Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would echo the comments just made by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose). It is fun for a change to participate in a debate on a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support, improving the Social Security program that we have for our seniors. It is time we lift the earnings limit. We need to do this as part of a multifaceted approach at improving income in retirement years. This approach needs to include other activity by this Congress, activity where hopefully we would come together also in a bipartisan way to strengthen Social Security, making certain that it is going to be there for the long run, and coming together in a bipartisan way to help additional employers offer retirement savings opportunities for their workplace. Presently, only half the workers have retirement savings at work. We need to do better, and there are strategies introduced and supported by Members of both parties to get this done as well. Finally, we need to come together to add additional savings incentives, targeted specifically at middle-income and lower-income households, so that they might save for retirement. But back to today's bill. Today's bill really is for those that hit retirement years without enough savings already accrued. Those years, 65 to 70, represent an important last opportunity to get some additional income, even while the Social Security checks start coming, so that they might build that nest egg, to meet their needs, to keep them comfortable as they go on. Do you know that today someone reaching the age of 65 has an additional 15 years of life expectancy if they are a male, and 19 years if they are a female? Surely there are substantial needs for a retirement nest egg in light of that kind of life-span opportunity. In addition, we know that people reaching the age of 65 today are healthier, more engaged and want to work than ever before; and we ought to give them that opportunity. Additionally, we know that in light of our strong economy, the needs in the workforce are intense, and this potential source of labor can help employer after employer, right across the country. In my own State, the State of North Dakota, people over the age of 60 represent 18 percent of our population. Clearly we need their participation. That is important today, but it is only going to grow more important, because this over-60 segment will swell by 60 percent in North Dakota by the year 2025. Quite frankly, I do not know how we will keep our schools going. I do not know how we will keep some of the businesses going if we do not have workers in this age span, 65 to 70, participating if they want to in the workforce without the absolutely ruinous penalty presented by the tax on earnings today. For every reason I have mentioned, I urge a unanimous vote on this. What a pleasure it is to have this bipartisan achievement.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2366, the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999. I believe strongly that action must be taken to protect small businesses from the financial burdens imposed by frivolous lawsuits. In trying to address this issue, however, H.R. 2366 would supersede State tort law, including important statutes enacted in my own State of North Dakota. The preemptive provisions in H.R. 2366 would deny States the right to determine tort law free from Federal intrusion and thereby undermine the principle of federalism upon which our form of government rests. Mr. Chairman, there is little dispute that small businesses in this country deserve protection from frivolous lawsuits and the resulting increase in insurance costs. In North Dakota, small businesses are the cornerstone of our communities and have helped diversify and stimulate our rural economy. Although these businesses are critically important to the future of States like North Dakota, many have been unfairly disadvantaged by costly lawsuits. Unfortunately, small businesses are often compelled to settle these lawsuits even if they would have prevailed in court, simply in order to avoid the costs of litigation. I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that States should reexamine their tort laws to address this problem. I also believe, however, that H.R. 2366 does not represent the appropriate Federal response to the issue of frivolous lawsuits. Historically, determination of tort law as well as its reform have fallen within the jurisdiction of the States. Over the past 15 years, several States have substantially reformed tort laws to provide manufacturers and retailers greater protection from liability. My own State of North Dakota, for example, has enacted a statute on punitive damages that is more protective of businesses than the punitive damages provision in this bill. H.R. 2366 would interfere with North Dakota's right, and the right of every State, to determine its own tort law. Because they recognize the potential threat H.R. 2366 poses to our system of federalism, I am joined in my opposition to this bill both by the Council on State Governments and the National Conference of State Legislatures. Mr. Chairman, although I do not support this particular vehicle for tort reform, I remain committed to protecting small businesses from excessive litigation. I also look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on legislative strategies to encourage small business development in all 50 States.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, a bill that under the guise of marriage penalty relief advances a tax plan that is skewed toward high income earners, leaves inadequate resources for working family tax relief, and makes a debt reduction a second tier priority. Members who want to address the marriage penalty while maintaining fiscal responsibility should vote for the Rangel substitute and against H.R. 6. If H.R. 6 were only concerned with providing targeted tax relief to married couples who are penalized by the current code, the bill would pass with unanimous support. Unfortunately, the majority has brought forward a $200 billion bill in which half the benefits go to people who receive a marriage bonus, and two thirds of the benefits go to people earning more than $75,000. By grossly inflating the costs of marriage penalty relief, the majority is jeopardizing other needed tax relief for working families and impeding our effort to pay down the debt. The greatest gift Congress could give to married couples and to all the American people is to pay down the debt. H.R. 6, however, lays claim to more than $200 billion of the projected budget surplus before this session of Congress has dedicated even one dollar to debt reduction. Paying down debt should be our first priority, not our last. The improved budget outlook will allow Congress and the President to enact targeted tax cuts within a fiscally responsible framework. By considering H.R. 6 outside the context of the overall budget, however, the majority is draining resources from other working family tax relief including tax cuts to help pay for college, to encourage retirement savings, and to increase the affordability of health care. I support marriage penalty relief, but we should do so in a way that leaves room to address the core pocketbook issues that working families face. In sum, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute and to oppose H.R. 6.