Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

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.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``Health Insurance Fairness Act of 2002.'' Today, Senator Bob Graham and I are introducing this legislation to prohibit the practice of reunderwriting health insurance at renewal, to protect some 16 million Americans who rely on individual health insurance policies. You can easily understand what reunderwriting is by thinking about your car insurance. If you have a couple of accidents, or get a couple of tickets, your rates go up. Similarly, reunderwriting at renewal of health insurance forces people who become ill to accept substantial premium increases or face losing their coverage. The difference is, people have virtually no control over whether they get cancer, or develop asthma, or if their child is diagnosed with diabetes. Most insurers evaluate an individual's medical history only when he or she applies for coverage. Recently, however, some insurers have adopted the practice of reviewing customers' health status annually and adjusting premiums according to what kind of year the individual had. If a person has developed a costly medical condition or has filed a large number of claims, the insurer raises the individual's premium. As a former state insurance commissioner, I believe that this practice, left unchecked, will make it more difficult, if not impossible, for people who have paid insurance premiums for years to maintain coverage when they need it the most. In my view, reunderwriting undermines the risk pools that are necessary to make health insurance possible. Balanced risk pools are essential to affordable, accessible coverage for the greatest number of Americans because they balance the risks of the healthy with the less healthy. Diverse risk pools also provide stability to the insurance industry by spreading liability. If we allow a system that creates incentives for ``cherry picking'' the healthy, who will insure the unhealthy when they can no longer afford coverage? Reunderwriting at renewal also violates the spirit of health insurance guaranteed renewability requirements under state and federal law. In the 1990's, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) developed model laws to prohibit insurance companies from canceling policies once an individual became sick. In 1997, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) applied this requirement to all health insurance policies subject to HIPAA. Reunderwriting at renewal attempts to circumvent these important consumer protections. Mr. Speaker, the Health Insurance Fairness Act I am introducing today would make health insurance more secure. The bill clarifies that guaranteed renewal of health insurance in current law means that insurers are prohibited from targeting individuals for premium increases based on their health in the preceding year. I realize the late hour of this session of Congress, but I think it is important to introduce this bill now to send a message to those who are monitoring this process with an interest in developing this type of business line. Reunderwriting at renewal violates the spirit of consumer protections for health insurance and Congress should act to protect consumers from this type of business practice.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Iraq, it is time for the United States of America to state forcefully and without equivocation: Enough is enough. Either Saddam Hussein yields to the resolutions of the United Nations, providing for completely unrestricted inspection and disarmament, or the United States and other nations will use military force against his government to enforce his compliance. This is terribly, terribly serious business, Mr. Speaker, potentially one of life and death for those that will be involved in prosecuting this action. Therefore, I, like so many others, have expressed the view that this vote is one of the most important votes that I will ever cast in this Chamber on behalf of the people of North Dakota. I reached the conclusion that the resolution authorizing the President to use force should pass, and I do that based upon the following undeniable and uncontroverted facts: First, Saddam Hussein is a uniquely evil and threatening leader. His past is absolutely replete with nonstop belligerence and aggression, as well as atrocities. Two, he has been determined to have developed weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. He continues to seek nuclear capacity and is believed to be within mere months of having that capacity, in the event he could get his hands on the requisite materials. Three, he now continues to produce weapons of mass destruction, having effectively completely thwarted the inspection and disarmament requirements of the United Nations; and he has made it increasingly difficult to detect his production facilities, even as he continues to add to his arsenals. Four, he is harboring and has well-developed relationships with terrorists, including senior al Qaeda operatives. Five, he certainly has demonstrated that he is not above using weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, he has used them on his own people. Now, under these terrible circumstances, I have concluded that doing nothing is simply not acceptable for the United States of America. We need to act, and determining exactly how to act is the question before this Chamber. I believe that we should support the President as he builds an international consensus to reinstitute completely unfettered inspections, or to use force in the event it is not forthcoming. In dealing with Saddam Hussein, I believe our only hope of enlisting the cooperation of his government is if he knows for an absolute certainty there will be terrible consequences if he does not comply. Therefore, in looking at the resolutions before this body, I think we can only conclude that the President needs the authorization to act if he is to have any hope of enlisting the cooperation from Saddam Hussein. A two-vote alternative in my view sends a mixed signal: Go try and enlist his cooperation, and we will evaluate what to do if you do not succeed. The administration has made it very, very clear, and I have heard the President express this personally, that the use of force would be his absolute last wish. I believe, therefore, we need to give him the resolution and the authority from this body that, first, seek disarmament and under terms that are unlike any other imposed upon Iraq any time, anywhere, by any person; and in the event that is not forthcoming, there shall be force to insist on his cooperation, or to replace the regime and obtain cooperation from a new government. I understand, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty of this decision. But, again, the facts are clear, and doing nothing is not acceptable. