Tim Holden

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. There has been an awful lot of talk on this floor the last few days about our dependence on foreign energy, particularly upon foreign oil. Well, this amendment and similar amendments have come up every year since I entered the Congress in 1993, and every year Members of the Pennsylvania and West Virginia delegations take this opportunity to remind our colleagues of some very important facts. Number one is that we have more recoverable coal in this country than the whole world has in recoverable oil. Yes, that is true. There is more recoverable coal in this country than recoverable oil in the whole world. We should be reinvesting in alternative sources to use that fuel that we have available, not disinvesting. I am honored to represent the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), and we have anthracite coal that is high in Btu and low in sulfur and meets every EPA standard of the Clean Air Act. Technology has been around for decades where we can turn waste coal and raw coal into diesel fuel and gasoline. The Germans did it during World War II, the South Africans did it during the embargo. I am sure many of my colleagues have been receiving the same complaints I have been receiving about high gas prices here in the United States. We should take this opportunity to be reinvesting in alternative ways so that we can perfect that technology so we can use our own natural resources. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Let us take advantage of our own natural resources and not disinvest. Let us reinvest in clean coal technology.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleague from California in cosponsoring H.R. 2366, the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999. Like the other pieces of civil justice reform legislation that have recently been enacted into Federal law, this bill departs from the comprehensive approach that advocates of broad product liability and tort reform have taken in the past. Instead, this bill focuses on a few key specific liability issues: the exposure of small business with fewer than 25 full-time employees to joint liability for non-economic damages and punitive damages, and the exposures of retailers, wholesalers, distributors, and other non- manufacturing product sellers to product liability lawsuits for harms they did not cause. Mr. Chairman, I have many small businesses in my Congressional district that stand to benefit greatly from this legislation. Many of these businesses have been family run for several generations, and this bill will protect them from the type of frivolous litigation that threatens their existence. Let me emphasize that the bill we are considering here today is careful not to overreach. As I previously indicated, this is a narrowly crafted, tightly focused bill. The provisions restraining joint liability and punitive damages do not apply to civil cases that may arise from certain violations of criminal law or gross misconduct. Nor do they apply in States that elect to opt out with respect to cases brought in State court in which parties are citizens of that State. The product seller liability provisions are strictly confined to product liability actions and protect the ability of innocent victims of defective products to fully recover damage awards which they are entitled. Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues who oppose this legislation might say the bill is unnecessary. They may say this last year there were only 14 cases where punitive damages were awarded in the entire United States. That may be true, Mr. Chairman, but it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it does not take into account the countless incidences where cases were filed that seek such extraordinarily high punitive damages that defendants are frightened into settlement rather than risking what might happen in a court of law. This bill tries to put an end to this abuse. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this legislation have previously won bipartisan support in this chamber as well as the other body. Although limited in scope, their enactment into law will reduce unnecessary litigation and wasteful legal costs and improve the administration of civil justice across this country. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes and pass this limited but meaningful civil justice reform bill.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. There is not a Member from either side of the aisle from the mid-Atlantic or northeastern States that can go home and look their farmers in the eye and say that this is a fair piece of legislation. It simply is not. $1.2 billion for all weather-related disasters simply does not add up to meet the needs of our farmers throughout the country. We have experienced a 100-year drought in the Northeast. In Pennsylvania alone, $700 million of damage; New York, $370 million; Maine, $31 million; Ohio, $600 million. Combined in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern part of the country, $2.5 billion of losses from drought. Then we look at the terrible situation in North Carolina, what they are facing in flooding and how we need to help our friends and colleagues from North Carolina; early on in the year, the flooding in the upper Midwest. Mr. Speaker, we were not trying to be greedy in this bill, we were just trying to ask for what our friends in other parts of the country received before in other emergency appropriation bills. We wanted 42 percent of our losses that were uninsured to be paid for with cash assistance and livestock assistance. $1.2 billion, Mr. Speaker, simply does not get there. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and give us the opportunity to do what is fair for the mid- Atlantic and northeastern States.