Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's question, though I thought it was a rhetorical question. I really do not have many facts on this circumstance, but if the estate is below $6 million for the gentleman and his wife, there would be no tax.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to observe that there could not be more uncertainty than having a 2011 effective date, which is what the Republican legislation has. There are four sessions of Congress to meet between now and then, and the estate tax levels under the Republican plan will be at $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, and moving around. We move it to $6 million. No estate tax if you are below $6 million, effective January 1 of 2003. It could not be more clear. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman speaks passionately about his constituents, but the reality is under the proposition the gentleman stands for, estates over $2 million will be taxed next year. Under our substitute, no estate tax for couples with assets $6 million and under. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority whip.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the substitute effective January 1, 2003, repeals the estate tax for 99.7 percent of the people in this country: those couples with estates of $6 million and below. The majority would leave those couples without effective relief, their implementation date being 2011, the effect of their bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), the cosponsor of the substitute.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very astounded the other side would suggest that the cost of our package is more than their package. The 10-year figure makes it very clear. The cost of our package is $5 billion. And we had that offset, although the offset was not allowed under the rule, but $5 billion. The cost of their package over the 10 years, $99 billion. When they talk about a 5-year cost figure, that is not but half the story. The full story is the 10-year figure, $99 billion for the majority, $5 billion for ours, and that does not exclude the next 10 years where theirs balloons to over a trillion dollars if you count death service. Whatever merit there may be to their arguments, and frankly they are pretty thin, it certainly has nothing to do about cost. Their package is, over the long run, is infinitely more expensive than ours. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Los Angeles, California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would observe that we would provide relief to the gentleman's farmer constituents to the tune of $6 million next year for a farm couple, no estate tax if they are below that. Under their legislation, there will be estate tax consequences if they are over $2 million. The time to address estate tax is to do it now. And our bill, effective on January 1, makes the estate tax go away for 99.7 percent of all Americans, those with estates of $6 million and others. I cannot understand why, if the problems are so severe as we are hearing from the other side, they do nothing under their legislation until the year 2011. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the majority whip has posed an important question: Why have we structured it as we have? We believe it is more important to get relief out now, and under the substitute if someone is $6 million and below for a couple, no estate tax beginning next year. The majority whip has just spoke for a proposition that will leave the estate tax on estates over $2 million next year and will not match the substitute by way of providing estate tax relief until late in the decade. Their bill does nothing until the year 2011. That is too long to wait. Meaningful reform now. Make estate tax go away for 99.7 percent of the people in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think about a farm family, a farm couple, say in their eighties. Say they have an estate of $5 million. Listening to the debate today, they must be thinking, thank goodness for the majority, thank goodness they are helping us. In reality, let us make it very, very clear, the majority bill does nothing until the year 2011. It does not change a thing. If they had a choice to make, eliminating the estate tax for more people now or wait until later and then repeal it, they took the latter route. We will show Members that reform now is very, very important to so many of the people they have been talking about all afternoon. Let us compare how the bills contrast. We would establish an estate tax exclusion: no estate tax for couples with $6 million in assets beginning January 1. They would leave the law for estate taxes at $2 million. If one is above $2 million, they are going to have tax, under their proposal. How about 2004? They take it to $3 million; but we are at $6 million, way more meaningful relief for that farm family. The same in 2005, the same in 2006, the same in 2007 and 2008. Through the balance of the decade, the substitute that we have put before the Members gives meaningful estate tax relief now. In their bill, there will be four different Congresses convening between now and the implementation date of their bill. We cannot tell events in 2011. We cannot bind events in 2011. We can do something now. Mr. Speaker, this substitute will make the estate tax go away for 99.7 percent of all Americans. That is the family farmers, the small businesses. Those are the people we have heard so much from from the majority. It is $6 million for a couple and no estate tax beginning in January under our substitute. This is the approach we advance and want Members' consideration for. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know my friend from Montana is very sincere in his arguments, but his proposition gives not one nickel of additional relief to his constituents until the year 2011. If it is too late now, certainly we ought to move something in place more quickly than that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, life is full of choices. The choice before us involves repeal of the estate tax versus the choice of maintaining full benefit payments to the Social Security program. There will be 78 million Americans that will turn 65 sometime in the next decade. At that point in time, their draw on Social Security will be profound. You can see Social Security revenues dropping dramatically as these 78 million leave the workforce. That same decade, however, if the majority plan passes, the costs explode on the lost revenue due to the estate tax. This X-marks-the-spot on this chart foretells fiscal disaster resulting in Social Security benefit cuts and payroll tax increases on our children. We cannot just think about this in today's terms. We have to look long term. The long term is a fiscal catastrophe for our country, a tax obligation to our children and beneficiary cuts for Social Security recipients if we take the action urged by the majority.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental difference between the relief proposed by the substitute and the relief proposed in the underlying bill. We bring relief to American families effective January 1, 2003. There is nothing by way of effect from the underlying bill until the year 2011, several Congresses away. This majority who says do not trust government would ask those looking for estate tax relief to trust the next three sessions of Congress before they would get relief under their proposal. American families deserve to know with clarity where estate tax commitments begin, and we would set that obligation at $6 million per couple, making the estate tax effectively repealed for 99.7 percent of our families. There is a cost difference as well. Over the next 10 years, theirs cost $99 billion. In the deficit situation, we know that that requires Social Security revenues to be diverted to fund other functions of government. The cost under our bill is $5 billion, and it would have been zero if they would have left the offsets in that we initially sought. But the dramatic problem under their bill is the next decade, because the costs explode thereafter. Just at the time baby boomers retire and the Social Security taxes drop precipitously, the cost of their bill explodes. There is only one conclusion we can draw from this chart, and that is this X represents a financial catastrophe that will befall our country leading to higher payroll taxes for our children and benefit cuts for Social Security recipients. There is a better way, and that way is the substitute, which provides relief now on the estate tax hit. Look at the comparison in terms of relief offered under our substitute compared to the majority: $6 million and below, no estate tax under our bill; their bill, $2 million. Our bill, $6 million and thereafter. In 2004, $3 million. You have an estate tax problem. In 2005, $3 million. You have an estate tax problem. In 2008, $4 million. You have an estate tax problem, under their bill. All day we have heard from the majority about farms, small businesses. You would think that help was on the way from their legislation, but there is nothing their legislation does until the year 2011 to bring relief to those they spoke so passionately for. We need to pass the substitute to get that help out there, get that help out there now, make estate tax go away for families with $6 million and below. That takes care of 99.7 percent of the families in this country, and we just think it is fundamentally wrong to hold up estate tax relief for 99.7 percent because they want to take care of just the wealthiest few beyond that. Mr. Speaker, I, in conclusion, strongly urge passage of the substitute and defeat of the underlying legislation in the event the substitute does not prevail.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. The rule does allow our substitute, and I will speak about our substitute in a moment. Unfortunately, the pay-for feature of our substitute placed into the bill to avoid loss of revenue to the general fund was struck on a point of germaneness. Our preference would have been to have a rule that made in order the pay-for and waived objection on germaneness rule. Plain speak, they could have allowed our pay-fors had they wanted to. Why did they not want the pay-fors? The other side of the aisle did not want the pay-fors in this bill because they do not want this House to vote on disallowing U.S. corporations seeking tax shelters by relocating in the Bahamas or offshore in other tax havens across the world. The pay-for we sought would have disallowed those corporations moving offshore after September 11. We think it is pretty disgusting at a time when the country was rallying together in the wake of the terrorist attack, there were some in corporate tax planning departments trying to revoke the citizenship status of their corporation and redomicile offshore for purposes of getting that tax status. That is the vote we wanted. That is why we will be having the vote on the previous question, what the vote on the previous question will represent. Should we allow corporations to flee our shores for purpose of attaining citizenship in tax havens? We think not. We think that was a good pay-for for this measure. Let me talk about the substitute, and I commend the Committee on Rules for making the substitute in order. I would have preferred the pay-fors, and urge a vote against the rules because it did not allow the pay-fors. The substitute will allow an important discussion today. This is not about estate tax versus no estate tax. The issue before this body is reform of the estate tax now versus repeal next decade. Reform January 1, 2003, versus repeal in the year 2011, four Congresses from now. The substitute will bring the estate tax exclusion to $6 million for a couple. That means $6 million or below, no estate tax. It takes care of the estate tax problem for 99.7 percent of the families in this country. What does the majority proposal do about this group? Nothing. In the year 2003 under their proposal, an estate over $2 million per couple, it will be taxed. For us, 2003, if an estate below $6 million, no tax. It is immediate relief. Mr. Speaker, 2004, $6 million and below under the Democrat substitute, no tax; under the Republican bill, $3 million there is a tax. That is half the relief of ours. The year 2005, $6 million for the substitute, again half the relief under the Republican plan. