Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to a preceding speaker who said the Democrat substitute has not been vetted. It is based essentially on a proposal known as First Credit which I introduced last Congress and I introduced this Congress. We do not run the Committee on Ways and Means, but there have certainly been proposals out there to gear savings incentives to modest- and middle-income households to accelerate the rate of savings, and any fair-minded look at the savings issue in this country would identify that the lower-income, modest- income, middle-income levels are having the harder time saving. Let me just say about the underlying legislation, the problem is not so much what is in it; the problem is what is left out. That is why the Democrat substitute is additive, not detractive. It does not change the underlying bill; it adds to it in a very important way, savings incentives for families who need it. We have learned that the underlying bill addresses workplace savings. That is great, except half of the people in the workforce today have no workplace savings, half have no workplace savings. As we get down to lower levels of earnings, the percentage goes up. In fact, 70 percent of workers earning under $15,000 have no workplace savings in the workplace, 70 percent. Portman-Cardin will not relate to that group. We know that the other second major component of the legislation is the IRA, taking the IRA from $2,000 to $5,000. Treasury data tells us that 93 percent of those eligible to use the tax deductible IRA, those earning $50,000 and below, do not use it as of 1995. Mr. Speaker, 93 percent. It is used by only 7 percent. So if a family cannot afford to save $2,000 a year, our response saying, well, great, now you can save $5,000 a year is completely ridiculous. It misses the point. They need additional help. That is what our substitute offers, a tax credit on savings. For those income eligible, we would match 50 percent of the contribution. I consider this like an ``Uncle Sam'' match, much like an employer match on savings incentives. You save $2,000, the IRA tax credit of $1,000, matching your savings effort. I believe that this will accelerate savings for those most needing to save. This chart shows that savings rates is related to income. Twenty- three percent earning between $15,000 and $25,000 are projected to be saving enough for retirement, whereas well over 60 percent earning over $100,000 are saving at the savings rate. We know that this tax credit incentive on savings will work because it is modeled after the savings incentive most effective in the marketplace, the 401(k) match. When employers provide savings opportunities with no match, 65 percent save. When there is a 50 percent match like this bill would provide, there is a 78 percent response in saving. As Members of Congress, we have access to the Thrift Savings Plan and the Federal Government matches our savings contribution 100 percent on the dollar. Do we not think it is only fair that we extend a match opportunity to American workers who have no savings at the workplace and no opportunity to save in light of sparse discretionary dollars. This is a tax cut, but it is tax relief to those who need it most, those earning up to $80,000 a year, struggling to save for retirement. It is time we take this step. Last Congress we passed the Roth IRA, we increased the limits on the spousal IRA. We did a lot of things for a lot of people, but we did not do anything new by way of savings incentives for those earning $50,000 and below. Mr. Speaker, it is time we take this step, and that is what the substitute is all about.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. What can we not do? What priorities have been crowded out if we pass the revenue plans secured to the wealthiest in this country of the majority? Well, let us start with one that was considered last week in the Committee on Ways and Means and was deemed to be too expensive by the chairman of the committee, the very chairman that has supported virtually every one of these tax cuts, including the unlimited estate tax relief that we have been talking about. The proposal that he believes we cannot afford is one that would help middle income families save for retirement. Mr. Speaker, we have one-third of the people in this country with no retirement savings whatsoever. And of the IRA-eligible, where the $50,000 and below household can contribute to that and deduct that contribution, only 4 percent of all eligible households are using that IRA. We need to go back to the drawing board and recognize that we have to have a more meaningful tax incentive to help people with their savings challenge. There is no better savings incentive than a match on a contribution. As Federal employees, one puts money in the Thrift Savings Plan, and then the employer, the Federal Government matches that contribution. We could pass a tax cut that matched by a tax credit to the tune of 50 percent that contribution to savings. That proposal was considered. It was voted down, virtually on party lines. It will be considered on the floor of the House this week.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is a very important point. We got help for them next year up to $4 million. We took the lead just 3 years ago, as was mentioned by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), to move it up to $2.6 million on a unified credit. We now propose taking it to $4 million, and next year a lot more relief than we see under the majority bill. Mr. Speaker, we see the majority bill really is not about helping farmers or small businesses. It is geared to the wealthiest families in this country, and that is why the long, slow phase-in so that they can get the super-rich involved in the package.

