Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I think the biggest problem today for plan participants of 401(k)s is that they have been given responsibility for the investment of their retirement funds without being given access to information to help them make informed decisions as they deal with something as important as trying to find optimal earnings on their retirement savings. I think many of us in puzzling with our Thrift Savings Plan options think, This is hard, this is confusing, I don't quite know if I am doing this in the right way. I will tell my colleagues, looking at my returns from the last little while, I am quite sure I am not doing it the right way. I could use more advice. An awful lot of people in the workforce today are thinking exactly the same thing. And so we need a strategy to get them more advice. I think the chairman's strategy represents a very excellent and constructive way of approaching it. The chairman and I are in strong agreement that as we try and get more advice to plan participants, we do not want to put people at risk of heavy sales practices that might be against their interest and have them investing in funds that are inappropriate for their situations. Therefore, if we have the following standards in a new investment advice regimen advanced by this legislation, I think you can actually get more advice and still protect the employee's interest. You need to have the fiduciary standard apply so that the advisor must be providing advice solely for the interest of the plan participant or the employee. You have got to have some type of administrative recourse so that if the individual violates that advice, you can withdraw that individual's license. You can take away their employment. You can put them out of business. I used to be an insurance regulator. There is not a better policing mechanism than being able to put the guy out of business to make certain that they are providing advice that is appropriate and comports with the legal requirements. Thirdly, you need to have fee disclosure. These things have cost loads. Increasingly, employers have shifted all of the expense to the employees on the loads of 401(k)s. Employees need to know what it is going to cost them as they look at these different options. Having a disclosure plan and in fact having a uniform disclosure format of fees is going to help the individual make sure they know what they are getting into as they make various investment options. And so with this legislation, subject to some further amendment, we are able actually to achieve the goal of getting more investment advice out there and helping people with their choices. I do not think that the opponents of this legislation have reflected enough upon the disservice we do to those in the workforce by giving them the responsibility of investing their own money but depriving them of the information to do it. Defined contribution plans presently represent 90 percent of all retirement savings plans in the workforce. There are $1.5 trillion worth of investment in 401(k) plans. But still we have less than a quarter of employer-sponsored defined contribution plans provide for advice to the workers in terms of how to invest within those plans. I have held a number of round tables across North Dakota visiting with employees, visiting with employers, about how we can do a better job with facilitating retirement savings in this country. Information in terms of how to best handle their retirement money is a constant theme raised not by the big bad industry that some on this side of the aisle would talk about, but by employees themselves or by employers reflecting what employees are asking for. We can do a better job, and this legislation will do it.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put into context the evaluations of the House majority Committee on Ways and Means proposal. We are not just dealing within the evaluation of this Chamber, but the broader evaluation. So when some of my friends on the other side of the aisle decry the criticisms we are raising today as mere partisan attacks, let us consider others that have voiced opinion about this work product: The Secretary of the Treasury of the Bush administration has called this bill ``show business.'' The Senate Republican Caucus believes it is a budget-buster, hits the budget to well beyond what we can afford. And none other than Robert Novak, hardly one we could call a Democrat partisan, has attacked this, and attacked it with language that describes it so well, and I quote: ``The tax stimulus bill awaiting House action is a hodgepodge that only a lobbyist could love. But among numerous questionable provisions, one stands out: a $17 billion grant to corporate America in the form of retroactive reductions in taxes already paid.'' Novak goes on to quote a Bush administration official in saying, ``I frankly cannot understand the rationale for this.'' He is darned right he cannot understand it, because there is no rationale from a stimulus standpoint or a budget standpoint. Why in the world would they offer a package that not only repeals the corporate AMT, but then goes and gives back every nickel collected under it since 1986? Stimulation? Do Members think the $1.5 billion rebate one single corporation is going to get under this windfall provision alone is going to all be invested in new jobs, new economic creation? Absolutely not. Debt retirement and other things, but certainly not a stimulative effect on the economy. Imagine. Why in the world would the majority, under the earlier- passed tax bill, give individuals or individual households $600 but give a single corporation $1.5 billion? That is a twisted sense of priorities, and it is that same twisted sense of priorities that is going to undermine significantly any stimulative effect of this package. This package does not give resources in a broad way to people who will spend them to help stimulate the economy; rather, it taps the Treasury for a few and busts the budget while it does it. The cost of this measure is absolutely devastating. While the budgeteers, House and Senate, Republican and Democrat, agreed this should be offset, this bill has a net cost of more than $260 billion over 10 years, including the cost of debt service. As a result, it puts us back into deficits, deficits, using all of the general fund surplus, all of the Medicare surplus, all of the Social Security surplus, and then borrowing some more for the next 2 years and spends all or part of the Social Security Trust Fund for the next 5 years. We cannot afford this bill. This bill does not stimulate the economy. This bill is not directed the right way. This bill is a travesty and must be rejected by this House. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 396, the Bioterrorism Enforcement Act of 2001, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The farm bill before us, Mr. Chairman, restores a critical piece to the safety net that will keep family farmers on the land. That piece is protection when prices collapse, because it does not matter how good a farmer you are, if you are paid less the elevator for your crop than it costs you to grow it, you are going to grow out of business. Now, my problem with the Kind amendment is that it takes money away from that safety net for family farmers and puts it over into the conservation programs. I think that conservation is an imperative national goal; I also think it is an inherent part of how our family farmers operate. They cannot foul up the land. That is where they live. That is what produces their income. They are the greatest land stewards we will ever find. I am very intrigued and interested by the notion that we ought to structure ways of paying farmers for the conservation practices they implement on their land for all of us. But not this way, not with this amendment, not by giving them the appearance of something on the one hand and taking away something very real, very tangible, protection when prices collapse, on the other hand. It has been estimated that this amendment would cost the family farmers in my State more than $300 million over 3 years, more than $100 million a year farm income lost if the Kind amendment would pass. That is a hit we cannot take. We have people that are using machinery that is wrecked. They cannot afford new, they just make do. We have areas of the land that are literally depopulating because the economics, the fundamental ability to make it on a farm has been placed at such risk when we have a farm program without safety net price protection. That is why we need the bill, and that is why we must reject this amendment. Again, do not get me wrong. Conservation: good thing, bad thing? Of course it is a good thing. Should we look at ways to reward farmers for their stewardship practices? I think we should. But what is before us right now is a farm bill at last putting in price protection for farmers, and we cannot play fast and loose with this imperative of fixing the farm program. First things first. The first thing is price protection for farmers. They desperately need it. This whole conservation issue, let us continue to evaluate it. Maybe more can be done in the Senate. This was withdrawn before a vote in the Committee on Agriculture. It did not receive a considered discussion. It did not even go to a committee vote. So for us to come over to the House floor and kind of stomp around and start rewriting in wholesale fashion the farm bill is a terrible idea, especially when it takes away the money we need to restore the safety net for price protection. There is another feature to the bill that I think we want to consider. That is the $3.5 billion we have been able to add for nutrition funding. If this amendment would pass, that effort is also placed at great risk. If this amendment passes, the bill may be down the tubes, taking with it the extra funding critically needed to address some of the shortcomings in the assistance we need to those who cannot afford food. I commend the sponsor of the amendment. I know his heart is in the right place. He has fundamentally a very interesting idea, but strategically, those of us who care about agriculture, and broader than that, those of us who care about the Nation's food supply, should not do this this afternoon. It tips over the farm bill at a time when we have to fix it so badly.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Instead of the Buy America Act, you could call this the Buy Anything But America Act subjecting us to dumped sugar. Instead of Correct the Trade Balance Act, you could say Compound the Trade Balance Act. That is what Miller-Miller is all about. It takes the one commodity where we actually consume more than we grow and wants to throw it open to world- dumped sugar shorting our markets. Instead of a stimulus package, you could call this amendment the recession package, because it would surely bring recession to those areas producing sugar. That is 420,000 U.S. jobs, contributing $26.2 billion in the economy. They call it a consumer bill; actually, it is a candy bar manufacturing bill. We have seen a 30 percent drop in the price for refined beet sugar. Have you seen cheaper candy bars? Absolutely not. This is about candy bar manufacturer profit line, not about a deal for consumers. We have a program that works. We have a program that has available sugar at below the price available in the developed countries. We have price stability for this essential component for groceries. We need to keep the sugar program and defeat the Miller-Miller amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I strongly favor the underlying bill; but as I mentioned in my opening comments in general debate, the underlying bill is not perfect. I believe one of the more visible imperfections is its failure to address payment limits. I think, as an advocate for family farmers, that our ability to sustain the Nation's commitment to farm programs depends upon the American public feeling like their taxpayer dollars are supporting family farmers, not large corporate enterprises that simply do not have the same compelling case to make for the Nation's resources. The GAO has reported that one-half of all farm payments went to just 7 percent of all farms, the largest farms. This is misdirected policy. By passing the Smith amendment, we place a limit that actually works, that limit $150,000 in Federal payments, a significant amount of Federal support. I believe it would work. I recognize that there are economic differences in the production of various commodities and that the production of rice and cotton, Southern-based commodities, requires larger economic operations. At the same time, by moving this payment limit from where it was just 2 years ago, from $75,000 up to the $150,000, I think much has been done to accommodate the different scale of economics undergirding production in that part of the region. Make no mistake about it: in the end, payment limits make sense. We devote our resources to keeping the family commercial operations in the business; we do not divert half of all money in the bill to the largest 7 percent of the farms; and we have a program that going forward, year after year, will be one less likely to be attacked for squandering Federal resources. This is about bringing integrity and common sense to farm programs. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to begin by commending Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm of the Committee on Agriculture for their work in bringing this bill to the House floor. This has been a tandem that has persevered when others said it could not be done; persevered in holding hearings, persevered in crafting a bill, and even in the wake of tragic events thereafter hit our Nation, persevered in bringing this bill to the House floor, the first major nonattack bill considered since that morning 3 weeks ago, September 11. Since that time, without flinching, we were all proud to stand together and vote $15 billion worth of relief to the airline industry, to be spent this year, shoring up the critical component of our economy that they represent. This bill represents $73 billion over 10 years, shoring up the family farmer base of our food supply and investing in our Nation's food supply, every bit as critical a component to our economy as anything else one can think of. The way we achieve security, abundant production, highest quality, and affordability in food supply is with diversified production. And the way to achieve diversified production is to keep family farmers right at the heart of who grows the food for this Nation. Now, worldwide commodity prices have collapsed, collapsed to the point where what the farmer has been getting at the elevator after harvest is actually lower than what it costs to grow that crop. Nobody can stay in business under circumstances like that. And that is why we see the wholesale departure of families from the land, families that have been there for generations. Depopulation, meaning we lose so many people we cannot even support basic infrastructure in critical regions of the State, is a major issue that North Dakota is dealing with and other issues through the Great Plains. The way we attack it head on is to preserve profitability in farming, and that means farmers need some help. Let me give my colleagues a little Economics 101 on family farming. It does not matter how good a farmer someone is, you cannot control the price of your product. And if you cannot recover even costs, much less make a little money to put shoes on your kids and pay the light bill, you cannot stay in business. We are going to continue to drive out the smaller producer and drive production to larger and larger corporate enterprises, the enterprises that have the deep pockets to go through this kind of price trough, unless we have a farm bill that helps our families stay in the business. And that is what this bill is all about. I'd have constructed this bill somewhat differently. I hope it is changed in the Senate and continues to improve as the process goes forward. But make no mistake about it, the heart of this bill is price support for family farmers. We have for most of the last 4 years had price support as part of the farm program. We removed it with the Freedom to Farm bill, because we hoped that with improving markets that was not going to be necessary any more. Well, sadly, in a bipartisan way, we have recognized that support is needed. And that is why over the last 4 years we have passed $30 billion in disaster payments helping farmers through these tough times. There is a better way to go than ad hoc year-to-year disaster bills that leave the farmer and their lenders and their creditors not knowing where they stand. The better way is to put it in the farm bill, just like this bill does, with price supports so the farmers know where they stand. That is what this bill is all about. But the bill is about more than helping those who grow the food, there is a very important component to this bill that helps those who struggle to afford the food to feed their families. We have made cuts in the nutrition programs, WIC, food stamps, that have, I believe, been too severe, that have actually hindered families from obtaining the critical nutrition they need. We address that in this legislation with $3.5 billion in additional funding for the food programs to help those who need to eat to be able to get the food they need to feed their families. I sure do not want that funding jeopardized, and it is a critical part of this bill. As I mentioned, the bill is not perfect, but we are not at a point in time, colleagues, where perfection can be the enemy of the good when it comes to moving this farm bill forward. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm, we have new momentum, represented by having this bill on the floor today, new momentum to getting farmers the protection they need to stay in business. We have got to keep this momentum going by moving this bill along and continuing it down the legislative process. I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. I am proud to stand with this bill and commend the Committee on Agriculture for their good work.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before us. Today, Americans the Nation over went to work with a unity and sense of purpose borne of the unspeakable tragedy we suffered as a country yesterday. We are all filled with a deep sense of loss for the thousands of innocent victims, their families and friends. We are all as Americans in awe of the heroism we have seen by our police and our firefighters, as well as that from ordinary Americans who have risked or even given their lives in courageous efforts to help others. Mr. Speaker, as Americans we all want to pitch in and help in the immediate recovery effort; and the long, slow lines of the Nation's blood banks will bear witness. As Americans, we also know that we are in a war today. We are at war with terrorists who seek to rob us of our way of life, just as they robbed us of our countrymen in their cowardly attacks of yesterday. They will not win their war against the people of the United States. Our freedoms, liberties and collective strength of united American people represent a far more mighty force than these murderers could ever have imaged. We are applying that strength today in an urgent, focused effort to identify those responsible. And when we know who conceived and executed these terrible acts, we will render a fearsome punishment in response, not solely to account for the lives taken and the losses inflicted against us, but in defense of freedom for us and people around the world. Despite the devastation and horrific loss of life wrought by yesterday's attacks, the terrorists failed to achieve their objective. They have not even made a dent in the very source of American greatness: a strong, united people living freely in the greatest democracy the world has ever known. In honor and loving memory to all who died and their families, we will not rest until this war these terrorists cowardly launched yesterday is won and won completely, and our country and the world made safer as a result.