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3194, a $385 billion omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. Although the bill includes many beneficial provisions that I have worked hard to advance, I regret that they have been tied to a package that is deeply flawed in both procedure and substance. This bill violates a rather simple rule of good legislating--members ought have the opportunity to review legislation before they are asked to cast their vote. They clearly have not had that opportunity here. This mammoth bill, more than a foot thick and thousands of pages long, was filed after 3 a.m. this morning. It became available to view only a few short hours ago. In reality there is not one member of the House who knows all of what is in this bill. All we know for certain is that there are a multitude of provisions here that would never have survived the normal legislative process. Second despite all the rhetoric of the majority party, this bill spends at least $17 billion of the Social Security surplus. The Congressional budget Office, like all of us, has not had the opportunity to review this legislation, and, as a result, we are voting without the benefit of an official cost estimate. The previous CBO report, however, that did not include the additional spending added in negotiations with the White House, estimated that the surplus generated by Social Security will be tapped for $17 billion. This bill is stuffed full of accounting gimmicks to create that illusion that it does not spend Social Security surplus. The gimmick of choice was to artificially postpone spending just beyond fiscal year 2000 into 2001. Unfortunately, this gimmick results in even more money from the Social Security surplus being spent. If you add all the spending that has been pushed into the next fiscal year and subtract the total from the expected budget surplus in 2001, you'll find that not only does this bill spend Social Security surplus in 2000, but it spends more than $20 billion from Social Security in 2001. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I regret that this bill is so flawed in certain important respects, because in many other areas it deserves strong support. For instance, I strongly support the increases in funding for federal education programs in this legislation, including the class size reduction initiative. Last year, the class size reduction initiative provided North Dakota schools with over $5 million in additional resources, and I am pleased that this legislation increases funding for that program by 10 percent. This legislation fulfills the promise to our children made last year by ensuring that schools in North Dakota and across the country can continue to pay the dedicated teachers recruited last year. Second, I am pleased that Congress has addressed the unintended financial consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) on health care providers. As a member of the Congressional Rural Health Care Coalition, I have worked long and hard to address these problems on behalf of the hospitals, home health agencies and nursing homes in North Dakota. These health care providers have done their best to maintain a high standard of care, even under the constraints of the BBA. I believe it is time that Congress provide them with the relief they desperately need. I was pleased to have voted for H.R. 3075, the Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act, in the House of Representatives. This measure, which passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority, was an important first step toward addressing the problems of the BBA. I look forward to working with health care providers in my state to come to an agreement on further relief in the coming year. Finally, this measure also fulfills the promise we made to America's communities, by continuing funding for the COPS program. The dedicated community police officers funded through this program, many of whom serve my constituents in North Dakota, have helped keep our families safe, an they deserve our support. In summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many laudable provisions that have, unfortunately, been attached to legislation I simply cannot support. For this reason, I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' so that we can advance the positive features of this bill in legislation that is fiscally sound and protects Social Security.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Dickinson Dam Bascule Gates Settlement Act to bring closure to a longstanding issue between the city of Dickinson, North Dakota and the Bureau of Reclamation. The legislation would permit the Secretary of the Interior to accept a one-time lump sum payment of $300,000 from the city of Dickinson in lieu of annual payments required under the city's existing repayment contract for the construction of the bascule gates on the Dickinson Dam. In 1950, a dam was constructed on the Heart River in North Dakota to provide a supply of water to the city of Dickinson. However, by the 1970s, the need for additional water in the area was identified. Early in the 1980s the bascule gates were constructed as a Bureau of Reclamation project to provide additional water storage capacity in Lake Patterson, the reservoir created by the Dickinson Dam. At the time, the city expressed concern about the cost and viability of the gates. Prior to the placement of the gates in North Dakota, no testing on the gates had been conducted at any location in a northern climate. Unfortunately, this significant oversight proved fatal for the gates. In 1982, shortly after the start of operations of the bascule gates, a large block of ice caused excessive pressure on the hydraulic system causing it to fail. These damages added additional costs to the project and a financial burden on the city as modifications to the gate hydraulic system were made and a de-icing system installed. Today, the city of Dickinson no longer benefits from the additional water capacity of Lake Patterson. The city of Dickinson now received their water through the Southwest Pipeline which was made possible through the Garrison Diversion Unit, another Bureau of Reclamation Project. The pipeline provides a high quality and more reliable water supply than the city's previous supply from Lake Patterson. To date, the city has repaid more than $1.2 million for the bascule gates despite the fact that they no longer provide any significant benefit to the city. In addition to allowing a lump sum payment, the bill also requires the city of Dickinson to pay annual operation and maintenance costs for the bascule gates, up to a maximum of $15,000. Annual O&M costs to date have averaged about $9,000 over the past 10 years. Any annual O&M costs beyond $15,000 would be the responsibility of the federal government. Finally, the bill permits the Secretary of the Interior to enter into appropriate water service contracts with the city for any beneficial use of the water in Patterson Lake. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the legislation represents a fair and appropriate resolution for the federal government and the city of Dickinson to this longstanding issue.