Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have said for a long time that we need structural reforms if we are ever going to balance this budget. This bill does that. As people around the country watch on C-SPAN, and they probably writhe and cheer when this body has the guts to make some cuts along the way, what they forget along those lines is that when that bill goes to the other body months later, if we have been successful in making those cuts, the other body just sort of backfills. I am going to give you an example. Last week we had the vote on the B-2 bomber on the appropriation spending bill for defense. I voted against it. I voted against it because I did not think that we could afford it, and had we been successful, we were not, but had we been successful, I would have wanted that money, and the reason I voted ``no'' in the first place was to lower our deficit so that the other body would not have been able to take that money and use it for something else. I am a fiscal conservative, and whether it is the line item veto or changing the budget process to work, we have got to make this institution aware that when we cut spending here, we cannot allow the other body to simply raise it, and when they cut spending there, they should not be in the same shoes on this side to take the money that they might cut and add it to something else. This idea, the lockbox, with strong bipartisan support, and it has been that way from the very onset, does exactly what we say we are going to do. When we cut spending, the money goes to reduce the deficit. It does not go for something else, and that is the reason that I rise and join so many of my colleagues here this afternoon in support of this legislation. This is real reform. It is structural reform. It is going to work, and it is about time that we passed it here and get the other body to do the same. I just would encourage my colleagues, all of them, to support this legislation because it really does something about spending cuts, and that is what it is all about.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I speak today not really as a Member of Congress in the well; I speak as a parent of a 3-year-old and of a 7- year-old. You bet I want to control what they watch. One of my colleagues earlier today said well, just use the off button. Mr. Chairman, because of this family-friendly schedule, I have be getting home most nights around midnight for the last month, and that will be again the case tonight when I return to Michigan. Tomorrow morning is Saturday, and like most parents of little kids, my 3-year-old and my 7-year-old are going to wake each other up about 7, maybe 6:30, and they are going to go down those stairs and they are going to have that TV on when I wake up a little bit later. I have a feeling that I will not be up and I will not be able to block out what they may or may not watch. The argument that the Markey amendment is going to set up thousands of bureaucrats is wrong. It is false. Mr. Chairman, I have a story that ran in my local paper last week that I am going to read excerpts of and I will include the entire article in the Record, but it is headlined this way, ``Violence, Sex Fill The Airways.'' I am a 14-year-old junior high Afro-American female from Benton Harbor. I cannot help noticing the endless amount of times people blame the media for boisterous behavior in teens and young adults. I feel that everyone plays a role in influencing children. As a teenager I can tell you a lot, that the TV is responsible for much of this. But I have good parents and I am a good kid. You see there are no bad kids, just misguided. Parents needs to band together, stop talking about the problem, and do something about it. That is what the Markey-Burton amendment does. Let us stop talking about this and oppose a simple study. We know studies are not going to solve this. The evidence is in. Do what the kids tell us as well as the parents, support the Markey- Burton substitute. The article referred to follows: [From the Herald-Palladium, July 30, 1995] Violence, Sex Fill Airwaves (By Debbie Allen) I am a 14-year-old junior high Afro-American female from Benton Harbor. I cannot help noticing the endless amount of times people blame the media for boisterous behavior in teens and young adults. I feel that everyone plays a role in influencing children. As a teen-ager, I can tell you a lot of influences and causes, including the media. For example, gangsta rap. Now here you have so-called music that calls women ``bitches'' and ``hoes,'' and that not being the worse part. It also tells young boys that it's OK to kill someone. A prime example is Snoop Doggy Dogg. But you have to think where did it get him? In prison. Need I say more? But it's only one factor. It's not the only factor. Any video that calls a woman a bitch, especially the black queen, then I don't want to watch it and I definitely don't buy it. They give black people a bad name making it seem like all black people do is sit up smoke blunts (marijuana) and drink beer. Well, my family doesn't. Like Da Brat says, ``I love to get high, I mean way.'' I bet her parents are proud. Movies also depict sex and violence. They have young kids on there having sexual intercourse, making it seem like everybody's doing it and everybody's not. All through these movies the women are having sex, most of the time with a different man each time, and you never see them use contraceptives. Then you have violence on the other hand. If you like violence just watch any movie with Arnold Swarzenegger, Steven Seagal, Jean Claude