Mr. POMEROY. Let us talk about the estate tax provision because I do think it is one where clearly the multi-multimillionaires are the largest beneficiaries. I noted with interest the debate. I represent a farmer's State. I arguably represent more production acres than any other Member of the House of Representatives, and when they are talking about the farmer's need for this estate tax relief and the small business owner's need for this estate tax relief, I paid close attention because those are the folks I speak for. Well, we came up with a proposal that would have allowed $4 million on a unified credit in estate tax relief, and I was wondering, is this sufficient? I got a USDA figure. Ninety-nine percent of the farms in this country have a net worth of $3 million and below. We took it up to $4 million. So this business about this being a farmer-driven issue, this being a small business driven issue, that is fiction, that is bait and switch. They will hold out the farmer, they will hold out the small business owner. Believe me, repeal of the estate tax is not about them at all. It is about the wealthiest few in this country, and if we direct our tax relief there, look, if we had unlimited resources, I would say fine, fine; but if we give it there, then we darn sure make sure that middle income families do not get the relief that they need. The people at the very top earning levels of our country do not have the month-to-month pinch in their cash flow that creates nearly the compelling need for the tax cuts that our working families as they struggle to pay for their college tuition for their children, as they struggle to get access to health care, as they struggle to put some money aside for retirement. Those are real needs for real Americans, and if we give it to the wealthiest few we do not have it for them.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's question really cuts to the heart of it because, after all, we are for tax cuts in the context of a plan that gets the debt eliminated, deals responsibly with the other needs and priorities we have, but as we approach that tax cut we want it to be one that reflects the broad cross-section of this country, not just to go to the most affluent, perhaps the financial base of the majority party but not the rank and file of all of our districts. The fact of the matter is is most people in this country do not make $100,000 a year. In fact, on average, the bottom 60 percent income levels earn less than $39,000. I think that this chart here, prepared by the Citizens for Tax Justice, lays it out pretty clearly. Here is the stake of the plans passed so far and in the pipeline by the majority of the bottom 60 percent. The bottom 60 get 8.9 percent. Now, the next 35 percent, those from $39,000 to $130,000, get a third of the package, leaving almost two-thirds for the top five percent. Why should two-thirds of the taxes go to the top 5 percent of the people in this country? Tax cuts ought to go to those who most need them, and obviously the top 5 percent income levels in this country are not those that have the toughest time with the family pocketbook issues, affordable health care, saving for retirement, getting the children to college. So why would we want to pass almost two-thirds of the tax cuts and send it to them? I think there are folks that need it more and they ought to have the high priority. A Committee on Ways and Means analysis of the tax cuts passed so far by the Committee on Ways and Means shows that about half, the lowest half in terms of wage earners, would get on average about 100 bucks a year; whereas, the top 20 percent would get 76 percent of the benefit or more than $2,000 a year if one figures on equal dimension. The top 10 percent gets 60 percent. The top 5 percent nearly half, as reflected, and the top 1 percent 27 percent. Now, those are different slightly, depending upon which tax bills were figured into the measurement, but one thing is precisely consistent, regardless of the tax measure the majority has advanced. It is skewed to the most affluent in this country. Now, believe me, the most affluent in this country play critical roles in making our economy run, building our businesses. We honor their participation in our economy but that does not mean they have the hardest time with the fundamentals of making a go of it as a family, and, therefore, should not be first in line to soak up most of the tax relief we pass. Let us get the tax relief to our middle income families who are having the toughest go of it, and I think those are the distribution issues that are so troubling about the construction of this tax plan. It is a huge tax cut plan that forgets about eliminating the debt and other priorities we have as a country, and then they do not even distribute it fairly. Far from the middle class getting the benefit, this thing is skewed to the wealthiest people in the land and they are not the ones most in need of this kind of tax relief.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, one thing that surprises me about all of this is the American people have evaluated the proposition of a gargantuan tax cut going primarily to the wealthiest families and crowding out other priorities. They rejected it. One year ago, just before heading off on that August recess, we voted on this $700 billion-plus tax cut advanced by the majority. We were told they were going to go home and sell this to the American people. And when the President vetoed it, the first thing we would do in September is override that veto, and those who had voted against that tax cut would be bludgeoned into supporting it by their outraged constituents because it was going to be so popular. Guess what? The American people took a look at it. They said that is irresponsible. It is not fair. It is not the time, and it does not reflect our priorities as a country. Forget about it. And that bill, the only one I can remember every vetoed was not brought back for even an override. In the 4 terms I served in Congress, I cannot remember an instance where they did not at least even try, but this thing did not work. Mr. Speaker, 1 year later, what is the majority doing? It is pretty crass really, taking it in bites, the whole package was rejected. So we will pass it chapter at a time as a stand-alone bill. How dumb do they think the American people are? I will tell my colleagues something. I do not think they are dumb at all. I think they are the same responsible folks that rejected that gargantuan, irresponsible proposal of a year ago, and they will this time when they see it in its full context. Many of us might have had the situation of resisting the temptation of a large piece of cake then nibbling our way through the pan as the afternoon goes on. The effect is the same.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this discussion and commend both my colleagues for basically stepping back and looking in a broader context at what has been taking place here on the floor week in and week out. It really is a time to see if we cannot really see the forest for the trees, because I think that we are right in the middle of accumulating a record that is horribly irresponsible at a time of such wonderful opportunity for the American people. We have through dint of fiscal discipline in Congress, and the wonderful innovation and hard work and productivity of the American people, worked ourselves out of deficits that were threatening the future of this country. We now stand with surpluses running and projected in dollar amounts never seen before. We have the opportunity at this point in our Nation's history to eliminate debt held by the public. I guess if there is one thing that any family would want to pass to its children is better opportunities than they found them. I know that was certainly my parents' burning commitment to us as children. By golly, I feel the same thing about my little ones. How about collectively we do that for the next generation to follow and leave this country with no debt held by the public? As we move into retirement, all of these baby boomers, we do not entirely know what is going to happen, but we do know if the country does not have any debt we are in a darn sight better position to deal with whatever may come than we can carry on those trillions.

