Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I hope every Member watching this is aware that, in essence, this is nothing more than a flat-out House amendment of the budget we passed 2 weeks ago, an amendment adding more than $1 billion in spending, because the figures simply do not jive. This rule would allow spending at the rate of $531.9 billion, and the Budget Act is $530.8 billion, a difference of well over a billion dollars in budget authority, nearly $1.4 billion in budget outlay. What they are trying to do in the rule is essentially amend the budget that we had enacted just 2 weeks ago. My question, though, continues to be whether or not there is even legal authority for this provision because the Budget Act sets the rules. The rules are you have got a budget resolution. If you do not have a budget resolution, you have a budget chairman letter. We do not have the resolution. We do not have the letter. I seriously question whether or not this procedure comports with the Budget Act. I will be checking with the Parliamentarian in terms of whether or not a point of order might be raised in terms of whether this body is acting outside of Federal law relative to this budget issue. I do want to emphasize, as an aside, that this has nothing to do with MILCON. In fact, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) are known for their bipartisan fairness. As a minority member, I can tell you that the MILCON committee has always listened carefully to my concerns and been respectable to them.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I have a question on that specific point, because the Budget Act provides a way for the appropriations process to go forward in the absence of a budget resolution. It requires a letter from the chairman, and that is specifically provided under section 302(a)(5) of the Federal code. The Budget chairman is directed then to write a letter relative to the allocations and that allows the appropriations process to move. Will the gentleman tell us whether the chairman has written a letter as provided in the Budget Act?

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart), my friend, if he might take a question.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the question gets to that letter that I was asking about, and I did not want to pursue it on the gentleman's time, so he could make his point. But it really relates specifically to the legal requirements before this body under the Budget Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman whether a letter had been submitted by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, as required under section 302(a)(5) of the Budget Act. I reminded the gentleman that the budget laws for this country say that when there is not a budget resolution passed by Congress, the procedure provided in the statute is to have the Committee on the Budget Chairman submit a letter with the spending allocations. The gentleman said he had received a letter from the chairman, and quoted from it.

Mr. POMEROY. Oh, the gentleman received a letter from the Appropriations chairman.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, my time is running, so if the gentleman would get to the point, please.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think we have a filibuster going on. Reclaiming my time. Let me really take issue with the gentleman from Florida from the majority when he says that the Budget Act has been fully complied with. It has not. There is a procedure. The procedure is, first of all, the House and Senate have to pass a budget resolution by April 15. Obviously, that has not taken place. There is a fail-safe provision, because I will be the first to admit the Democratic majority routinely blew that April 15 deadline. But the follow-up provision is that the Committee on the Budget chairman must submit a letter with the spending allocations. Here the gentleman from Florida says he has no letter from the Committee on the Budget chairman. He says that the act has been fully complied with, but he has no letter. That cannot be case.

Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Tax Code Elimination Act. I strongly support reforming the nation's tax code to make it fairer, simpler, and less burdensome on the American people. Unfortunately, rather than advancing a constructive tax reform measure, the leadership has proposed a political gimmick--a bill to terminate the tax code without saying what sort of system should replace it. This bill is not only the height of political cynicism, but if enacted, it could have devastating consequences for American families, farmers, and businesses. During my tenure in Congress, I have worked to encourage employers to offer health and pension benefits to working families by providing adequate tax incentives and cutting unnecessary red tape. Under this bill, employers would freeze health and retirement benefits until the tax treatment of these benefit costs was determined. In fact, employers might even reduce benefits as a hedge against Congress deciding not to extend the tax deductibility of employee benefits. Likewise, the value of American homes would be adversely impacted as the real estate market would wait to see whether Congress would continue the mortgage interest deduction. For farmers, the consequences would be even more severe. On the Upper Great Plains, farmers are already struggling with low market prices, devastating crop disease, and adverse growing conditions. Even with the best financial planning and management, many farmers are finding it nearly impossible to make ends meet. Farming is, by nature, a highly risky proposition. Added uncertainty about the deductibility of interest on operating loans, equipment and land, would move farming from risky to almost foolhardy. I believe that North Dakotans want fundamental tax reform. However, they're unwilling to buy a ``pig and a poke,'' especially when it relates to taxes. They want to see what system is being proposed as a replacement before simply terminating the code and turning giving a blank check to Congress.