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for hosting this special order, because we are at the end of the session. I think it is time to take a look back at what has been accomplished over the past year, or in this case, unfortunately, what has been left needing and deserving of action. Let us just go through the issues, ending with the budget issues, which are still being wrangled about even as we visit on the floor this afternoon. A Patients' Bill of Rights. I think if we look at issues that enjoy very broad support across the country, and indeed, a very significant bipartisan support in this Chamber, it would be the drive to give health insurance policyholders greater protections that their medical care decisions will be made between the doctor and themselves, not by some intervening HMO official. That seemed to be a very clear-cut issue. After significant discussion in this Chamber there was a vote, and it was a strong bipartisan vote to give patients meaningful protections relative to their HMOs. Unfortunately, we saw the Speaker turn around and do everything possible to sabotage that bill in the conference committee, refusing to appoint to the conference committee even those who had been supportive of the legislation; in fact, sandbagging, so this bill which enjoyed the strong vote out of the House was doomed to failure in conference committee. The result, of course: no legislation on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Mr. Speaker, we started the year with a very, or actually at the end of the school year we had the terrible tragedy of Littleton. It drew our attention to certain essential gun safety actions, very measured but prudent steps we could have taken: child safety locks; dealing with the gun show loophole, making the sale of guns at a gun show context somewhat similar to what it would be under a licensed dealer, be it a retail vendor, a hardware store, or what have you. Again, there was broad national support for those measures, and yet, it was stymied within the Chamber and no further effort to bring it forward, even though the Speaker in this instance, unlike the Patients' Bill of Rights, said he did intend to have a response move forward; ultimately sabotaged by his own people, and nothing happening on the gun safety issues. An issue that I have seen coming on and coming on very strong is the need to address the soaring cost of prescription drug medications. That is especially true, and certainly it had been my hope that this would be the Congress where we could take steps forward to address this issue in one of two ways. I think the best way to address it would be to fold in some type of prescription drug coverage in the Medicare program. I hoped that that could be achieved. In the alternative, in the event that questions about the financing of that would prove too tough to deal with, we could address pricing differentials, because it is very clear that right now the drug companies are selling below cost to their favorite customers, like the HMOs or Federal agencies, and coming back and having people paying these prescription drugs out of pocket. Our seniors on fixed incomes so often need these prescription medications for their very health maintenance, and unfortunately, this is going to be a Congress leaving town without having done one thing relative to prescription drug needs of our seniors. I just think that is what has become another in a long string of failures. We are heading into an election year. We had a chance to address campaign finance reform. No campaign finance reform coming out of this Congress. Another in a long litany of failures. In addition, one of the things that I had hoped we could really achieve, especially in this situation, would be to strengthen the Social Security Trust Fund, extend the life of its solvency. Move now to address the needs of baby boomers in retirement. We had the plan. We had the opportunity. Unfortunately, not one hour on the floor of this House has a measure been discussed to lengthen the life of the Social Security trust fund. We did see, I will say with Social Security, I think, some very clever sleight-of-hand by the majority. They tried to deflect the discussion from the Social Security Trust Fund and its long-term solvency to whether or not funds from the Social Security revenues were being spent on the funding of government. All of their argument did not have anything to do with strengthening Social Security. None of their arguments go to lengthen the life of the trust fund so much as one day. But they drove the point: The Democrats were going to raid Social Security for wild spending programs, and they were going to put a stop to it. Mr. Speaker, we know the score, and I have got the score revealed here on this chart. This is from the Congressional Budget Office. About $14 billion in general fund surplus to support additional spending. And now we know that even as the deal is being put together on the final spending of this Congress, we are going to be into the Social Security program at least $17 billion and, quite potentially, much larger than that. So although they did not lengthen the life of the trust fund one day, they spoke a lot about not spending any of the Social Security surplus. The Congressional Budget Office makes it very clear, Social Security money is being spent under their budget plan. I think, in total this constitutes really an abysmal year in terms of lack of action on the one hand coupled with action that is not helpful on the other hand. I would hope that next year we could put forward a much better record of accomplishment for the American people. Because in the end, I think a congressional session like this should not be about setting up the next election. The elections are about having us work together, putting aside the overheated, overblown campaign rhetoric and getting into the Chamber and rolling up our sleeves, bridging our differences and forcing solutions for the American people. That is what they expect out of Congress. So perhaps, and I would have to say there is some unlikeliness to this, but even though the 2000 elections are going to be looming large next year, it would be my hope the majority leadership would concentrate on the task at hand and that is doing the people's business. Let the 2000 elections take care of themselves. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening as cochair of the WTO Trade Caucus for Farmers and Ranchers to discuss the importance of the upcoming ministerial talks in Seattle and the next round of multilateral trade negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by my cochair, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) who presented earlier on this very topic. We also have across our membership in the task force a bipartisan, bicameral group of more than 50 members who are committed to advancing the interests of family farmers in trade negotiations. The agriculture economy is in dire straits. American farmers are reeling from the twin evils of production loss caused by natural disasters and price collapse caused by depressed export sales and strong global production. The crisis in agriculture demands a multifaceted response from Congress, ranging from emergency assistance, crop insurance reform, safety net reform, and expanding international trade. It is this last issue of expanding trade that I will discuss this evening. Perhaps no sector of the American economy is any more dependent on trade than agriculture. The United States is the single largest exporter of ag products in the world. On average, the crops on one out of three acres in the United States are exported. Many commodities are even more dependent on foreign sales, such as wheat, 1 out of 2 acres is exported; sunflower oil, 3 out of 4 acres of which is exported. Given the share of farm income that depends on foreign markets, American farmers cannot succeed and prosper without robust export sales. Now, unfortunately, the export market for agriculture has been anything but robust. In fact, the value of U.S. agriculture exports has fallen from $60 billion in 1996 to a projected $49 billion this year, a decline of nearly 