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend and colleague, the Honorable Patsy Mink. I have known Patsy since being elected to Congress nearly a decade ago, and it was with heartfelt sadness that I learned of her passing on September 28, 2002. Patsy Mink, the first congresswoman of Asian descent, was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1964. Throughout her career, she earned a reputation as a fearless and outspoken advocate for minorities, women, and children. Even at the age of 74, Patsy continued to be a stalwart for social and economic justice in the House of Representatives. In one of her proudest moments in 1972, Patsy coauthored and passed a landmark law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs, popularly known as Title IX. As a result, the number of girls participating in high school sports has exploded in recent decades, leading to increased opportunities for women. Patsy Mink's tenacity and dedication to the Civil Rights movement during the 1960s and 1970s shaped the Democratic national agenda, making the interests of women and minorities a centerpiece of the party's platform. During the 1990s, her ability to build coalitions in a divided Congress has made it possible to move much progressive legislation to the floor. All of us here in Congress--Republicans and Democrats alike--owe Patsy so much. She was known on both sides of the aisle for her determination, courage and tenacity, and was an inspiration for all of us in public service. We are better legislators and better human beings for having known and worked with this distinguished woman.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is a sense of Congress. And we can pass these all day long and they will not accomplish anything. So let us talk on this important topic, the estate tax, especially as applied to family farmers and small businesses, about doing something real and doing it now. I have legislation very similar to what we considered when we considered the substitute to the estate tax repeal, and I am absolutely convinced as I stand here before the Speaker that we can enact this legislation and get it to the President for his signature before going home in a few weeks at the end of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5008 would, effective January 1 of 2003, take the exclusion for estate tax up to $6 million for couples. If a couple has assets of less than $6 million, we have repealed the estate tax. Now, what is important is to note that this is effective January 1 of 2003. The legislation advanced by my friend across the aisle does not have an effective date until 2011. Nothing they are talking about on their side takes effect before 2011. We proposed something that takes effect in a very meaningful way January 1 of next year. I was moved when my friend from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) talks about family farms, visiting the IRS and the undertaker on the same day. That is a terrible thing. Let us do something about it. The research that I have done shows that if we take what Democrats would be prepared to vote for right now, excluding couples with estates under $6 million from the estate tax effective January 1 of 2003, virtually all the farms in North Dakota do not have estate tax problems. And if you look at how this applies to small business, you can almost conclude the same thing. IRS data shows that 99.7 percent of the estates in this country do not have problems. We take this estate tax issue and we eliminate it. We repeal it. We repeal it immediately for all but three-tenths of 1 percent; 99.7 percent get full relief now. Now, at the end of a legislative session, these family farms the other side speaks so much about, they want something and they want it delivered. They want it now. I would suggest to the other side, what would be wrong with the procedure where you take what you can get right now and you come back for more later. Your bill does not do a thing until 2011, so what is the matter with taking $6 million as an estate tax exclusion right now and come back for the rest later. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) to answer that question.

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, because what the gentleman has done is lay out very clearly where he comes down. He comes down on behalf of the richest three-tenths of 1 percent and the gentleman is not about to let those family farmers in Iowa or North Dakota get the meaningful relief they deserve January 1 of 2003, because they are holding out for the Ken Lays and the multi-bazillionnaires of this world as opposed to taking action now that for Iowa and North Dakota family farmers would virtually make the estate tax go away. When one is a family farmer, we are dealing with assets of less than $6 million per farm couple. And that is why initiating this legislation, H.R. 5008, that is why this legislation is so important. We significantly improve the situation from their tax exposure January 1, $6 million and below, no estate tax under our legislation January 1. Under the majority bill, estates over $2 million will be subject to estate tax. They do nothing about that. They leave this exposure out there until the year 2011 because they have taken the position if they cannot deal with everybody, they will not deal with anybody. They will hold out for the richest three-tenths of 1 percent in this country, rather than move legislation forward that will help family farmers and small business. I think it is a shame because right now, at the end of this session, the Democratic minority is prepared to enter a bill that will make the estate tax for $6 million for couples go away. And if you want to come back for more later, come back for more later. Your bill does not take effect, anyway, until 2011. I think if you were real sincere about this, you would take what you could get now and come back for the rest later. The point is they are not sincere. This is a political press release and it is a shame.