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

Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, for my final participation tonight in the special order, and I still commend the gentleman for hosting it, as we look at this in context we can only conclude that the totality of what they are doing is not responsible, does not pay down the debt as its first priority, and depends upon 10- year projections. Who knows whether we are going to hit those projections or not? It is not fair and is hopelessly skewed to the wealthiest families, leaving the rest getting pennies while the wealthiest few come out like bandits under this proposal. Finally, it crowds out doing what we ought to do for middle American families.

Mr. POMEROY. All the way up to $80,000 on the Committee on Ways and Means bill.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the sorry circumstance that this issue presents. They said we could not afford it. We could not afford to take a family making $30,000 trying to save for retirement, we could not give them a tax cut. So that if they get $2,000 into an IRA, we give them a tax credit of $1,000, representing essentially a 50 percent match on their contribution. There is no better savings incentive than an employer match through this tax cut to middle income families. We could essentially give them an Uncle Sam match, helping them save for retirement. They said we could not afford it. I cannot think of anything more important than helping middle income families save for retirement. That is what ought to be the priority. We need to help people save for their later years before we get around to aiding Bill Gates with his estate dilemma.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I am grateful to many as I get up to speak on this legislation, including the majority leadership for allowing this bill to come up on the suspension calendar. I am particularly grateful to the legislators who played such critical roles in getting this to the point where we can now enact it. It is critical legislation. Although this was not slated for House floor action intentionally to coincide with the birthday of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), it could not have been more appropriately timed because he has put in such an extraordinary effort to bring it to this point. Let me put a personal face on this issue. This is my daughter Kathryn. On February 3, 1994, the very day that Mother Teresa addressed the National Prayer Breakfast about the importance of adoption, Kathryn arrived on a Northwest jet out at National Airport. My wife and I went out and picked her up. She has certainly deeply changed our lives. It is a miracle, an absolute miracle. Two years later we adopted a son, a similar blessed event. We love him just as much; I just do not happen to have a poster of Scotty. I hope he understands. This miracle has many composite points. As you look through them, really it is not a miracle; but it is a culmination of events, extraordinarily important events. The miracle behind Kathryn being my daughter today begins with South Korea having a priority on the best interests of its children, a priority that even usurps national pride to the dimension where they cannot place when they do not have capacity to place, they cannot find the homes for the children who need adoption, they have sought families wherever they may be located, including in our case, halfway around the world from where Kathryn was born. It takes a special country with special values to hold the interests of its children to the forefront in this way, and I commend South Korea and all countries that facilitate the interests of their children in this fashion. Next, it takes quality programs where the quality assurance of the homes for placement is absolutely assured, because it is not just about sticking kids in some homes; it is about quality families for these beautiful children. I want to commend the agency we worked with, Asia, the individuals at that agency, Ted Kim, Mary Durr and Marilyn Regere, who were so involved in our own adoption circumstances. They represented the very finest in terms of quality assurance in an adoption program. We need and will by this legislation make certain that there are the highest standards of quality. It is very important because the United States in 1998 alone received 16,000 children from around the world for placement with United States families. Now, this is a level of intercountry adoption activity that will raise concern in some of these countries where the children are coming from. They want to make certain these children are going to be provided for in the ways that they have a right to expect, safe environments, loving homes, capacity to provide. We need to make certain as the country accepting these children into our families that we address this concern by having processes and procedures that are open, that assure the highest levels of quality and that comport in all respects with the international standards agreed to between the many countries of the Hague Convention. Just a few weeks ago, I met with a number of Russian judges who deal with family adoption. They had questions about why the