Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act. Our system of class action litigation is in dire need of reform. Most class action cases are national in scope and should be heard in federal court, where like claims may be combined and uniform decisions rendered. Under the current system, however, these interstate suits are often filed in state or country court, where the decision of a local judge and jury may affect the laws of all 50 states. As a former state insurance commissioner, I am deeply troubled that a jury panel in a class action case in Mississippi or New Mexico could effectively overturn state regulations in my home state of North Dakota. In addition, by allowing interstate class action claims to be filed in any of the thousands of local courts across the country, the likelihood is increased that a plaintiffs lawyer will find at least one judge who is willing to entertain a claim that most people would consider to be without merit. Once a sympathetic judge is found, the plaintiffs' attorney can leverage nationwide settlements that all too often provide little benefit to the actual plaintiffs but enormous benefit to the attorney. I support the amendment brought forward by Representatives Sensenbrenner, Boucher, Dooley, Stenholm, and Terry, that incorporates the so-called ``Feinstein Amendment.'' Through this amendment, class action suits would be apportioned to federal or state courts depending on the domicile of the plaintiffs. I believe that the Feinstein Amendment addressed an important criticism to the bill in that it would leave lawsuits that are clearly of local concern, with state courts. However, I was disheartened to learn that an amendment that would effectively strike the retroactivity provision in the bill was ruled out-of-order and will not be brought forward for a vote here today. This provision would unfairly apply the new law to cases already filed in state courts, but not granted class certification. It sets bad public policy because it changes the rules for injured Plaintiffs in the middle of the game. I understand that this provision was added during Committee debate of the bill and was added at the urging of a special interest. Such political favoring produces bad policy that I cannot support. Therefore, I cannot support class action reform that retroactively applies to active cases. We have not heard the last of this issue. I look forward to continuing to work on this issue so that we can finally reform the class action system.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and with 1 minute, I will have to be brief. This really is not about biotech. It is about whether global agriculture trade will be conducted under the rules adopted by the countries pursuant to trade agreements. There is a procedure for evaluating the safety and soundness of agriculture products to be exported into a marketplace. Under the WTO, it requires that measures regulating imports be based on sufficient scientific evidence and that countries operate regulatory approval and procedures without undue delay. Basically, the Europeans have thrown up this effort to keep our product out, and they have not followed the WTO actions in so pursuing this course of action. That is why the resolution before us commending our President is exactly the right thing to do. We can only participate as a full partner with other nations in trade agreements if people follow the rules. We have rules. The rules are being ignored to keep their markets closed to our exports. We need to pass this resolution.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), for organizing tonight's Special Order in honor of the memory of Al Davis. Mr. Speaker, when I arrived in Washington as a freshman Member of Congress in January, 1993, I received an assignment to the Committee on the Budget. That was when I met Al Davis. At the time, Al was the committee's senior economist. For someone like me, brand new to the Federal budget policy, Al was nothing less than the Rosetta Stone. Even before I knew his name, I knew him by my first impression. It was an impression that I held for the next 10 years working with him, our giant brain. The Washington Post said that Al could translate the most arcane economic data into real-world language. That is absolutely true. But I must also admit that sometimes even Al's translations were hard to grasp. Why? Because, although he was a master of honing sharp political arguments out of obtuse provisions in the Internal Revenue Code, he would never sacrifice content or accuracy. If a Member came to Al with a winning political argument that did not quite square with the facts, Al would patiently explain how the argument could be changed politically and substantively to be sound and accurate. He loved politics, for sure, but Al cared deeply about the enterprise of government, and believed that we all have an obligation to carry on our public debate with integrity. Al was a senior economist and then chief economist for the Committee on the Budget for all my 6 years on the Committee on the Budget. Most know that until recently, Democrat staff of the Committee on the Budget were housed in the old O'Neill Building, which was also the dormitory for House and Senate pages. It was quite appropriate that the Committee on the Budget staff worked out of a dormitory, because when we went to see Al Davis, working along with his colleagues, Richard Kogan and the others who served with such talent the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and then the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), we truly felt like we were in the