Van Damme or Bruce Willis. For profanity, watch movies or turn to HBO for Deff Comedy Jam or just pop in a Snoop Dogg or Dr. Dre tape. But television is also to blame. You turn on the soap operas you see teens having sex, or shall I say rolling around the bed? You see adults doing the same thing. I like soap operas, but I also have to turn because that sickens me. Another example: Beavis and Butthead. Even talk shows. Just two weeks ago I was watching Charles Perez and the topic was strippers who can't get a date. I saw all these male and female strippers on there dancing and stripping for the audience and the audience putting money in their underwear and their putting their butts in their faces. I mean, come on. My 4-year-old nephew and 3-year-old niece were getting a kick out of this. But worst of all, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. The whole half hour they're fighting. They're kids' idols. ``Cosby,'' ``Family Matters,'' ``Different World,'' ``Under One Roof'' and ``On Our Own'' are all fabulous shows. They teach morals.``Family Matters'' is still hanging strong, thank God, but I'm sorry I cannot say the same for the others. Those were all taken off. Why? Only God knows. Don't get me wrong, there are also good white shows, like ``Full House'' and ``My So-Called Life.'' But you see rock videos also promote constant violence and sex, not to mention if you listen to them too long you get a headache. But those are just a few causes. Kids need more role models like Martin Lawrence, Usher Raymond, Michael Jackson, Brandy and Willie Norwood and Monica Arnold. Parents need to take control of their children and be good role models, but they need the help of other parents, police officers and especially the media, rappers and stars. But I have good parents and I'm a good kid. You see there are no bad kids, just misguided. Parnets need to band together. Stop talking about the problem and do something about it. Debbie will be a ninth-grade student this fall at Coloma Junior High School. She lives in Benton Harbor with her parents, Albert and Labralla Allen.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I think that perhaps I still look like a student because I need a haircut, thanks to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], with the schedule we have been on. We have not been able to see folks otherwise we would like to see. Mr. Chairman, I do remember well when I was a student, and I remember well paying into this fund, and you know what, I did not like it, and I could not get my money back, and that is wrong. That is wrong to force us to contribute to an organization that we may not be willing to support. As I understand it, this amendment provides a voluntary checkoff so that the student, he or she, can decide what they want and what they do not want. I think that is the fair way to go, and that is why I rise in support of this student-friendly amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I ran for Congress to fight spending and to reduce the deficit. What has been more frustrating than ever has been when we have been able to get amendments on this House floor to cut spending, more times than not we have lost those battles. But in the times that we have actually been successful in cutting spending, something happens. The folks in the gallery, the folks at home may cheer watching C-SPAN, but ultimately when the bill goes to the Senate and those bills come back from conference, the spending level is at the same if not even higher. This lockbox changes things. Thanks to a bipartisan approach from the very beginning, we have been able, I think, to change history with that we are going to be doing tonight. Because in the future when we cut spending for whatever project it might be, defense, nondefense, foreign aid, I do not care, the spending is going to come down and we are going to win and the taxpayers are going to win big time.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by my fellow colleague from Michigan [Mr. Smith]. I have been interested in high speed rail for many years because I believe wise investments in technology and transportation infrastructure pay off in economic development, job creation, and higher productivity. I recognize the motive of the Smith amendment. In an era with record Federal deficits, we need to be fiscally prudent. However, by building on what we have, high speed rail is within reach. We need to encourage incremental improvements that will increase train speed: things like improving grade crossings, signal systems, tracks, and cost-efficient equipment and locomotion. We should target limited federal resources to a few deserving projects. Improvements related to the high speed rail concept are already being implemented. Earlier this year in fact, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded a $6 million grant to the Michigan Department of Transportation [MDOT] for further safety and grade crossing improvements on a 71 mile stretch of rail in Michigan. These improvements will allow for an increase in speed along the route and will reduce the amount of travel time. I strongly supported the State's application and have had many discussions with the Director of MDOT about this issue since Michigan has been a leader in this area. High speed rail means more and better options for the travelling public, both business and pleasure, in the areas surrounding the station. High speed rail also provides a more balanced transportation network that reflects growing environmental and energy concerns. Being from Michigan and thereby impacted by