20 percent. Look at this chart. It tells a very sad tale. It is a small wonder we have had that incredible depression in our ag economy with the export record like that. There are several reasons for the decline in export sales. They include the financial crisis in Asia. Despite signs of recovery, we continue to see sales lagging in this region, not rehabilitated to what they were prior to the crisis. Strong worldwide production has further depressed exports and, in turn, depressed the prices for our ag commodities. In addition to these market forces, however, American farmers are on the losing end of export sales because of an unlevel playing field in the international market. Around the world, our American farmers are not just competing with farmers of other countries in other parts of the world relative to their own exports. We are competing against their governments as well as they subsidize unfairly their export market. The crops grown by American farmers face, on average, a tariff rate of 50 percent in foreign markets compared to just 10 percent on what ag products face entering our market. With respect to export subsidies, the European Union accounts for 85 percent of world export subsidies. Just take a look at my second chart this evening. The blue reflects European exports. Our slender 2 percent compared to their 85 percent of world export subsidies reveals just why our exports are not performing and why our ag exports are on the losing end of the present trading situation. In addition to export subsidies, we know that state trading enterprises like the Canadian Wheat Board use their monopoly status to engage in discriminatory and secretive pricing practices to undercut U.S. producers. Now, to build the momentum necessary to tackle these unfair trade practices, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) and I formed the WTO Trade Caucus for Farmers and Ranchers. The 50-plus members of our group, House Members, Senators, Republicans and Democrats, developed a list for agriculture trade objectives for the upcoming round including the elimination of export subsidies, cutting and, when possible, eliminating tariffs, and imposing transparency and market discipline on State trading enterprises. Our list of objectives was derived from concerns we have heard from the farmers we represent as well as the commodity groups themselves. This list serves three important purposes. Going into the Seattle round, it signals what the United States Congress believes it must have out of this round. Now, our views are important because, unlike other systems where the Government may cut the deal and that is the end of it, whatever comes out of this round will be brought back to Congress for approval, and we intend to make sure that these objectives are met.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to indicate my intent to cosponsor H.R. 2170, the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Enhancement Act of 1999. The bill is an important step toward fulfilling the promise made to areas designated as Round II Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. I strongly support the concept of Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities. Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities are designed to reverse the downward economic trends in urban and rural areas alike. Through the utilization of tax credits and social service credits, designated areas are able to undertake initiatives to spur long-term economic revitalization. In my state of North Dakota, the Griggs/Steele Empowerment Zone in eastern North Dakota was designated last year as a Round II Empowerment Zone. At that time, a commitment was made by the federal government to assist this area and others in creating jobs and economic opportunity. However, Round II Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities have yet to be fully funded, and as a result, these designated areas have been unable to reach their fullest potential. I believe we have the responsibility to fulfill the commitment by fully funding Round II Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. Even though I have concerns about the differences in funding levels between rural and urban Empowerment Zones, I believe we must move forward to provide these areas with the needed assistance to accomplish economic revitalization. However, I hope that as this legislation moves forward we can address the differences in funding between rural and urban areas to ensure each area is provided with the resources necessary to accomplish the economic revitalization the federal government promised.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time and on that point, there are three ways you shore up Social Security for the long haul. One way to do it is cut benefits. We are going to run out of the Social Security trust fund in the year 2034, so what are we going to do to prop it up for the long haul? With the average Social Security check in this country being somewhere around $700 and one-third of all recipients depending almost entirely on that check to live, two-thirds depending on that $700 check for more than half their income, I do not think cutting benefits is what we want to do. I do not think we ought to raise the retirement age. Americans are looking forward to their promised Social Security check. What do you want to take the retirement age to? 70? 72? 75? We do not want to go that way. So cutting benefits, I do not think, is the way to go. The second thing you could do is raise taxes. Well, the tax already is 12.4 percent to support Social Security, the payroll tax. More Americans in this country pay higher FICA taxes supporting Social Security than they pay income tax. So I surely do not think you want to do any more on raising taxes. That gets us to the third and only other alternative, and that is to take some of the general fund money and put it into Social Security so you prolong the life of Social Security and have it there, guaranteed, so those benefits will be there as we baby-boomers move into retirement and as our children move into retirement after us. Now the tax cut passed by the majority, vetoed thankfully by the President, would have taken all the general fund revenues and basically sent them out the door in a tax cut that disproportionately benefited the wealthiest people in this country. The general fund revenues are gone. That means Social Security faces being balanced by benefit cuts or tax increases as the only other alternatives. So, thankfully, while this majority has not been very good about getting the spending bills put in order, they did get that tax cut bill passed, but, fortunately, it was stopped. We are joined tonight by a very distinguished Member of this body, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, the parties have agreed on some fundamental principles of budgeting. Going to use real numbers, commonly agreed to, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, an office established for that very purpose. Secondly, we are going to operate under budget caps, caps that limited the amount of money that could be spent. Thirdly, we were going to have pay-as-you-go, so if you, operating within those caps, were adding spending, you had to cut spending somewhere else. Those are the three core elements the parties have agreed to in terms of budget discipline that got us out of this god-awful deficit and into the situation where the surplus is today. I think the gentleman from Minnesota makes such a great point in expressing his real alarm at now the Republican majority tearing apart those agreed principles of budget discipline. I think of it kind of like a dam holding back a wall of water. Just think about it being these budget discipline principles holding back a flood of Federal spending. If one party starts to say, ``We're not going to use real numbers anymore, we're not going to use the Congressional Budget Office anymore, we'll use them some but when it is to our advantage, we'll use something else, we're going to keep two sets of books,'' when the budget number integrity starts to go, look out, because there is going to be a wall of spending trying to hustle through that very opening.