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4, the SAFE Act, which taps the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in order to pay for new energy tax incentives. Mr. Chairman, I support many of the provisions in the SAFE Act. I am encouraged by a number of initiatives that combine incentives for enhanced production along with sensible conservation measures. I particularly support the investments in clean coal technology and the tax credits for wind electricity production, as North Dakota has an enormous supply of lignite coal and the greatest potential for development of wind powered generation in the country. But I am not willing nor is it necessary to invest in energy at the expense of Social Security and Medicare. I think it is inexcusable that the Rules Committee refused to allow consideration of an offset amendment to protect Medicare and Social Security. I cannot support legislation that does not contain ``pay for'' provisions when the result is a direct raid of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. That is unacceptable and I see no other choice but to oppose this bill. I am also extremely disappointed that this bill leaves out an important segment of energy suppliers--public power suppliers and rural electric cooperatives, which serve 25 percent of the nation's power consumers. It is only logical that by including the maximum number of market participants in generation of renewable and clean energy production, we best equip ourselves to meet these goals. I strongly support meaningful energy legislation that will offer more options and better solutions for my constituents and for all Americans. But I will not rob Peter to pay Paul and I oppose this raid on Medicare and Social Security. I am voting against the SAFE Act and I encourage my colleagues to join me.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Back home we say you can take a pig, put lipstick on it, smell it and call it Monique, but it is still a pig. AHPs, association health plans, contained in this bill are just another iteration of what has been tried in the past and failed in the past to the disadvantage of small employers and their employees: multiple employer trusts in the early 1980s, giving way to multiple employer welfare arrangements in the late 1980s. What these were were efforts to have unregulated insurance pools across small employers managed by associations. The net result, no regulation, no adequate oversight in terms of capitalization of these programs; and while the premiums were cheap, when the claims came in, the companies were not there. It is not just a matter of having a policy for purposes of having access to coverage. You want to make sure you actually have a solvent entity to pay the claim when you send in the bill. That is the problem about deregulating these association health plans. We have learned this lesson once. We have learned this lesson twice. Why, oh why, oh why on a bill that we are trying to increase consumer protections would the majority ask us to learn it yet a third time to the disadvantage again of small employers and the people covered in those programs? There is another adverse feature to association health plans and that is that it busts up the risk pool. The way health insurance works is you get a whole lot of folks, healthy ones, medium healthy ones, sick ones, you put all their risks together and then you have a mechanism that can pay claims on those who incur medical services. This would segment out by attracting disproportionately healthy groups least likely to incur medical services. Everybody else would be in groups that are aging, groups whose health experience was deteriorating, and the premiums would be skyrocketing. Do not take my word for it, because the Congressional Budget Office has evaluated this, and the Congressional Budget Office said if AHPs were enacted, four in five workers in small firms, 20 million Americans, would actually receive a rate increase. Only 4.6 million would receive a rate decrease. Why would you have rates go up by a feature of four to one in order to advance Association Health Plans? It is a bad idea. It is not consumer protection, it is consumer harm. Reject that amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Colonel Kenneth S. Kasprisin. Three years ago, Ken assumed the position of Commander with the St. Paul District of the Corps of Engineers. During that time, I have come to know Ken not only as a fine, trusted public servant, but also as an extraordinary friend. Throughout his time with the Corps, Ken has set the highest standards for himself and the people with the St. Paul District. Ken's drive and determination in working to make the Corps and the St. Paul District truly responsive to the needs of the people has resulted in service that is unmatched and pales in comparison to other districts within the Corps of Engineers. He is a man of great integrity, with a deep commitment to the issues he works on. I have been impressed both by his sincerity and his ability to look beyond the box to understand and advocate for proposals that are in the best interests of communities throughout the district. As Ken departs from his service with the Corps, he leaves behind a remarkable record of accomplishments that is matched by the dedication with which he has served. No matter what challenge is posed, Ken is able to tackle it head on and is always able to meet or exceed it. Ken's keen ability to sift through complex issues has been well recognized by those within the Corps of Engineers and by Members of Congress. His work ethic has been nothing but top-notch as he has fought for improvements within the district. In particular, Ken has been diligent in his efforts to bring much needed relief to the folks in the Devils Lake Basin who have been plagued by years of flooding. He has fought hand and hand with the North Dakota congressional delegation as we have worked to implement workable solutions to this crisis. Earlier this year, as communities in North Dakota and Minnesota battled the rising water of the Red River, Ken led efforts coordinating the emergency response to ensure residents and businesses received the vital protection they needed. But his commitment does not end there. Ken has worked with many communities throughout my state of North Dakota in developing long-term flood protection and solutions. Cities from Wahpeton to Grand Forks to my hometown of Valley City, will have the flood protection so desperately needed thanks to the leadership and dedication of Ken Kasprisin. There is no doubt that the Corps and North Dakota has been well-served under his leadership. While Ken will be leaving the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Army after a distinguished career of 26 years, we are very fortunate that he will continue in public service with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh could not have made a better choice! As he takes the reigns as regional director for Region X at FEMA, Ken will continue to serve as an effective public servant. I have no doubt that Ken will be a true asset to the agency and to the many people who are impacted by natural disasters each year. I wish him all the best in his new position.