field for American agriculture and will help producers from California and other States gain valuable new export opportunities. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to approve this measure.

Madam Speaker, I believe it is critical that we seek out abuses in existing agreements, and reform such laws that are detrimental to U.S. producers. Such is currently the case with unfair honey imports from China.

In my northern California Congressional District, honey and honeybees play a critical role in pollinating many of our important export crops, including almonds.

Because Chinese ``new shippers'' are allowed to circumvent antidumping orders by posting bonds, the honey industry in California and nationwide faces serious and continuing price declines, making it difficult for honey producers to provide bees for pollination.

This bill would suspend the bonding privilege for a three-year period. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, Representative English, Chairman Shaw and Chairman Thomas for their work on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for his leadership on this incredibly crucial issue of trade.

As the gentleman mentioned, California is the richest agricultural State in the Nation; actually, the richest agricultural area in the world. The Imperial Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, the Sacramento Valley, which is part of what I represent, north of Sacramento, and more than 250 different major commodities come from California. Again, I thank the gentleman for his active role in getting the facts out, the truth out about trade.

We are the largest trading Nation in the world, bar none other. And in the United States we have very low, and many times almost nonexistent, barriers for other countries to be able to trade to the United States. Yet we see very major trading barriers to other countries. So it is really win-win when we have an agreement such as CAFTA that can help bring down their barriers.

I would like to reemphasize the importance of CAFTA to farmers and ranchers, both in my home State of California and in the greater United States. Especially now, as we fast approach a vote in the House on CAFTA-ratifying legislation, it is important to note a few points on this agreement in general.

First, CAFTA was negotiated by all countries in the agreement, and already three have ratified it. Secondly, CAFTA is the only legislation of its kind that will come before the Congress. If it fails, the prospects of approving any similar agreement for the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic fail as well.

Finally, CAFTA has to be considered with some degree of historical context. In May 2000, I joined 308 of our 435 colleagues in the House to lower or eliminate tariffs on products entering the U.S. from CAFTA nations. At the time there was no reciprocal treatment. In other words, the U.S. products would continue to face high tariffs and other barriers to entry in CAFTA nation markets. The CAFTA-ratifying agreement soon to come before us will immediately zero out tariffs on 50 percent of U.S. agricultural products exported to the region, with the remaining schedule to be eliminated in 10 years. The American Farm Bureau estimates that this could mean an increase in U.S. agricultural exports of $1.5 billion per year.

In California, exports of farm products help boost both farm prices and income generated in the agricultural sector. Taken together with jobs, both on and off the farm, agriculture employs in California alone 129,560 workers, including food processing, storage, and transportation. Agriculture exports account for roughly $8.2 billion, or about 30 percent of the total export product of California.

CAFTA implementation would increase those exports. As the Nation's largest producer and exporter of dairy products, with cash receipts of over $4 billion, California dairy producers would benefit greatly from reductions of the current duties imposed in CAFTA countries, which can be as high as 60 percent.

As our Nation's leading exporter of fruits, California fruit producers too would benefit from CAFTA passage. Grapes, for example, are the State's third largest source of farm cash receipts. Current duties on grapes can reach 20 percent in some CAFTA countries and could grow as high as 135 percent under WTO rules.

Producers and processors would benefit from the immediate elimination of duties on grapes and raisins in all CAFTA nations. California peaches grown in my district, a nearly $250 million industry, would benefit from elimination of duties on both fresh and canned peaches immediately.

Pears would also gain immediate duty-free access under CAFTA. Mr. Speaker, California is the leading producer of tree nuts in the United States, accounting for over $2 billion in farm cash receipts. California almonds, walnuts, pistachio producers would benefit from the immediate duty-free access in all CAFTA countries.

Current duties on those products can reach 20 percent. With over $1.7 billion in cash receipts, California lettuce producers would benefit from immediate duty elimination in Costa Rica and duty phase-out in most other Central American countries within 5 years.