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1402, legislation to mandate the implementation of Option 1A of the Federal Milk Marketing Order System. In Pennsylvania, dairy is the largest agricultural enterprise, representing a $1.5 billion industry. Pennsylvania is the fourth largest dairy State in the country. Dairy is important to Pennsylvania and the entire Northeast because of the particular contribution it makes in both dollars and jobs. Over the past 2 years, I have worked with a majority of my colleagues in support of replacing the Federal Milk Marketing Order System with what is known as Option 1A. That is why I strongly opposed the rule proposed by the Secretary, a modified Option 1B. If implemented, it penalizes dairy producers to the tune of at least $200 million per year. In Pennsylvania alone, that loss will be about $20 million a year, based on a reduction in Class 1 differentials. It discriminates in providing a fair and equitable price to dairy farmers in most regions of the country. In both the short and long run, it will hurt consumers by reducing supplies of locally-produced fluid milk and drive up prices at supermarkets. The bill before us today will implement a widely-supported Option 1A which will provide equitable pricing for fluid milk, ensure affordable dairy products to consumers, and prevent the further erosion of the economic well-being of many small communities. It will ensure that our Nation's dairy farmers receive a fair pricing system and consumers have an adequate supply of fresh dairy product. I encourage my colleagues to join the 229 cosponsors and vote in support of H.R. 1402.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 940 this afternoon. I would like to thank the chairmen of the committee and the subcommittee for bringing this legislation to the floor, and I thank the ranking members of the committee and subcommittee for their assistance, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), my good friend, for the way that he cooperated and extended his hand so that we were able to include the entire anthracite coal field in this heritage corridor, and I do truly appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman. The link between the Schuylkill Heritage Corridor and the Lackawanna Heritage Corridor, as the gentleman mentioned, is anthracite coal, the anthracite coal that fueled the industrial revolution in this country, first by way of the Schuylkill Canal and then by way of the railroads. We should all be proud of that heritage, and I am certain that our managing entities are going to work very closely together so that we can highlight that proud history of anthracite coal. Along with the coal fields in Pennsylvania came the first real effort for organized labor to set foot in the United States. I am very pleased to say that the work of the association started in Schuylkill County and was the forerunner to the United Mine Workers of America, where men fought long and hard for equitable pay and for working privileges and working rights that they were not able to have in the days when anthracite coal was first begun to be mined in Pennsylvania. Through their efforts and through their long and hard work, they were able to have decent salaries and decent wages and decent working conditions in the anthracite fields right now. We should continue to honor the heritage of what was done in organized labor. Mr. Speaker, there is much more to be told about the Schuylkill River Heritage. As we leave Schuylkill County and move down the Schuylkill River, we have a proud heritage in agriculture, a proud heritage in textiles, and in iron ore. All of these industries have a great tradition, and we all have great pride in what was accomplished right down the Schuylkill River as we get to Valley Forge and to Philadelphia. It was our link to get our goods to the marketplace, and we should make every effort possible to be appreciative as to what was done, but also try to highlight through Heritage Corridor what was done in the past and continue to move for economic development. I am absolutely positive that when this Schuylkill River Heritage Corridor gets into a working agreement and hits the ground running, that it is going to be able to model itself after the Lackawanna Corridor, as my friend mentioned, where they were able to leverage with federal money, with private money, and State money and county money to do so much good in the Lackawanna Valley, and I am hoping we are going to use that example as we do in the Schuylkill River Corridor. So I would just like to take this opportunity to say that this is a good piece of legislation. It certainly has been done in a very bipartisan manner. I think we all cooperated very well. Again, I would like to extend my gratification for that effort that was made to assist in making sure that anthracite coal and all of the treasures of the Schuylkill River can have a heritage corridor that we can work on.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, not because of the cause that the authors of the amendment have championed but because where they intend to take their offsets from. Mr. Chairman, we should not be disinvesting in fossil fuel research in this country. We should be reinvesting. Here in the United States we have between 250 and 300 years of a coal supply. That is more recoverable oil than the entire world has. That is correct. That is more than the entire world has in recoverable oil. We should not be disinvesting. We should be reinvesting. I have the honor and privilege of representing the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), a clean burning coal that meets all EPA requirements, low in sulfur and high in Btu. We should be investing in alternative uses of coal. I currently have a bill pending before the Committee on Ways and Means to supply incentives, tax incentives so that we can take advantage of technology that already exists, where we can turn waste coal and raw coal into gasoline and into diesel fuel. These are the types of things we should be doing with fossil fuel research. There is research being done at Penn State and Wilkes and many universities all over Pennsylvania and West Virginia. We should not be cutting research in these funds. We are too dependent in this country on foreign oil already. I say to my colleagues in the Congress, we go through this fight every year. Every year this program is attacked. It has been cut significantly over the years. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the number that they have arrived at this year, protecting the research that is in this bill. I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is bad for Pennsylvania, it is bad for West Virginia, it is bad for Kentucky, it is bad for southern Illinois. We should defeat this amendment.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to introduce the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999. Like the other pieces of civil justice reform legislation that have recently been enacted into Federal law, this bill departs from the comprehensive approach that advocates of broad product liability and tort reform have taken in the past. Instead, this bill focuses on a few key specific liability issues: the exposure of very small businesses--those with fewer than 25 full-time employees--to joint liability for non-economic damages and punitive damages, and the exposure of retailers, wholesalers, distributors and other non-manufacturing product sellers to product liability lawsuits for harms they did not cause. Last month, similar legislation was introduced in the other body (S. 1185) and it is my hope and expectation that our efforts in this body will combine with the work of our Senate colleagues to enable the Congress to respond positively and on a bipartisan basis to the concerns we hear year after year from smaller employers about our civil justice system. Let me emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the bill we introduce today is careful not to overreach. As I previously indicated, this is a narrowly crafted, tightly focused bill. The provisions restraining joint liability and punitive damages do not apply to civil cases that may arise from certain violations of criminal law or egregious misconduct. Nor do they apply in States that elect to opt-out with respect to cases brought in State court in which all parties are citizens of the State. The product seller liability provisions are strictly confined to product liability actions and protect the ability of innocent victims of defective products to fully recover damage awards to which they are entitled. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this legislation have previously won bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. Although limited in scope, their enactment into law will reduce unnecessary litigation and wasteful legal costs and improve the administration of civil justice across this country. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this limited but meaningful civil justice reform bill with strong bipartisan support.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 850, the Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act. My name was erroneously added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution today, and I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for bringing this legislation to the floor. Before coming to Congress, Mr. Speaker, I had the great opportunity to serve as sheriff of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, for 7 years. During that time period, I had a chance to get to know Judge Cahn, and I just wanted to say that he is an honest, sincere, hardworking person who has dedicated his life to serving, not only the people of Lehigh Valley but the people of Pennsylvania and the people of this great country. He has served with distinction on the bench, and his knowledge of law and his sense of fairness is beyond question. I would just like to say that Judge Cahn so much deserves this honor today to have that beautiful courthouse in Allentown named after him for his distinguished service. I would like to wish Judge Cahn and his family many, many years of happy retirement. I am sure he is going to serve in senior status and continue to serve the people in Lehigh Valley. Mr. Speaker, I want to lend my strong support and again thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), my friend from Lehigh Valley, for bringing this legislation to the floor. I agree with everything he said except that we will fill that vacancy in the Lehigh Valley right after we fill it with the judgeship from Berks County, Pennsylvania to take Judge Cahn's place.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 603 The Death on the High Seas & Airline Disaster Act of 1999. I would like to commend Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Mr. Oberstar for quickly moving this bill through the Transportation Committee. I would also like to call commend Representative Don Sherwood for all of his hard work on bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Chairman. H.R. 603 will correct an inequity in the law which currently treats families differently depending on whether their relative died in an aircraft that crashed into the ocean or one that crashed into land. This is especially harsh for families which lose a child in a crash. This creates cruel inequality depending on where a plane happens to come down. Mr. Chairman, the need for this bill became clear after TWA 800 crashed 8 miles off Long Island, New York on July 16, 1996. Two of my constituents, Kyle and Amy Miller of Tamaqua, PA, were aboard this flight en route