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, my vote today on behalf of H.R. 3150 is a vote to advance the process of bankruptcy reform in this Congress. I strongly believe that there is a need to reform our nation's bankruptcy laws. Passage of H.R. 3150 will allow bankruptcy reform efforts to proceed in the Senate and will move us toward our ultimate goal of sensible, responsible bankruptcy reform. I am disappointed that my vote does not also represent wholehearted support for the bill before us, but I believe that a number of the provisions of H.R. 3150 are flawed and must be revisited as the process continues. If these flaws are not remedied in our negotiations with the Senate, I will be unable to support a final conference agreement. My primary concern with H.R. 3150 is that it would endanger the payment of child support and alimony by those who have declared bankruptcy. While the bill does not directly reduce the priority of child support obligations, it does increase the rights of other creditors such as credit card lenders, setting up a competition for scarce resources between mothers and children owed support and commercial credit card companies. Under Chapter 7 proceedings, mothers and children entitled to alimony and child support will have to compete with new categories of nondischargeable debt. Under Chapter 13 proceedings, these individuals will have to compete with the required $50 monthly payment to non-priority unsecured creditors such as credit card companies. I fear that mothers and children will lose out in these contests. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3150 appropriately steps up the degree of personal responsibility that must be expected from those who engage in reckless spending and who seek to misuse the bankruptcy laws to escape the consequences of this conduct. I am concerned, however, that this legislation does not at the same time step up the degree of responsibility that must be expected from the credit card companies who today often facilitate this spending through aggressive marketing of their cards. While we must ask individuals to be prudent with respect to their credit and spending behavior, we must also ask credit card companies to be prudent with respect to their lending behavior. These companies possess credit histories for those to whom they market and they should simply not be extending credit to individuals who they know to be financially overextended. I believe we must encourage credit card companies to exercise responsibility by making dischargeable credit card debt extended under these circumstances. Mr. Chairman, it is my sincere hope that these issues will be remedied in the Senate and during any conference committee so that this Congress can truly achieve the goal of sensible, responsible bankruptcy reform.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kasich budget and in strong support of the substitute amendment offered by the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt. When the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee called the House Republican budget ``a mockery'' he not only described the substance of the Kasich budget but also the procedure by which it is being considered. Today the House is considering the budget resolution 51 days after the April 15 statutory deadline--the most delinquent budget process in 16 years. The appropriations committees of the House and Senate have long since dismissed the budget resolution as irrelevant and are already busily marking up legislation for the coming fiscal year. Against that backdrop, a reasonable person might conclude that the Budget Committee would propose a resolution that stood a reasonable chance of being expeditiously adopted. Sadly, this is not the case. By radically departing from last year's bipartisan budget accord, the House Republican leadership has managed to totally isolate itself not just from the President and the Democrats in Congress but also from their Senate counterparts and even many House Republicans. Indeed, some of the harshest criticism of this budget has come not from Democrats but from Republicans. In addition to Senator Domenici's comments, Senator Stevens said that under the cuts proposed in the Kasich budget, ``I don't think Congress could function.'' A group of House Republicans wrote that the cuts proposed in the Kasich budget are ``neither desirable nor attainable.'' Fortunately, there is a constructive alternative. Like the budget passed by the Senate last month, the Spratt budget keeps faith with the bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Spratt budget adheres to the discretionary budget caps, offsets tax cuts within the revenue code and pays for priority initiatives with reductions in entitlement programs. Most importantly, by continuing to steer the path of fiscal responsibility. The Spratt alternative fully safeguards the budget surplus until Congress and the President enact legislation to ensure the long term future of Social Security. I say to my colleagues--especially on the other side of the aisle-- who wish to build upon the work of the 1997 budget agreement, to reserve the surplus for Social Security, and to support a budget that can be reconciled with the Senate and adopted, I urge you to support the Spratt alternative.