The California tomato and broccoli industries would see similar tariff elimination. Another crop, California rice, which is a major commodity in my district, currently faces duties of

up to 60 percent. As the Nation's second largest rice exporter, California rice producers would benefit from the immediate market access of 400,000 metric tons of U.S. rice in CAFTA countries.

As the Nation's second largest cotton exporter, California cotton would benefit from immediate market access worth up to $73.1 million.

For beef, too, CAFTA passage brings with it positive economic prospects. With cash receipts of nearly $1.6 billion, California would see tariffs reduced from as high as 30 percent to zero. Tariffs on some cuts of meat will be eliminated immediately in Central American countries.

Mr. Speaker, as stated in a letter from the California Ag Coalition for Free and Fair Trade, California producers of beef, fruit, nuts, vegetables, cotton, poultry, dairy products, wheat and rice stand to gain in a major way under CAFTA.

I support this agreement for passage, and I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to do likewise. CAFTA would help level the playing field for America's agriculture, increasing export opportunities for our growers and producers. It would be truly tragic for our Nation's agriculture and all of our economy if we let this opportunity escape us.

Well, obviously, it does not help our trade deficit; it makes it worse. As the gentleman is pointing out, if we lose that, and the gentleman has pointed this out, there are other countries that are seeking to take these markets. China is working very diligently to take these markets, and we cannot allow this to happen.

So it is imperative that we move, and we look to be having a vote this week, that we win and we have a big win in this very important area of trade.

Again I thank the gentleman. You brought up the agreement of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, with Canada and with Mexico. And again, it was so tongue-in-cheek, it was so detrimental that we more than doubled our trade to both of these countries who are our major trading partners now, and we see our unemployment rate at one of the lowest levels in our Nation's history, right at 5 percent.

So if these trade agreements are so bad for our country, why are we seeing such incredibly dramatic positive results because of them?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the U.S.- Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement. Today, the United States and the five DR-CAFTA countries already enjoy a strong economic relationship. This FTA will only enhance that relationship by opening markets and integrating economies.

Under the agreement, more than four-fifths of total U.S. exports to the six DR-CAFTA countries will receive immediate duty-free treatment. American farmers and manufacturers would benefit from the increased access and competitive advantage that duty-free treatment provides.

But this FTA covers much more than trade and goods. Today, services are an integral part of the U.S. economy. Under the DR-CAFTA, the Central American countries will open their markets to U.S. services companies. In many cases, the agreement allows U.S. banking, insurance, telecommunications, and other services companies to compete in markets that were once dominated by state-endorsed monopolies.

In addition, the FTA will put U.S. service providers at an advantage over their foreign competitors who do not have access to these six growing economies.

I urge my colleagues to consider how CAFTA will benefit U.S. companies and vote to support this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3021) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3021, the TANF Extension Act of 2005, as amended. This legislation will extend for 3 additional months certain welfare programs, including the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families and child care programs within the Committee on Ways and Mean's jurisdiction, so those programs would continue to operate at their current funding levels through September 30, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, this will be the 10th extension of these programs since the original authorization of the 1996 welfare reform law expired in 2002. That law produced remarkable results. Work among welfare recipients doubled. The poorest single-mother families reported a 67 percent increase in their real earnings between 1995 and 2002. Single mothers' real wages continued to increase during the 2000-2004 period, despite the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks.

Despite predictions of welfare reform opponents that the 1996 welfare bill would increase poverty, the number of children in poverty fell by more than 1 million. The black and Hispanic child-poverty rates hit record lows. Welfare caseloads fell 60 percent to their lowest levels since 1965. Welfare funds stayed constant, and child care funds grew, even as caseloads plummeted. Taxpayer resources per family on welfare more than doubled from $7,000 per year to $16,000 per year today.

