Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, one of my favorite Jack London stories is about the young Eskimo hunter who was highly successful. When they found out his secret, all were amazed, because his secret was to wrap tightly coiled shards of steel into frozen meat, and as the polar bears would devour the meat and thus would begin to digest it in the polar bear's stomach, the shards of steel would strike forward and literally tear the guts out of the polar bear, leaving a remarkably successful hunt for the young Eskimo hunter. The tax bill before us is constructed not unlike that little hunting trick. It offers a $200 billion deficit impact in the first 5-year measurement window for this bill. The House only considers the first 5- year cost of the proposal. Some in the majority side think we can afford the $200 billion. I happen not to agree. But no one is talking about the full cost of this bill, the 10-year cost of this bill, and that is vital to consider in light of what happens once we get past this bill's measurement window. You can see here in this chart that once we get past the 5-years, the cost of this measure explodes, and like the guts not out of a polar bear but out of the Federal Treasury when the full costs of the tax proposal before us are experienced to this Treasury. It will devastate our ability to reach a balanced budget. It will devastate programs vital to kids, vital to students, vital to seniors. It is very, very bad policy, and I urge its rejection.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule before us. The majority leadership is desperate to convince this House and the American public that this is a bill for middle-income Americans. But their very rule snuffs out an amendment offered by Democrats and Republicans alike to ensure that it goes where it ought to. The bill, the amendment I offered is a case in point. It would have established tax fairness in the deductibility of health insurance. Presently corporations can deduct 100 percent, self-employed individuals 30 percent, other individuals paying their own premium, nothing at all. The bill I introduced would have allowed an 80-percent reduction in premiums paid by individuals. This would have made coverage more affordable for their families and would have installed tax fairness. That is why my amendment was supported by the Farm Bureau, supported by the Farmers Union, supported by the National Association of the Self- employed. And we do not even get a vote. In fact, when the Committee on Rules addressed this issue, at least one said, ``We don't want to open up the Tax Code on this issue.'' Well, they opened up the Tax Code for America's most wealthy; why will they not open up this bill for an amendment to help working Americans?

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was not present for rollcall vote No. 290, the rule to provide for the consideration of H.R. 1215, the Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995. I was unavoidably detained in a meeting with Office of Management and Budget Director Alice Rivlin regarding Missouri River flood control. I spoke on the floor of the House twice against the rule and, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley], and I delivered a bipartisan letter to the Speaker of the House urging him to help us defeat the administration's proposal to increase electric rates by selling off the power marketing agencies or PMA's. If the goal of this Congress is to make Government run smarter, this plan would not stand a chance. The PMA's run at no cost to taxpayers, but make a big difference in the electric rates paid by over 100,000 in North Dakota and millions nationwide. There is one thing that has become clear since this idea was first suggested. This idea will not save the Federal Treasury a dime, but it will cost electric ratepayers millions. If sold, these agencies could well go to the highest bidder, driving up electric rates higher than those paid today. Mr. Speaker, 52 House Members who have signed this letter will not accept that. We are going on record today. We are opposed to the PMA sale and we are opposed to higher electric rates for our constituents.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, while both parties support welfare reform, there is something terribly unseemly about the debate under way in the House. Well-fed speaker after well-fed speaker has gotten up and argued passionately for the Republican proposal which makes deep cuts in the nutritional program helping infants at home, toddlers in day care and kids in school. My abundantly nourished Republican friends maintain they are not cutting anything. But the numbers tell quite a different story. The Congressional Budget Office, which they control, says more than $22 billion will be removed from the nutritional spending. The only way you get this much money from nutrition programs is by sharply reducing the quality and nutritional value of these programs which help these kids who need them so badly. For kids all across the country, it is goodbye milk, hello Kool-Aid. I wonder how my comfortable, well-fed colleagues would like a diet like that for themselves?