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues, good men, good men all, and certainly articulate advocates for their position. I am pleased to be able to represent a different view because, quite frankly, there is more to this story than we have just heard, and I want to represent it in the next hour. What I will do in the course of this hour is spend most of the time talking actually about the Social Security program, its vital importance to America's families, the need for addressing and strengthening Social Security, and also putting in perspective the absolute baseless attacks being waged by the majority on the minority relative to this important program. At the outset, however, having sat patiently while the preceding side was making their points, there are some things that, frankly, must be said to put their presentation in perspective. I want to start by saying that here on November 2, we are now more than 1 month into the new fiscal year. That fiscal year, of course, starts October 1. That is the time when Congress and the President are to have all the new spending bills in place, funding the Government for the new fiscal year. It is a 12-month fiscal year. We are 1 month into it. We do not have all the spending bills in place. In fact, a very substantial portion of the Federal budget has not been put in place. Why is this? Well, frankly, the responsibility falls on the majority party to pass the budget and to get the appropriations bill out. We saw, even as late, as late last week the fumbling around, the frantic scratching for votes, the efforts to get the majority behind the appropriations bills. They have done this, taken us well into the new fiscal year without meaningful negotiations with the White House. There have been talks beginning very recently. But for the most part it is one side setting down their side, the other side setting down their side; and at least to some of us, it looks like never the twain shall meet. We know it will be broken sooner or later. But rather than have these bills passed in a timely measure last summer, so that the differences with the White House could be ironed out in September, putting the bills in place by the new fiscal year, we are now well into the new fiscal year and no end in sight. That is why it concerned me deeply to hear a member of the majority say in the preceding presentation that during the two Government shutdowns of 1995 nobody noticed, nobody cared. I will give him this. The gentleman that said that is a freshman. He was not here at the time, and so maybe he was not simply paying attention. But every Member of Congress knows that shutting the Government down was a failure of Congress. At that time, Speaker Gingrich was the leader of this chamber, and it was a distinct failure of Speaker Gingrich and the Republican majority, one that will live in infamy in the days of this chamber; the House of Representatives unable to get its work done causing the Federal Government to shut down. Taxpaying Americans unable to even enjoy the national parks or, for that matter, to go up in the Washington Monument down on the Mall because of the political gamesmanship and the abdication of responsibility to get the spending packages put in place. So here we are, once again under a Republican majority, once again deeply into the fiscal year without the new spending bills in place, and now we have Members of the Republican majority saying this government shutdown is not such a bad idea. It really leaves me concerned about where this outfit is heading. Because I would hope, as long as I am in this chamber representing the State of North Dakota, we never, ever see such a pathetic time when this body shuts the Government down because it cannot get its work done. The failure of this outfit, the majority, to fund the government is only part of their failure up to this point. Let us look at the legislative record. What do the American people want? I have a good notion they want a patients' bill of rights. They want protections when within an HMO they are not sure who they are getting care from, their physician or an insurance executive somewhere across the country at some call center. This Congress, the majority leadership, did everything possible to delay and frustrate efforts to get a patients' bill of rights passed. And, frankly, they lost. Months later than it should have happened, we passed, the majority and joined by a few courageous Members of the majority, a patients' bill of rights law, or a proposal, that now languishes at the end of the session because, having passed it out of this chamber, they continue to frustrate efforts to get the enactment completed and get it hastened on. I have a feeling that the American public wants basic gun safety legislation, something as basic as trigger locks, so that we do not have children shooting children with their dad's gun accidentally in the homes anymore. Something as basic as closing the loopholes for gun sales that would have a registered gun dealer having to run background checks, but an unregistered gun dealer at a gun show not having a similar requirement. It does not make sense. The American people want it addressed. This group has done everything possible to keep that legislation off the floor and to keep this bill from becoming law. Prescription drug coverage within Medicare. I represent in North Dakota maybe more seniors than a lot of people, but there is a crying need for prescription drug coverage in Medicare. We have seen since the Medicare program was created more than 30 years ago an evolution in how the program works. More and more outpatient. Not so much those long hospital stays of days gone by, but more and more reliance upon prescription drugs. And there are wonderful breakthroughs in medicine that have allowed prescription drugs to play a bigger and bigger role in terms of health maintenance. The ironic thing is many of us believe if seniors have the ability to pay for the prescription drugs they need, many of them will stay out of the hospitals and we will ultimately save the Medicare money while preserving lives, while enhancing quality of life. Prescription drugs in Medicare ought to have been on this floor for debate and consideration, but the majority has stopped it. We have a Social Security program, and I am going to talk about this in some detail, that needs additional finances. We are at the critical point in our Nation's history where we have surplus dollars to apply to the shortfall that will be coming in Social Security. But the majority has kept off this floor a proposal, any proposal, to strengthen the life of that trust fund a single day. They have done nothing to prolong Social Security, to strengthen Social Security. That is the record aside from the appropriations. Let us talk about what they have said in the appropriations, and let us start with a few charts that I have with me. The budget bill they were talking about, the great big one with that 1 percent