In 2002 and 2003, the House passed comprehensive welfare reform legislation that would have extended these programs for a full 5 years. That legislation also included modest adjustments designed to encourage and support more work, higher incomes, stronger families, and less poverty. These House-passed bills offered up to $4 billion over 5 years and added child care funding to support more work.

Unfortunately, our friends in the Senate did not follow suit, and so we have been forced to come to the floor with repeated short-term extensions.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we continue these programs, and I urge all Members to support this legislation. But while we mark time, we are missing out on many ways to help even more low-income parents and families leave welfare for work. We must do more to encourage States and local communities to support strong, healthy families.

The subcommittee I chair has, once again, approved legislation that tracks the comprehensive welfare reform bill of the House that the House passed before. I expect in the coming months the full committee on Ways and Means and this House will once again act on comprehensive welfare reform legislation as part of the budget reconciliation process. Regardless of the process, our goals remain the same: to encourage and support more work, less poverty, and stronger families.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this process of continued extensions of welfare programs is finally nearing an end. I look forward to working with our Members to get this done so more families can know the dignity of collecting paychecks instead of welfare checks.

In the meantime, I urge support of the legislation before us that continues these welfare programs in their current form.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to remind the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that, during the last several years, we have passed out of this House two bills, both of which have offered as much as $4 billion more for child care, both of which the gentleman from Washington opposed.

I might also mention that welfare case loads during this period of time of this legislation has fallen by 9 million, from 14 million recipients in 1994 to fewer than 5 million today. Again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I think it is very clear how incredibly successful this program has been, and we need to move forward to make it even more successful.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to remind, again, those who speak detrimentally of this legislation that, since their opposition to this, no additional $4 billion for child care over the next 5 years has been able to have been offered. No assurance for full TANF funding through 2010 has been able to be available, that would be available in this legislation. No assurance of supplemental grants for low benefits in poor States. No assurance. And it goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2002 and 2003 this House passed long-term reauthorization legislation to encourage more work among welfare recipients and to provide more resources for States to assist low- income families. And I have heard several on the other side, my good friend from Washington, talk about values, talk about Democrat values, Republican values. He spoke about the amount of funding.

Let me just mention that under the Democrat values of the programs that we had twice as many who were on welfare than were on welfare today because caseloads were cut in half during our current legislation while Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, funds were fixed and child care funds grew, Federal funds per TANF families more than doubled. As a matter of fact, in 1996 the average family under the old Democrat plan had $6,934 average approximate per family. In 2004 these same families had $16,185 because the program was block granted, and it was an equal amount of funding coming in and it was not reduced.

This, Mr. Speaker, would be the 10th extension of these programs since 2002. However, I believe this process of continued extensions of welfare programs is finally nearing an end. I expect that the House will soon act on and pass comprehensive welfare reform legislation as part of the budget reconciliation process. But until that happens, it is important that we continue these programs and we do need to pass this bill today. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3021.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to suspend the duty on electronic educational toys for children. This duty is, in fact, an educational tax on the consumer.

At a time when we as policymakers are focusing on ways to enhance education for our children, it is important to aggressively promote tools that are valuable in teaching fundamental skills. Penalizing the consumer for buying educational toys is contrary to the country's educational goals.

Currently, computers and toys enter the United States duty free. But electronic educational toys have a duty. This duty is inevitably passed on to the consumer. We do not want to create a situation where a consumer may be less inclined to buy an educational toy versus a regular toy, which has not had to absorb the cost of the duty.

The company leading the fight to eliminate the tax on electronic educational toys is a California company, LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. LeapFrog is an innovative company and a leading developer of educational products, currently employing 1,000 people in my state.

I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to end an unwise tax on education.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 157 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from Washington, and the gentleman from Washington

(Mr. Hastings) the chairman of the ethics committee, for his efforts to resolve the regrettable impasse that has prevented the committee from organizing. He has made a thoughtful and good-faith attempt to clear up any misunderstanding and resolve any perceived concerns.