gifted and talented dorm at college. Here would be Al in his office, piled high with every budget and economic resource we could imagine, statutes, studies, charts, you name it. Of course, we would always find Al perched in the middle of it with an open collar, or in the summer a short-sleeved shirt, jacket and tie hanging on the wall, just in case of emergencies. Al would field questions about budget and tax policy with the excitement and enthusiasm of a kid. He not only would answer the question, but also point out the humor, the irony, the inconsistency, or the sheer lunacy of the provision under discussion. When we went to see Al, we were truly talking to the smartest kid in the class. Al was a very influential staffer, although he had no use for the trappings of authority. Al loved his work for its own sake and not because it made him powerful or sought after, which probably explains why Al treated people like he did. There would be no one in the world more surprised than Al to have an editorial written about him in the Washington Post. He was just as happy to explain the finer points of tax policy to a junior staffer as he was a senior Member. If one was interested in learning the substance, then Al Davis was interested in teaching it to you. Because of his knowledge and intelligence, we made great demands on Al. We asked him not only to undertake economic analyses to support our policies, but also to develop the arguments and market them. On many occasions, I would decide the night before markup that our charts did not quite capture the perfect argument for the next day. I would ask my staff to call Al to find the data to create the perfect chart. Armed with such an 11th hour request, you can imagine how anyone would be exasperated, and occasionally Al was. But even those times, a few hours later, sometimes well after midnight, Al would send over the chart, just as we had asked. I served, along with my legislative director for 10 years, Mike Smart, with Al and developed the greatest respect and admiration for him. As he loved ideas, so he also loved life. I remember my surprise once at disembarking at the Bangor, Maine airport to find Al Davis and his loving partner Mary, Al having one of these goofy camping caps on. He was off for a canoe trip, an incongruous notion for me, thinking of our giant brain paddling that canoe in the wilds of Maine; but that is the kind of diverse and loving-life guy Al Davis was. I have found my years in Congress to be enriched significantly by knowing Al and having the benefit of his counsel. I will miss him very much. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following items: The Washington Post editorial on Al Davis; the June 9 Tax Notes write-up by Warren Rojas on Al Davis and his contribution to the profession; a tribute in the June 9 Tax Notes from Gene Steurele entitled ``Economic Perspective''; and last but not least, a beautiful eulogy that was presented at the St. Charles Catholic Church in Arlington, Virginia, on Monday, June 9, by Dan Maffei, also a staff member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The documents referred to are as follows. [From The Washington Post, June 7, 2003] (By Albert J. Davis) Unless you're a tax and budget wonk, you probably didn't know Al Davis. Mr. Davis, the Democrats' chief economist on the House Ways and Means Committee, was one of those classic Capitol Hill staffers whose effectiveness can't be measured by the number of times they are mentioned in the newspaper. But from his cluttered office in the Longworth House Office Building, Mr. Davis helped mold and inform the public debate about what he saw as the troubling direction of the nation's economic policy, churning out fact sheets that were as accurate as they were partisan. He could get as worked up-- maybe even more--about Democrats using distorted numbers as about Republicans who did so. Mr. Davis had the gift of being able to translate the most arcane economic data into real-world language that Democratic lawmakers--the people he called his ``customers''--could use to make their case. For reporters scrambling to make sense of a study or to dredge up an obscure detail, he was the ultimate resource, with a seemingly encyclopedic understanding of the tax code. If you wrote or advocated about such matters, you'd quickly find your way to Al--or he to you. He patiently educated the uninitiated, from green legislative aides to reporters new to the economics beat. When a bill was on the floor, Mr. Davis was always there with his bulging accordion file, colleague Janice Mays recalled, offering when the most obscure of points came up, ``I just happen to have a memo here.'' Mr. Davis died last week at 56 after being struck by a cab on his way home from work. The accident occurred as congress was finishing work on a tax bill that Mr. Davis detested, and, as he lingered in a coma for 11 days after the accident, we can only imagine how frustrated he would have been not to be immersed in the debate. Len Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, recalled visiting Mr. Davis at George Washington University Hospital and delivering updates on the latest outrages in the tax measure, ``I kept on thinking, he's definitely going to wake up for this,'' Mr. Burman said, Mr. Davis's boss, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), said that Mr. Davis ``promoted truth in an institution too used to skirting around politically inconvenient facts.