Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding to me. He has been a true leader in having U.S. agriculture address the nutritional needs of countries that are in desperate shape from a food need standpoint. This amendment comes right at the heart of a very important program we have long maintained, using our agricultural prowess to help shaky countries with serious food need shortages for their citizenry. What have we gained from that? The benefit of world leadership, the benefit of stabilizing very unstable situations and, finally and best of all, new customers for our agricultural products. Following the GATT Treaty, we are in a critical period of shakeout in terms of developing international markets. We must maintain the funding for Public Law 480. Please, do not succumb to the very shallow attractiveness of this amendment. Please, support the Committee on Appropriations and reject this amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Hoke amendment to cut $113 million from the Food for Peace program. Mr. Chairman, the food assistance provided by P.L. 480 is not a favor we do for the world. For 40 years Congress has supported the Food for Peace program on a bipartisan basis because it serves our interests. P.L. 480 not only responds to the humanitarian needs of people suffering from food shortages; it enhances our national security by promoting economic development and political stability in less developed countries while cultivating markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The Food for Peace program is an important part of our Nation's foreign policy. In North Dakota we strongly believe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and P.L. 480 is that ounce of prevention. By promoting economic development and political stability in less developed nations, P.L. 480 is a very cost-effective insurance policy against political unrest and even military conflict that could threaten our own national security. P.L. 480 also benefits our economy by cultivating foreign markets for U.S. agriculture exports. In fact, 43 of our top 50 consumer nations of American agriculture exports were once U.S. foreign aid recipients. Between 1990 and 1993, U.S. exports to developing and transition nations increased. Exports increased $46 billion. Finally, P.L. 480 is a vital tool in the post-GATT era. While the Uruguay round ratchets down export subsidies, other market development tools are no longer available. If history is our teacher, we know that the Europeans will redirect export subsidy reductions into GATT-legal market development programs. For us to cut programs like P.L. 480 is engaging in unilateral disarmament while other nations seek to develop their international markets. Those who seek to destroy our export programs, like the amendment before us represents, will reap what they sow: lost jobs, a weaker economy, and little hope of regaining our share of the international market. Mr. Chairman, P.L. 480 feeds the hungry, supports our foreign policy objectives, and provides vital support for U.S. agriculture exports. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the Hoke amendment.

Mr. POMEROY. To the end of the bill?

Mr. POMEROY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, does the amendment go to the appropriate title? To which title does the amendment address?

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clear that the details of how the Republicans will cut Medicare are being held secret for as long as possible. At a time when millions of seniors are beginning to wonder, will my costs really go up more than $1,000 a year out of my pocket, will my choice of physicians really be restricted, no hearings are being held and no details are being discussed. We all know that the Republican budget, with its tax cuts for America's most privileged, means the cuts are just around the corner. There will be higher out-of-pocket costs for seniors, very considerable higher our-of-pocket costs. There will be restrictions on physician choice. But exactly how, the Republicans are not saying, because they are going to try and sucker punch the American people by floating the details of the plan only days before the vote, notwithstanding the fact that our seniors deserve the chance to see, to evaluate and to let their Members of Congress know what they feel about these plans. The us how you will cut Medicare, Mr. Speaker. The American people deserve to know.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I recognize the legitimacy of the concern he seeks to address. Speaking from the upstream perspective on the Missouri River, there is a word of reservation I want to advance about dealing in an appropriations bill with the minutiae of the administrative branch, in this case the Corps of Engineers. The process has already worked as it should. The Corps of Engineers had extensive hearings on the spring rise proposal and received a ton of input, nearly all of it negative. They no longer have plans, as I understand it, to implement the spring rise proposal as initially advanced. They are back to the drawing board. Therefore, this kind of restriction imposed without hearing in the appropriations process is, in my opinion, not necessary, although I do acknowledge the gentleman's concern and would note that my wife, in 1993, spent 3 weeks working in Iowa on the flooding