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, it is absolutely permanent for estates of $6 million and below. Effective January 1 of 2003, if you are a couple with an estate valued at $6 million and below, we forever repeal your estate tax exposure. What would be the matter with taking that as an opening proposition? We will take the problem and make it go away for $6 million and below and we will come back for the rest later. Because I will state that the legislation the gentleman supports will leave farm families with joint estates of $2 million and below subject to estate tax exposure in 2003. Under my legislation, it would be $6 million and below. Why would they not take the $6 million now and come back for the rest later? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the sponsors of this amendment for their tireless efforts, in particular on behalf of employees in their particular districts affected by a poorly executed conversion and their efforts thereafter to make sure that the concern realized in that particular instance is not realized again. I also congratulate them for advancing this amendment because I believe it calls attention to a very important issue of pension conversion and our great concern that people be treated fairly and there not be age discrimination as their conversions move forward. Having said that, I respectfully disagree with this amendment on this appropriations bill. This is a very substantive alteration of ERISA law. It is technical, it is complex, and there could be unintended consequences. The consequence I am most worried about is, rather than the conversion from defined benefit to cash balance, we are going to have something even more dramatic and disadvantageous to the employee, movement to defined contribution plans or gradual elimination of the pension benefit altogether. We operate in an environment where employers are not mandated to provide these benefits, and 50 percent of the people in the workforce today have no at-work savings. Therefore, as we try to address these concerns, if we smack employers with perceived additional costs, we absolutely stop the efforts to get additional employers to offer retirement savings plans, and I believe we accelerate the conversion from defined benefit to defined contribution plans. Reasonable minds may differ on this, and I do not question for one instance the absolute sincerity in the purpose behind this amendment. I just think strategically that this is not the way to go at this time. I think the fact that the amendment has been offered and is debated sends a very clear signal to the Department of Treasury that this is not the time for them to be altering that rule. I think on the other hand their administrative processes should move forward, the committees of jurisdiction should carefully watch over those processes, and particularly interested Members of Congress should also watch this process; and if we, indeed, see the rule being altered in a way that has a discriminatory effect on elderly workers, we ought to act at that time. But to react now changing ERISA by an amendment on an appropriations bill without a hearing, without careful deliberation about the full range of what the consequences might be, this is reckless stuff on very important business. There is not a worker in the workplace today with a retirement savings plan that is not darn scared about what is happening in the stock market and their security of income and retirement. We should not compound the confusion, the anxiety, or raise other questions by passing this amendment at this time.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Retirement Security for All Americans Act,'' legislation that will help all of our nation's workers save for their retirement. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has already introduced a companion bill in the Senate, and I am proud to sponsor this bill in the House. Although there are several ways to measure pension coverage, there is one constant statistic--less than half of the workers in our country are covered by an employer sponsored pension plan. In spite of numerous incentives provided by Congress over the years, this coverage rate has remained virtually unchanged for the past three decades. In my home state of North Dakota, the plan participation rate is lower than the national average. Only 41 percent of workers participate in a retirement plan in the state. Therefore, about 60 percent of North Dakota's workers are without coverage and will have to fund their retiremnent through personal savings and Social Security. Unfortunately, most private sector workers who do not have a pension or retirement plan will not have significant savings, leaving them only with Social Security as their main source of income in retirement. The legislation I am introducing today addresses this need by encouraging small- and mid-size employers, where pension coverage is severely deficient, to not only offer plans, but to provide contributions to their lower paid workers. Each of these provisions standing alone would improve coverage and our national savings rate. Combined, they strongly complement each other making passage of this bill imperative. The first provision expands and makes permanent the current Savers' Credit that was signed into law last year. Currently, married couples earning less than $30,000 are entitled to a credit of half their retirement plan contribution. Those with income between $30,001 and $32,500 are eligible for a 20 percent credit, and a 10 percent credit is available for those with incomes above $32,500 and less than $50,000. This bill would gradually phase the credit rate down for marricd couples