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear all afternoon about family farmers and small businesses. Make no mistake about it, it is the Democrat substitute that gives relief and gives relief now effective January 1, 2003. Through the year 2008, our relief is better. Why should the majority plan leave that estate exposure at their lower levels for the next 6 years when the Democrat substitute brings it up to $6 million now? Our plan makes 99.7 percent of the families in this country have no estate worries whatsoever. Why not take the approach of reform today? Let us deal with this problem now and not go the repeal route later.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, a man for whom I have great respect, a colleague I enjoy working with, has described this bill as the emergency wartime supplemental. Indeed, much of the content of this bill does exactly as the chairman describes. Unfortunately, and I believe it is extraordinarily unfortunate, the chairman was unable to keep his bill relative to the emergency wartime supplemental purposes he speaks so convincingly about. Once again we see critical legislation hijacked somewhere in the legislative process, in the bowels of the majority leadership somewhere, and turned into something quite different than what it initially purported to be. There is a feature of this bill that I feel is extraordinarily unfortunate, and that is what I rise to point out tonight. Language in this bill sets the stage for a significant increase in the national debt. One year ago, 1 year ago tonight, we were not talking at all about raising the national debt, we were not talking about deficits; we were looking at a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. What we now know is the 10-year outlook has deteriorated $4 trillion. Mr. Chairman, we have presided over the worst reversal of financial fortune of the United States Treasury in the history of the country. We all ought to be alarmed. Those who voted for legislation contributing to this reversal ought to be ashamed. But we all ought to realize, one to another, that something has got to be done. We wanted to have, at the time you were going to seek to raise the debt, because we know now the budget is in the red this year, running in the red to the tune potentially of $140 billion, that is almost half a billion dollars more out the door in spending a day than we are bringing in, and you were going to ask us in participating in raising the debt limit, we had a request for you, a very simple, very straightforward request: Show us your plan. Show us your plan to get us out of this debt. Show us your plan to get us back to the black. Reverse this run of red ink, this shame you have brought upon the fiscal policy of this country. We deserve that, and the American people deserve that, a discussion about what was required by way of raising the debt limit, a discussion about a plan and a process to get us back to black, as simple as one, two, three: The majority passes their budget, we go into the red, debt limit increase required. But show us a plan to get out. It is important, it is very important, that we work together to get back to the black as soon as possible. There is nothing Republican, there is nothing Democrat, about the demographics facing this country. Those demographics have a very harsh fact that we ought to think about every single day. Seventy-eight million Americans in the year 2010 will be within 10 years of turning 65. Within that next decade they will be on Medicare. Within that next decade they will be on Social Security. Should I be alive, I will be one of them, because we are the great baby-boom bulge, about to place a strain on entitlement spending like never before. Obviously we know this is coming. We can see it in the age trends. We have got to prepare. There is no great mystery of fiscal policy to prepare for the hit we are about to take. We have got to pay down the debt. We have got to make sure the Social Security dollars coming in are held for the benefit of Social Security. We have got to prepare. Instead, we are doing the worst thing we can do. If paying down the debt and making our country fiscally stronger is the best thing, we are doing the worst thing. We are taking Social Security revenue and we are spending it on other programs; we are taking dollars coming in from payroll taxes from the guys working hard every day, counting on that Social Security, and we are spending it on other programs. Rather than strengthening our fiscal position, we are back into borrowing and adding debt onto our country. We have to stop this practice. Chickens have a way of coming home to roost, and unchecked debt means reduction in Social Security benefits.