there. Mr. Chairman, from its origins in Montana to its end near St. Louis, the mighty Missouri River is managed and controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. Five years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers began a review of its river management plan, commonly called the master manual. This was the first major review of the manual since it was implemented in 1960. This fair and objective review process, now underway, has included Representatives of each of the States affected by the Missouri River and the master manual, including Mr. Bereuter. At this point, Congress should not alter this process within the energy and water appropriations bill. Last month, the corps informed Members of Congress of preliminary draft recommendations for reviewing and updating the master manual. The corps has received thousands of comments on its initial draft recommendation and is specifically concerned with its draft proposal as it relates the spring rise. The corps is addressing the spring rise issue in a revised draft that will be released in 1997. To be brief, the process is working as intended. The corps put forth a proposal that contained a number of flaws, including the spring rise. Now the corps is reexamining those issues to develop an alternative that will be acceptable to those affected by the spring rise and other Missouri River management concerns. This Congress should not get involved with the specifics of the master manual. Instead, we should allow the process to proceed as it has with input from all interested and affected parties. In fact, I do not necessarily oppose the intentions of my friend, Mr. Bereuter, in addressing his concerns of the spring rise. However, within the process of revising the master control manual we should not address specifics of revising the manual within this appropriations bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, it has been a contentious, partisan week in the House of Representatives, and much of the division has involved the Medicare Program. The budget passed by this House yesterday on a largely partisan vote imposes cuts of $284 billion that will be devastating to the program. That will definitely mean higher out-of-pocket costs for seniors and less choice. I feel bad about that issue this morning and bad about the way the House resolved it and anxious about how those cuts will actually be put in place as we deal with the legislation that is before us. It is sometimes difficult, then, to get on to other issues where there is in essence no partisan division, where it is a pretty clear and simple little bill that ought not have some of the rancor from earlier debates spilling over into it, but that is not precisely the case with the Medicare select extension before us today. It passed the first time in the House of Representatives 408 to 14, most Democrats, most Republicans joining together in a rather unusual show of bipartisan support for a program. Why did that vote occur? Because I think the Members recognized that a program such as this, a voluntary way for seniors to opt for an insurance program that is going to give them a premium discount, that has had a successful run in the 15 States that have been allowed to run the Medicare Select Program, ought to be extended to the 50 States, ought to be given a 3-year extension so that the marketing of this program can begin in earnest. I know something about this program. I was the insurance commissioner in North Dakota at the time it passed. I lobbied HHS to get North Dakota into the program because I believed in it. Ten thousand North Dakotans participate in this program. They get a monthly savings in premium amounting to 17 percent below those buying the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Medicare supplement that is not Med select. Medicare select saves money. It negotiates discounts from the hospital and passes it on to the senior citizen. It also passes on any managed-care savings experienced in claims payment to the senior citizen purchasing the insurance policy. What is wrong with this? Is this some sort of diabolical plot by the evil insurance industry? Certainly not. Certainly not. It is a simple little program, it works well, and we ought not take some of the bad feeling we have about some of the other discussions going on around here and bring it to this little issue. Medicare select should be passed. This House passed it once before, 408 to 14, and I trust we will again this morning.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the budget represented in the conference report. There were several ways this Congress could have reached a balanced budget, including a proposal I supported in the House, one introduced by Senator Conrad in the Senate and the one advanced by President Clinton. Unfortunately, Speaker Gingrich has put before us the version that gives tax breaks to America's most privileged while socking it to the middle class with deep reductions in the Medicare Program, cuts in student loans and many, many other vital areas. I doubt there are hard-working middle-class families anywhere in this country that will take it harder than those I represent, those working very hard on family farms across North Dakota. Under this plan, funding for agriculture is dangerously, recklessly slashed. According to an analysis of their proposal