Hague Convention had not yet been approved. I am very pleased we will be able to answer those questions with this action today. The United States is completely committed to providing the finest homes and families for these beautiful children and our action on this legislation makes that very clear. Beyond that, the bill facilitates the coordination of adoption laws across the country and I believe will help families who so desperately want to have the miracle of children that my own family has gotten to experience realize this goal through international adoption, if not otherwise. In conclusion, I would just say to each of you who have been involved in this legislation that you have helped children find families and families find children who need them. There is not a thing we do in this body more important than this task. I commend each of you for your great work.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleague Senator Grassley in introducing the Phased Retirement Liberalization (PRL) Act. This legislation would allow in-service distributions from defined benefit plans once a participant has reached the earliest of the plan's normal retirement age, age 59\1/2\, or 30 years of service. By providing for more flexible retirement options in defined benefit plans, this legislation will benefit employers and workers alike. Over the next 20 years, the aging of the baby boom generation and other demographic factors will transform the very nature of retirement. These factors, which include a shrinking labor supply, increased life expectancy, the desire of remain active, and a greater need for financial security, will combine to change the concept of retirement from an ``on-off'' switch to a wide spectrum of options, including phased retirement. As embodied in the PRL legislation, phased retirement would allow individuals to continue working for their current employer even after they begin drawing down their pension benefits. Many older Americans who want to continue working for their employer find that it makes more sense to switch jobs simply so that they can continue working and still receive their pension benefit. Other workers retire from their employer and start receiving pension benefits; only to be rehired later--either as a full-time or part-time employee or as an independent contractor. While these arrangements have allowed some workers to take advantage of phased retirement, permitting in-service distributions from defined benefit plans at age 59\1/2\ or 30 years of service will allow more employers to offer flexible retirement programs. Employers have expressed a keen interest in phased retirement as a method of retaining skilled older workers. In a survey of 586 larger employers conducted by Watson Wyatt in 1999, 60 percent of employers reported they were having difficulty attracting workers, and fully 70 percent agreed that implementing a phased retirement program is a viable strategy for addressing labor shortages. Sixteen percent of employers surveyed reported that they offer phased retirement, while another 28 percent said they are interested in establishing such programs in the next two to three years. Employers currently offering phased retirement report that it enables them to retain skilled older workers. Mr. Speaker, our nation's pension laws have not kept pace with the need for flexible approaches to retirement. Under current law, defined benefit plans are permitted to make in-service distributions to active employees only if they have reached the plan's ``normal retirement age.'' Under our legislation, however, the vast majority of defined benefit plans would have the flexibility to adopt a phased retirement arrangement. Congress recently recognized the changing nature of the workforce and of retirement by passing legislation to eliminate the Social Security earnings test for beneficiaries age 65 and older. It is time that Congress took a similar step in the private sector by examining phased retirement proposals.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will yield further, I hope that as we continue the appropriations process the conferees would consider even increasing additional funds for basic education. Increasing the amount would bring us closer to our historic levels of funding for basic education. In the 1980s, now more than 10 years ago, U.S. support for education reached as much as $180 million. Five years ago, funding for basic education for children was $142 million. We are still well short of that, even with this important increase the gentleman has advanced. I believe that funding will have to be increased further to meet the commitment that our country has made at the World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal, to get every child in school by the year 2015. Today with more than 113 million out of school, another 150 million dropping out before grade five, it shows that we have to step up this commitment to meet this important goal. Following the Dakar meeting of world leaders, it is particularly important that this Congress show that it is part of the program, part of this international commitment. I look forward to working with the gentleman to make sure this happens.