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I want to take this minute to talk about what I am for, what our caucus is for in terms of welfare reform. We are for a welfare reform package that is tough on work, that puts a work expectation for people receiving benefits. We are for a welfare reform package that enforces personal responsibility, particularly the personal responsibility for your children. Third, we are for a welfare reform package that does not punish kids because, for gosh sakes, it was not the kids that caused the problems we have with the present system. These are meaningful responses, meaningful reforms and they are represented in the Deal substitute. By contrast, the bill of the majority fails on all three counts, most particularly the work requirement. A Congressional Budget Office study put it on the front page of the Washington Post today talking about how States will fail under the GOP work rules. We need to make a work program work, and that is the Deal substitute. Please support it this afternoon.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, you know, the gentleman who is sponsoring the amendment is absolutely correct in his desire to cut spending. He just happens to be incorrect in the method which his amendment seeks to accomplish that end. The amendment under consideration, like the bill it amends, fails to take into account something pretty basic, something any consumer in any corner of any of our neighborhoods could tell us: The cost of food goes up. Mr. Chairman, for goodness sakes, the cost of a box of cereal now is in excess of $4. That is more than it was last year, quite a bit more than it was the year before that. That is why the cost of the Food Stamp Program has to track the increasing costs in groceries. Food costs go up for all of us, including those on food stamps. The amendment under consideration, like the bill it seeks to amend, fails to take into account another fact: If you have more people on food stamps, you are going to have to have more funds available for those people's needs. Only Jesus can feed the multitude from a single little boy's portion. For us mere mortals, if we are going to have more people, we are going to need more portions, it is as simple as that. Mr. Chairman, this is critically important, not for the people presently on assistance, presently on welfare, who have been so denigrated in the debate that has taken place, but working families hanging in there, standing on their own, but one recession away from losing their job, losing their pay check and needing the assistance of food stamps. A critical part of this Nation's safety net is the ability of programs to rise and shrink depending on economic cycles. We have had recessions before, and we will certainly have them again. This chart indicates the difference between the Deal substitute and the bill that it seeks to amend relative to the costs of food. The red line shows that in years to come, under the bill before us, we do not keep up with the cost of food.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support welfare reform, but one thing we must not do is rush through changes that hurt children. It is not the kids who have the responsibility for the flaws in our present system; it must not be the kids that pay the most painful and lasting price for the welfare reforms we debate tonight. Unfortunately, it is the kids who bear the brunt of the impact of the Republican welfare reform proposals because of the deep, in fact devastating cuts, they direct at programs which provide for the nutritional needs of these children. The reform bill does serious harm to child nutrition in two critical areas. First, the present programs are capable of dealing with future events that impact costs. These include increases in grocery costs, higher school enrollments, or an influx in the food stamp program brought about rescission, which like the last recession can thrown literally millions out of work and into a situation where they critically need food stamps for that family. Capping programs and not sufficiently allowing for growth in enrollment and costs means that by the end of the decade, children will not have the nutrition available that they have had or that they have today. When it comes to feeding our children, under their plan we will be going backwards instead of forward. Second, eliminating minimum nutrition standards for our states is terribly troubling. Now, I am all for State flexibility, State discretion. But for goodness sake, nutritional needs do not vary State by State. A kid in your State has the same nutritional requirements as a kid in my State. By eliminating national requirements and cutting available funds, we are setting in motion the inevitable deterioration of the nutritional values in our school lunch and breakfast programs. Good-bye milk and hello Koolaid for our kids in the years ahead. The Republicans cry foul over these charges. They adamantly deny they are cutting anything. But the numbers speak the truth. A total of $26 billion is cut from WIC, child nutrition and food stamps over the next 5 years, more than a third of the cuts in the entire Republican welfare reform package. You do not come up with $26 billion, Mr. Chairman, by reducing paperwork, eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. You get this much money only if you come directly at the meals our kids are presently receiving and reducing them dramatically in the future. There seems to me something terribly hypocritical about this, because you can bet your bottom dollar as Members of Congress our diets will not suffer in the years ahead. If groceries go up, we will pay it, because we have the financial resources to do so. But there are kids all over the country who depend on these programs for their basic nourishment, and they will not be able to keep up with rising costs in the future. Kids like the little Will boy I heard about in Grand Forks, ND, Friday. The person responsible for the School Lunch Program told me lots of kids depend on the school lunch and breakfast programs for their basic nourishment, and that in one little grade school in Grand Forks, the poorest section of town, you will find on any given Monday more than 100 kids in line waiting for the school breakfast, perhaps their first balanced meal since the Friday school lunch. She heard a little boy one day jumping up and down saying, ``That smells so good, that smells so good.'' The breakfast that morning was cold cereal and toast. Even toast to this little fellow smelled that good and caused that excitement. Now, this school district is going to have eliminate the School Breakfast Program if the cuts proposed by the Republican majority are enacted, and that little boy will not lose his breakfast; he will also lose his ability to listen and learn in class. Maybe even his edge in being able to fight off childhood illness. As a dietician told me this week, child nutrition is not welfare; it is health care. Mr. Chairman, I owe it to that little fellow to vote against this harsh and unfair legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in rejecting these cuts for kids. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Baesler].