the Detroit and Chicago rail corridor, linking the third and fifth largest metropolitan areas, I have examined many reports regarding the feasibility and cost of high speed rail. Many independent studies have shown that the Detroit-Chicago rail corridor is an excellent candidate for high speed rail. Significant economic and employment opportunities are expected to sprout along the route. Just last month, a group in Chicago--Environmental Law and Policy Center--released a study concluding that high speed rail is financially feasible and will create jobs throughout the Midwest. As this country proceeds with high speed rail development, we need to move cautiously. We need to know what we are buying, who is paying for it, and what the benefits are. We also need to examine potential downsides and legitimate concerns about high speed, particularly safety and take the steps necessary to address those concerns. Most people agree that it is more prudent to move in small, incremental steps as we develop the high speed rail system. I believe the committee's recommendation of $15 million is a very prudent and appropriate level which will keep the effort moving forward to the benefit of our nation's infrastructure and the travelling public. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Smith amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I voted ``present'' on the Parker amendment to H.R. 1977, rollcall No. 519 because it almost singularly affects a firm in which I have major personal financial interests. Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have gone back and looked at the votes that I have cast in previous years for the legislative appropriations bill. My votes have always been ``no.'' This is the first time, in fact, that I expect to vote ``yes.'' The reason is this: In each of those years, spending under this subcommittee has gone up. This year it is different; spending goes down. In fact, spending goes down about 8 percent. I think that is a pretty good figure, particularly as we look at years and years ahead of us of multi-$100-billion deficits. In fact, if we had an 8-percent cut in each of the appropriation bills, we would save the taxpayers about $130 billion just in fiscal year 1996. That is not bad. In fact, that is exactly the direction that we need to be headed. Mr. Chairman, in this year of massive budget cuts, it is only fair that this subcommittee, the legislative branch, takes its fair share of cuts, and I applaud the committee for doing this.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, the premise of our amendment is very simple, and it is also fair. If our European allies do not begin paying their fair share of nonpersonnel costs for maintaining U.S. troops in Europe, then we are going to gradually reduce our troops. A few years ago we had the same argument on this floor with regard to Japan. In fact, we heard exactly the same arguments against what we are doing today back then, but guess what? We passed that bill that day, and, when we begin talking about burden sharing, let us emphasize the word ``sharing.'' It should be understood that our regional interests are the shared interests of the nations in which we house our troops, and guess what? Because of what we passed several years ago, the Japanese contribute today 76 percent of the nonsalaried costs of U.S. troops. What is that figure? It is $4 billion. What are the Europeans doing today? Not 76 percent, where we are with the Japanese, not 50 percent, not 40 percent, not 30. It is a puny 20 percent. As we have to work in this body towards a balanced budget, we have heard over and over that we have got to make some tough choices. Well, how on earth can we continue to spend billions and billions of dollars for the defense of wealthy European nations like the United Kingdom and others when it is time for them to begin to share their responsibility? This is a year when Members in this Congress are asking taxpayers to tighten their belts. It is only fair that we ask the Europeans to do the same. Some have suggested to me today that perhaps, if this amendment passes, we would lose the authority to control our troops overseas. Nothing could be further from the case. U.S. control exists, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment that we passed on this House floor last year by a two to one margin.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the fine efforts of the Sturgis Neighborhood Program and Sturgis Federal Savings Bank who were recently recognized by The Social Compact with its 1995 Outstanding Community Investment Awards. They received this honor for their partnership achievement: stabilizing lower income neighborhoods and families through the rehabilitation of affordable rental housing which is rebuilding community hope and pride. Sturgis Neighborhood Program [SNP] was founded in 1991 in response to the Sturgis Area Chamber of Commerce's call for greater responsiveness to the housing needs of the city's lower income residents. The downtown business district of Sturgis, a small rural city, has a high concentration of deteriorating and substandard housing. These units, built before 1940 and converted from single-family, owner-occupied residences to multifamily properties, are rented to very-low-income families and require high maintenance. Many of the residents receive public assistance and lack necessary skills to balance their household budgets and maintain their property. SNP combines housing rehabilitation with support services to address the needs of Sturgis citizens. Since its inception, SNP has