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I will be voting for H.R. 4737, the majority's plan for reauthorizing the welfare program, but doing so with some reluctance. We have made significant progress in reducing the welfare rolls since Congress authorized Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, in 1996, and we must build on those successes as we reauthorize this program. However, we must not ignore the important lessons learned since 1996. H.R. 4737 is founded on the appropriate philosophy of time-limited assistance and mandated annually increasing levels of work participation by welfare recipients. I strongly support this approach to providing assistance--we don't just offer handouts, we promote self- sufficiency through work, and we offer assistance for a defined amount of time. I believe this combination of progressing milestones, assistance with an end in sight, and work requirements is a good formula for success in reducing poverty. The North Dakota Department of Human Services shares this sentiment, stating their support for ``keeping work the primary focus of TANF reauthorization.'' However, Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues in Congress and my constituents to know that I believe the majority plan falls short in a couple of key areas and that I plan to work to correct these shortcomings as the legislation moves forward. Specifically, I want to see improvements in the areas of job training and child care. We must be realistic in setting goals for reducing poverty, and this can best be done by providing beneficiaries better access to skills and resources that will help them permanently escape poverty. I support providing substantially greater resources for child care to help states and welfare recipients meet the work requirements in this legislation. It just makes sense that if we are going to expect more hours at work from beneficiaries, then we should also expect to make available the necessary child care resources to allow beneficiaries to meet those higher standards. Likewise, if we expect welfare recipients to move off assistance and become self-sufficient, then we should equip them with the training and skills they need by encouraging job training and vocational education. H.R. 4737 does not go far enough to this end. Providing states with greater discretion and flexibility to determine the best mix of activities needed to move recipients toward self- sufficiency should also be a key component of this plan, and I think it is inadequate in that regard. Flexibility to the States is very important because one size does not fit all in welfare reform and what works well in California may not work at all in North Dakota. Welfare policy must recognize these differences by providing discretion and flexibility to the state agencies that will ultimately implement this policy. We have to correct these deficiencies, and I am confident we can do that by working with the Senate before this bill becomes law. Mr. Speaker, common sense dictates that by removing hurdles to job training and education, by providing better access to child care, and by providing flexibility to those who will implement this policy, we greatly enhance the potential for welfare recipients to achieve self- sufficiency. I will vote in favor of H.R. 4737, but I urge my colleagues to join me in making these important improvements as the legislation moves to the Senate.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, May is Older Americans Month, and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize our parents, grandparents, and all others who have gone before us, protecting and nurturing us through good times and bad, and providing opportunities for younger generations to grow and live responsible, comfortable lives. Our responsibility, in return, is to ensure that our parents and all older Americans live the rest of their lives free from overly burdensome financial concerns related to their health. Yet today, one of the greatest worries of older Americans is how to pay for prescription drugs since Medicare does not provide for this most basic need. On average, one in three Medicare beneficiaries have no drug coverage for the duration of any given year; nearly half have no coverage for some portion of the year. Of those who have coverage, most have it from their employer. Seventeen percent are covered by Medicare HMOs. But in North Dakota, very few of our seniors have employer- provided prescription drug coverage and none of the Medicare beneficiaries in North Dakota have access to a Medicare+Choice plan offering drug coverage. In my state that has the highest per capita population of seniors, M+C plans offering drug coverage are not an option! The need for a comprehensive prescription drug benefit is clear. Older Americans make up 13 percent of the population but account for 34 percent of all prescriptions dispensed and 42 cents of every dollar spent on prescription drugs. Seniors in my state, Mr. Speaker, are regularly forced into the absurd choice of paying for their prescription drugs or covering their food and rent for the month. This is no choice at all and we should be ashamed for allowing it to come to that. This month, the Alliance for Retired Americans and other groups will provide buses for seniors from states that border our northern neighbor, including North Dakota, to travel to Canada to fill their prescriptions. It is an embarrassment to our health care system that older Americans must leave the United States in order to purchase affordable prescription drugs. We must correct this by including meaningful prescription drug coverage as a standard option to all Medicare beneficiaries. Many states have become frustrated by the lack of action here in the nation's capital. They are trying to take steps on behalf of their own citizens to curb prices. But, they are facing challenges in the courts and in the press. States are trying their best to make drugs affordable to seniors, but this is a national crisis. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that prescription drug prices will incur double-digit inflation each year over the next decade. This crisis is only getting worse and we must act now to protect our seniors today, and in the future. Congress has the authority to make an affordable and comprehensive prescription drug benefit available to all Medicare beneficiaries. We have the authority, now we must show we have the will. Let's not kid ourselves: a meaningful prescription drug benefit is going to be very expensive--the $350 billion some are talking about probably isn't even in the ballpark. We must make some hard--and responsible--budgetary decisions to fund such a plan, but our seniors deserve nothing less. Mr. Speaker, let us honor older Americans by enacting a comprehensive, affordable, and voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying bill. In reference to the remarks of the preceding speaker, let me just tell you that our Nation's farmers deserve more, much more, than to be pawns in some kind of ideological or partisan clash. That is why I so commend the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture in bringing the bill before us today and the strong work they have done to craft a bill, get it passed and get it through the conference committee. The bill restores a safety net for our Nation's farmers and sends a signal to them as they head into the fields this spring that we stand committed to family farmers as the primary element of the production of our Nation's food supply. The bill restores a safety net for our Nation's farmers when prices collapse. No critical aspect of Freedom to Farm so failed our farmers as the failure to have a safety net price response. The bill makes that right. The bill also increases conservation funding significantly, adds funding behind Market Value Development grants, and funds a Rural Strategic Investment program to help the financial health of our struggling rural communities, all of these very positive additions over present farm law. It is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill. I have to note some disappointments. The disaster assistance so badly needed by the farmers in my State, losses that were not compensated through the crop insurance program, were deleted from the bill. We have to make another run at finding another source to get that disaster funding put in place. Payment limitations should have been made more strict; they were not made more strict. But I would respond to my colleagues that want to derail this bill today with their motion to recommit by saying at this point, I have got to part company with you. I support payment limits, but today is not the day to vote on that. We voted on it several times. Today is the day we put a farm program in place for our family farmers. I believe if the program is derailed today, sent back to conference committee yet again, we will never get this in place for the upcoming crop year; and at this late point in time, that is the overarching priority, and that is why we ought to pass this legislation. The bill is not the medicine that cures all that ails our farmers, but it is a good step forward; and I urge its passage.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Hooley motion to instruct farm bill conferees to retain language passed in the Senate farm bill that requires country of origin labeling information on meat, fish, fruits, and vegetables. Country of origin labeling is necessary to give U.S. consumers important information and give U.S. producers credit for the considerable investment they have made in the quality and safety of their products. Consumers support country of origin labeling so that they are able to make informed decisions and choose products based on their origin. Our food system has become more global and consumers are demanding new information on the products they buy. Studies show that over 80 percent consumers support country of origin labeling of their food products. Consumers can pick up any article of clothing, read the label, and know where it was manufactured. However, the head of lettuce or steak they purchase in their grocery store lacks basic information on where it was produced. Producers support country of origin labeling because it allows them to differeniate their product. American producers have placed a high priority on developing high-quality, safe food. They can benefit from this investment only if consumers are able to differentiate between products of U.S. origin and products from overseas. I do want to commend the conferees to the farm bill. They are working diligently to arrive at a compromise that we can all support in order to finish this farm bill quickly. However, we should still send the message to the Farm Bill conferees about consumers' right to know the origin of the food they buy and producers' right to distinguish their product. I urge my colleagues to support country of origin labeling and this motion to instruct. We must protect the considerable investment that we have made in our high-quality, safe meat supply.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. We look back to that brief period of time when Republicans and Democrats alike came to this floor to pledge that they would protect Social Security revenues and pledge to protect that lockbox, and actually compete with one another in terms of who could best protect those Social Security dollars. How differently things are right now. The majority never came to this floor and said, all bets are off. We are going to grab the Social Security cash to fund the government because we are going to cut the rest of the revenues of this country, but that is exactly what is at stake. They are shortchanging the Social Security revenues that we will need to fund the Social Security program by passing this measure. In doing that, they are leaving a much bigger burden for our children. None of the families I represent are preparing for their retirement costs by just doing no planning at all, spending freely, and relying entirely on the children, their children, to carry the day. Why should we then, as a country, steer our national budget in a way that blows the revenues now and relies upon our children to make up the difference? There will never be a retirement switch demographically quite like the baby-boomers moving into retirement. The first will turn 65 in the year 2011. What in the world can we be thinking about to propose devastating the Federal budget at the very time the boomers are fully drawing Social Security, fully drawing Medicare? The only thing that can explain this is this is the baby-boomers' last great self-indulgent act: Blow the revenue now, leave the kids to pick up the slack. That is not how our families function and that is not, as a nation, how we should function.