with incomes between $30,000 and $55,000 and other filers with incomes between $15,000 and $27,500, eliminating the cliff-like structure of the current credit. North Dakotans will greatly benefit from this provision. The average median household income in North Dakota is about $35,000. Over one- third (38 percent) of households in the state have incomes of less than $30,000. Workers in these households will receive $.50 for every dollar that they save in their 401(k) or IRA. An additional 34 percent of households in North Dakota have incomes between $30,000 and $50,000. Workers in these households will receive between $.10 and $.20 for every dollar that they save in their 401(k) or IRA. This additional money will help North Dakotans, and especially baby boomers, plan for their retirement. The second provision of the bill requires all employers with more than 10 employees, who do not currently offer their employees a qualified retirement plan, to provide their workers with the option of a payroll deduction IRA. A payroll deduction IRA will allow workers to save small amounts out of each paycheck instead of making periodic or annual contributions to an IRA. This savings mechanism is desperately needed among workers and small employers who cannot afford to establish pension plans. To offset any administrative cost, a tax credit of $200 for the first year and $50 for subsequent years is provided to the employer. The final section incorporates the Senate passed provision that was eliminated in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 conference that provides small businesses with a tax credit for their contributions to the retirement accounts of their non-highly compensated employees. This should not only encourage many employers to offer a plan for the first time, but also create a noteworthy incentive to contribute to these employees' accounts. I look forward to working with my colleagues to bridge this gap in pension coverage in our country. We must continue to advance proposals that will make meaningful improvements. I know this legislation is needed in North Dakota, and I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this important legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I applaud the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for his attention to the issue of long-term care. There is no doubt we need to do something about this issue. Currently, some 5.2 million Americans over the age of 65 and 4.6 million Americans under the age of 65 need assistance with daily activities. The increased life expectancy of the baby boomer generation will increase this need for long-term care. A man aged 65 today can expect to live another 15 years, and a woman aged 65 can expect to live another 19 years. But the cost of long-term care insurance can be prohibitive. The cost of long-term care insurance varies dramatically, according to the age of the consumer. On average, a basic plan premium can cost a 50-year- old $385 annually; $1,007 annually for a 65-year old; $4,100 for a 79- year old, if they can find the coverage. Now, some of us worked to begin this approach at trying to tax and encourage long-term care insurance and, under HIPAA, individuals can deduct long-term care premiums, but only if the taxpayer itemizes deductions and that medical cost that exceeds 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. We had sought in a bipartisan way to expand upon this with H.R. 831, creating an above-the-line deduction for long-term care. I joined the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) in sponsoring that legislation. I am very disappointed that budget constraints do not allow us to move on that legislation, because I believe that would have been much more significant in providing relief to those that accept the responsibility to insure themselves against the cost of long-term care. The bill before us does not do a lot. I do not mean in any way to impugn the dedication of the sponsor to this topic. It is a feature of budget. But I used to prosecute insurance agents as insurance commissioner that overstated what they had in the policy, and to make it absolutely clear that we are not overstating on this legislation, I want to spell out what the bill does and does not do. Well, it gradually phases in a personal exemption for caregivers and for long-term care insurance, but it is phased in very slowly and, when fully phased in, does not produce a lot of benefit. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that at full implementation in the year 2012, most eligible taxpayers will defray no more than 5 to 7.5 cents of each dollar spent out of pocket for coverage. While it is phasing into the years 2003 and 2005, you have 2.5 cents per dollar to 3.75 cents per dollar incentive. We are not going to achieve much in terms of generating new interest in the market for long-term care insurance with this very de minimis new incentive. Now, I am pleased that the sponsor of the legislation did incorporate the consumer protection standards that have been developed by State insurance regulators. I chaired the first National Association of Insurance Commissioners Committee to develop these minimum standards, and they have been enhanced over the years. I am particularly concerned about suitability and that these policies not be sold to people that may have very modest amounts of income and are actually relatively near Medicaid eligibility. These individuals historically have been shown not to be able to keep their coverage in force, lapse their coverage, and basically end up poorer than when they started with nothing held by way of protection for long-term care expenses. I also take some criticism of the way the personal exemption for at- home care has been provided. In our initial legislation, we had sought a tax credit for long-term care for at-home cost of providing care. The tax exemption as figured in this legislation means the more you have by way of resources, the more you have by way of taxable income, the more you get back by way of benefit. Well, the costs of providing care actually hit harder on those that do not have the income. It is more manageable by those that do have the income. So it is not sound policy to construct a benefit that gives a lot more benefit to those with income and a lot less benefit to those without. Those without income, those without resources yet struggling to provide the care to a loved one in their home need more help, and this is exactly the wrong approach. I have struggled with whether to support this bill or not. I do not know whether it is a baby step forward, in which case I would vote for it, or a side track, basically diverting the political pressure for doing more on incenting long-term care insurance or a side track down the road to nowhere. In the end I decided to say, very marginally worthwhile baby step, and I will vote for it without much enthusiasm.