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise, along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), my Republican friend and colleague, to express at this point in the debate on this bill our bipartisan appreciation for the leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, for the substantial increase they commit in this budget to basic education. Basic education in particular is about girls' education, because they are the ones most likely to be held out of school. The data shows tremendous return for the investment made in this area for each year past fourth grade: a 10 percent reduction in family size, a 10 percent reduction in infant and maternal mortality, and 15 to 20 percent increases in wages. This increase is precisely in line with the leadership of President Bush who has said recently, ``Literacy and learning are the foundation of democracy and development. I am directing the Secretary of State and Administrator of the Agency of International Development to develop an initiative to improve basic education and teacher training in Africa.'' Under the leadership of the President, the G-8 communique issued just this past weekend said, ``Education, in particular, universal primary education and equal access to education at all levels for girls, must be given high priority in our development programs.'' Former Secretary Treasury Larry Summers has said, ``Educating girls quite possibly yields a higher rate of return than any other investment available in the developing world.'' Present Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neil said in a recent op-ed in The New York Times, ``Education is inextricably linked to improving living standards.'' Perhaps the most eloquent quote I have heard regarding the imperative of girls' education was issued by the chairman of the board of a community school in Bamako, Mali. This gentleman said, ``Bringing girls education is like bringing light into a dark room.'' That is why I am so proud of the work of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). I had a chance to see with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) the effects of this funding and work on expanding girls' education in Africa. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a true leader in advancing the cause of basic education around the world.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution of disapproval which would cause a tremendous break in an established trading relationship. I commend all who are participating in the debate and deeply respect the heartfelt concerns of the advocates for this resolution for the concerns that have been expressed so passionately and well this afternoon. All of us are terribly concerned about the issues that have been covered. The question is, how do we best effect change on these areas of concern? Is removal of the normal trade relations, reversing the course over the last many years, placing China, a nation of 1.2 billion, in a trade status only held by Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam, is that the way to advance our concerns? We have a track record on the application of unilateral U.S. efforts to isolate major world powers. I believe the most recent one was a Carter administration effort to place a grain embargo on the Soviet Union, expressing our outrage about their involvement in Afghanistan. The result is now very clear. We lost important agricultural opportunities. Our farmers paid a huge price. Other countries benefitted tremendously. We did not change Soviet Union behavior by that action one lick. I believe the same is absolutely before us. No matter how much we may want to, we cannot isolate this nation of 1.2 billion people. The record in China is mixed. Fairness in this debate requires us to reflect briefly on the fact that there is continued growth in their free market economy. The spread of private enterprise has moved from the coast. Growth of the Internet continues to slowly erode the stranglehold of information held by the state. Earlier this year, China ratified a United Nations agreement on economic and social rights. Progress is also evident in the agriculture area. We must reject this and move forward even while we continue to be very concerned about the conduct of China.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, it is another tough year for the farmers of this country. Commodity prices once again are below the cost of producing the crop. Imagine the frustration of investing one's heart and soul and extending virtually everything they own to grow a crop that when it is harvested and it is taken to the elevator, the money that is received does not even cover the costs they had of growing it. That is, of course, if the production season is a good one and a crop is actually gotten. Yesterday I was in fields in North Dakota that have been totally devastated by hail. There will be no crop for these farmers. There will be no income of any kind at the elevator. I raise this to everyone's attention because in a few minutes we are about to consider the Agricultural Supplemental Relief Act. Unfortunately, the Committee on Agriculture brings forward a proposal that reduces by about 15 percent the amount of relief and support we gave to farmers last year. Now farmers' inputs have gone up. It is costing more to grow the crop. The prices are still lousy. It is no time to cut relief for our farmers. Reject this and increase assistance.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we are going to leave here and go home and participate in Memorial Day celebrations all across the country honoring those who have made our country free, who have stood down the challenge of fascism in World War II, stood down the challenge of Communism by prevailing in the Cold War. What I had hoped my contribution to the future of this country would be would be not in the national security area, they have already done such an excellent job there, but in terms of promoting the fiscal health of this country, leaving us more financially secure for our children than we ourselves have in this country with the passage of the bill the majority has brought forward. I now deeply regret that that will not be possible. We will not pay off the national debt to the fullest dimensions possible. We will not fully be in a situation to preserve the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Three quick points of analysis on this bill. Is it fair? The top 1 percent gets 37 percent of the break. The bottom 60 percent get a mere 15 percent. That is not fair. It is not fair in any way, shape or form. Does this bill make sense? This is the phase-ins and phase-outs of this bill. This bill is a matter of here today, gone tomorrow. It is the most screwed up bill we have ever seen in terms of bringing taxes in and phasing them out. Marriage penalty phase-in starts in 2005; fully phased in by 2009, repealed in 2010. Estate tax, it is there in 2009. It is repealed in 2010. It is back in 2011. College tuition deduction starts in 2002, phase-in in 2003; fully phased in 2004 and 2005, and then it is repealed. AMT relief, it is there in 2001. It is there through 2004 and then it is repealed. One needs certainty in the Tax Code so they can plan, and this is anything but certain. Does this bill allow for any other national priorities? This bill has been constructed so that it explodes in the next 10 years. $1.3 trillion, it will actually be more than that, about $1.6 trillion in the first 10 years to $4 trillion in the second 10 years, just at the time baby-boomers move into retirement and the cost of Social Security and Medicare escalates. There is nothing in the measure before us for the additional defense spending we know is going to be coming, and there is insufficient allocation for the resources we are going to need in education.