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the chairman for all he has done to support basic education programs for children and for his work to improve the lives of families in developing countries, a topic of concern we both share. My interest in international basic education stems from my conviction which I know the gentleman shares that education is the key to development. Providing basic education in developing nations advances hope for children, advances hope for families, advances hope for communities, and advances hope for the countries we are trying to help. It also produces clear results. A baby who is born to a mother with just 4 years of education is twice as likely to survive as a baby with an utterly uneducated mother. Every additional year of schooling beyond grade four that a child receives leads to a 10 to 20 percent increase in wages. At a national level, increases in literacy of 20 to 30 percent have led to increases in a country's gross domestic product of 8 to 16 percent. While we have made progress, there is a long way to go. There are 113 million children who will never go to school. Two-thirds of these are little girls. Another 150 million on top of 113 million who do not go at all will drop out before they get to the fifth grade. The vast majority of these dropouts are little girls. To address this problem, I believe we need to continue and expand our financial commitment to international basic education. Over the last several years, funding for basic education for children has been set at a cap of $98 million. Now, this year, thanks to the gentleman's leadership, the committee lifted the cap on the funding and increased funding by $5 million to $103 million from the child survival account. The gentleman recommended an additional $15 million be provided from the economic support fund. Mr. Chairman, I would like this debate to reflect the gentleman from Alabama's thoughts on the record about the commitment to children's education.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4811 and in strong support of the Rangel substitute. Unlike the underlying bill, the Rangel substitute alleviates the marriage penalty while preserving the necessary resources to enact other tax cuts for working families, to pay down the debt, and to protect Social Security and Medicare. About half of all married couples pay more in income taxes because they are married than they would if they were single. The other half pay either the same or less. The Rangel substitute provides $90 billion in targeted relief to couples who pay the marriage penalty. The Republican bill, by contrast, funnels more than half the $182 billion in tax benefits to couples who receive a marriage bonus and \2/3\ of the tax benefit to households earning more than $75,000 annually. With finite resources available, the Republican bill must be viewed in term of its opportunity costs. The more than $100 billion in this legislation that is unrelated to marriage penalty relief could be used to enact significant tax cuts for working families. Rather than increasing tax bonuses for higher income people, Congress should help families cope with their core pocketbook issues such as reducing the cost of college, increasing the affordability of health insurance, and encouraging savings for retirement. In my view, these areas, along with marriage penalty relief, should be the tax cut priorities. The current budget projections will accommodate significant tax cuts along with an aggressive plan to pay down the debt and to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Paying down the debt and in turn reducing interest rates is perhaps the most significant tax cut Congress could offer. Lower interest rates would cut mortgage payments on a $100,000 house by $2,000 annually. Likewise, the cost of farm operating loans, car loans, and student loans would all be reduced. Finally, before allocating surplus for tax cuts, Congress should set aside sufficient resources to shore up the long-term future of Social Security and Medicare. The current surplus projections afford us a rare opportunity to strengthen these programs for the Baby Boom generation and beyond. We must also reserve adequate resources to enact a guaranteed drug benefit as part of the Medicare program so that seniors will not be forced to choose between their prescriptions and their food and shelter. In sum, there are a host of priorities that deserve our support, including marriage penalty relief. It is critical, however, that this relief be targeted so that we may enact other tax cuts for working families, pay down the debt, and protect Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat ironic that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) would stand up and say there is something wrong about supporting domestic production and that the cheapest foreign price is the thing that we should pay attention to. I have heard the same individual speak eloquently in an exactly opposite way when it comes to steel. When it comes to steel, he is all about protecting domestic capacity and resisting dumped steel subsidized by foreign governments. Mr. Chairman, I think he is right on steel, but he is dead wrong on sugar. He ought to be a little consistent. The same problem with exposing our domestic production to dumped subsidized exports apply in sugar just like they do in steel. Let us just talk for a moment about what is happening in the farm economy. We all know that our farmers are facing very serious distress. In North Dakota, the value of wheat has dropped 33 percent, 33 percent. Barley, 30 percent. Sugar prices are at a 20-year low. So it is a bit depressing to have to come and fight for the area where our farmers have at least some price protection, when everything else about family farming is so under stress. Some have suggested that this is about Big Sugar lobbyists and Big Sugar refineries. In the situation in North Dakota, it is about family farmers struggling to hang on. Here is the deal with sugar: it is one product where domestic consumption exceeds production. For the most part, we grow more than we possibly could eat, and we have to fight for exports and the competition has driven down prices. Sugar, we actually consume more than we produce. Now, much of the world wants access to this market and the governments are prepared to subsidize their exports to get it. And if it was allowed just to go without any restriction, without protection of the sugar program, we would not have a domestic sugar industry in this country. We would not have any significant domestic sugar capacity in this country. It would all be foreign sugar. Sugar is linked directly to the pricing of food. If we would be completely dependent on foreign sugar, our food prices, grocery store prices in this country would swing very dramatically depending on where the world price for sugar has been. So we have had a sugar program for many years now and have struck a bargain. Farmers have a price that gives them some reasonable return; consumers have food price stability and some of the lowest-priced sugar