Chip Pickering

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. I do not see an inconsistency between willful blindness and a fleshing out of that. Was he aware of a high probability that a contribution originated from a foreign national? I do not see any inconsistency in that standard. It supports and, further, I think enhances the language of willful blindness. There may be a case to what court precedent does it refer to, what standard and what definition, but I do think that the high probability supports the intent.

Mr. PICKERING. I will be glad to get back to the gentleman. I will ask the staff to research the matter.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to offer this amendment on something that I believe, just as we saw on the previous amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi on the use of the White House as a means to raise contributions, that this is an area where we, too, can reach consensus. Let me say, as I start the debate, that I want first to commend all the participants in the debate. I think this is a very important issue. Those who are proposing, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) although I profoundly disagree with their approach of reform and believe it is an infringement of constitutional rights and freedom, I do appreciate their intent and their motives. But for those of us who disagree with their approach to reform, we are trying to find those areas where we have seen the gross abuses and violations and to go back and find ways to close those loopholes, to bring greater credibility and to protect the intent and the purpose of the laws now existing on the books. It is illegal to accept foreign contributions but in this past presidential election, we have seen case after case after case of illegal foreign contributions. And the reason tonight that I have this picture as I present the case for this amendment is that I think that it is probably the best picture, the best illustration that shows the case or describes the term willful blindness, turning a blind eye. As many already know, there was a fund-raiser in a Buddhist monastery in California, and we have heard many different descriptions of that. But the purpose has become clear over the investigation that it was a fund-raiser, and it was an opportunity to launder illegal foreign contributions. There was money changing in the temple. And just as in the bible story, the biblical story where we had the corruption in the temple, we have seen the corruption in our campaign process and election process through foreign contributions. And what is the consequence? We now have the investigations going forward on technology transfers and nuclear proliferation and the buying of access, the foreign access, and the possibility of subverting the policy decisionmaking in this administration, the buying of access illegally through foreign sources, and the willful blindness of this administration and the DNC to accept those contributions and have the corruption and the money changing in our election and campaign process. This amendment is intended to stop those who in recent campaigns raised illegal campaign cash from foreign sources. It is obvious that the political committees operated without obtaining adequate information regarding the source of these suspicious donations. They had no system in place to check the validity of campaign cash. It has been documented in the press and congressional investigations that Democratic activists not only brought in envelopes of cash and suspicious money orders. They also created a network of illegal foreign donors that supplied millions of dollars for the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. It has been documented that the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the CIA, the National Security Council all raised concerns regarding the individuals that were associated with the Democratic Party and many of the contributions. There have been stories in the news regarding the improper use of the Lincoln bedroom, Air Force One, White House coffees and the White House staff arranging foreign trade missions for Democrat donors. We know that the public will not tolerate such abuses of power because of the public outrage that we have seen, the intensive media coverage of the stories and the allegations and the abuses that was caused after the discovery that the DNC, President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore had attended fund-raisers that raised illegal foreign money. Now, why is the original law on our books? Why do we ban illegal or foreign contributions? Because we believe that our national security is at stake. And that if foreign sources can influence U.S. campaigns, U.S. elections and U.S. policy, will it be our interests or China's interests that are being bought and sold? We must have this protection in place. And what we have seen time and time again is the willful blindness defense in relation to these foreign contributions. They did not know. Somehow they did not know that this was a fund-raiser. A blind eye. Well, the American people will not accept us in this place in this House turning a blind eye to the corruption and the abuses that took place dealing with foreign contributions. My amendment will close that loophole, take away that defense. One example of a conspiracy is to launder illegal funds with the DNC's fund-raiser at the Buddhist monastery in California. It is being investigated here in Congress. As a matter of fact, it was discovered during the Senate's recent investigation that this fund-raiser was organized by John Huang and Maria Hsai. They both have asserted their Fifth Amendment rights in the ongoing congressional investigation and Ms. Hsai was recently indicted by a Federal grand jury. Again, Vice President Gore participated in this fund-raiser. But there were different stories and different accounts, different defenses used by the Vice President as this became public. On Meet the Press, October 13, 1996, he said, We have strictly abided by all the campaign laws, strictly. There have been no violations. Then on October 21, 1996, Mr. Gore stated that the DNC set up the event and asked me to attend it. It was not a fund-raiser. It was billed as a community outreach event. And indeed, no money was offered or collected at the event. But after the fact contributions were sent in. I did not handle any of this. Then his story changes again. Finally, on January 20, 1997, Mr. Gore acknowledged that he knew the event was a fund-raiser. It was a mistake for the DNC to hold a fund-raiser event at a temple, and I take responsibility for my attendance at the event. On February 14, 1997, the White House released documents that proved that the Vice President's office knew beforehand that the Huang event was a fund-raiser and the documents warned Mr. Gore to use great, great caution. According to the February 10, 1998 edition of the Washington Post, Mr. Gore was informed through internal e-mail and memorandums by then Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes that the event was a fund-raiser. Here are some interesting facts about the DNC