by North Dakota State University, it projects land values falling 50 percent as farmers can no longer make an adequate income in light of the sharp reductions. Farmers that have farmed their land for generations will be forced off their lands, not just in North Dakota but across rural America. It is not just farmers either that are taking these vicious hits. It is the very warp and fabric of rural America. The Medicare cuts will close rural hospitals. The Medicaid cuts will close nursing homes. Rural development assistance, so vital to diversifying our economies, also due to be slashed. One Republican suburban Member of this body revealed the thinking of the majority as they hit rural America so completely. He says, and I quote: Not everyone needs to be connected to the U.S. Postal Service. If it is too expensive to deliver to some spot in North Dakota, then those residents can do without it. This budget will take away farms. This budget will take away rural hospitals. This budget will wipe out critical services in rural America, some even advocate eliminating postal service. Rural America has been sold out. It is a bad budget for our country.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote 429. I was just off the House floor meeting with North Dakotans on legislative matters. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall number 216, I was unavoidably detained at the Base Closure and Realignment Commission [BRAC] meeting. The Commission members were voting on matters directly impacting my State of North Dakota. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall number 216.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], are sponsoring what they call the Farm Freedom Act. It is, to be kind, a very short-sighted proposal that would have a devastating impact, not just on rural America, but on urban America as well. All of the Members of this House, urban and rural, suburban, have to understand that we are all in this together. Agriculture is our Nation's No. 1 industry. It is larger than Chrysler, Ford, and GM combined. [[Page H5989]] The ag sector provides 16 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product, and one of every six jobs. And our ag exports are one of the few bright spots in our Nation's overall trade picture. Mr. Speaker, adoption of this bill would cause severe economic dislocation and job losses, not just in agriculture, but throughout our entire economy. It is a very, very bad proposal.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Debra Lundgren, a farm wife from Kulm, ND, who gave a short, but meaningful speech in April when U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, was in North Dakota for a regional farm forum. Her speech follows: I am here today as a farm wife. It is a role I enjoy, but one I do not get to perform very often. Because I am married to a farmer, I cannot afford to be a farm wife. I would rather work on the farm, but can't--and I'm not alone. Eighty-seven percent of the income generated by the average U.S. farm operator household comes from off-farm sources. My husband farms full-time and works an additional job, fulltime job. I am presently working two jobs, so no one can say we are [[Page E1196]] lazy. Nor are we getting rich from program payments. Between bureaucrats and the media, farmers take a beating every day. They sensationalize program abuse and tend to forget those of us trying to make a living. Unfortunately, most people who are removed from agriculture believe there is an unlimited flow of financial support from the government to the farmer. That sir, as you know, is not true. In fact, our government has kept the price of our commodities artificially low. You must admit, it's a consumer subsidy, not a farm subsidy. Expenses have risen since the depression. Prices have not. In countries that have been hungry, governments provide price supports to make sure their farmers will produce. Japan pays their farmers $32.88 for each bushel of wheat. Syria pays $23. Even Bangladesh supports prices above the United States of America. Please don't let the word ``price supports'' be misunderstood. We are not asking for welfare. We are, in essence, requesting a minimum wage. Unlike most people working for a minimum wage, we invest for the privilege. Mr. Secretary, the original intent of the farm program was to narrow the gap in income between farmers and the rest of the population. Family farmers still stand to benefit from that ideal, but the current abuse of the programs allow the largest 18% of farms to collect \2/3\ of the benefits. The time has come to change the programs, not throw them out. Target the benefits, based on production, to family farmers. Reward the efforts of the farmers who continue to provide quality food for America's families while struggling to feed his own. The new wealth created by a fair price would revitalize rural and urban main streets across the country. Finally, we may be only 2% of the population, but that means that 98% of the population depends on us to provide their food. I'd say that makes us an extremely important part of this country. I'd say that deserves the respect of anyone who had breakfast this morning or supper last night. I'd say we are worth the effort of a farm bill that directs program benefits to farm families who risk everything every year. Wouldn't you?