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 321, final passage of H.R. 5121, Legislative Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003, I was absent due to a meeting with a constituent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. This bill makes it easier for military families to sell their homes without tax penalty and ensures that death benefits received by families of deceased military personnel are exempt from taxation. At this time, we should do everything in our power to better the quality of life for our service men and women who are fighting on our behalf. These tax cuts benefit our military families who have committed so much to protecting our freedoms. This bill makes it easier for military families, like those at Grant Forks and Minot Air Force bases, to sell their homes without incurring capital gains taxes. Currently, a taxpayer can exclude from taxable income up to $250,000 of gain realized from the sale of a home. To qualify for the exemption, the taxpayer must have owned and lived in the home for at least two of the five years prior to the sale. For military personnel who are often deployed for long periods of time, this time requirement poses a real hardship. This bill suspends the five-year requirement for the capital gains exemption for the time that the service member is serving on extended military duty away from their home. This provision could save service members and their families a capital gains tax hit as much as 20% of the value of their homes. The legislation also exempts from taxes the full $6,000 death benefit received by families of deceased military personnel and allows for tax- free treatment of future increases in the death gratuity. This change to the tax law furthers our commitment to taking care of military families who lose a service member in the line of fire. I strongly support this bill and encourage my colleagues to adopt the legislation. We should act together to honor and show our support for the men and women in uniform.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, obviously in light of the financial mismanagement of some of the major corporations of this country and the investor losses we have seen, this Congress has got a lot of work to do. Thank goodness we have our ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), still at the helm of the minority in the Committee on Financial Services as we undertake these difficult challenges. We are called a nation of investors in light of the broad participation of private retirement dollars in the stock market. What that means is, as you look at the Enrons, as you look at the WorldComs, as you look at the other failed corporations due to executive mismanagement, we are a nation of financial losers because we have not had adequate protections in place to protect the investing public. And something needs to be done. Let us take a look at the dollars lost. Today's Washington Post headline, ``Workers' 401(k)s Lost $1.1 Billion'' on the misstatement of liability with WorldCom and the attendant misstatement of their stock price. Their egregious accounting practices have impacted retirement income portfolios across the Nation. Accumulated losses from this one company will impact holdings in State pension funds from Maryland to California in the amount of $52 million. Government workers and retirees in my home State of North Dakota held $350,000 worth of WorldCom stocks and bonds and $2.5 million in their pension fund. What all of this means is that the failed private-sector checks and balances have caused a lot of damage to workers' retirement accounts, money they are counting on for their income security in retirement years. We need to fix it. One area that I would hope this Congress addresses in particular involves having company financial balance sheets reflect the stock options that they have awarded by posting the liability. I believe presently you have an awful lot more out there in terms of potential liability and stock dilution impact than is reflected on the balance sheet, and I would urge this Congress to consider carefully the words of Chairman Alan Greenspan, former SEC Commissioner, Arthur Levitt, as we address the stock options issue. In conclusion, I would say that it is extraordinarily important that we have the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and others as we restore worker protections. Our pension dollars are at stake. We have to have greater accountability.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill I cosponsored, H.R. 4623, the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act. This bill marks a truly important step forward in protecting our Nation's kids from the scourge of pedophiles and child exploitation. Troubling headlines involving kids around the country are showing that there is a dark side to the Internet. The very technology that has wired the world, allowing information to flow like never before, also presents new dangers for our children, even in our small, safe hometowns. Parents used to worry about their kids talking to strangers. Now it seems commonplace for them to do so everyday online. I know the Internet helps our children with everything from schoolwork to applying to college to keeping in touch with their friends, but I also recognize that this more frequent contact with strangers exposes children to the dangers of pornographers and other exploitation. Worse yet, the prevalence of virtual child