Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. He said he would yield.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of taking immediate action to restore the 25-percent deduction on health insurance. This deduction has long been available, should never have been allowed to expire last year, and prompt action tonight can retroactively reinstate this important deduction for self-employed people. Swift action will allow them to take the deduction without having to go through the expense and hassle of amending their returns. We must recognize, however, Mr. Chairman, that this action is but step 1 of the road to parity in treatment of health insurance. Businesses, corporations have a 100-percent deduction. Individuals should be allowed no less. That is the concept implicit in H.R. 52, legislation I drafted on the first day of the 104th Congress which now enjoys the cosponsorship of 74 additional Members of this Chamber, both Republican and Democrat in roughly equal measure. The reasons are clear. It will first of all restore tax fairness and tax equality, corporation to individual. Second, it promotes the affordability of health insurance coverage so that in this time when too many people cannot afford the coverage, coverage becomes more affordable through allowing the deduction. Action is necessary tonight on this measure. Because while many people, most Americans face an April 15 tax filing deadline, the farmers I represent in North Dakota and throughout the country face a March 1 filing deadline. Prompt action this measure will allow this deduction. That is why I so strongly support this bill.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I support the bill but the substitute makes it much better. Speaker after speaker on both sides of the aisle have spoken about the need to pass legislation in the interest of tax fairness, giving self-employed a partial deduction, representing equitable treatment for the total tax deduction allowed businesses and corporations. Tax fairness also makes it imperative we allow a deduction not just for the self-employed, but to all others who purchase their coverage because they are not covered at their place of employment. No one has offered one word of defense for treating businesses differently than self-employed or for treating self-employed different from all other employees. Clearly all of us must believe when it comes to health insurance, corporations and those who are self-employed are no more entitled to tax breaks than all other men and women who purchase their health insurance. This substitute improves the bill and should be passed. I urge the Members of this House not to discriminated between business and self-employed or self-employed and all other employees. Pass the substitute.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the bill, H.R. 728. This bill undermines the focus of our crime fighting efforts in last year's crime bill--putting more police on America's streets. Mr. Chairman, under the crime bill passed last year grants for nearly 17,000 new officers have been awarded in 4 months. The speed of this process is remarkable. Simplicity is the key to the success of the current program, and I believe the downfall of the bill under consideration. Under last year's bill police chiefs and sheriffs in North Dakota had to fill out a one-page application to get funding for an additional officer and supply the DOJ with salary and benefit information. This is in stark contrast to the bill under consideration where local communities must put together an advisory board made up of representatives from the police department, local prosecutor's office, local court system, local public school system and a local nonprofit, educational, religious or community group active in crime prevention or drug use prevention or treatment. The board must review the application, hold a public hearing on proposed use of funds, establish a trust fund to deposit Federal payments, utilize federally proscribed accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures regarding the funds, provide records to the DOJ for compliance review purposes, and finally make reports as required by DOJ in addition to the annual reports required under the act. So what's been done here is a dramatic change in the process. Under the guise of local flexibility, the authors of this bill have taken a one page application for small jurisdictions, thrown it out the window and created a bureaucratic nightmare. Under a similar block grant program known as law enforcement assistance administration, a review found that one-third of all Federal funds were used to hire consultants. This newly created bureaucratic maze leads me to conclude a similar situation will emerge under this bill. What further concerns me is that the formula in H.R. 728 disadvantages rural areas like North Dakota. Last year's crime bill recognized the fact that crime is growing at a faster rate in rural America than in the rest of the country. It contained specific language requiring that at least half of the money be reserved for jurisdiction under 150,000 in population. This bill contains no such provision, and in fact, is likely to considerably reduce North Dakota's share of crime fighting funds. What's more, H.R. 728 provides no waiver provisions for the local match. While I believe a local match is good policy, there are some communities that will find even in the 10 percent match now included in H.R. 728 to be prohibitive. Under the current program, the Attorney General is provided with the authority to waive wholly or in part the local match requirement. The omission of this authority in H.R. 728 strikes another direct hit to rural America. In my estimation, North Dakota is a net loser under H.R. 728, as are the great majority of congressional districts across this country.