across-the- board cut, does nothing to protect Social Security. It does nothing to lengthen the trust fund by a single day. That bill does nothing to provide prescription drug coverage in the Medicare program. And that bill hurts every American family in some way. My colleagues might ask how can a bill hurt every American family in some way. For one thing, it does not provide the funding for the President's Police on the Beat program. This COPS on the Beat program, which has been responsible for putting 100,000 law enforcement personnel out on the beat needs continuation and it needs to be improved. And our side believes that ought to be achieved in this bill they have just been talking about. They do nothing about COPS on the Beat, and they would let this program simply expire quietly, and this enhanced law enforcement protection for American citizens that many of us believe has had such an important role in reducing the crime rates would go away. So that is what was not in their plan. What was in their plan was an awful lot of phony accounting. They have talked, and I have just sat here and if I heard it once, I heard it at least 30 times, how they are not touching the Social Security revenues to fund their budget. I guess they operate, and they are good men, do not get me wrong, they are friends of mine; but I am afraid they are either operating under denial or the old adage that if we say something long enough, no matter how untrue, we begin to believe it ourselves and we hope others begin to believe it as well. Well, something like whether or not they are telling the truth and whether they are spending the Social Security Trust Fund money has to be more than what we might stand up and say by way of empty words. Let us look at what the Congressional Budget Office says. Because this is the outfit that Congress charges to do the scorekeeping on the spending bills that pass this chamber. Clearly, it is not enough for any individual legislator to pass a bill and say, well, that is not going to cost very much, and that is why Congress has established this nonpartisan central office, the Congressional Budget Office, to keep a score on the bells. This says it all. CBO makes it clear. They spend $17 billion of Social Security surplus. And the report from CBO states, and I quote, ``Outlays from congressional action on appropriation legislation, including the latest action on all 13 regular appropriations bills, would also exceed the discretionary caps by more than the CBO estimate of the on-budget surplus. After taking that surplus into account, CBO projects an on-budget deficit of about $17 billion.'' An on-budget deficit of $17 billion. Well, what does that mean? That means they are into the Social Security Trust Fund for $17 billion. Now, if my colleagues think this is some kind of accounting gobbledygook, let me quote from a Wall Street Journal story which puts it in slightly more user-friendly language. This is a story that ran in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, October 29. Under the headline, ``CBO Estimates That GOP Exceeds Spending Targets by Over $31 Billion,'' the story reads: ``Congressional Budget Office estimates show that Republicans are more than $31 billion over their initial spending targets for this year, risking the Government having to borrow again from Social Security.'' Now, those are not my words; that is the analysis of the Wall Street Journal. ``Prior appropriations bills have exceeded Mr. Clinton's request for funding everything from veterans' medical care and the Pentagon to the Environmental Protection Agency. Even with the 1 percent quote, the Labor-Education and Health bill,'' which is expected to be passed by the Senate on Monday, ``includes major spending increases over last year.'' Anyone listening to the prior hour heard ad nauseam about the 1 percent across-the-board cut. What is the cumulative effect of that 1 percent cut? ``Even with the 1 percent cut, the Labor-Education and Health bill includes major spending increases over last year.'' Those are not my words; those are the Wall Street Journal's words. The final paragraph of this story sets out what I think is the most egregious of the gimmicks used in trying to patch together a budget to camouflage their raiding of the Social Security fund. The GOP continues to work from what amounts to two sets of books, one based on the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, and the other on spending estimates by the Office of Management and Budget. When OMB's numbers are favorable, the House and Senate Committee on the Budget members simply direct CBO to adjust its estimates accordingly. These changes add up to billions of dollars over the years. I might say that as a former Committee on the Budget member, this is without precedent. The Congressional Budget Office is the scoring entity established under the Budget Act to evaluate what Congress is spending. But here we have the majority using two sets of books. If OMB gives a better number, they use the OMB number, and they do it in their appropriations. They direct CBO not to use its own scoring methodology but just to accept the higher number, the one that benefits them. By using two sets of books, they have destroyed the validity of CBO's accounting and damaged very much the budget integrity of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), and I am very pleased the gentleman has joined me, a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I ask the gentleman to please stay and participate in this dialogue, but I think we got into serious deficit trouble in the 1980s because we had phony numbers, and what this outfit is doing is using once again phony numbers. Let us just put it in a family context. Let us say, for example, I make a living on commission sales. I sell and I get a percentage of what I sell. That is my income. Well, let us say I want to really spend money. And so, I just go ahead and figure, well, this year I am suddenly going to make a great deal more than I ever had before and, in fact, I spend the money. But then the income does not come in as I have projected, I pretty much earned what I always earned and I am in a big financial hole. Well, applying to the Nation, that is what happened to us in the 1980s. And now this outfit, the majority, that parades around on the floor beating their chests about how they are saving Social Security, are doing it with cooked books. Would not we all like to have two sets of books? Let us just play with this idea for a minute. Think about applying for an equity loan on your mortgage and someone is going to say, well, how much is your home worth? Well, on the one hand, you can have an appraiser go out and do an estimate, or on the other hand, you could have your brother-in-law give his idea of what the home is worth; and, by the way, you pick the higher one. Take the instance of a checkbook. Which is the real value of the amount in the checkbook, the present value of the cash on hand or that cash-on-hand figure reduced by the number of checks you have already written? Well, if you could just kind of automatically pick whichever figure you wanted, you would pick the higher one and forget about those checks outstanding. And so it goes. Let us say you are applying for a loan and you say, well, how much do you make? And you say, well, do you want to take the employer's estimate, your employer's verification of what you are paid, or do you want to take my idea of what I am worth? Pick your figure. When you use two books, you could do anything and it leads you to an absolutely absurd result.