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this is quite a day in the life of Congress. We are going to pass a $350 billion tax cut, 75 percent of which goes to the wealthiest 5 percent of the households in this country. We are going to authorize the Federal Government to borrow almost an additional $1 trillion. The day of the big tax cut is the day we vote the largest extension of borrowing authority to this country, in light of the red ink we will run, ever enacted. So, in the middle of all of this, it appeared certain that nothing would be done to address the fate of our unemployed workers. Only in the last few hours has this plan emerged; and we are glad it has, as far as it goes. Certainly something needed to be done, because the economic performance of the country has been abysmal: 2.7 million private sector jobs lost over the last 2 years, an extraordinary decrease; 3.4 unemployed workers for every single job opening. Now, under this circumstance, people try to find work, but they cannot find work, so their unemployment benefits run out. I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on this rule, however, because the proposal brought before us has a fatal flaw. It only extends benefits if your benefits have not lapsed. If you were unfortunate enough to lose your job, been on the job market, pounding the shoe leather, sending out resumes, looking everywhere for employment, but have not found employment before your unemployment benefits lapsed, guess what? You will not get any extension, you will not get any relief, under the measure brought before the House. Now, we have an amendment to offer to cure this fatal flaw of the majority proposal so that people whose benefits have lapsed also get some help. Lord knows they need it. But we are not allowed to offer that amendment. What could be more ridiculous? We will extend benefits if you have not lapsed yet; but if you have lapsed, you get no help whatsoever. Well, you think, that must have been inadvertent somehow. Let us fix that. They will not let us fix that with an amendment. That is why the rule is unfair. That is why the response is inadequate. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. My colleague recently asked, what has it all about? I suggest what it is all about is the Senate action tonight or tomorrow morning to increase the borrowing authority of this country to $984 billion. So many words, so many figures, but really the truth of the action is measured by the increase requested in the borrowing authority of this country. If this is going to produce the kind of wonderful effects they suggest, why do they need to authorize the Treasury to borrow an additional trillion dollars? The reality is that we are going to fund this on the debt. I do not know of a family I represent that plans for their retirement by blowing everything they have got, running up the debt on their credit cards, with the hope that their children will bail them out. That is exactly the action we take tonight as we pass this tax cut, not paid for in any way but funded on the debt. The truth is the Senate action. An additional trillion dollars of borrowing authority. We should not put this on our kids. We should reject this package.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill that will add more than half a trillion dollars to the national debt. Advertised as a jobs bill, 89 percent of this budget buster does not do a thing this calendar year. According to the New York Times, the benefits go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest few in this country. We could do so much better and it is pretty darn clear they cannot even defend this monstrosity. Why else would they reduce debate to a single hour? Why else would they deny all amendments? Why else would they deprive the minority of our historic right to offer an alternative, one that stimulates the economy with tax cuts to small businesses and working families without exploding the deficit? If the majority was so confident about this proposal, one would think they would welcome debate. One would think they would love a side-by- side vote, their proposal and our proposal. Instead, they are shamefully jamming this proposal through this House, sticking our children with hundreds of hundreds of billions of dollars of additional national debt to fund a tax cut windfall to the wealthiest few in this country. Reject this shameful bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the earned income tax credit is an important program to assist low-income families and move them from welfare to work. The IRS is proposing a precertification program for EITC unlike that applied to any other tax benefit program, or for that matter any other program. As proposed, the IRS's precertification program will have the consequence of excluding persons who clearly qualify for EITC benefits. This is because, as proposed, many of the precertification requirements simply cannot be met. As one example, marriage certificates are required in certain instances. In several states, however, the waiting period to receive this documentation may be years. It is for this reason that I am co-sponsoring H.R. 1894, introduced by Representative Charles Rangel. Because of my strong support for EITC, I also support both simplification of the EITC documentation process as well as fair and appropriate review of the program's eligibility and enforcement processes. This will guarantee that those persons who are eligible to receive the credit receive the benefits to which they are entitled, and that those persons who endeavor to take unfair advantage of the EITC are prevented from doing so. Fraud certainly cannot and will not be tolerated, but we also should not punish people who fairly qualify for this credit by making them provide documentation that they cannot acquire. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Internal Revenue Service in ensuring that these dual aims are accomplished.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to this bill which I think have very strong merit, and I am very pleased that they have been included; and I enjoyed working with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in getting them into the now-final conference report. The first is the Victims of Child Abuse Act now amended into the bill and now part of this final conference agreement that would reauthorize this important legislation initially authorized in 1992. The thrust of this legislation is to authorize training and technical assistance to programs to improve the prosecution of child abuse cases. This funding flows to centers and programs that provide training for law enforcement agencies, for prosecutors and local jurisdictions to help them establish comprehensive, interdisciplinary approaches to the investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases. As we move the AMBER Alert response forward, we have to also think about what happens following the joyous reunion of a recovered kidnap victim. There is a lot of healing that has to take place, special counseling for the victims, and then a very special treatment required by prosecutors and law enforcement officials as they bring the crime to punish the perpetrator, but do not want to further punish the victim who has already been through so much. This legislation was initially authored by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), who continues to play a leadership role in this area; and I am glad it is included. I am also pleased the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act has been included in the legislation and is now part of the conference agreement. This puts back on our books legislation banning computer- generated child pornography. As Members may recall, there was a Supreme Court case that found an earlier statute to be overly broad. Well, we have looked very carefully at the ruling of the Supreme Court. We do not challenge it. We try and follow the direction that they lay out to craft a statute that they will find constitutional. We have tightened the definitions of inappropriate computer-generated child pornography, and we respond to the directions of prosecutors in trying to prosecute those who traffic in child pornography with other provisions as well. We make it illegal for an adult to use child pornography, sending child pornography over the Internet in order to lure children to inappropriate activity. We draw a per se prohibition on the depiction of explicit sex between young children. Mr. Speaker, we think that this legislation is going to make a very important contribution to our efforts to stop those who want to traffic in child pornography. I urge its adoption.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. After all the words that have been spoken tonight about this budget, it really comes down to one fundamental issue: Do we want to lay on our children a higher national debt carried by our country or do we want a responsible budget? This budget authorizes immediately $984 billion, nearly $1 trillion in higher borrowing authority. You have got to figure something is wrong with the plan if right out of the gate you have got to borrow $1 trillion to make it work; but that is just a start because over the next 10 years the borrowing doubles, nearly doubling the national debt, just before the baby boomers move into retirement drawing on Social Security, drawing on Medicare. There is not a family we represent who prepares for retirement by roaring up the debt on their credit cards, blowing everything they have got, just letting the kids provide. So what in the world are we doing tonight, representing all the Nation's families to put our Nation on exactly that course? Growing the dough, borrowing the money, letting our kids straighten this out? This is wrong. We must reject this totally fiscally irresponsible approach to our national budget.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, over the years, I have worked with Chairman Dreier to promote financial literacy skills within our schools and am proud to be an original cosponsor of this House Resolution. House Resolution 127 expresses the sense of the House that a month should be designated as ``Financial Literacy for Youth Month.'' Our youth desperately need to have higher levels of financial literacy. According to a recent Jump$tart Coalition survey, today's high school seniors fail when it comes to a basic knowledge of personal finance including credit cards, saving for retirement and insurance. When seniors were tested on basic financial literacy, they answered only 50 percent of the questions correctly. Unfortunately, the lack of basic money management skills by young people often leads to serious financial problems for families and individuals, which, in turn, damage the Nation's economy. The results are skyrocketing consumer debt, low savings rates, home foreclosures, lost job opportunities, bankruptcy and poverty. To help stem this tide, Chairman Dreier and I are working with our Senate colleagues, Senators Akaka and Cochran, to host a ``Financial Literacy for Youth Day,'' on Monday, April 28, 2003. This event will culminate a month of activities organized around the nation by federal agencies, states, localities, schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and other entities to empower our youth with the financial and economic knowledge necessary to make sound personal choices. The event will include an educational fair, coordinated by Jump$tart, where federal agencies and organizations will have information booths displaying their efforts to further economic and financial literacy. As with other life skills, good money management skills and habits are best formed during childhood. In partnership with interested entities at the state and local levels, we can do more to give our youth the knowledge that will empower them to make sound financial decisions, now and in the future. I urge my colleagues to support and recognize the importance of increasing financial literacy among our youth.