rehabilitated five single-family homes, with numbers six and seven on the way. Tenant families are employed, receive family development guidance, and participate in maintenance education programs. A Family Services Coordinator meets with each family on a regular basis to develop a goal-setting plan, a program that is helping families become self-sufficient, productive members of the community. I must say that SNP's Director, Judy Som-merfield, has done a wonderful job with all of the various activities of the organization. Sturgis Federal Savings Bank, the first of four financial institutions to support SNP's mission, played a vital role in SNP's initial success. The thrift's president, Leonard Eishen, provided key financial direction and guidance in the area of administration and the development of community support, a major issue for SNP. In order to gain community support, the nonprofit organization undertook an extensive, year-long campaign to meet with community leaders. Sturgis Federal also helped SNP with a line of credit, a $1,000 annual grant toward operating support, low interest rates, and flexible terms. With the assistance of Sturgis Federal, SNP received $124,000 in grants and subsidies which allowed the organization to successfully renovate five units of affordable rental housing. The Michigan State Housing Development Authority also awarded grants for the rehabilitation of the second house and subsequent projects. By the end of SNP's 1996-97 fiscal year, it hopes to have completed 24 housing units in the targeted downtown area. These efforts improve the neighborhoods and support the local economy. Besides its partnership with Sturgis Federal, SNP has actively sought partnerships with local government, industry, business, financial institutions, youth groups, and service organizations. A network of volunteers from these groups helps to complete small projects on SNP houses. Working together increases community pride for those who volunteer and for the individuals and families who don't want a handout but only an opportunity for a hand up. With its initial success, SNP has earned the trust of the community it serves and has become an integral part of the community's vision for improving the lives of its lower income residents.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. I wish the gentleman had been in the Congress in 1973.

Mr. UPTON. Again, I respect the gentleman from Illinois tremendously, but this is an issue that puts the Congress as a player in making decisions that are certainly, I think, the biggest ones that we make, sending, whether it is our children or our friends' and neighbors' sons and daughters off to war. I believe that it has to be more than a consultation process, it has to be one where we can take some action. Again, I look at the gulf war. I do not believe that President Bush may have come to this body seeking our approval without that hanging over his head. He did so, and he did so admirably. He made the point and we had strong bipartisan support. Thank goodness it was the right decision for all of us to live by. I would just suggest that perhaps we do need reform of the War Powers Act, having seen it play now for 20 some years. But I do not know that revocation is the answer. I would certainly welcome hearings before the Committee on National Security and others to look at ways that we can improve the bill rather than repeal it. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the author of the amendment for yielding me the time as he knows that I am opposed to his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons. As the previous speaker indicated, I do believe very strongly that we need a shared responsibility between the branches of the Government. I can remember well, probably the biggest vote that I have ever cast, certainly the biggest vote that I have ever cast was to give President Bush the authority to go into the gulf war. I view the War Powers Act as one of the major issues back then as to why the President came to this body and came to the American people and persuaded them convincingly that that was the right vote. I am not so certain that he would have done that had there not been a War Powers Act. I have talked to Members of Congress on this floor today who have indicated that had he not come to the House floor, they probably would have voted to impeach him, and yet they still voted for the resolution as it passed that night in January on a fairly convincing vote. Mr. Chairman, I remember well an earlier vote that same night, the Bennett resolution, a resolution that passed in this floor 302-131. It expressed the sense of Congress that the Constitution vested the power to declare war on Congress and that the President must gain congressional approval before any offensive military action could be taken against Iraq. That was a check and a balance. That is what this Government is about, a check and a balance. As I look at the votes that were cast on overriding the President's veto, President Nixon back in 1973, I look at a number of my colleagues past and present. I passed one today, Larry Coughlin, who voted to override the President that day. But I look at some of the names, Mr. Edwards and Dickinson of Alabama, later became the ranking members on the Committee on Armed Services here in the House and served in a distinguished way and on Appropriations as well. I look at Mr. Rousselot from California who voted to override, at the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], still in the House, and Mr. Erlenborn and Mr. Anderson. I look at Trent Lott, now the majority whip in the Senate, who voted to override. I look at my own former Members from Michigan, Bill Broomfield, who were ranking Members of this committee. I look at Mr. Frenzel.