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has established a reputation in this body as being a very serious-minded budgeteer for fiscal restraint, fiscal discipline, and functioning under due order. The issues in terms of if we were having a genuine debate between the parties, which party, the minority or the majority, might do a better job of protecting Social Security, what a wonderful debate it would be. It would be a competition between the parties that would be healthy, that would bring out our best, that would strengthen Social Security, our most vital program. But a debate like that will only be possible if each side levels with the American people. For one party to simply say they are protecting Social Security when indeed they are spending $17 billion of the surplus and denying every penny of it, that puts us on a track where this will not be a real debate, it will be about who can sell their lie. And that is not the way the American people deserve to have congressional debate unfold about the Social Security program. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Wall Street Journal article says it very directly: ``GOP continues to work from what amounts to two sets of books.'' Now, it was not always that way. The gentleman was part of that historic bipartisan Balanced Budget Act that passed in 1997. At that time, Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that Congressional Budget Office numbers would prevail, that the budgets would be scored not by the White House OMB estimates but by the Congressional Budget Office numbers. How unfortunate now that, while the minority is staying with the Congressional Budget Office numbers as part of the Budget Enforcement Act of Congress, the majority wants to use, and I quote from the Wall Street Journal, ``two sets of books'' to basically cover what amounts to spending to the tune of $17 billion of Social Security surplus. We are very pleased to note the presence on the floor of the senior Democrat on the Committee on the Budget, a key negotiator that brought that Balanced Budget Act together in 1997, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. POMEROY. I want to ask the gentleman a question if he would be so kind. Two very distinctly different versions of this 1 percent cut have been presented on the floor tonight. I have quoted the Wall Street Journal that says even with the 1 percent cut, the Labor, Education, Health bill expected to be passed by the Senate on Monday includes major spending increases over the last year. That is what I believe that 1 percent cut does. The other side has said that 1 percent cut eliminates any spending into the Social Security revenues, so if you voted against that 1 percent cut, then you are voting to spend Social Security. That is their argument and they repeat it again and again and again. Would you discuss whether there is any basis to their argument.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman bringing his expertise to the floor. It is a late hour here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I thank both gentlemen so much for the contributions each has made.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to see us start as we push toward conclusion by at least being honest with the American people. Maybe they will agree with our side; maybe they will agree with that side, but we owe it to the people we are here to represent to at least be square with them, tell it like it is, and that is why I believe these budget gimmicks, two sets of books, emergency funding declarations, claiming you have not spent Social Security when you have spent Social Security, does such a terrible injustice to our efforts to try and resolve the differences and end this session. Clearly, it is in nobody's interest to be lurching along from continuing resolution to continuing resolution. I think as we do that, we even raise the prospects of another Federal shutdown, something one of the speakers from the majority alleged tonight was not all that bad a result. Well, I surely would hope we would not go there and we would end this on budget numbers. As we conclude this special order, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina for any concluding remarks he might have.

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, and I want to direct a question to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), particularly given his expertise on the Committee on Appropriations, the other side maintains that their 1 percent across-the-board cut takes no spending out of the Social Security Trust Fund. Now, the Congressional Budget Office has said that is not true. In fact, it shows that they are into the Social Security Trust Fund to the tune of $17 billion. It says if they wanted to actually get that money down so it was not in the Social Security Trust Fund, rather than a 1 percent cut, it would be almost a 5 percent cut, and that is across the board. Now, that would include wiping out the pay raise that we gave the men and women in our military. It would include wiping out the important additions we have made in veterans health, so that this Nation can continue its health commitment to its veterans. If you take the Defense Department and you take veterans health off the table, you say well, we cannot cut that 4.8 percent, take that off the table, then you are talking almost an 11 percent, 10.8 percent across the board, in order to get Congress out of the Social Security surplus. Would the gentleman on the Committee on Appropriations have any opinions in terms of whether or not this would be any way to run a country?

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has laid out, I think, the construct of what is emerging as the single best way to shore up Social Security for the long haul: take the surplus dollars and pay down debt held by the public. Fifteen cents out of every taxpayer dollar today goes to pay interest. It is unavailable for tax relief, it is unavailable for any positive function, it simply pays interest, fifteen cents out of every dollar. We take that debt held by the public down and bring it down dramatically as these surpluses would allow. There is going to be a huge budget savings. We are not going to have to pay that interest anymore. Anyone who has ever retired a credit card debt or pays off a home mortgage knows how that one works. You do not pay the debt; you do not have the interest cost. Well, if we take the general fund savings that we are not paying in interest and put it into the Social Security Trust Fund to shore up Social Security, we can move the life of the trust fund from 2034 to 2050. Now, that takes us as a country well past the period of time when most of us baby-boomers are going to be drawing upon the Social Security program. It is a major boost to the solvency of the program. I think especially as the ending days of this session grind on, it is the clear difference between how the parties would treat Social Security. The proposals of the majority would not extend the life of Social Security by a single day, not a single day. On the other hand, you pay down the debt, you take the interest savings, you put it into the trust fund, you can push the life of the trust fund to 2050 and, at the same time, leave this country in the strongest financial position it has been relative to debt since 1917, bringing that 15 cents on the dollar of interest cost down to 2 cents on the dollar in interest costs. If we could be part of that, working together with the majority to actually lengthen the life of the trust fund, we would really be doing something for the American people. But contrast that plan with the plan that essentially purports to do something about Social Security, but uses every budget gimmick, including double bookkeeping, to try and mask a raid on Social Security, and, in any event, does not add a single day to the life of the trust fund. That really is the alternative offered by the respective parties late in this going. I yield to the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 213. In passing this resolution, Congress will take an important step forward in recognizing the importance of youth financial education to the future of our Nation's children. Today's global economy demands more of our young people than ever before. Young people are making important financial decisions long before they enter the workforce. In order to make informed choices regarding personal finances, our children have to have proper skills and experience to manage their money and prepare for their future. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that personal financial education plays an important role in securing our children's future. This is not just a lofty goal, it is an urgent priority. Because survey after survey has demonstrated average high school seniors in this country lack even basic knowledge of personal financial affairs. A nationwide survey conducted in 1997 by the Jumpstart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy looked at the basic financial information of 1,500 high school seniors. One in five answered seven out of ten questions successfully, not a passing grade for our seniors. Because of their lack of financial knowledge, many American students run into financial trouble in college. An estimated 50 to 70 percent of all college students own at least one credit card, with debts ranging between $580 and $725. Yesterday the Washington Post ran a story about a student who had to drop out of school to pay off $2,500 in credit card debt. Youth financial education could help prevent this situation. Young adults who understand the cost of credit will not fall prey to the high cost of interest rates and mounting credit card debt. The crisis, of course, in financial literacy goes far beyond our high schools. American investors lack basic knowledge of financial concepts. A 1996 poll showed that fewer than one in five Americans are what we call financially literate. Only half of all adults in this country, for example, understand that investment diversification actually reduces investment risk. So it should come as no surprise that personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high. Adults in this country need to understand basic financial concepts in order to provide for their families and prepare for their retirements and we need to get the information out there starting in the school years. I would hope in following up on this resolution, this body would also adopt a piece of legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and I have introduced, H.R. 2871, the Youth Financial Education Act. That bill would commit $500,000 to carry out the financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools. This legislation encourages State and local education agencies to integrate financial education into existing courses, such as economics or mathematics, and devotes resources necessary to develop teacher training and professional development activities in personal financial education. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to include H.R. 2871 in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act later this year. Clearly, we must do a better job of preparing our children to make informed decisions about money, how to use it, and how to prepare for their future. The question then becomes how we concentrate our efforts, and I believe the answer lies in our schools, with our children and their teachers, and not enough to rely on the ad hoc, the wonderful but totally ad hoc efforts, we need to put in a curriculum.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues may be aware, October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. In my home State of North Dakota, as well as across the Nation, citizens have already participated in numerous activities, such as candlelight vigils, ``Take Back the Night'' rallies, and other forms of demonstration aimed at raising public awareness of this national tragedy. Domestic violence is one of our Nation's most prevalent, yet misunderstood, tragedies. Recently, North Dakota's Attorney General released a report on domestic violence for 1997, and the statistics should cause us all to take notice. To cite just a few of the facts: in 1,450 incidents reported through the North Dakota Uniform Crime Reporting Program, there were 1,638 victims involved; 39 percent of all reported physical violence cases across the State were incidents of domestic violence; and among reported victims of domestic violence, 74 percent were women and 19 percent were juveniles. These figures are even more sobering when you consider that domestic violence is one of the most severely underreported crimes. We may not be able to estimate the number of victims who, living in fear or denial, do not come forward; however, the National Crime Victimization survey, administered by the Department of Justice, reports that victims of all types of violence, including domestic, report only about half of their victimizations to the police. Unfortunately, attitudes are slow to change, especially on such an intimate issue as domestic violence. No longer can we sit idly by, as the cycle of violence not only goes on, but oftentimes worsens. No longer can we claim that what goes on in another person's private life is none of my or your business. No longer can we blame the victims saying that they ``asked for it.'' No longer can we make excuses. During this month of awareness, therefore, I am proud to also mark the fifth anniversary of one of the most important stands Congress has ever taken against domestic violence: the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Through programs that bolster prosecution of sexual assault and domestic violence, increase victim services, and step up education and prevention activities, VAWA has gone far to protect individuals from sexual offenses and domestic abuse. I am proud to support reauthorization of all these programs as a cosponsor of H.R. 357, the Violence Against Women Act of 1999. Congress, however, cannot act alone. The House of Representatives cannot pass a law to ban domestic violence. The Senate cannot force attitudes to change. It is up to all of us to take action--through greater participation and awareness--to end this national tragedy, Advocates should not have to fight alone, and victims should not have to suffer alone. This is one issue on which the old adage holds true: If we're not part of the solution, we're part of the problem.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for participating and the observations that he has made. They are so apt. Basically, we have a majority here that says the Democrats are spending the Social Security money, when in fact the media coverage, based on the Congressional Budget Office shows it is the GOP spending bills, based on the GOP budget. After all, they are the majority party in the body. If anyone is raiding Social Security, it is the majority, not the minority. We do not have the votes, if we wanted to, and we do not want to. Second, they accuse the Democrats of jeopardizing Social Security when this same crowd running the Chamber has not offered a proposal and debated on this floor any ideas relative to strengthening the trust fund. I think it is terribly unfortunate that we cannot work together, Democrats and Republicans, to strengthen this program. Because it is not a Democrat program or it is not a Republican program, it is America's program. And in the middle of all this political smoke I hope Americans keep one thing in mind: The way to evaluate whether anything is happening or not on Social Security is to look at that 2034 date, the date at which the trust fund goes bust. If that date is not addressed, those benefits are going to fall by 25 percent. And the prospects of our children and grandchildren getting a meaningful Social Security benefit are greatly reduced, even though they definitely face the prospects of significantly higher taxes. So has the trust fund been strengthened? The answer; not by anything they have done so far this year. And that is a deep disappointment to me, and I am sure the American people. Joining me, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Vic Snyder), from Little Rock, Arkansas. Well, from the State of Arkansas, I am not certain if Little Rock is in the gentleman's district or not. I am happy the gentleman has joined us for this special order, and I yield to him at this time.

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for those kind comments. The gentleman's measured, reasoned analysis is once again so directly on point relative to what types of response we ought to work together in this Chamber to take. Not running 30-second attack ads, just playing politics with an issue that is as important as Social Security, but working to strengthen the Social Security Trust Fund by taking the interest savings generated by Social Security, as we pay down that debt, and putting it into the Social Security program. I am very pleased to call on my colleague, the gentlewoman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who has been very patient in the course of this afternoon. I thank her very sincerely for staying and participating, and I yield to her now.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas very, very much for that very compelling statement. In his family, as in my family, this is a program that has really mattered. I cannot think of anything more important for us to do than to join forces and try to protect it for the millions of families that are depending upon this program. It really all comes down to, are we taking the steps necessary to strengthen the trust fund, prolong its solvency? If this Congress leaves in the face of these surpluses without lengthening the solvency of that trust fund, we will have failed the people mightily. I am terribly concerned at this very late point in this session, here we have been here all year, not one bill on the floor, not one hour of discussion on the majority side in terms of actually pushing out that solvency date, strengthening the Social Security program. Without, really, that key point, we really miss the mark in terms of taking steps to shore this program up for, not just our retirement needs, but our children and grandchildren as well. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).