from New York to Paris. They were on their way to Paris to celebrate their fifth wedding anniversary. Their loss, and the loss of all of the passengers and crew on the plane, was a horrible tragedy. Kyle and Amy symbolized the American spirit and were outstanding members of their community. Kyle was a small businessman and owned part of his family hardware and plumbing businesses. Amy worked at the hardware store and was a member of the Tamaqua Area School Board. Her work in local education programs was outstanding and she was the top vote-getter in both the primary and general election. Both Amy and Kyle were well liked and well respected in the community. The effect of this change in the law would allow families such as Kyle and Amy's to receive the same monetary awards families receive when planes crash over land. I strongly encourage all members to support H.R. 603 The Death on the High Seas & Airline Disaster Act of 1999. To help all families who lose loved ones in aircraft accidents regardless of where the plane crashes.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution--not because the President did not do wrong and should not be punished--he did do wrong and should be punished. But I do not believe this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors our Founding Fathers envisioned. They talked about crimes against the country--that is why they specifically cited bribery and treason. This does not rise to that level. I believe the President should be punished and should be censured. Mr. Speaker, I have never made a partisan speech on the floor of the House in my six years in Congress. But today, I cannot believe that the Majority party has not given me the opportunity to vote my conscience by allowing a vote of censure. It is wrong and it is unfair.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues tonight to pay tribute to our good friend, Joe McDade. It has been said, and we all know what honor and distinction Joe McDade has served with for 36 years, and what he has done for this country and for Pennsylvania and for his district. But what I will always remember is how Joe McDade helps all of us help our constituents. I will just give my colleagues two examples. Joe McDade and Paul Kanjorski and myself have the great honor of representing the anthracite coal fields of northeastern Pennsylvania. There was a time when coal was king. That is no longer true, but we have a lot of hard working miners in our 3 districts, primarily mine and Paul's, not so much Joe's anymore. Joe realized that this was a clean-burning fuel, and it was something that we needed to help maintain and sustain and create jobs and through his efforts on the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, we were able to find alternative markets that helped the miners of Schuylkill and Northumberland and Lackawanna Counties. And my constituents in Northumberland County on the Susquehanna River who are constantly in peril of flooding, and in the winter of 1996 found themselves facing difficult situations and a serious flood situation. Through the help of our good friend, my good friend, Joe McDade, we were able to secure funds for flood control that helped the City of Sunbury and the Borough of Northumberland, as well as the Borough of Milton. So Joe, on behalf of the constituents of the 6th congressional district, thanks for all you do for all of us.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you and Reverend Ford for allowing my constituent, Father Tom Pappalas, the pastor of Sts. Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church in Reading, Pennsylvania, to offer the opening prayer this morning. My predecessor, who served in this body with honor and distinction for 24 years, Gus Yatron, is one of Father Tom's parishioners. Father Tom is truly a spiritual leader in Berks County. He has twice served as president of the Berks County Clergy Association. Father Tom was born in Chicago, Illinois and served in the United States Navy from 1969 to 1971. He graduated from Hellenic College in 1978 and Holy Cross School of Theology in 1981. He and his wife Ann are the proud parents of three children, and I thank Father Tom for his spiritual guidance this morning.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What my amendment will do is to transfer Schuylkill, Pennsylvania from the Eastern Judicial District of Pennsylvania to the Middle Judicial District of Pennsylvania. This provision overwhelmingly passed the House as part of H.R. 2294, the Federal Courts Improvement Act. However, the other body has notified us that they will not be able to address this piece of legislation in this session because of the few remaining legislative days on the calendar. So this is an amendment of convenience, an amendment of convenience to the citizens of Schuylkill County who are now forced to drive in excess of 2 hours to Philadelphia to serve on jury duty or for other court business. If Schuylkill County is moved to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the citizens of Schuylkill County will only have to travel a distance of about 55 or 60 miles, less than an hour on interstate 81, to the State Capital of Harrisburg. This is a noncontroversial amendment, Mr. Chairman. Both chief judges of the Eastern District and of the Middle District have no opposition to it. The Bar Association of Schuylkill County is in favor of it. I know from my days of serving as sheriff of Schuylkill County, the citizens will appreciate not having to drive all the way to Philadelphia to serve on jury duty. I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their assistance in this matter, as well as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their assistance in the previous legislation.