But this was rejected out of hand by our friends on the other side of the aisle. Why? Because their concerns are neither real nor substantive. They want the committee to be in limbo. They are creating an issue for political purposes without any positive ideas about how to resolve the very serious challenges facing our Nation. Negativity and political attacks are their only strategy.

Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. Let us move forward constructively and stop abusing our ethics process for purely political gain.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled the ``Public Good IRA Rollover Act.'' I am introducing this bill to encourage increased charitable giving by correcting certain provisions in the tax code related to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Americans should have the opportunity to make tax-free charitable contributions directly from their IRA accounts.

This legislation is designed to allow individuals age 59\1/2\ or older to contribute amounts currently held in IRA accounts directly to qualified charities without having to first recognize the income for tax purposes and then take a charitable deduction. This legislation will give individuals more freedom to allocate their resources as they see fit while providing badly needed funding for charities, churches, museums, universities, and many other nonprofit organizations.

The IRA was intended to encourage individuals to save for retirement, but due to a strong economy and an increase in asset values, many individuals have more funds in these accounts that they anticipated or now need to retire comfortably. Thus, it is very common for retirees to donate some of their wealth to charities and, in some cases, that wealth is held in an IRA.

Individuals may withdraw funds from an IRA without incurring an early withdrawal penalty once they reach age 59\1/2\. Currently, however, these IRA withdrawals are generally taxed as income, even if the individual donates the money to charity. Many donors are reluctant to make charitable contributions from their IRA assets because of the additional tax costs they will incur. Congress has exempted withdrawals from IRA accounts under certain circumstances, such as to finance the purchase of a home or a college education. Congress should also make it possible for older Americans to support charities by allowing withdrawals from their IRA assets without suffering adverse tax consequences.

This legislation also addresses other obstacles to charitable giving created by the current tax code. A taxpayer could readily recognize the IRA withdrawal income for tax purposes and, after making a charitable gift, take a charitable tax deduction. Unfortunately, in many cases under current law such a simple arrangement results in a loss of some portion of the charitable deduction. For example, charitable contributions are subject to the itemized deduction ``haircut'' under which certain taxpayers lose a portion of their charitable deduction.

It is very difficult to estimate the amount of capital trapped by the current tax and rollover rules, and thus not available to our nation's charities. According to one report, there is over $1 trillion held in IRA accounts. If only 1 percent of this would be donated to charity but for the tax problems associated with charitable rollovers, this represents a $10 billion loss of resources to these organizations that do so much good.

I will give just one example from my state of California, where universities and colleges receive tremendous support from private individuals. These donations and financial gifts are critical to providing the funding needed to maintain quality higher education and keep it available and affordable. In the UC system, private contributions provide more than $369 million for individual university departments, $291 million for research, $225 million for campus improvements, and $84 million for scholarships and student support services. In addition, planned gifts such as charitable remainder trusts, gift annuities, and pooled income funds are a tremendously valuable source of funding for the University of California System. This legislation encourages more charitable gifts such as this, which will greatly benefit universities and many other charities. This is sound and greatly needed legislation. Similar legislation has consistently received strong bi-partisan support in both chambers of Congress. This bill was part of the CARE Act that passed the House last year. In addition, President Bush has endorsed this proposal and it was included in the Administration's budget request for FY2005 and FY2006.

This legislation is crucial to many local and national charities, including American Red Cross and the YMCA. Associations that represent thousands of our nation's charities and nonprofit professionals, such as the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, the National Committee on Planned Giving, INDEPENDENT SECTOR, and the Association of Fundraising Professionals, hear daily from their members whose donors want to make gifts from their IRA assets.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation to increase private giving to charitable organizations by removing the disincentive currently in the tax code. We must continue to support proposals such as this that strengthen and increase resources for the nonprofit sector, a sector that plays such an important role in lives of millions of Americans every day. I know this legislation is needed in California and in your local communities as well. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this important legislation.