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, I would just observe that while this body considers many very complex issues, the issue before us is an easy one. It is an extraordinarily important issue but an easy one. Bipartisan, no- brainer. We want to continue existing tax treatment of the housing allowance allowed the clergy of this country, and in that regard, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the legislation that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) has so capably brought before us. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by making it very clear that I strongly support this legislation, the Clergy Housing Allowance Clarification Act. I want to commend my friend and colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), for his leadership in identifying this very troubling issue and for bringing it into legislative response, and for securing the cooperation of the majority leadership so we could consider this quickly as a stand-alone issue, and send the kind of response that I know both parties in Congress will want to send. It really has been a wonderful piece of work by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), and I am really very pleased to have been a part of it. From the earliest days of the Federal income tax, in the 1920s, the Tax Code has allowed the clergy of all religious faiths to exclude their housing allowance from taxable income. This provision has always been recognized not as an endorsement of any one religion, but as a reasonable accommodation of all religions. The housing exclusion benefits clergy of all faiths, recognizing that a clergy person's home is not just shelter, but an essential meeting place for members of the congregation, and also, in light of the unique relationship between a pastor or a clergy member and the congregation, the distinct housing component of it is a unique feature of that relationship. Under a longstanding IRS revenue ruling, the housing exclusion is limited to the fair market rental value of the home. As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) outlined, in a recent court case a taxpayer successfully challenged the IRS' authority to set such a limit. This is a case of bad facts making bad law. When the IRS appealed that decision, the Ninth Circuit decided not to limit its review to the narrow question of whether the IRS exceeded its authority, but instead chose to consider whether the exclusion violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and State, an issue raised by neither party nor presented in the litigation before the court. If the housing exclusion is struck down, as we can only assume the Ninth Circuit appears to be poised to do, the effect would be to increase taxes on clergy by $2.3 billion over the next 5 years. Churches, which already operate on the thinnest of margins, would be unable to offset this tax increase, and as a result, many could actually lose the services of their clergy. Rural churches are especially vulnerable. Although many of us believe in the constitutionality of this provision, we cannot tell the court how to rule. But by passing this legislation, we can resolve the underlying issue in the case, and thereby protect the housing exclusion. H.R. 4156 codifies the prior revenue ruling by expressly limiting the housing exclusion to the fair market rental value of the home. The leaders of our churches face many challenges in ministering to their congregations. They must cultivate faith in a world that too often seems not to have the time or inclination to accommodate spiritual development. They must help us grow healthy families, avoiding the harms of alcohol, drug abuse, domestic violence, and other perils that can tear apart our families and communities. They must help us serve those who lack adequate food, shelter, and other basic necessities. At a time when their role in all of this I think is appreciated more than ever, to have them have to divert precious program dollars to pay a new tax bill is just completely unacceptable. I had a very interesting roundtable meeting in North Dakota yesterday with a number of clergy terribly concerned about the underlying threat to the housing allowance. North Dakota has more churches per capita than any other State in the country, more than 2,000 churches, 78 percent of which are located in communities of under 2,500 people. These are congregations just struggling to get by. We have already lost 400 churches over the last several years, and projections are we could lose another fifty in this decade. I had one of the roundtable participants talk about how, when their daughter was born, the trustee who happened to be the city accountant said they should go down and apply for food stamps, because they were now eligible, but that was all that could be paid. One other minister talked about when the pledges did not come in on schedule, they were simply not given their full dimension of meager salary. And to think about laying upon these congregations and these faithful servants of those congregations, the pastors, this new tax bill is really completely unacceptable. One of the pastors participating gave me the tax return that he was about to put in the mail yesterday. It reflects the combined income of him and his wife, both pastors serving a church in Fargo, North Dakota. Although making a very modest income, the tax hit, if they lost the housing exclusion, would be an additional $3,958. When he explained that to the chairman of the board of trustees as he came out of the church to go to the meeting, the response by the chairman was, well, there goes the playground equipment. In other words, this was a congregation prepared to hold harmless the tax burden to the clergy, but they would literally be forced to divert dollars from constructing a Sunday school playground to send it to the IRS. This is not a result anybody wants. Therefore, I believe that this legislation is so completely important. I again commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).