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I find it so curious that the majority refuses to discuss their budget tonight and instead want to discuss a budget that is not even on the floor. I have been on the Committee on the Budget for 6 years and I have never seen such a fiasco in all my life. Usually the budget is when a party lays forward their plan, their vision of government. What have you done tonight? Brought this to the floor after midnight, not that the press who is not here, the American people who are long asleep are missing much, because you have not had the integrity, the courage, to tell the American people what your plan is. You do not specify the cuts. You get up here and make lofty language, and you do not specify the cuts. What is more, this plan changes all the time. Take Social Security, what I think is the most vital function of government. In the Committee on the Budget we debated, one of the highlights of the chairman's bill, a plan to take all the surplus out of Social Security, embark on a new venture, no more Social Security, a new venture of private accounts. We debated. Every one of you voted for it. Your colleagues would not stand for it apparently. You go to the Committee on Rules, the bill comes out, and there is no aspect of that dimension of this budget. Where did it go? We have all this debate, you are going to end Social Security as we know it and it comes out of the Committee on Rules and we are just supposed to be left with an ``oops, never mind''? This is ridiculous. I would feel comfortable if Social Security was secure. But of course it is not secure. Because you take revenue out of the Federal Government without telling us how we are going to match in spending reductions. You have done this before. This was a David Stockman technique in the early 1980s. It produced deficits then. Now it will produce spending the surplus. That is why the Washington Post called this a triple fraud, and I quote, an election year tax cut on the strength of unlikely spending cuts to be named later, all the while preaching fiscal responsibility. What happens when you do not come up with the spending cuts you are so afraid to talk about tonight is that they do not get made, and this surplus that we so need to reform Social Security is dissipated. And you do not even lay out the plan to the American people. This budget is a failure. One of the things about the chairman, like him or not, like his ideas, do not like his ideas, he would always tell you where he was going, he would always be square with you about the details. This plan tonight is such a disappointment in that respect. You fail to lay out the details of your plan. You fail to advance a budget that makes sense. Most important to me, you fail to fundamentally protect the Social Security surplus until we can come up with a comprehensive overhaul plan for Social Security. You have failed with this budget, and that is why I think there is a fighting chance your own colleagues will reject it with us in the vote tomorrow.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 78, the Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment. This amendment, which proposes to dramatically alter the First Amendment to the Constitution, is simply unnecessary. Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about preserving the complete freedom of religious expression that is part of what makes this nation great. I also believe that the First Amendment of our Constitution has safeguarded this freedom for over 200 years, and continues to do so today. The First Amendment maintains the delicate balance between the church and state established by the Founding Fathers, and House Joint Resolution 78 threatens this hard-won balance by unnecessarily amending the Bill of Rights of the first time in our nation's history. However, I do recognize the concerns of several of my colleagues about the impact of certain court decisions on religious expression. Unfortunately, no court can be completely free of human error when interpreting the Constitution. I believe, as do most of my colleagues, that religious expression does have a place in public life. Prayer should not be prohibited in graduation ceremonies. Valedictorians should not be prevented from mentioning God in their speeches. Children should be allowed to engage in voluntary prayer in schools, or anywhere else. By passing House Joint Resolution 78 would not protect religious liberty any more effectively than the First Amendment already does. Ironically, House Joint Resolution 78 does more to restrict religious freedom than it does to preserve it. By forbidding federal and state governments from denying ``access to a benefit on account of religion'', House Joint Resolution 78 encourages religious organizations to complete for government funding. Because all groups cannot be funded equally, the awarding of government funds represents unofficial government sponsorship of religious organizations. This is the very situation the First Amendment was enacted to prevent. Government funding of religious groups allows government hands into the workings of these groups, makes them financial dependent on government funds, and is just as bad idea. Mr. Chairman, I believe that House Joint Resolution 78 needlessly tampers with out nation's strong tradition of the protection of religious liberty. We do not need to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in our nation's history to protect religious freedom in this country, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. CLAY, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure because its clear intent is not to ensure the freedom to engage in religious activity on public property, but rather to open the door to the diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars from public schools to private religious schools. I find it ironic that after three failed attempts to get school voucher legislation enacted during this Congress, the Republican majority is now pushing a constitutional amendment that would make public funding of religious schools lawful. We repeatedly told the majority it was unlawful during the floor debates on the various voucher bills, but they rejected our claim and the court decisions that supported it. I am pleased the majority now admits that their voucher scheme was legally flawed, but I continue to oppose direct Federal funding of religious institutions. The amendment before us states that neither the Federal Government nor any State could deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. This would mean that whenever public funds are being dispensed to a non-sectarian organization for a program or activity, a religious organization would be entitled to make a claim to the same funding. The religious organization would be free, however, to integrate their philosophy and practices with its service delivery-- something that many taxpayers seeking services might find objectionable. But, as a result of this amendment, these organizations would have a constitutionally protected right to do so, no matter whether the focus of the program or activity is education, health care, housing, or criminal justice. Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers did not believe it appropriate for the Government to subsidize religious activity. I believe that, today, this remains a wise policy. The first amendment to the Constitution has served the Nation well for over 200 years by protecting religious expression while also prohibiting Government entanglement in religious practices. This delicate balance should not be disturbed.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Speaking to the crop insurance and ag research portions of this bill, Mr. Speaker, the one way we pass this today and ensure its enactment is to pass the conference report, the one adopted by the Senate by 92 votes. The Committee on Rules follows that up. The Chairman's amendment does not cure it. This body has to pass this bill today. And for the majority not to bring the conference report, as unanimously adopted by conference committee and passed in the Senate to this body, is a slap in the face to rural America and every Member representing rural America.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today, just before going out on Memorial Day recess, we failed to pass the disaster bill. My colleagues forced me to go back to the people of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and tell them that Congress politically was unable to respond to a situation that desperately needed responding to. Here we are again doing exactly the same thing. We have a disaster in rural America. We have got farmers in a world of hurt in the area I represent and all over the country, and we are about to go out on Memorial Day recess without having passed this vital bill, this vital bill that makes a commitment for ag research, so desperately needed in the future, and a commitment to crop insurance, which is so desperately needed to help farmers stay in the business of farming. Do we just want to come right out and end family farming? Why do we not just have a vote to end family farming? We could just as well for the way this body is dealing with this situation. Have we learned absolutely nothing from the disastrous debacle that so disgraced this body 1 year ago? We need to pass this bill today. And the only way we do it is by passing the conference report. I urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to tell the gentleman that I have been relieved to have a leader of his stature and with his jurisdiction on Social Security advocating capturing the surplus for Social Security and exclusively for Social Security as he has done and does in his legislation. I therefore believe that we might be in accord on this motion to recommit, which essentially takes the gentleman's legislation and would enact it today. If I had a bill and the gentleman had a motion to recommit that essentially passed my bill today, I would probably think that was a good thing.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this commission by its very design is about analysis and discussion now, leading to legislative action later, hopefully in 1999. Now, the motion to recommit will put present meaning to a bill that is otherwise merely about future action. Let us agree, and let us agree across this partisan aisle that today we make the commitment jointly that the surplus will be preserved for Social Security. What a wonderful opportunity this surplus presents to us to show the country how seriously we hold Social Security and our resolve to do something meaningful for the long-term security of this vital program. Protect the surplus. Dedicate the surplus. Hold the surplus for Social Security. Let us face it, the great majority of us in this body have never seen a surplus. The first one we have had since 1969 and, oh, the things we would love to do with it, the investments we would like to make in highways and other things, the tax cuts, the many ways we could devote this surplus. Some would even like to begin to move to individual accounts on Social Security this year with the surplus. But let us forestall those plans. In direct accord with the bill introduced by Chairman Bunning and cosponsored by seven Republican Members, this motion to recommit takes the Archer bill and makes only one change to it, an addition; that addition, committing this Congress to holding the surplus for the future of Social Security. I do not think there is a more important step we can take, in addition to what the bill of the gentleman from Texas represents, than to add to that bill what this motion would achieve, and that is the commitment right here, right now that the surplus will be held for Social Security. It was only 3 months ago when the President challenged us from that pulpit, save Social Security first. This is our first opportunity in this forum to cast a vote on that commitment, save Social Security first. Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of commitment and accord between this body and the American people. We will address Social Security. We will address Social Security in a bipartisan and responsible way to preserve it through the 21st Century. But let us begin today by committing that surplus to this.