fund-raiser at the Buddhist monastery. The cost per head was $2,500. The monks that donated to the DNC lived on a monthly stipend of $40. The Senate investigation proved that the individuals were reimbursed for their donations. In other words, it was an illegal laundering of campaign contributions from questionable sources, many traced back to foreign donations or foreign money. This event was videotaped by a private photographer. All copies of the videotape footage were taken from the production company by the Buddhist monastery and quickly shipped to Taiwan. The monk that took the tapes left the monastery after he learned the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs served the monastery with a subpoena in search of those tapes. He has since disappeared and the videotapes remain hidden to this day. But efforts to raise illegal campaign cash by the Democrats were not limited to this monastery. According to Bob Woodward, in the May 16, 1998 edition of the Washington Post, Johnny Chung, a Democratic fund- raiser, informed the U.S. Justice Department that a Chinese military officer who was an executive at the state-owned aerospace company gave him $300,000 to donate to the Democrats' 1996 campaign. As we know, the Chinese government's conspiracy to buy influence with Democratic leaders during the 1996 election has been well documented and will be fully investigated in this Congress. As we look through the headlines today, it is overwhelming. The Washington Post, Saturday, May 16, Chung Ties China Money to DNC. New York Times, Democrat Fund-raiser said to Detail China Tie. New York Times, February 15, 1997, Clinton and Gore Received Warnings on Asian Donors. Chicago Tribune, Memos to Clinton Warned of Donors, Alarm Sounded Over Chinese Fund-raisers. What is the defense? Willful blindness. Somehow they did not know. Newsweek, White House Shell Game, Clinton Campaign's Frantic Fund- raising May Have Crossed the Line. The Washington Times, Huang's prodding for Lippo, an Indonesian company, verified. Washington Post, Scandal Alarms Went Unanswered. The Washington Post, DNC Acknowledges Inadequate Checks on Donors. The Washington Times, Foreign money scandal grows as $15 million offer is. The Washington Post, Gore Community outreach Touched Wallets at Temple. The Washington Times, 31 Donors list DNC as Home Address. It is the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy of campaign fund-raising. I could go article after article after article until we are numb with the corruption. We simply want to protect our national security. We want to close this loophole. We want to take away this legal defense of willful blindness. The American people will not take a blind eye, neither should we. I hope that we can have a consensus on this amendment that this defense will not be tolerated, will not be accepted and that we will close this loophole to make enforcement of illegal foreign contributions workable, doable and the law and practice of the land. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PICKERING. Yes, that would be the legal standard of a willful act.

Mr. PICKERING. The high probability, there would be a willfulness, and the willfulness would be determined in clause (b) by the probability that he should be aware. For example, when Vice President Gore went to the Buddhist monastery, should he have had a high probability that that was a fund-raising event and, given the nature of that fundraiser, was there a probability that they could have received, since the nuns and the monks at that monastery live on about a $40 stipend, would a reasonable person, would a reasonable court decide that there was a probability that there was illegal laundering and that there was a probability of foreign sources in that contribution?

Mr. PICKERING. If the gentleman would yield, I would be glad to work with him. I think our intent is the same, to close this loophole, to take away this defense; and the language that my colleague suggested is something that I would be glad to sit down and work with him on. I would add, though, that I believe we both understand the intent of this law. We have both seen the abuses. I think there is consent that we want to close that loophole and take away that defense, that we do not want to stand up here as American people, listen to this debate and say there is no controlling legal authority.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the leadership and work of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) on this very important legislation. I rise to say a few words in support of H.R. 1273, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1998. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1273 authorizes the Foundation's programs for Fiscal Years 1998, 1999, and 2000. It authorizes over $11 billion for fundamental scientific research over the next 3 years. It is a bipartisan bill, and I urge all of the Members to support it. For the past few months I have had the privilege of serving as the acting chairman for the Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Basic Research. It has been a tremendous experience, but I cannot take credit for this bill. This is Steve Schiff's authorization bill. Mr. Speaker, I learned a great deal from the chairman of our subcommittee, and I think many of Steve Schiff's priorities can be seen in H.R. 1273. I just wanted to take a moment to recognize Congressman Schiff for the work he did and, more importantly, for the values for which he stood. I would also like to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) again for giving me the opportunity of leading the subcommittee as its acting chairman. In April of this year at a subcommittee hearing the Director of the National Science Foundation stated that 50 percent of our country's economic growth in the last 50 years has come from technological innovation and the science that supports it. That is why we fund the National Science Foundation. We understand that our Nation's economic strength 25 years from now depends on our support for science and technology today. The strong bipartisan support for H.R. 1273 demonstrates that this Congress understands and respects the role of the scientist in our society. We may not see them in action, but whether it is the growth of the Internet or the latest medical breakthrough, we see the results. In my home State of Mississippi NSF has played an important role in the development of remote sensing in developing the next generation Internet and that our three supercomputing research centers through NSF's EPSCoR Program, the Mississippi Research Consortium, made up of the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, Jackson State University and the University of Southern Mississippi has done great work in areas as diverse as manufacturing polymers, to producing new technology for agricultural products, to cutting edge areas such as artificial intelligence. Again, we may not see the scientists in action, but eventually we see their results in our daily lives. Through this bill and through the scientific research and science education program supported by the NSF, we