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to my colleagues a new book written by former Social Security Administration Commissioner Robert Ball. As we in Congress grapple with the future of Social Security, it makes sense to listen to the words of wisdom offered by someone who has spend a lifetime working with the program. Bob Ball began working in the Social Security Administration in 1939 and ran the program for more than 20 years. Clearly, Mr. Ball is one of the country's foremost experts on Social Security. A collection of Mr. Ball's essays, ``Insuring the Essentials: Bob Ball on Social Security'', has recently been published by the Century Foundation Press. These essays not only chronicle the history of the program, but frame past and current Social Security reform proposals in clear, concise terms. I encourage my colleagues in Congress, and all Americans interested in the subject of Social Security, to read this valuable book. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a review of Mr. Ball's book, which appeared in the May 12 edition of National Journal. [From the National Journal, May 12, 2001] It's Not Just a Pension Plan (Dammit!) (By Robert Ourlian) You may have heard the one about Alf Landon's ill-fated tirade during the 1936 presidential campaign and how it blew up in his face like a prank cigar, leaving him wide-eyed and blinking. This was the attack on the year-old Social Security Act, which he denounced with every overreaching adjective it was his misfortune to muster. ``It is a glaring example of the bungling and waste that have characterized this Administration's attempts to fulfill its benevolent purposes,'' Landon said with Magoo-like chagrin. He called the act ``unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully financed,'' and ``a fraud on the working man.'' Bob Ball includes a hearty mention of Landon's little game of Republican roulette in his new book, Insuring the Essentials: Bob Ball on Social Security. Ball is not unbiased on this subject. He has spent a lifetime helping develop an American form of social insurance and defending it against people like Landon. Now 87, Ball began his work at the federal Social Security Administration in 1939, and he ran the program from 1952-73. He has served as a member of or adviser to nearly all of the many, many, many advisory councils on Social Security (the latest was appointed only last week). He has written, testified, consulted, argued, lectured, and exhorted so profusely that he probably deserves the nickname suggested by his Century Foundation editor--Mr. Social Security. Ball went so far as to make a pro-Al Gore political advertisement last year, heaping scorn on George W. Bush's plans for retirement accounts (Ball considered the ad muted; Gore's people thought it was powerful). Ball counsels Democrats and openly praises labor unions, his allies in many Social Security battles. He expects no calls from the White House these days. But even as a combatant, Ball engages, it must be said, graciously. In this book, he deftly--almost slyly--appoints out where the partisan fault lines are in the Social Security debate, and who takes which side. For some in the debate, this is good to know. In one essay, he mentions Landon and other early Republican opponents, and in a later one, hints that Eisenhower Republicans were self-destructively slow to warm to Social Security. In other chapters, he dispassionately discusses the proposals--mainly, though not always, Republican ones, through the decades--to downsize, privatize, outsource, and otherwise rip some of the system from its federal moorings--a goal Ball plainly considers undesirable. Still, Ball knows what we're dealing with here, and, so do we: the deep-rooted struggle over government's role in America. To his Republican, corporate, and conservative adversaries, Ball is saying, in a polite and sometimes roundabout way, ``Let's rumble.'' Ball obviously believes government has a role in promoting such things as justice, fairness, and equality while respecting individuality. In his preface, he quotes Abraham Lincoln on the government's job to ``do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot do so well for themselves.'' Ball includes his own 1986 address to a conference on older people, challenging the rugged Reaganism of that decade on the need for long-term care for the elderly. ``This issue will be a good test,'' he says, ``of whether Americans are really against the use of government for social purposes . . . or whether they like President Reagan more than they like his philosophy.'' In a commencement address delivered at the University of Maryland a year earlier, he lectures: ``Greed is not enough if we are to address successfully the great challenges that face the world. If each of us pursues a life dedicated to getting the most we can for ourselves, it will not automatically follow that the community will be better off. There is a law of reciprocal obligation.'' Now President Bush has created another Social Security advisory council. So this meandering collection of essays, articles, op-eds, and lectures written by Bob Ball over a stretch of nearly 60 years is nothing if not timely. It takes the reader on an interesting, if sometimes challenging, ride through the development of American social insurance. It's not a completely smooth ride. Some of Ball's favorite pieces, such as a 1947 journal article, would be difficult reading for those unfamiliar with the jargon of the social science disciplines. Another, a 1942 guide on field interviews, seems to be on the margins of any point the book endeavors to make, and the same goes for a 1949 piece on contribution rates and funding sources. While these older chapters have been blessedly freshened with recent data, and do give a sense of agency culture through the decades, some seem of limited use today. Yet, I resisted the urge to jump straight to the chapters addressing current concerns, and I was glad to get the insights that were tucked away in many of the others: the guiding principles of Social Security; the ins and outs of 75-year forecasts; the ways private investment can play a role; the true nature of the challenges ahead. Granted, Bob Ball has cast his lot in the partisan game. But he speaks loudly in the ongoing debate, and this book will serve as his megaphone--whether he needs one or not.