in the industrialized world. The result is stable food pricing. The consequence of this amendment would be great volatility in grocery store prices. We have seen what has happened with gasoline just over the last year, the howls we are hearing from consumers at the gas pump this year. Last year, there was an unbelievable bargain at the pump. Unfortunately, what we have come to realize is the greatest disservice to the consuming price is volatility. Very low prices one day; extraordinarily high prices the next day, destroying household budgets, never leaving anyone knowing where they are at. We want the price of groceries for American families to have price stability, and that is what the sugar program is all about. Now, let us not think for a moment that the only Federal resources expended in this country is to help support sugar. Just weeks ago, my colleagues joined me in passing about $7.5 billion in economic relief to farmers because prices have collapsed, and under Freedom to Farm there is no price support protecting our farmers in these times of price collapse. Compared to commodity support, the support offered for sugar, with the much-maligned sugar purchase discussed on the floor, is very modest and, in fact, very modest indeed. Let me give a couple of reasons why our domestic farmers growing sugar beets or sugar cane are under such threat. Number one, Canada is cheating. Canada is stuffing molasses supersaturated, full of sugar, and shipping it into our market for manufacturers who are pulling the sugar out of the molasses and getting around the ban on Canadian sugar imports in that fashion. In an absolutely ludicrous court ruling, the judge held that that was okay. It is under appeal, and I believe it is a flat violation of the Canadian trade commitments to us. We are about to see, thanks to NAFTA, something I voted against, a very significant increase in Mexican sugar as well. It is vital to our farmers we keep the sugar program in place.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 13204, which provides a broad exemption from federal anti-trust laws for health care professionals, is intended to restore parity between providers and third-party payers. I believe that this is a good intention, and I agree that in some markets, third-party payers have taken a hold so strong as to be able to dictate health care fees and standards. As a former state insurance commissioner, however, I know that the answer is not to completely tilt the scales in the opposite direction. No other organization or segment of our economy, except for Major League Baseball, enjoys such a broad, federal anti-trust exemption. Even the Business of Insurance is regulated under the McCarran Ferguson Act. Unfortunately, some proponents of this legislation have misinterpreted that McCarran Ferguson Act. They have stated that this act gives the insurance industry an exemption from anti-trust laws, and that H.R. 1304 simply levels the playing field for health care providers. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize something for my colleagues: the McCarran Ferguson Act creates a partial exemption for the business of insurance that is regulated by state law. Activities that do not relate to the business of insurance--such as a health plan's negotiations with health care providers--are still subject to federal antitrust laws. As a representative of rural America, I am also concerned about the effect this legislation will have on quality of care. H.R. 1304 would allow unrestrained, unregulated price fixing by all of the health care providers in a given market. Such price-fixing schemes would give physicians a monopoly within their market, permitting physicians to raise their own salaries, through higher reimbursement rates, at the expense of consumers, employers and taxpayers. Again, let me say that I know this is not the intent of the legislation or the plan of my respected colleagues and the professional organizations who support H.R. 1304. We probably do not need antitrust consumer protections for the leading, most ethical participants in the health care market. Unfortunately, in an industry as vast as health care, there will inevitably be those of other, less reputable intentions. For those well-intentioned physicians, legitimate antitrust mechanisms already exist under which physicians and other health care providers who have formed legitimate legal entities can collaborate and negotiate with health plans. Physicians do not need exemptions from the antitrust laws to collectively discuss quality of care issues among themselves or with these plans. Mr. Chairman, I would be inclined to support a more moderate measure. I understand that my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment that would allow H.R. 1304 to sunset in three years. In my opinion, however, three years is enough time to increase both private and public health care costs and decrease quality of care. In fact, the CBO has estimated that a three-year exemption will raise insurance premiums by 1.5% by 2003 and cost the government $1.7 billion over 5 years. Instead I suggest that if we really want to level the playing field, we regulate these medical providers in their bargaining groups, subjecting them to oversight as we have with other organizations, from trading companies to newspaper operations. Mr. Chairman, while well-intended, this is flawed policy. I urge my colleagues to think seriously about the effects this legislation may have on consumers, providers and payers alike. Please vote no.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this House is demonstrating that it cannot competently and fairly deal with difficult health policy questions. Reference yesterday, a long, contentious day debating one of the most important issues before this country: whether we can give our seniors prescription drug coverage. All of that debate and much of the venom generated within that debate concerned an unfair rule cooked up in the Committee on Rules at 2:30 in the morning the morning of the debate. I guess it was not the last bad rule we were going to see on important health policy coming out of the Committee on Rules this week. So here we are, late in an absolutely exhausting week, considering another vital health policy question under another unfair rule. Take, for example, the issue of allowing the Coburn amendment and striking the Greenwood amendment. I do not care whether within this body Members are pro-choice, whether they are pro-life, or anywhere in between. The fact of the matter is to allow one side their amendment and not allow the other side their amendment is unfair and speaks to what a skewed, unfortunate rule this is that brings this bill to the floor. That is not the end of the problems within this bill. Allowing physician collusion on fee structures has obvious consequences for Medicare that pays the bills, for Medicaid. But Members do not see any offsets. We do not see any pay-fors in this legislation. There would surely be a budget point of order that could be raised against this bill, but guess what, they shred the budget rules and waive all points of order. Do not even think about trying to point out that we are spending money we have not offset in the Federal budget, it is waived under this rule. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary has ruled on this bill, but the Committee on Commerce has not ruled, the Committee on Ways and Means has not ruled. This is an unfair rule. It should be voted down.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I hope today's debate represents bipartisan consensus that we need to help our seniors with the high cost of prescription drugs. The choice, however, presented on the House floor falls far short of meeting that need, because we will only be allowed to vote on the proposition that we should take Federal dollars, send it to insurance companies and hope that they provide benefits to seniors. Mr. Speaker, I used to be an insurance commissioner. I regulated insurance companies. The dollars that the majority would propose for insurance companies will go to sales commission, it will go to insurance company executive salaries, it will go to fancy office buildings. It will not go to the hard coverage that our seniors need for the high cost of prescription drugs. It is not the way to go. The way to go is the alternative that we will not be allowed to vote on, Medicare coverage for prescription drugs. It is time to update the coverage of the Medicare program and offer the protection our seniors need. North Dakota's seniors want Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, not an insurance company sham.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the increase in funding included in this measure for many veteran's programs. One of my most important duties as a Member of Congress, and one of which I am most proud, is to honor the men and women who have served our Nation in uniform. I remain committed to the interests of our Nation's veterans and their families. I believe that Congress bears a special responsibility to protect those programs which serve our veterans' health and welfare. Our veterans have given so much to our Nation; we can only hope to give them as much in return. I am pleased, therefore, that this measure includes an increase for veterans' medical care, service-connected compensation benefits and pensions, and readjustment benefits. While there are some shortcomings in the allocations for other veterans' programs, I am confident that my colleagues will address these provisions in conference committee. As the appropriations process moves forward, I will continue to fight for healthy funding levels for all veterans programs. Unfortunately, while the bill provides important increases in funding for veterans' programs, it falls far short in meeting one of our most basic needs--housing. The bill before us today is $2.5 billion less than the Administration's request for housing and other community development programs. This is unacceptable. I would like to take a moment to focus on funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). As many of my colleagues can recall, CDBG funds were used to assist the city of Grand Forks in rebuilding after the devastating flood in 1997. The funds provided the city with needed flexibility to address both urgent and long-term needs. The successful recovery of Grand Forks was due in large part to the assistance from HUD. Under this bill, however, funding for CDBG is cut by $295 million from last year's funding level. Additionally, the bill does not provide any funding for Round II Empowerment Zones. In my State of North Dakota, the Griggs/Steele Empowerment Zone was designated as such in 1999. At that time, a commitment was made by the Federal Government to assist this area and others in creating jobs and economic opportunity. That commitment, however, goes unfulfilled in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, at a time of unprecedented economic prosperity, we should not be turning our backs on those who need help the most, the poor and homeless, our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. While I stand in strong support of our Nation's veterans, as a result of these cuts in the housing program, I will be voting against this bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4201, the Non- Commercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act. This legislation eliminates the educational requirement from non-commercial public radio and television stations that receive free spectrum. This program was created by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) nearly fifty years ago to serve the needs of our communities and provide educational programming to all of our families. I simply cannot watch this scarce and valuable resource be endangered by this bill. Pressure for spectrum is more intense than ever. I believe it is important to maintain the longstanding commitment to programs of broad public educational content. As it stands, religious broadcasters are currently eligible for a license for non-commercial educational (NCE) broadcast television channels if they can demonstrate that their programming will be ``primarily educational'' in nature. H.R. 4201 eliminates the requirement that programming have an educational content. This bill would set the stage for unwelcome government interference into religion. It would place the FCC in the untenable position of picking between competing claims of various denominations and religions--a dangerous precedent in which the government would be expressing a preference of one religion over another. With this legislation, the FCC would be forced into a position in which it must choose between two opposing religious groups that are competing for the same license. This is in clear violation of the First Amendment. Moreover, the elimination of the educational requirement opens the door to allow any fringe group in America to qualify for a free broadcast license. Some have said that the Non-Commercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act was spurred on by a misguided ruling on the part of the FCC this past December. The FCC approved Cornerstone TeleVision Inc.'s application for an NCE license with ``additional guidance'' intended to clarify the current standards and stating that at least one-half of Cornerstone's broadcasting needed to meet an educational purpose. The FCC also offered guidance as to what constituted educational programming. After a great deal of criticism from across the political spectrum for the undue meddling of the FCC, the agency rescinded the ``additional guidance'' section of the license approval offer. The problem had been solved. Yet, this legislation, which aims to prevent undue government interference in the future, creates a new problem as the FCC determines which religious organizations warrant a license and which do not. Mr. Speaker, the whole proposition raises many troubling questions which leaves me convinced we are better off under present law. I fully support religious organizations being eligible to apply for and receive non-commercial broadcast licenses as prescribed under current statute. Many of these organizations are already broadcasting educational programming successfully and adding to our greater understanding of faith and religion. The goal here is to preserve the integrity of a program that brought our children high quality shows such as Sesame Street and Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. At its very core, public broadcasting was meant to have an educational purpose. To eliminate that provision is to place this entire program at risk.