Mr. HOLDEN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Officer Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut and Special Agent John M. Gibson of the United States Capitol Police Force. Officers Chestnut and Gibson made the ultimate sacrifice of giving their lives this past Friday in the protection of this building and this body. July 24, 1998, will long be remembered as a dark day in the history of the United States Capitol. However, Mr. Speaker, I also feel that July 24 should be remembered as a day of pride for the United States Capitol Police Department. When the gunman entered the document door entrance Friday afternoon, he was detected immediately by Officer Chestnut and contained very quickly thereafter by Special Agent Gibson, avoiding possible injury to all but one of the many innocent visitors and staff in the area. Because of their top-notch training and professionalism with which they carry out their duties each day, a much larger potential tragedy was averted. Their training and procedures worked, and last Friday's successful apprehension of a gunman, however tragic, is a testament to the skill and professionalism of the United States Capitol Police. The loss of John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut is very difficult for all of us. They were not strangers protecting us and the millions of visitors to the Capitol each year; they were our friends. They were members of our community. Capitol Police officers are people we see each day and warmly exchange a smile and a greeting with. Very rarely do we give acknowledgment to the fact that at any given moment, any one of these brave men and women are prepared to put their life on the line, to place their body in the way of a bullet to protect us, our staffs and the many visitors to the Capitol each day. Mr. Speaker, the Members of the Capitol Police Force not only deserve our condolences today for the loss of two of their fellow officers, they also deserve our gratitude for their efforts in making our Capitol, a symbol of freedom throughout the world, a safe place to work and visit. Mr. Speaker, as a former county sheriff and a 13-year member of the Fraternal Order of Police, I have a special appreciation for the sadness and difficulty experienced by the survivors of a fallen officer. John Gibson left behind a wife and three children. J.J. Chestnut is survived by a wife and five children. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of Officers Gibson and Chestnut in this most difficult and trying time.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, not because of the merits of the proposal put forth by the sponsors but because of the offsets that they are proposing. They are proposing $50 million in reductions in the Fossil Fuel Research and Development Program. I say, Mr. Chairman, we in this country are dependent upon research and development in our fossil fuel program. We have a tremendous problem in this country in that we are dependent upon foreign oil. My colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), highlighted that a few moments ago. In the United States we purchase 6.8 billion barrels of oil per year. Half of that is imported. That situation is probably only going to get worse with the recent discovery of oil in the Caspian Sea. We should not be reducing research and development into our fossil fuel program; we should be increasing it. We now have the technology to convert coal and waste coal into liquid fuels; however, that needs to be perfected. As was mentioned many times during the debate on the last amendment, we have between 300 and 500 million years of coal reserves right here in the United States. That is more in coal reserves than the rest world has in oil reserves. I ask my colleagues to think about that. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to be dependent upon our coal reserves, we need to invest in research and development so we can perfect technologies that we already know and so we can be looking into the next century to find alternative uses for the huge coal deposits that we have in this country. I am very proud to represent northeastern Pennsylvania, where we have the largest anthracite coal deposit in North America, arguably the largest deposit in the world. It is a high Btu, low sulfur fuel that we cannot continue to turn our backs on by reducing the investment in research and development in fossil fuels. Because, quite frankly, that is what we have been doing over the last several appropriation cycles. So I encourage all my colleagues to reject this amendment, to continue to invest in our own natural resources so we can be prepared for the next century.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share my support for America's dairy farmers, and to oppose efforts to strike a very important dairy provision from the FY99 Agriculture Appropriations bill, a provision that will extend the implementation of Federal Milk Market Order (FMMO) reform. The Agriculture Appropriations bill includes a very carefully crafted compromise designed to assure that Congress has sufficient time to review the Secretary of Agriculture's Final Rule for FMMO reform once it is issued. Specifically, the dairy language in the bill extends the deadline for USDA's implementation of FMMO reform from April 4, 1999 until October 1, 1999. This extension is important for the following reasons: First, this provision will allow adequate time for Congress to review USDA's Final Rule in FMMO reform. In the 1996 Farm Bill, Congress requires USDA to reform the FMMO program by consolidating 33 milk marketing orders no later than 1999. USDA recently announced its proposed rules for FMMO reform. Included in the Secretary's proposal are two options for reforming the fluid milk pricing: Option 1A and Option 1B. The Secretary has indicated his support for implementing Option 1B even though 238 members of the House