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the bill, H.R. 1158, emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions. I am extremely disappointed with the rule under which H.R. 1158 has been brought to the floor. It is unfortunate that my colleagues and I have been denied the opportunity to offer alternative cuts to restore funding for programs we support. Cutting programs like the Low Income Home Energy Program [LIHEAP] is not the way to get our fiscal house in order. We should not totally eliminate the funding for a critical program which targets the very poor and helps them stay off other forms of welfare. In a time when we were trying to get individuals off welfare, we are eliminating a program which really goes to the heart of the problem and offers preventive measures. In North Dakota, one-third of all LIHEAP recipients receive no other government assistance. LIHEAP makes the difference between families becoming homeless or dependent on more costly welfare programs. For many senior citizens, the winter months force the heartbreaking decision of eat or heat. The high cost of heating their home forces some seniors to enter a nursing home, spend down their resources, and then become dependent on Medicaid. In the view of these concerns and the fact that eliminating Federal funding for heating assistance places yet another financial burden on the States, I cannot support this rescission measure.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, there will be precious little bipartisan agreement in the House today as we begin the upcoming rescission debate, so it is very appropriate we recognize our bipartisan moments as we find them. The proposal before us to reduce committee staffs by one-third clearly represents one such moment. We in the 104th Congress must show that when it comes to reducing Government spending, the cuts start here. Last session, as a freshman in this body, I fought for reductions in the legislative branch appropriations. While some headway was made, frankly I did not feel the cuts went far enough. Today, in a new Congress, I am happy to be part of an effort to make meaningful reductions in the amount Congress spends on itself. I particularly want to commend my friend, Chairman Bill Thomas, and the majority caucus, for their support and leadership on making these reductions. Quite clearly, we could not have done it without you. I also commend Ranking Member Vic Fazio and my colleagues in the minority caucus for supporting these reductions. It is time to make these cuts. I urge all Members to join me in supporting these cuts.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, activities occurring in the 104th Congress this week make very clear the warped priorities and bad economics of the Republican's contract on America. The warped priorities are evident in the programs subject to deep and painful spending cuts: school lunches, day-care nutrition, drug-free schools, and several other programs representing an important investment in our next generation. In short, help for our kids that our kids need. And for what are these cuts being made? Being made to finance a tax package to be voted on in the Committee on Ways and Means, a package that represents the more you make, the more you are going to get. In fact, this tax package makes it clear the breaks are going to be even more lucrative in the future. Consider it the gift that keeps on giving for America's most privileged and powerful. So there it is. Cuts in programs for our kids to fund tax breaks for the most privileged. The contract for America is bad news for this country because it is bad news for our kids.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill currently before the House, H.R. 956. Last night the Republican majority shoved through an amendment that was poorly drafted, superficially considered, and will hurt a lot of people. The Cox amendment imposed a cap of $250,000 on noneconomic damages in all civil lawsuits. What this amendment does is limit the amount that can be recovered against insurance companies that refuse to pay health care claims that they legitimately owe. I used to be an insurance commissioner. I used to help people who paid hard dollars for insurance so they would be protected against doctor and hospital bills only to find their claims denied and medical bill collectors at their door. The amendment adopted last night now protects those insurance companies who fail to pay what they owe. I cannot understand how the majority Members of this House can turn their back on people in their districts that will have to deal with bill collectors, shattered credit standing, repossessed automobiles and even foreclosed houses because their insurance companies fail to pay the claim they owe. They call this bill common sense legal reform. I doubt there is a single American who has had to fight their insurance company to get a claim paid who would think this bill makes any sense at all. As amended I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], I do have a law degree, and practiced for 5 years. I never brought a medical malpractice action. More recently, I regulated insurance for 8 years. I am the only former State insurance commissioner in Congress, and it is in connection with this that I rise. My friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], urged you to take your eyes off the amendment and look at the health care issue and pass this bill. The health care issue is not before us; the amendment is. I urge Members to go back and look at the text, because we could embarrass ourselves by passing this amendment as drafted. Mr. Chairman, on page 2, between lines 13 and 16, it says ``This shall apply to any health care liability action brought on any theory.'' I wish the sponsor of the amendment would have yielded to my question, because I was going to ask him, does that mean you cannot sue for noneconomic loss in excess of $250,000 a psychologist that was abusing his patients? I believe yes, under the strict terms of the text you have offered. On page 3 of the bill, health liability action is defined as more than the providing of health care, but also the paying for health care. In connection with this, I have a lot of experience, because I adjudicated claims that were unfairly denied by health insurers. I am aware of people who have had bills, hospital bills they have owed, bill collectors hounding them on those bills, and yet they have not been paid by their insurance company. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, we do not want to protect that. There is a lot of noneconomic loss that can flow from that, but that is covered under the bill, the liability is capped under the bill on any theory. No matter how egregious the conduct of the health insurer, no matter how blatant, how cruel, the liability is capped. This bill may address a very important concept, one we need to work on. We did not have a hearing on it, we did not discuss it. The language brought before us in this amendment overreaches and would put you in the position of protecting the abusing psychologist and the claim-denying health insurer. You do not want to be in that position.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the bill, H.R. 1058. Before coming to Congress, I served 8 years as North Dakota's insurance commissioner. I was the State's chief regulator for insurance and came to know the job of protecting consumers very well. It is with this background that I place great importance on the position of the State and Federal securities regulators with regard to this legislation. They unequivocally oppose H.R. 1058. The sole purpose of these regulators is the protection of investing consumers, and their opposition to this bill comes directly from that purpose. They believe it deals an unfair blow to the investing public. Regulators have no financial stake in this legislation and I weigh their position as highly credible. We have regulators to provide a check in the system--to make sure someone is looking out for the consumer. In considering legislation like this, I believe it is imperative that we listen to their expertise. While I approve of the goal of H.R. 1058--to deter frivolous claims or curtail strike suits-- this bill goes too far and limits the ability of aggrieved investors to pursue just recovery from fraud. I regret the committee did not work with the financial regulators to devise a carefully tailored response to this important issue.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the bill, H.R. 988, the Attorney Accountability Act. The authors of this bill would have you believe this legislation is intended to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits. This bill would more likely discourage average Americans--most likely middle-income citizens--from seeking redress in our judicial system. As the bill is written plaintiff's whose cases were found to have merit would actually be punished under this legislation. This bill alters the playing field between parties to a lawsuit and gives all the benefits to the large financially secure party. While a family would potentially risk all of their assets if a jury would rule against them, a large corporation could easily absorb these costs. Accordingly, the large corporation would have a tremendous advantage in a pretrial settlement conference in light of the dire risks the family would have with an adverse jury ruling. I wholeheartedly support curtailing frivolous lawsuits. Yesterday we had an opportunity to bring this bill back in line with the rhetoric that surrounds it. An amendment offered by Representative McHale, as modified by Representative Berman, would have replaced the loser pays provisions in H.R. 988 with provisions awarding attorney's fees to a defendant if the court finds the plaintiff's case to be frivolous. The court would entertain this motion anytime in the first 90 days after the complaint was filed. If found to be meritorious, it would put a halt to the nonsense before the parties under went the costly discovery process. More importantly, the claim would be dismissed and all legal costs would be born by the plaintiff. The McHale-Berman amendment would have given courts discretion to get rid of frivolous lawsuits that are filed in bad faith or with only the intention to harass. This bill is appropriately called the loser pays bill. Unfortunately, the real loser here is the American people.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the temperature reached 15 below zero in North Dakota last night. Unfortunately, the discomfort of the cold was made much worse by the anxiety caused by the news that all of the funds for home heating assistance to the poor had been eliminated by the House Committee on Appropriations late last week. Thousands of households in my State need help from time to time with high bills brought on by severe winter weather. Most receiving assistance have incomes below $8,000 a year, are elderly with disabilities, or families with young children under the age of 5 in the household. How in the world could Members of this body eliminate this critical program in order to fund tax cuts for the rich? That is a trade-off that does not make any sense. Maybe they just do not understand. After all, the temperature in Atlanta, GA, today is going to be 75 degrees warmer than in North Dakota. I call on every Member of this body, Republican and Democrats, who represent citizens coping with tough winters and high heat costs, to stand together and not leave the poorest of the poor out in the cold.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. The gentleman did not yield.

Mr. POMEROY. Does the gentleman yield? He said he would yield.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, point of clarification, I am not sure when the gentleman is going to yield to me for my question.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker----

Mr. POMEROY. The full 5-minute statement or the sentence?