pornography--computer generated images that are indistinguishable from real children and only serve to whet the appetites of pedophiles and would-be molesters--has become more difficult to prevent as a result of a recent court decision. In April, the Supreme Court, in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, struck down as unconstitutional portions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (Pub. L. 104-208) that made it illegal to create, distribute or possess ``virtual'' child pornography. In its opinion striking down the provisions of the law, however, the court ruled that extending the reach of child pornography laws to computer- generated and other images involving no real children was ``overbroad and unconstitutional'' and that the law would prohibit visual depictions, such as movies, art or medical manuals, that have redeeming social value. The Court's decision left our children vulnerable, so I am pleased to support this legislation to strengthen the laws to go after those who would bring harm to our children. By carefully crafting this bill to narrowly define the terms and scope of the law, we have addressed the concerns raised by the Court and will provide lasting protection for our children against would-be pedophiles and exploiters. Because of the many important freedoms our constitution guarantees, it is a delicate exercise to prohibit even the most vile forms of expression. I believe we have achieved a balance in this bill of clearly defining that which we seek to ban, while protecting the freedom of speech that the constitution intends, and I am confident that this legislation will stand up to challenge. It is imperative that Congress act swiftly to restore the prohibitions in law that recognize this horrible use of technology for what it is: yet another way for pedophiles and molesters to exploit children. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. At the heart of what this debate is all about is a clear choice, whether we should provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors through the Medicare program or whether we should send money to insurance companies to induce them to provide a coverage that at the present time they have said they do not want to write, prescription drug coverage for seniors. I used to be an insurance commissioner. For 8 years it was my responsibility to protect the seniors from insurance companies in the State of North Dakota. There has not been a Member of this body that spent more time talking to seniors about insurance than me, and directions that I have received from seniors on this issue are absolutely consistent and absolutely clear. They want Medicare coverage for prescription drugs. Not a single senior has said to me, please, I want to go buy another insurance policy; please send me more agents, I want to hear what they have to say; please give me that fine print, it is fascinating and I want to read some more of it; and by the way, I want to deal with insurance companies because I so enjoy wondering whether they are going to pay that claim or whether they will not; I so enjoy wondering whether they are going to be there when I need them or whether they will be gone and out of business. No senior has said that. It is ludicrous on its face. They know Medicare. Medicare covers their hospital bills. Medicare covers their doctor bills. Medicare has been the program that has been so vital to preserving and promoting the health of seniors in this country for the last nearly 4 decades. We do not have to invent some new hocus pocus private sector, gosh-I-hope-it-works kind of deal. We have got Medicare and the seniors know it and they like it; and they would have preferred that plan tonight, which is why we were not allowed our substitute to have a Medicare delivery of a prescription drug benefit as opposed to the alternative the majority has advanced. Nobody wants prescription drug coverage for seniors more than the minority in this body, and they will be opposing this version because it simply will not work. It does not get the job done. Vote it ``no.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. There is a lot of partisan finger pointing, name calling, creative history interpretation. That is not going to get us anywhere. We have a problem on our hands. If we were a family running in the red we would sit at the kitchen table and figure this out. And the answer is not going to be, I got it, let us go to the bank and get the biggest line of credit we possibly can and let everything go the same. That is what the majority is proposing tonight. They are proposing simply to increase the line of credit and keep on borrowing. Let the wagons roll. We have to do different than that. We have asked, as we consider this motion, for an alternative to be considered one that would allow the debt to increase through the period of August, avoid any default on obligations of the government before then but require a plan, a plan to come before us to get us to a balanced budget in 7 years. Let us not talk about partisan antics in the past, Republican or Democrat. Let us together agree. We need a plan. We need it now. And that is what we asked for with the substitute. I could not be more dismayed that there was an objection and it will not even be allowed to be considered. Because this plan, this strategy of going up with the kind of debt increase they are looking at is the height of irresponsibility. In the next decade, 78 million Americans will turn 65; and the tap each will bring on Social Security and Medicare will strain the Nation's resources in a way it was never strained before. What we need to do this decade is pay down the debt, not add to the debt. We are leaving for our children a crushing financial burden, if we, now that it is our time in control, and the baby boomers are in the workforce in full force, do not pay our way but merely run up the debt. So we ask the majority for a plan, a plan to be resolved in August of this year before the election, not swept under the rug, not kicked into next year, but now. How are we going to pay our own way? We were not paying our own way now. That is why you have sought the debt increase. This is ultimately taking money coming in from Social Security and spending it on other government programs. Our children will pick up the tab. It is wrong. Vote this down.