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), who has been such a strong and constant leader on Social Security.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I do oppose the bill in its present form.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me, and I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for their wonderful work on Social Security. I could come to the floor this afternoon with charts and graphs and statistics to underscore the critical nature of Social Security to the people of this country. But instead, in the next minute or so, let me just tell my colleagues what this program has meant for me. My father died years before he ever received one retirement benefit under Social Security. But because my brother and I were minors at the time, we received vitally needed survivors' benefits under Social Security. Frankly, that allowed us to continue to get our college education and get on with life. I have a very good friend who is incapacitated with mental illness and cannot work. He receives and lives entirely on his Social Security benefit. My mother, now age 77, lives independently, would simply not be able to but for her Social Security check; and whether she lives to be 87, 97, 107, with that guarantee of the Social Security check, as long as her health holds out, she can continue to live independently. Now I am absolutely determined to make certain that these core assurances, survivors benefits, disability benefits, a retirement benefit that is there as long as one may live, continue to be part of any Social Security program on into the future, and I have some plans in terms of how we get that accomplished. I am forced to vote against this commission idea today, however, because it omits one critical facet, and that is the one thing this House can do today that really has bearing on taking a positive step forward in Social Security, committing that we do not touch the surplus until we have this Social Security reform idea all figured out. Mr. Speaker, the President said it first, and he said it best. We must save Social Security first. The Speaker, testifying to the Committee on Ways and Means, says he wants to take that surplus and put it in individual accounts this year. That would be exactly the wrong thing to do. We have to have the constructive national bipartisan debate the majority and minority have been talking about today. We must lock up this surplus until we have figured out Social Security reform. And I will be offering a motion to recommit later that will make one change to the proposal before us but a vitally needed one. It will direct that the surplus is held absolutely until Social Security reform is completed.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying I agree with a great deal of what the gentleman from Illinois just said, particularly that we need a bipartisan approach as we tackle this most important of issues to the people we represent across the country. That is why I am forced to rise against the rule. In fact, having a closed rule that shuts out the minority, or for that matter Members of the majority, from offering an amendment that might make the process even better than proposed is itself a partisan majority heavy-handed tactic that unfortunately has this debate unfold today in perhaps a less constructive way than might otherwise have been the course. We are already in a national debate on Social Security. I think already we have clearly identified the core commitments in the program that have to be continued no matter what: The survivor benefit, so that in the untimely death of a breadwinner there continues to be Social Security support for the spouse and children. The disability benefit, so that if you get incapacitated and cannot work, you will have income, you will be able to live. And, thirdly, the retirement benefit that will pay on an absolutely guaranteed dependable basis just as long as you may live. Those core assurances are in the program, are what make this program our greatest program, and they must remain no matter what. The President, I think, has done us a lot of good in kicking off this national period of discussion on Social Security. He has had the first meeting, as was mentioned, in Kansas City just a few weeks ago. One amendment that I would have offered to the bill regarding the commission advanced by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is its report date. It reports in February of 1999. It slows up the ability of the next Congress, in my opinion, to get at the Social Security issue in a constructive, bipartisan way. I wish we could debate that date, that reporting date this afternoon. Under the closed rule, we will not be able to. One thing that will come out late in the debate on the bill that I think will add significant value to this legislation is offered in the motion to recommit opportunity that I will be offering. This motion to recommit will ensure that every penny of surplus is held until comprehensive resolution of the Social Security reforms is completed. The President said it first and he said it best when he said save Social Security first relative to the surplus. I think it is imperative that the House, every Member of the House, goes on record this afternoon in pledging their commitment that all of the surplus is held to save Social Security first. That will be the motion to recommit I will be offering later.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, those provisions do not begin to have the clarity the motion to recommit offers. While the gentleman does talk about some consensus effort within the committee, in fact there was a protracted debate in the committee and a voice vote where there was a clear divide against including language that spelled out surplus----

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