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, House and Senate conferees are grinding away on a massive budget reconciliation act, rushing to try and complete business before we leave for the Memorial Day recess. I believe there are three questions we can appropriately raise about the tax relief proposed in this act. Is it fair? Is it timely? Does it allow for other priorities? First, is it fair? In the Senate version, the top 1 percent of wage earners in this country get 35 percent of the relief. The top 10 percent, most affluent 10 percent, get half, 54 percent, of the relief. The lowest paid 40 percent of us in this country get 7 percent under this tax bill. The bottom 20 percent get a single percent of the relief. Is it timely? It is not phased in for years. The phase-in on the marriage penalty relief does not even begin until 4 years from now. That is not marriage penalty relief, that is a distant anniversary present, much less than is represented in the tax bill. Finally, is there room for other priorities? There is not a dollar of additional defense spending as soon to be recommended by the Secretary of Defense contained in this budget. It raises the prospect that we will be raiding the trust funds, and the tax bill should be defeated.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for working with us on this matter. The matter I would like to address in this colloquy involves section 117 of the Carl D. Perkins Act. This section authorizes funding for tribally controlled postsecondary, vocational, and technical institutions. Under prior law and regulation, the funds under this program were awarded to institutions not authorized to receive assistance under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act, or the Navajo Community College Act. As such, these funds are critical to the support of two institutions that have for many years provided training consistent with the act and are urgently needed by the students of these schools. However, the Department of Education has indicated changes in the 1998 Perkins Act amendments modified the eligibility criteria for these funds. This poses a direct threat to the ongoing viability of these two schools. It was not the intent of Congress to alter the eligibility for section 117 funding. It was not the intent of Congress to cause an end to these schools. Therefore, a legislative clarification is necessary. Mr. Chairman, if, as we expect, this issue arises in conference, I ask for Members' support to restore the intended eligibility requirement for this program.

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

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hope for Children Act. As a member of this Chamber, and, more importantly, as the father of two adopted children, I thank Representatives DeMint, Oberstar, Pryce, King, and Bachus and the entire Congressional Coalition on Adoption for their dedication to the well-being of our Nation's and our world's children. It is fitting that we consider this bill less than a week after celebrating Mother's Day and so close to Father's Day, 2 days that have been set aside for us to thank our parents for raising us, for giving us a sense of security and independence, and for offering us their unconditional love. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all parents, who know that there is no more important, more difficult, and ultimately more rewarding undertaking than raising a child. I was very fortunate to have been raised by a loving mother in a stable and caring home. I can't help but be reminded, however, of the over 500,000 children in our Nation's foster care system who await permanent homes. Although in recent years we have made great strides in improving the child welfare system, there is no substitute for a loving parents and a permanent home. For the thousands of children who wait, adoption offers the gift of hope, the gift of love, and the gift of family. My own family was forever changed and enriched by the adoption of our two children from Korea. It is difficult for me to express how deeply grateful I am to have Kathryn and Scott in my life. As any parent can attest, the love I have for my children knows no bounds. As many of my colleagues can attest, families can spend anywhere from $8,000 to $20,000, or even higher, to adopt a child. I am proud, therefore, to be a cosponsor of the Hope for Children Act, which helps offset the financial impact of adoption. By raising the limit on the adoption tax credit to $10,000 for all adoptions, and making it permanent, I hope that this measure will open thousands of more homes and hearts to the miracle of adoption. I would be in error, however, not to point out what I believe is one shortcoming of this legislation. All children, regardless of age, medical need, disability, race or creed deserve a family to share their love. We need to do more to encourage the adoption of special needs children, those who are hardest to place in permanent homes. Since State foster care programs cover most of the tax qualified expenses associated with special needs adoptions, only about 15 percent of adoptive parents of special needs children can benefit from the credit. These parents, however, incur other substantial adoption- related costs, such as out-of pocket medical costs, counseling services, and lost income from work. As parents, legislators and advocates, we owe all children, regardless of need, a chance to find a family. I thank the leadership for indicating their willingness to work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Hope for Children Act and look forward to working with them to strengthen this bill. 1. Average cost of adoptions are between $8,000-$30,000, depending upon circumstances (i.e. international, special needs, etc.) 2. There are about 550,000 children in our nation's foster care system waiting to be adopted. About 120,000 of these children are special needs children, meaning they are more difficult to place because of their age, medical condition, physical or mental handicap, membership in a minority, or being part of a group of siblings waited to be adopted together. 3. The Hope for Children Act, which you cosponsored, increases and expands the adoption tax credit. In general, it: Increases the limit on the credit for non-special needs children from $5,000 to $10,000 and makes it permanent (it would expire this year). Increases the limit on the credit for special-needs adoptions from $6,000 to $10,000 (it is already permanent). Increases the limit on the employer adoption assistance exclusion from $5,000 ($6,000 for special-needs adoptions) to $10,000 for all adoptions and makes it permanent. Increases the income limit for the full credit from $75,000 to $150,000. Phases out the credit for incomes between $150,000-$190,000. Indexes the credit for inflation. 