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to state my strong support for H. Res. 459. Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it describes the United States as ``one Nation, under God.'' This decision is absurd, and it flies in the face of reason and a 7th Circuit decision upholding the Pledge. Immediate action must be taken against the court's latest decision. I call upon the Administration to ask the full 9th Circuit to reconsider the case or take the matter directly to the Supreme Court. The phrase ``under God'' was added to the Pledge at the height of the Cold War. The American values in force when this phrase was added are still shared today, as we rebuild as a nation from the tragedy that impacted our lives on September 11, 2002. That is why I stand in support of House Resolution 459.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on June 24, 2002, due to flight delays caused by severe weather, I missed roll call votes Nos. 249, 250, 251, and 252. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all four votes.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a fine little bill, contains some protections for people who, because of age and disability, need assistance in managing their financial affairs for a family member, friend, or community organization. I will vote for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. But in a broader sense, it is a little like the community fire department of Durango, Colorado, holding an open house today. They are not holding an open house today because they have a fire to fight. Bigger things to do. Quite frankly, when it comes to the Social Security program, I think there are more pressing matters than this legislation, which admittedly is good. We have to do it. I am glad we are doing it. But to have this take the place of the broader debate is absolutely confounding. Two principal questions hang over the Social Security program: the first involves its finances. We have gone from retiring debt held by the public, strengthening the financial condition of this country with those Social Security surplus dollars, to now running once again budget deficits. This means a raid on Social Security dollars, taking cash coming in for Social Security and spending it on other programs of government. That is wrong, and it makes our long-term funding problem for Social Security even harder. Second major issue: privatization. We know the President wants to privatize Social Security. He has said so. He has had a commission that came out with recommendations to privatize Social Security. We know the majority has bills to privatize Social Security. We think we deserve to have debate on the floor of this House about that significant concept. Count me against it. I believe the existing Social Security program provides vitally important guaranteed revenue to people in their retirement years, to people living on disability, or to individuals who have lost the primary breadwinner in their home. This is a program that has worked for six decades, perhaps better than any other Federal program. To have these plans afoot to so dramatically change the system but held quietly under the rug until the next election is just wrong. Let us get it out, let us debate it, and, in the end, let us strengthen Social Security.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. These are dangerous times when it comes to child pornography. The Internet has allowed distribution in ways never imagined before, making it much more prevalent throughout our society, at the very time we have a Supreme Court ruling knocking out the prohibition on computer- generated child pornography. We need to respond, and we need to respond immediately. That is why I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the subcommittee, and others who have worked on this legislation, including the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). This has been a truly bipartisan effort to forge immediately a response that will withstand constitutional review and put back into the code strong protections for our children against child pornography. In the end, make no bones about it. This is about protecting our children. Meetings I have held with prosecutors, with child protection advocates, have made it very clear to me that the use of child pornography is damaging to children, sets them up as targets for ultimate exploitation, and whets the appetite of the exploiters, making them more likely to commit acts against our children. The Attorney General and the Justice Department were very involved in assembling a panel of constitutional experts reviewing the court ruling and fashioning a legislative response that will withstand court review. This is not about some immediate, knee-jerk response to a Supreme Court ruling that causes us concern. This is a carefully calibrated effort to put back into the code constitutional standards and prohibitions now needed to be restored against virtual child pornography. There are new constitutionally compliant definitions about the virtual imagery that we are condemning, a tighter and stronger affirmative defense for those prosecuted under this, required, as my prosecutors tell me, to allow them to be able to continue to prosecute these matters. I had a prosecutor in North Dakota tell me he took two cases right off his desk and put them right back into the file, being unable to prosecute them under the court ruling. This will put him back into business in bringing these needed actions. It stops commercial trade in child pornography: the trading, the selling, the buying. This is not constitutionally protected free speech, and the prohibition is restored with this legislation. It clarifies the definition of obscenity by defining, whether real or virtual, explicit sex involving young children as per se obscene. Clearly, I believe we are on very strong ground that will withstand constitutional muster and make an important contribution to prosecutors trying to bring actions against this kind of material. There is a severability clause in this legislation, thus raising the very sincere arguments that they have about whether or not this is constitutional. Clearly, the several clauses of this bill are not all constitutional. I absolutely believe they are all constitutional, but, in any event, we should pass the law, have the Justices review it, and I believe ultimately strengthen significantly the protections of our children against child pornography.