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct which at its heart reaches a balanced budget, directs conferees to reach a balanced budget by 2002 by dropping the tax cuts for the privileged and knocking out the tax increases for the poor. The chairman, I think, raised a good point. He said we ought to quit talking about this in terms of the formal budget jargon. Let us put it in the context of a couple at the breakfast table. I liked that idea. I imagine myself talking about this with a couple back in North Dakota at the Sunday breakfast table. I think they would agree that the budget is out of balance, that we ought to do something about it. I would have to agree with them, and I would in fact commend the majority for their efforts to reach a balanced budget. But how do we get there? I would have to tell them that the House budget starts the road to the balanced budget by a deep tax cut. I think they would ask questions at that point. They would say, that sounds a little bit like digging the hole deeper before you start to fill it up. Like taking a trip on your credit cards before you begin to get your household finances in order. It just does not make sense. But they might ask a question, intrigued by tax cuts like we all are, who gets it? At this point I would have to tell them, well, if you are an average North Dakotan making $30,000 a year, you will get about 25 bucks a month. But it you are a doctor or someone making over $200,000 a year, you are going to get $1,000 a month: $25 a month for the average guy; $1,000 a month if you make over $200,000 a year. At that point I believe this couple at the breakfast table would start to say, wait a minute. This thing is stacked against the average working family. This is not fair. They might also wonder, how are you going to balance that budget and pass the tax cut? Well, I would have to tell them that the House budget plan makes deep, deep, painful cuts in programs as important to North Dakota as Medicare, student loans, the farm program. In fact, I would have to tell them if they were on Medicare they would be looking at paying maybe 2,500 bucks more in out-of-pocket costs than they would have otherwise. At this point in time, this couple at the breakfast table might say, there has got to be a better way of getting to a balanced budget than that House plan which savages these programs and gives tax cuts which benefit disproportionately the rich. I would have to say there is. In fact, the Senate Republicans passed a plan that did not have those tax cuts for the most privileged. In fact, the Senate rejected that idea entirely. As we construct a budget, we ought to recognize that the Senate took the better course. One thing the Senate did that was very objectionable is they added tax increase, one that falls on the poorest working families. That ought to come out. The House did not have it in its plan. And our motion to instruct directs conferees not to impose the tax increase on working families like they did. What this motion is about is establishing a modest degree of fairness between two flawed budget proposals. One thing is clear, there is nothing more unfair than the House version, which passes tax cuts for the most privileged, funded by deep cuts in programs important to working families.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, when ethics charges are filed against a Member, the public has the right to have the absolute assurance that the charges are investigated and appropriate action taken. Appropriate action, as I see it, could even include dismissal of the charges and sanctions against those who filed the charges if they were found to be frivolous and malicious. I, therefore, cannot understand why the Ethics Committee, on a party line vote, rejected the call for an outside counsel to investigate the charges currently pending against the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich. If the charges are frivolous, no action could dispel the stigma which presently exists more clearly. If the charges are serious, then each of us, regardless of party, ought to support the appropriate handling of them. In the meantime, the public is thinking, I believe, if there is nothing to hide, what is the problem with an outside counsel. Instead, the Ethics Committee action to date begins to look like a political coverup of serious charges. We will not restore confidence in Government if this troubling problem continues to exist.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is dead wrong to turn our back on our Nation's students by eliminating the in-school interest deferral on student loans. The student loan program is not for children from wealthy families. It is for those who qualify, namely those from middle- and low-income backgrounds. Watching Members of Congress my age who I know back when they were students took advantage of these programs now vote to repeal them to give tax breaks to their rich friends makes me sick. I think it is dead wrong for those who took advantage of programs now to vote to essentially pull up the ladder and deprive those who follow of the same opportunities that they had. This hit to student loans comes at a time when the importance of education has never been greater, but the cost unfortunately has never been higher. We should not get to a point where our college campuses bear a sign, ``Only the wealthy need apply.'' But unfortunately the Republican plan financing tax breaks by eliminating student loan interest deferral brings us much closer to that sorry state.