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, if ever a Federal program needed reform, it is the Superfund Program. It was first created in 1980 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act [CERCLA]. It was changed and reauthorized in 1986 under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act [SARA]. It was supposed to be reauthorized in the last Congress and committees in the House and in the other body reported comprehensive reform bills, but this effort fell short in the final days of the session. At the center of the Superfund Program are liability provisions arguably more draconian than found in any other Federal statute. Superfund liability is retroactive, meaning that potentially responsible parties can be held liable for lawful actions taken before enactment of CERCLA or SARA. Superfund liability is also strict, meaning that there is no need to prove negligence to establish liability. It is also joint and several, meaning that a party or parties that contributed small amounts of contamination to a contaminated site can be held liable for all cleanup expenses. With Superfund site cleanups now averaging $30 million, the incentive to avoid any liability at any cost is strong. Small wonder that Superfund has launched a tidal wave of litigation. At least $1 in $4 spent on Superfund cleanups is spent on lawyers and the consultants needed to support lawyers in litigation to avoid Superfund liability or to transfer liability to other parties via so-called contribution suits. In my district, one of these contribution suits eventually involved more than 700 firms and organizations. More recently, a firm that had negotiated a cleanup plan costing nearly $20 million with EPA turned around and filed contribution suits against three dozen local firms. More important than the moneys involved, these Superfund-driven suits have divided whole communities and created resentment that will last for years. This can't be what Congress wanted to happen when the program was created. In response to these unpleasant realities, I am today joining the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher], in introducing the Liability Allocation Act of 1995. Mr. Boucher and I first addressed these issues in November 1993 in the Superfund Liability Reform Act (H.R. 3624). After negotiations with the administration and other Superfund stakeholders, we introduced a revised version of H.R. 3624 as H.R. 4351, also entitled the Superfund Liability Allocation Act. This latter measure became section 412 of H.R. 3800, as reported by the then Committee on Energy and Commerce, and section 413 of the same bill as reported by the then Committee on Public Works and Transportation. As I mentioned earlier, H.R. 3800 was not considered by the House prior to adjournment in 1994. This legislation would create an entirely new system of liability under Superfund, one based upon proportionality and the allocation of liability shares among potentially responsible parties. It places a moratorium on the commencement of cost recovery and contribution suits for cleanup costs until the allocation process is concluded and a stay on all existing cost recovery and contribution litigation. Each party's liability would be calculated in expedited manner; parties will pay only their equitable share of the cleanup costs, those clearly related to their respective roles at the site and to the amount of waste they actually contribute; finally, the expedited process for assigning liability and the limited court review of that process should significantly decrease transaction costs for all parties at Superfund sites. The new system established under this bill would operate as follows: First, after a site is listed on Superfund's National Priority List, EPA notifies all parties at the site that they are required to participate in the liability allocation process. Second, the parties choose from an EPA-approved list of private allocators to conduct the allocation. Third, EPA and any of the parties may nominate additional parties to be included in the process or may excuse parties from the process. Fourth, EPA is able to provide expedited settlements to ``de minimis'' and ``de micromis'' parties to enable such parties to avoid having to participate in the 18-month allocation process, satisfying small business' major concern. Fifth, the allocator is armed with the necessary information- gathering powers, including subpoena power, and is able to enforce such powers with the backing of the Justice Department. Parties who do not cooperate in providing information are subject to stiff civil and criminal penalties. Sixth, each party is given the opportunity to be heard, including submitting an initial statement and commenting on the draft allocation report before the final report is issued. Seventh, after considering the ``Gore Factors''--including the party's role at the site and the toxicity and volume of material--the allocator issues a report identifying each party's share of liability for the cleanup costs at the site. Eighth, each party may settle with the EPA based on its allocated share. As consideration, the party is shielded from joint and several liability and from actions for contribution from other parties. Any party who rejects its allocated share will be exposed to joint and several liability and remains unprotected from contribution suits. Although the