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman [Mr. Chapman] for his amendment. You know, in the 104th Congress so far we have heard an awful lot about giving more flexibility to the States. I find it highly ironic that the bill before us takes flexibility away from North Dakota's prison plan to make people serve 85 or greater of their sentences. I might add, North Dakota has people serving a longer portion of their sentence than any other State in the country. Under the bill passed last year, we were set to get eligible to receive $8.8 million for prison construction, but under the language-- this is a quote from the law--``to construct, develop, expand, modify, operate or improve correctional facilities to insure such space is available for violent offenders.'' Let me read to you the language in the bill that is before us. It would allow us to take the money to build, expand, and operate. This is a critical distinction. They have taken from North Dakota the ability to advance plans that take prisoners out of the State penitentiary, the nonviolent ones, send them out to county jails, to make bed space for violent offenders in the State penitentiaries, just what we want to accomplish. But because of a drafting error, they have taken from North Dakota this right to access money for bed space for violent offenders. We have done it because we have been overly prescriptive. We have taken from States flexibility. We have imposed a one-size-fits-all approach out of Washington, DC. I just wonder how many Members, and goodness knows I will be watching when they vote for this, are going to actually be voting taking money away from their States, money their States would have been eligible for that would not be because they will be voting for language that simply does not work relative to the scheme of State flexibility as we approach the lengthening of time violent offenders serve. That is why I commend the gentleman for his amendment and yield back to him in this discussion. parliamentary inquiry

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

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, at the finest moments of the State of the Union speech last night the President stressed bipartisan responses to the problems which face this country. I believe the new majority is making a serious mistake in its tough partisan response to his and other viewpoints. This partisanship is evidenced in many ways, including the wholly inappropriate words uttered by the gentleman from California a few minutes ago. It is also evident in majority efforts to stop this House from considering requirements that the balanced budget amendment specify where the cuts will come from. Every single balanced budget amendment proposal considered by this body should specify where the cuts will come. I favor a balanced budget amendment, but I deeply regret that the new majority has not even allowed us to vote on whether every proposal should specify where the cuts will be.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution under consideration. It represents, in my opinion, the worst aspects of politics, even as we deliberate an issue as central to this country as amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, what we are considering is a fraud. Mr. Speaker, I favor a balanced budget amendment with one essential precondition and that is that the Social Security trust fund be placed off limits, not used to bail out unrelated Government spending. In words alone, both parties agree, all Members are saying Social Security is off limits. Indeed, however, there are deep divisions within this body. Some of us will only support a balanced budget amendment if the Social Security trust fund, independent status of this vital program is protected. Unfortunately, the majority opposes this independent status. If we all agree Social Security is off limits, let us get it in writing. If we buy a car, we buy a house and promises are made, we get them in writing. We get them in writing so that we can bind the contract in the future. That is why the balanced budget amendment test has to clearly protect Social Security. It is the only way we resolution is despicable, because it pretends to put in writing a Social Security commitment, but it does nothing, nothing at all. It is not worth the paper it is written on. This amendment is politics at its worst because what it says in reality is you have a point on Social Security. You have every reason to be concerned about Social Security, but we are not going to deal with your problem. We will pass a meaningless resolution, we will pretend to deal with your problem. It could just as well say we think those of you who care about Social Security can be tricked. We can fool you into thinking we have protected Social Security when we have done nothing, nothing at all for your concerns. Well, the people are not tricked by this resolution, Mr. Speaker. The National Committee to Save Social Security, the second largest advocacy group for seniors in the country, has called the Flanagan resolution meaningless and they state, and I quote ``Seniors will not be fooled.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be present today for rollcall vote No. 33. During this vote, I was at a meeting at the Pentagon. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY Mrs. MALONEY