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

Mr. POMEROY. Does the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the intent of the Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs is to exclude the Environmental Protection Agency Final Rule at 40 CFR part 180 titled, ``Pesticide Tolerances for 2,3-Dihydro-2,2-Dimethyl-7-Benzofuranty-N- Methylcarbamate,'' from H.R. 450, a bill that imposes a moratorium on the implementation of regulations issued between November 20, 1994, and the enactment of risk assessment/cost benefit analysis legislation, or December 31, 1995, whichever comes first. North Dakota has been granted a time-limited tolerance on Furadan CR- 10 for use on canola. Furadan CR-10 is considered the most effective insecticide used to control the flee beetle, one of the major threats to canola in North Dakota. North Dakota produces more canola than any other State and supports canola crushing facilities. Canola is a region-specific crop that when crushed produces one of the healthiest and highest demanded industrial use and edible use oils on the market today. The initiative by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] enables canola producers in North Dakota and a handful of northern tier States to sell Furadan-treated canola seed to ``Canola Crushing Processors'' within the United States. Prior to the tolerance, canola producers were required to export treated canola seed to foreign processors, mostly in Canada. It is my understanding that the regulation meets at least one of the general exclusions established in H.R. 450. Specifically, the definition of a ``rule'' excludes the ``granting or recognizing an exemption, granting a variance or petition for relief from regulatory requirement, or other action relieving a restriction * * * or taking any action necessary to permit * * * [the] use of a substance or product.'' In addition, H.R. 450 specifies that the term ``regulatory rulemaking action'' excludes: Rulemaking actions that are ``limited to repealing, narrowing, or streamlining a rule, regulation, or administrative process or otherwise reducing regulatory burdens.'' Additionally, based on H.R. 450, it would appear that should the Office of Management and Budget be asked to determine whether to exclude or exempt this regulation from the moratorium, that it should do so.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am not much of a statistician, but when we are talking about children and nutrition, this is what I think it is all about. The opening statement of the National School Lunch Act of 1946 includes the words, ``It is hereby declared as a matter of national security to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children to provide for the establishment of nonprofit school lunch programs.'' Even in 1946, our Nation realized there was a significant need to invest in the health and diets of its citizens, most particularly its kids. Since the implementation of the National School Lunch Act and the Food Stamp Act, these and other food assistance programs have received broad support from the people of this country and the results are in. We have gotten our money's worth. Successful health outcomes have resulted. Growth stunting has decreased 65-percent. Low birth weight has plummeted. Iron deficiency anemia among preschoolers has been dramatically reduced. These successes can be seen in the WIC program, the school lunch and breakfast programs, and the child and adult food care programs. Now, some lawmakers in Washington want to significantly reduce the funds and fundamentally change the way we extend quality nutrition to kids and other deserving Americans. The proposal being debated that we have been discussing this evening would scrap several well-working nutrition programs, cut funding, and send the reduced amount back to the States. They call it block granting. I call it block-headed. The designers of this program intend for these block grants to reduce the Federal spending on domestic food aid, give the States more power. States would be allowed to consolidate and target the programs. I am all for State power and flexibility. I think that is a good idea. But if this block granted proposal becomes law, many nutrition programs that we now have will have to compete against one another for the reduced funds that would be available. Imagine being the State administrator, forced to pick between programs for seniors versus programs for infants, school age children versus day-care kids. These are all worthy nutrition recipients, competing for support that under the proposal would be dramatically below what we have extended presently and for the past several years. The U.S. Department of Agriculture released numbers just Monday that indicated my State, North Dakota, would alone see a total reduction of $53 million over the next 5 years. Now, this is a cut that goes far below any so-called bureaucratic or paperwork savings that they claim would result. This is taking meals from seniors, lunches from school children, milk from toddlers at day-care centers. Certainly North Dakota under its block grant authority, like any other State, wants to do well by the nutrition for our citizens. I trust the State officials to look after that. But under this reduced funding level, cuts will be certain, meals will be withdrawn. You know, at the age of 41 last year I became a father for the first time? I am now the parent of a 16-month-old beautiful little girl, and it has given me in particular an interest in what is available for day- care, because I know all over the country we got parents really worried about quality day-care and affordable day-care. Last weekend I met about over a dozen parents and day-care providers in North Dakota, and they told me that the access they have to the child and adult food program, one of several, by the way, being eliminated under the block grant program, has been vitally important to them. They have written in fact across the State of North Dakota over 300 letters from day-care providers, and what they tell me says an awful lot about how ill-advised these program changes are. Let me quote to you from these letters. One woman who provides day- care writes, The meals eaten at day-care are the healthiest meals some of our children have each day. I do not feel that the discretionary funding for children's nutrition programs will have a positive effect on our children. In fact, it may harm many. We would be in direct competition with other programs within our State that receive the funding. A parent writes, Without the food program to assist her, my day-care provider, as well as many others, will not be able to keep taking care of the children and still make enough money to make ends meet. She has considered raising her prices to help make up the cost of assistance if the program is no longer available. If she does raise her hourly wage, some families will not be able to afford to pay her the price she requests. These and other testimonials from those most directly affected show that consolidation of the day-care feeding programs are a terrible idea, they will raise costs for parents, they will reduce the quality of nutrition for our kids, and they must be stopped.