allocation is nonbinding as to the parties, the exposure to joint and several liability serves as a disincentive to reject the allocated share. Ninth, the Government is bound by the allocation unless there is proof of bias, fraud or unlawful conduct on the allocator's part or if ``no rational interpretation of the facts before the allocator, in light of the factors he is required to consider, would form a reasonable basis'' for the allocation. The Government only has 180 days during which such review can occur, after which the right to reject the allocation is waived. Tenth, the orphan share--for defunct and insolvent parties--is paid out of the Superfund. Eleventh, the Government reimburses parties who pay for the cleanup for amounts spent beyond their allocated shares. The Government also pursues recalcitrant parties who fail to pay their allocated shares. Mr. Speaker, many interests worked together in developing this legislation. If the [[Page E1010]] adage that success has many fathers while failure is an orphan is accurate, than the father of this excellent proposal is my cosponsor and learned friend from Virginia, Mr. Boucher. We have cosponsored several bills in the past and each of these bills has done well in the legislative process. It is a pleasure to join him again in offering this legislation. We urge every member of this House to join us in cosponsoring H.R. 1616, the Superfund Liability Allocation Act of 1995, and ask that they call David Luken of my staff (ext. 53761) or Andrew Wright of Mr. Boucher's staff (ext. 53861) to do so.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from the Buckeye State. Mr. Chairman, deficits do matter They really do. Before I was in the Congress, I worked for a President by the name of Ronald Reagan. I watched a Congress then that promised that they would make $2 or $3 in spending cuts for every dollar that they cut in taxes. And you know what? It never happened. It did not happen. It was a promise that was not delivered on. In fact, the deficit ballooned by $4 trillion during those years. In 1990, as a Member of Congress, I was asked to go down to the White House to spend a little time with President Bush and talk about his 1990 tax/budget bill. I told him then that I could not support it. I could not support it because his advisers where taking him to the cleaners. In fact, as I reviewed the numbers this last weekend, his budget predicted a surplus of $63 billion in the year 1995. They were $300 billion off. Mr. Chairman, the Castle-Upton-Martini language that was adopted on this House floor on the last vote recognized three very important principles: No. 1, none of the tax cuts would kick in unless we passed reconciliation later this year that in fact will lead to a balanced budget by the year 2002. The second point was that each and every year if we get off that track, we will have a mechanism to put us back on the track, so that in fact we can achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002, and not end up with something that happened with the Bush budget back in 1990. And, No. 3, that the President will submit a budget that will balance the budget by the year 2002. The Castle-Upton-Martini language acts as an insurance policy. It insists that we here are going to eat our vegetables even if they are Brussels sprouts before we have our dessert. This legislation passed will in essence make sure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].

Mr. UPTON. I accept that.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I would like to say I want to work very closely with the chairman and others on his side, as well as our side, to make sure that the intent of this legislation, or that the actual language follows the intent. In some cases, of course, an individual not making child support payments may be doing so in conjunction with the court, and those we do not want to penalize. We want to make sure those individuals who are in fact in arrears at the subjugation, I guess, of the courts, are in fact those who are penalized. This language does not permit that. I would like to work with the gentleman and others as the bill moves forward to make sure we get the best language available. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that. We support the gentleman's intent and motive, and hopefully we will be able to craft it in an appropriate manner so it can address effectively the intent. And I thank the gentleman.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I will add my 30 seconds to that which the gentleman just yielded to me, and I yield the balance of my time to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], to close in support of the amendment.

Mr. UPTON. It does not go after fraud. It does not address a whole number of things you talked about. I was not able to add 100 amendments as someone would have perhaps liked on this bill. Mine is a very small amendment that goes after folks who abuse the system who are trying to get a free lunch at the expense of the taxpayers, and I say enough is enough.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, the gentleman talked a little bit about fraud and how my amendment does not go after fraud. The gentleman is right. What my amendment does is this, it indicates that if there is a deadbeat parent that is out there that is not paying child support by order of the court and receiving food stamps, that is what it does.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield, to close the debate on this amendment, to my friend, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].