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. We are watching quite a performance on the other side this afternoon. First, we had the Budget chairman trying to explain away the vicious cuts they have made to programs as vital as veterans services. Imagine that, passing a budget that cuts veterans services, right in the middle of the Iraq war. It was unconscionable and unthinkable. Small wonder he tried to talk all around what they have done without ever really owning up to what is the issue before us. Then the majority leader comes to the floor. He tries to totally redefine the motion that is advanced and before us. It looked a little to me like they are waving the white flag, that they do not have the votes to beat this motion because who, in the light of day, can vote for the cuts to veterans services, to Medicare, to Medicaid and to our Nation's farmers in the agricultural account. There was no other budget advanced, not the administration's, not the Republican-controlled Senate's, that had this measure of cuts. It was a phenomenon of the House Committee on the Budget, led by the chairman and endorsed by majority leadership. I view always as one of the darker moments of my time in the House the vote to support our troops taken at 2:30 in the morning followed by, 15 minutes later, the passage of the budget which cut the funding of veterans services. Frankly, it was a high water of hypocrisy in a Chamber that sees a good bit of hypocrisy. We have got to reject these cuts, and this is what this motion before us does today. Reject the cuts to veterans services. Reject the cuts to agriculture. Reject the cuts to education. Reject the cuts to Medicare. That is the issue before us, and I will be very pleased if we can have a strong bipartisan vote overturning the really ill-advised direction the House budget would take us down. Let us have a bipartisan vote on the motion to instruct.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this is a most extraordinary debate. Where I come from they mean what they say and they say what they mean. Let us look at this debate. In the first 10 minutes, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget talks against the resolution. He is surprised by the majority leader, who comes to the floor and says, you know, I think we can go for this, even while the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means tries to parse the language. It is quite clear they are a little uncertain of what to do. What is this all about? It is because cuts to veterans services do not stand the light of day. And this is not 2:30 in the morning. This is in the afternoon, with America watching and our country at war. So it is time we pass this resolution and reject the cuts to veterans services contained in the majority budget.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. 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. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. POMEROY. 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.

Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. POMEROY. 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.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. 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. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. 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. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. 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. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. 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. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. 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.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I would just say back to my friend, the gentleman from Iowa, the issue is over 5 years, can we not agree we ought to balance the budget? The gentleman's plan does not balance the budget, the plan runs up on the debt. The gentleman has run into the budget rules that require pay-as-you-go requirements and tonight he eliminates those budget rules. This is Katie-bar-the-door on deficit spending and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget owes a great deal of personal responsibility for this action.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I would just say in response to my friend from Iowa, the question I had about the gentleman's plan is how we pay for it. I see the revenue cuts, I see the spending increases, and the question I had was, How is this paid for? I believe that by eliminating the budget rules, as you do in this resolution, the answer is clear: you have no intention of paying for it. You will pay for it on the debt that you will pass on to our children. We would propose in our motion to recommit another way. Let us at least agree that by 5 years from now, by 5 years from now, on a bipartisan basis, we will be having plans to get us to a balanced budget and stop the debt on our children.