4. While the bill as introduced makes the special-needs credit a non-qualified credit, the Chairman's mark does not. A non-qualified credit is very important to the special needs and adoption community. Only about 15% of adoptive parents of special needs children incur enough in qualified expenses to benefit from the credit, these parents incur substantial indirect costs through counseling, medical services, home improvements for disabled children, etc.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hope for Children Act. As a member of this chamber and as the father of two adopted children, I want to thank Reps. DeMint, Oberstar, Pryce, King and Bachus and the entire Congressional Coalition on Adoption for their dedication to the well-being of our Nation's and our world's children. It is fitting that we consider this bill less than a week after celebrating Mother's Day and so close to Father's Day. These two days have been set aside for us to thank our parents for raising us, for giving us a sense of security and independence, and for offering us their unconditional love. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all parents, who know that there is no more important, more difficult, and ultimately more rewarding undertaking than raising a child. I was very fortunate to have been raised by loving parents in a stable and caring home. I can't help but be reminded, however, of the over 500,000 children in our Nation's foster care system, many of whom need permanent homes. Although we have made great strides in improving the child welfare system, there is no substitute for a loving parents and a permanent home. For the thousands of children who wait, adoption offers the gift of hope, the gift of love, and the gift of family. My own family was forever changed and enriched by the adoption of our two children from Korea. It is difficult for me to express how deeply grateful I am to have Kathryn and Scott in my life. As any parent can attest, the love I have for my children knows no bounds. As many of my colleagues also know, families can spend anywhere from $8,000 to $30,000, or even more, to adopt a child. I am proud, therefore, to be a cosponsor the Hope for Children Act, which helps offset the financial impact of adoption. By raising the limit on the adoption tax credit to $10,000 and making it permanent for all adoptions, I hope that this measure will open thousands of more homes and hearts to the miracle of adoption. I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out what I believe is one shortcoming of this legislation. All children, regardless of age, medical need, disability, race or creed deserve a family to share their love. We need to do more to encourage the adoption of special needs children, those who are hardest to place in permanent homes. Since State foster care programs cover most of the tax qualified expenses associated with special needs adoptions, only about 15% of adoptive parents of special needs children can benefit from the credit. These parents, however, incur other substantial adoption-related costs, such as out-of-pocket medical costs, counseling services, and lost income from work. As parents, legislators and advocates, we must give all children the chance to find a family. I thank the leadership for indicating their willingness to work on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Hope for Children Act and look forward to working with them to strengthen this bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we are debating this motion before us to try and fix the budget filing foul-up of the majority from the other night. You know, it is one thing for the majority to be unfair; it is another thing for the majority to be inept. But for the majority to be both on the same piece of legislative business, it is a bit much. By delaying until after midnight the attempted consideration of the budget, they utterly deprived almost half of this body of the chance of even seeing the numbers they are proposing, literally, until the hour of the vote. But, as we know, that fouled copying machine that withheld two critical pages stopped them dead in their tracks. You know, it kind of shakes your confidence. My goodness, if they cannot collate, you do not know whether they can calculate. And now that we have actually had a chance to survey the numbers, we can see indeed there are some very serious problems in calculation, substance problems that go far beyond the embarrassing procedural foul-up they brought upon themselves. Let us talk specifically about one area, education. This is an area where our new President has called for more Federal leadership in improving the quality of our schools. In fact, he committed $900 million over the next year, $21.4 billion over the 10 years of the budget. We passed the President's recommendation when the budget was considered in the House over to the Senate, where they said that is a good start, but we need to do more. With a bipartisan vote, they voted to add $294 billion in additional resources into the budget package. What happened? Well, when we finally got to the numbers of their package, numbers they hoped we would not get to look at and debate fully before this vote we are about to take, all of that money for our schools, all of that money for better education for our children, was stripped out; even President Bush's recommended funding, gone. Ultimately, all that was left was an inflationary adjustment that amounts to $12.90 per kid per year. We are not going to improve schools on that pittance. We need to adhere to the President's recommended levels and beyond. More money for schools. Reject this budget.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, and I will finish. I will spend time this weekend studying this budget. And I appreciate the opportunity afforded me by the majority for that purpose. But I would have appreciated it much more had it been as a deliberate role by the majority affording the minority appropriate input in review of the budget before we are asked to vote for it instead of as a consequence of the majority incompetence at executing a strategy that represented a shredding of any fair-minded legislative process. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, yes, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is my friend.

Mr. POMEROY. I reclaim my time on that. I would just note that after the convening of the conference committee, there was no further input by the minority whatsoever. I have been told by our ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, repeated calls went unanswered, repeated requests for information were denied, and indeed he was not given the numbers to the budget that we were to vote on in the wee hours of the morning until after midnight of this night and that was a procedure that the chairman of the Committee on Rules was advancing in his role and it was only come on strong because of the incompetence of the Committee on the Budget in missing a couple of critical pages. I yield to the gentleman.