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter amendment to increase funding for arts and humanities programs. The National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) provides important funding for developing art education opportunities allowing each of and everyone one of us to explore our creative talents. In my state of North Dakota this funding has been used to support vital programs such as the North Dakota Council on the Arts' ``Traditional Arts Apprenticeship Program'' and the Plains Art Museum's educational outreach program. These programs are only a few examples of the important role that the arts can play in allowing each of us, whether young or old, to express, develop and explore all our creative dimensions. I strongly believe in the importance of the arts to all Americans, especially our young children, and I support funding for the program. Some would suggest supporting funding for the NEA as proposed in the Slaughter amendment is an attack on coal. Only a small bit of light on this argument reveals that it is utterly baseless. I am a strong supporter of the Clean Coal Technology program which provides important funding for the development of new and innovative technologies to reduce environmental impacts from the burning of coal. However, not one dollar in funding for the Clean Coal Technology Program will be reduced under this amendment. Further the amendment will in no way hinder the operations of the program.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in opposition to H.R. 4578, the fiscal year (FY) 2001 Interior Appropriations bill. I believe this legislation falls short in protecting our natural resources and meeting the health care and education needs in Indian Country. This legislation, which funds $14.6 billion for our nation's natural resources, national parks, and programs for Native Americans, is 10 percent less than President Clinton's FY 2001 Budget request. Specifically, this legislation provides $340 million less than the Administration's request for our National Park Service system. With our national parks already facing serious budget cuts and much needed infrastructure repairs, I believe it is wrong for us to shortcut this important component of our nation's aesthetic beauty. I also believe that improving the living conditions of Native Americans must be one of our top priorities. Unfortunately, the bill before us contains a significant shortfall in funding to meet the critical health care and school construction needs in Indian Country. The bill today is $186 million below the President's request for the Indian Health Service and $180 million below the President's request for school construction. With populations of Native Americans growing, and a general movement back to the reservation, Tribal governments are feeling growing pressure to meet the basic needs of their people, and are trying to stretch too few resources too far. In order to meet the current health care needs of tribes an IHS budget of $8 billion is needed. Further, over the decades, the BIA school system have been the victim of neglect, and the price is now steep to make these schools safe and adequately equipped for today's students. Of the 185 BIA schools, most are in need of either major repairs or new construction at an estimated cost of over $2.4 billion. Unfortunately, the bill fails to address either of these critical needs in Indian Country and we simply cannot continue down this path any longer. Mr. Chairman, in these times of a booming economy, I believe we can do better by providing more funding for our nation's national resources and meeting the needs of Indian Country. I urge my colleagues to vote no ``on'' this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4577, the fiscal year 2001 Labor-Health and Human Services-Appropriations bill. I believe strongly this legislation shortchanges America's families by inadequately funding critical federal education and health programs. First, I would like to express concerns with the legislation's funding levels for federal education programs. At a time when we should be increasing funding for our schools to reduce class size and to enhance teacher training, this bill would cut $3.5 billion from the Administration's education budget. H.R. 4577 would repeal last year's bipartisan plan to hire 100,000 additional teachers for smaller classes. In North Dakota alone, this initiative has helped to hire 145 teachers and reduce class size for children like my daughter Kathryn. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4577 would also provide no funding for school modernization, meaning that hundreds of schools in North Dakota will have to forgo repair and modernization projects. In addition, at a time when we are facing a teacher shortage, this bill eliminates $1 billion in crucial funding for teacher recruitment and training. By enacting these cuts and failing to provide funding for crucial education programs, this legislation will shortchange our students and endanger America's future economic prosperity. In the area of health programs, I have serious concerns regarding the funding levels approved by the House Appropriations Committee for Medicare contractors. In the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request, the President requested $1.30 billion to support Medicare claims processing contractors, supported in part by Medicare user fees. While I do not support implementation of Medicare user fees, I am concerned that the committee approved only $1.17 billion for Medicare contractors. This amount is not only $136 million less than the President's request, but also $79 million less than the fiscal year 2000 allocation. As the committee notes in its report, ``Medicare contractors are responsible for paying Medicare providers promptly and accurately.'' I am concerned that this funding reduction contradicts the committee's intent; it is likely to slow down claims processing activities and the ability of contractors to provide services to both beneficiaries and providers. We have all heard our constituents' concerns about the Medicare claim process--claims that are accidentally denied, slow payments, reaching voice mail more often than human beings. We should not exacerbate these concerns by reducing funding levels for Medicare contractors. Mr. Chairman, I impress upon my colleagues the need to adequately fund the Medicare contractor program. I am not asking for Congress to approve Medicare user fees. In the future, however, when the House and Senate conference on this appropriations bill, I urge my colleagues to revisit this issue.