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, rural America is prepared to do its share to balance the budget but the Republican budget asks rural America to do much more than is fair or even reasonable by cutting $9 billion out of 5 years, $17 billion over 7 years. It will cause, in my State alone, a 35-percent drop in net farm income, a 50-percent drop in farm values. It will drive thousands of family farmers off the land. We will lose international markets and ultimately pay higher grocery prices, all because rural America gets hit, in fact, killed under their budget.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman does not have a question about North Dakota, I will reclaim my time. The gentleman's own seniors in Connecticut will lose $3,800 under their proposal, a fact he ought to be aware of.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, why are the Republicans proposing to slash Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts benefiting America's most privileged? Throughout the afternoon, we have seen abject efforts of denial of the cuts by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the task force Chair, jumping up and citing increased funding and saying only in Washington could this be determined a cut. I have never heard a more blatant distortion on the floor of this House. The fact of the matter is that the funding does not keep up with the increasing costs in health care. Let me cite a figure that might be of interest to the gentleman from Connecticut himself, because under the cuts proposed, in Connecticut each senior citizen will pay more out of pocket, $3,885 cumulatively through 2002, under the plan advanced. That to the seniors of Connecticut I would suggest is a real, real cut, one that hits right in the pocketbook. The Medicaid figures are even worse. In the Republican cuts for Medicaid in the out years, they allow a 4 percent adjustment in Medicaid funding. There will be a 3-percent growth in enrollment in Medicaid, which means they allow the cost of medicine to go up 1 percent per year. What do we know about Medicaid and medical inflation? It is rising at an amount dramatically higher than that, and it is going to rip benefits away from the children and the disabled and the elderly that depend on Medicaid funding. This chart reveals what a vicious hit it will be to kids. An additional 6.7 million kids will lose their coverage under the Medicaid proposals advanced in the Republican budget. That to the gentleman I would suggest is a very real, a very meaningful cut to children. For senior citizens it is equally devastating. Seniors receiving long-term care in nursing homes across this country will find the costs of their care rising much faster than the Medicaid payments to fund them. In fact, if you look over 5 years, an additional 1.7 million senior citizens requiring long-term care assistance will be deprived of Medicaid coverage under their plan. Those are real cuts. You may in budget chicanery try to gloss over what you are doing to people, but let me tell you, you are taking coverage away from children and you are taking coverage away from senior citizens in nursing homes, and you are doing it primarily to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Mr. Chairman, at this point in time I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, if he would like to ask me any questions about North Dakota. Does the gentleman from Connecticut care to respond?

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, we had a long day in the House Committee on the Budget yesterday. I am here to tell Members about one aspect of the Republican plan to balance the budget that they do not want to talk much about. That is about the deep cuts in Medicare, $184 billion over the next 7 years. And the impact of these would take health insurance away from 5 million kids that now have it. It is taking a health care problem in this country and making it much worse by depriving 5 million kids of health insurance coverage. The plan does not stop there, because it also assaults the elderly that depend upon Medicaid to help them defray the cost of nursing home expenses when they have exhausted their personal accounts. What will happen to some in a nursing home that has exhausted their life savings? Will they be put out on the street when the Republican Medicaid cuts begin to hit and there are no more funds available? Will they be forced to move in with their children who are already struggling to make it and provide for the college education of their children? These are questions that need to be answered as we flesh out the Republican budget. Disaster for kids; disaster for seniors.