and 61 Senators have expressed their support for Option 1A. With the current implementation deadline of April 4, 1999, there is concern there may not be time for the new Congress to adequately review the Final Rule and make changes, if they wish, before that deadline. Second, the extension guarantees Congress time to make adjustments to the FMMO reform Final Rule, if necessary. Under this timetable, Congress will have six months from the release of the Final Rule, on or before April 4, 1999, to review the provisions of the Final Rule released by USDA and take up any changes they may wish to make. It would be much more difficult for Congress, which will be reorganizing following the fall elections, to complete its review of FMMO reform before the current April 4, 1999 deadline for implementation of FMMO reform. I would now like to share with my colleagues the reason for my concern regarding Option 1B, and why I support having the opportunity to have my concerns addressed upon the issuance of a Final Rule. In my home state of Pennsylvania, dairy is the largest agricultural enterprise in the state--representing a $1.5 billion industry. Pennsylvania is the 4th largest dairy state in the country, with dairy products accounting for 40 percent of agricultural outputs in Pennsylvania. In the last ten years, the number of dairy farms has declined by 3,200, to only 10,500, and the number of dairy cows has declined by 90,000, down to just 640,000. In Pennsylvania, it has been estimated that 17,000 jobs are tied directly to the dairy industry, and another 12,500 jobs--such as building, trucking, banking, etc.--are indirectly tied to the dairy industry. It has been estimated that a 2 percent decline in Pennsylvania's dairy industry would translate into a loss of almost 600 jobs. Dairy is important to Pennsylvania, and the entire Northeast, because of the economic contributions it makes--both in dollars and jobs. Under Option 1A, projected annual income of dairy farms would increase $32 million. This is less than one half of one percent of total dairy farm income. Under Option 1B, however, U.S. dairy farmers would lose $365 million per year or $1 million per day under Option 1B. I have heard estimates that Option 1B could reduce mailbox prices by as much as $0.85-$1.25 per hundredweight in the Northeast. The pricing structure for Class I (fluid) milk is extremely important to dairy farm income, rural community economic stability, and the regional supply of fresh fluid milk. The phase-down of farm income proposed by Option 1B will clearly hurt the financial condition of farmers, with small family farms bearing the greatest burden. In fact, the proposed rule states that ``small businesses, particularly producers, would experience significant economic impacts.'' This runs counter to the USDA's recently released National Commission on Small Farms Report, ``A Time to Act,'' which states, ``the small farm is the cornerstone of our agricultural rural economy.'' As demonstrated by the 238 House Members and 61 Senators who signed the April, 1998 letter to Secretary Glickman, there is tremendous support in Congress for Option 1A in the pricing of Class I (fluid) milk. This option has broad bipartisan and geographic support from all major dairy producing regions of the country. Therefore, I am hopeful that USDA's final rule will have a Class I pricing surface, which resembles Option 1A. It is important to note, that, as a member of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Dairy, Livestock, and Poultry, I am pleased with some aspects of USDA's proposed rule, and I commend Secretary Glickman and the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service for their hard work in attempting to create a consensus reform package on this issue. However, I remain concerned with the Option 1B proposal, as do a majority of my colleagues, and I look forward to working with USDA to resolve this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the FMMO reform extension, and oppose any efforts to strike this important provision from the FY99 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1891.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. 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.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 250th birthday of the largest and oldest city in my district, Reading, Pennsylvania. Reading was founded by Thomas and Richard Penn, sons of William Penn, on March 30, 1748. The city was named for Reading, England, William Penn's ancestral home. The establishment of Reading was imminent because a number of Indian paths and primitive roads converged at the site along the Schuylkill River, which was a successful transportation corridor to Philadelphia. During the late 18th Century, Reading was an important center for business, culture and military affairs. On July 8, 1776, Sheriff Henry Vanderslice read the Declaration of Independence from the Court House steps; and in the 1790s, President George Washington visited the city several times. The railroads, iron industries, and textile mills provided a variety of employment opportunities to support the many workers who settled in Reading. The city grew quickly, from 3,000 in 1800 to 80,000 in 1900, and became a leading city of Pennsylvania. Highlighted by a rich cultural and historical heritage, Reading is a unique city, which I take great pride in representing. In three days, Reading will celebrate its 250th birthday, a 5 x 10-foot Birthday card, signed by all the Members of Congress, will be on display. Currently, the Card is on display in the Speakers' Lobby. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a minute to stop by and sign this special card. It is not every day that a city turns 250 years old, and I hope you will take time to be part of this special recognition. Thank you!