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Sometimes in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, we spend so much time talking about where we disagree, and we disagree on a lot, that we do not get around to evaluating where we agree and where we can agree. We have just heard a very informed, technically adept exposition of the terms of this bill and why they were in the bill by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). I certainly would like to commend him for his leadership in this area. It takes a lot of time to get that kind of command of the technical demands of this subject area; and the gentleman from Ohio, along with his colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), have each, I think, represented the best of what this Chamber can bring forward by way of making national policy as they have applied themselves over the years in understanding retirement savings as a major national priority and then even getting deeper into the technical details of how to get it done. There are some areas where we disagree, and we are going to be able to talk about them in the context of the substitute. I do believe it is very important we have the discussion on the range of what might be appropriate and needed policy responses to the troubled corporate governance issues that we have read so much about in the newspapers recently. What I worry about a little is that some of the debate on the substitute may spill over and taint our evaluation of the underlying bill. I want to tell my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, I believe the underlying bill is solid, bipartisan, constructive advancing of retirement policy; and I hope once the substitute vote is taken, we will be able to give this the kind of rousing endorsement that it got as we passed it when it was first considered. There is a provision in the bill I would like to speak to which I think illustrates in a real way how this matters. We have a variety of defined contribution plans allowed under the Tax Code, 401(k) is the best known. Virtually identical, but a different structure, 403(b)s for those working in the nonprofit sector, and 457 plans for those working for State and local governments. As one goes through the workforce, you cannot roll your account from one into another, even though they are all defined contribution plans; they just have their basis in different provisions in the Tax Code. It is important we give workers this kind of retirement account portability so that rather than getting the lump sum and spending it, they roll it into their retirement savings at their new place of work. Studies show pretty convincingly that the larger amount in the retirement account, the less likely it is to be spent on nonretirement purposes. As we help the American workers save for retirement, it is important we facilitate this portability and allow them, in fact encourage our workers, to leave the money there for retirement purposes. Also in the bill, as was mentioned by the preceding speaker, moving vesting in defined contribution plans from 5 years to 3 years is a very big deal. This is a win that on its face we can all understand is important to those in a mobile society; that if they leave after 3 years, presently they do not acquire necessarily any benefit. These are provisions that ought to be endorsed and advanced, and I urge adoption of the underlying legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4800, a bill to repeal the sunset provisions in current law for adoption tax credit and adoption assistance programs. As a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, and more importantly, as the father of two adopted children. I want to encourage my colleagues to support this meaningful legislation. As an adoptive father, I know from personal experience that expanding opportunities for adoption is not only good tax policy, but good family policy. My own family was forever changed and enriched by the adoption of our two children from Korea. Through that first-hand experience, I am able to share with my colleagues my personal realization that adoption links children who need homes to families who will love them. In the past, however, the prohibitive cost of the adoption process has threatened the opportunity to bring children in need together with would-be families who have modest incomes. It may come as some surprise to my colleagues to know that families can often spend between $8,000 and $30,000 in the course of adopting a child. Earlier this session. Congress recognized the importance of removing financial hurdles to adoption by raising the limit on the adoption tax credit to $ 10,000 for all adoptions and, in effect, opening thousands more homes and hearts to the miracle of adoption. Mr. Speaker, incentives for bringing families together should not be time limited and that is why I support this bill to repeal the sunset provisions on these tax credits. I think it is particularly fitting that we consider this bill after recently 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 urge my colleagues to join me in supporting adoptive parents today by repealing the provisions that would end these important tax incentives.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the substitute makes the estate tax go away for the small businesses and farmers with assets below $6 million for couples effective January 1, 2003. The proposal by the Republican Party does nothing until 2011. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has statistics that show 99 percent of all farms in this country have assets of less than $5 million. They would all be taken care of under the substitute effective January 1 of 2003. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?