Mr. POMEROY

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

Mr. POMEROY. I believe attained age rating of the Medicare supplement business generally is inappropriate. I think that it is dead wrong for people whose finances are diminishing in advancing age, whose health is deteriorating in advancing age, to be finding themselves on the upper range of an attained age premium scale. I think that it needs to be addressed in the context of the entire Medicare supplement marketplace, not simply the Medicare select product. Right issue, wrong vehicle. That is why I oppose this substitute. But the gentleman is on to something. This is unacceptable and the insurance commissioners better move quickly on this or Congress should take action.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, this debate brings up two points of frustration that I have got with Congress: The first is partisanship. There are technical policy questions that come before this House and they do not need to be debated in a bashing, partisan manner with which we bring to the debates. There clearly are those issues that will divide us along partisan and ideological lines. This is a technical little public policy question we face and we do not need to turn it into a partisan free-for-all. We have had enough of those already. Second frustration. Sometimes on the floor of this House we try and imagine everything that can go wrong and figure out how to fix it regardless of whether in real life it has been a problem at all. Inevitably that produces the law of unintended consequences and we can foul things up pretty well. I believe the substitute, while wholly well-intentioned, represents that sort of approach. Having regulated this market, having tracked it since I left regulation, I do not believe we see the practices that would be fairly addressed by this regulation. Even if there were those circumstances out there, the worst place to fashion the right regulatory response would be on the floor of the House with amendments and substitutes. There are experts that do this every day. They are called insurance regulators. They ought to have first crack at this. Second, in the event that they are remiss, we ought to have a good solid hearing in the committees on this issue. Believe me, when I was commissioner, I can remember some very rigorous days in congressional committees as we discussed these matters. Not on the floor of the House, not in the context of substitute motions. I urge a defeat of the gentleman's motion, although I have the greatest respect for what he is trying to accomplish, and the passage of the bill.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, Medicare select is an issue I have followed for several years. I am the only former insurance regulator in the 104th Congress. At the time the Medicare Select Program came into being, I was regulating the insurance market in North Dakota, the State I now represent in this body. I favored very strongly the Medicare select component. I thought perhaps the 15-State limitation at that time was unduly restrictive, in light of fairly prevalent practices throughout the Medicare supplement market at that time to allow the type of discounting and favorable premium impact it had for the senior citizen consumers under the operation explicitly allowed for the 15 States under the program. I believe with the Medicare select, those who would believe we are engaged in an experiment here have it exactly wrong. The Medicare select restrictions actually constricted discounting activity that was allowing seniors lower insurance prices throughout the 50 States. I fought as an insurance regulator to make sure North Dakota got to be one of the 15 States allowed, and was pleased that the Department of Health and Human Services allowed North Dakota to be one of the States. The experience has been significant. It has allowed a 17-percent premium deduction for senior citizens. I called in the course of the Medicare select legislation to see whether or not problems, some kind of consumer complaints had arisen because of the restricted delivery system that might bring about this kind of discount. I was told by the North Dakota insurance department they did not have one, not a single complaint on their Medicare select book of business allowed in the State of North Dakota, now amounting to about 10,000 policyholders. Having regulated this market for 8 years, I would say it is rather incredible that any product, no matter how perfect, does not generate one consumer complaint to the insurance department. I think when it comes to senior citizens, this body owes them the same range of choices allowed throughout the rest of the insurance marketplace. We have discounting arrangements being made with providers to pass a better value on to the policy holder. Why, when it comes to senior citizens, should we somehow become so protectionist as to try and keep them from being able to access that same kind of discounted premium? Are there questions in the senior MediGap market? Of course there are. Attained age rating is a concern that I believe needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed, in my opinion, first by the regulatory entities responsible for regulating insurance, State insurance departments. I believe if the State insurance departments adn their collective organization, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a body I formerly served in as president, do not in the very near term address that forcefully, action should be considered in this body to preclude attained age rating. I feel that strongly about it. However, the vehicle before us certainly is not the one to try in this body to revamp the regulatory structure in this way. This is a simple bill. It serves a positive purpose. Give seniors a choice, give seniors a break, and pass this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has quite possibly wiped out the last chance to get a meaningful deduction for those millions of Americans struggling every month to pay their own health insurance. I offered an amendment which would have allowed 80 percent of the premium to be deducted and would have paid for it by limiting the child tax credit in the Republican bill to families earning up to $80,000. If we would have foregone this tax credit for families earning 6-figure incomes, up to $250,000, we could have fully funded this vital deduction. For me, it is a matter of priorities. I think it is much more important for Congress to help families afford the coverage they need to get their children health insurance than to give this tax break to themselves and other families earning in the 6-figure range. It underscores what this Republican tax bill is all about: Helping the rich, and sticking it to middle-income working Americans.