demonstrate our commitment to advancing science and improving science and math education not just in theory, but in the classroom. We show our commitment to using biology and chemistry not only to improve our own lives, but also to improve our understanding of the world around us as we show our commitment to the next generation of Americans by assuring that our children will enjoy the economic prosperity that is produced by long- term dedication to science. Mr. Speaker, the National Science Foundation does great work. This is an excellent bill, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution recognizing the importance of fathers in America and also recognizing the hard and good work of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh). My wife is a godmother of the gentleman's recent new addition to his family, to his daughter, and we proudly celebrate that. As the gentleman mentioned, I am the father of four boys, four boys, ages 8, 6, 4 and 2; and we have just learned recently that the fifth is coming. This is my first public announcement of that good news, and so we are looking forward to maybe finding a little girl, maybe, somewhere in our house. Today I rise first to recognize the role of my father and grandfathers in my life, not because it is unique to me, but it is because of what fathers and grandfathers have offered this country over our proud history. They taught me leadership and discipline. They showed me what sacrifice and service means. They showed me commitment and integrity to faith and to community. They have gave me the role model and the example and the path to follow. As we approach Father's Day, I want to first recognize the role of my own father and my grandfather, one who was a farmer and one who was a high school principal and teacher and dean of men, and the role they played in my life. My grandfather was committed to his wife, to his community, and to his church. He taught me what hard work meant and the joy of it. My father, who is now a Federal judge, taught me about public service. He is now the proud grandfather of 14 grandchildren, all under the age of 11. So with Father's Day coming, I thank them. As we ask ourselves, what is the importance, what is the role of fatherhood in our country, let us put it in context. Let us put it in perspective. With the recent news of India and Pakistan and the possible escalation of the nuclear arms race, we say that that is a great threat to our security. We need to prepare for it and provide the resources, whatever it takes to defend ourselves in the future. But I say, the greatest threat to our security is the loss of fathers in the home, and the lack of men stepping up and taking on the responsibility of being at home to teach and to provide for the well- being of their family. As we look at education today, the greatest indicator of whether we will have educational success or failure goes back to the home and the role of the father being there. Violence and drugs are again tied back to the breakdown of the family, the loss and the lack of the male role model, of men and fathers being there; poverty. Again, everything that we see facing our Nation, the greatest threats to our Nation, the greatest risk that we have, the greatest single determinant, the greatest factor that goes back to time and time again is whether men have accepted their role and have stepped up to the plate and assumed their responsibility. They have made a commitment and they have kept it. Our challenge today is to call all men to assume their role, their responsibility in their home to be good husbands and to be good fathers. More important than anything we can do in this place, in Congress, is what happens in the home and what happens in the House, what happens with our families. As the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. J.C. Watts) said, the most important title to him is not Congressman, but daddy. There is no title, there is no position greater; the President of the United States, congressman, teacher, doctor, lawyer, whatever your title may be. The highest honor and the greatest obligation and responsibility, the greatest joy, is being called daddy and playing the role, and accepting the responsibility of being a good father.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. I would like to start my time by going back to the beginning of our Nation, correspondence between the Hebrew Newport congregation and a letter written to our first President, George Washington. It says ``Deprived as we hitherto have been of the invaluable rights of pre-citizens, we now, with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty Disposer of all events, behold a government erected by the majesty of the people, a government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance, but generously affording to all liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship, deeming everyone of whatever nation, tongue, or language equal parts of the great government.'' George Washington's response to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, Rhode Island, ``The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy, a policy worthy of imitation; for, happily, the government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.'' This is what we are trying to do today, to say that our Nation, which was founded on the cornerstone of the freedom of conscience, of religious liberty, that we will give no assistance to those who persecute people of faith. Today I would like to share a little of my own experience that I bring to this debate, for I lived in a Communist country in 1986 and 1987, in Budapest, Hungary. I saw during that time, before the collapse of communism, what happens when religious freedoms are deprived. I met with ministers who had been in prison for practicing their faith. I saw the refugees who had fled their countries into the West with the hopes and the dream of having the freedom to practice their faith, to capture the dream that we cherish in this land of freedom. Then I saw in my lifetime, and we have seen in our lifetime, the modern-day miracle of Jericho where we saw the walls of communism collapse. We have to ask ourselves why. If you go to Poland, it was the church, the Catholic church that led the descent. In Czechoslovakia and Romania, it was the Protestant church which allowed the people of faith and courage and conviction to rise up and to stand for their God-given rights which brought about as much as anything that we ever did in the West with military containment. It was the force of the religious convictions and conscience that brought about the renewal and the reform and the collapse of a brutal and evil system. Today we are trying to say we should have the same policy, that we stand with the persecuted, that we stand for the same cornerstone in our country of religious liberty. From that, we will have greater economic freedom, greater trade, greater democracy across the world. We will have greater stability with our allies. This is the cornerstone of our Nation, to stand with those to have the freedom of conscience and faith. I ask all of my colleagues that we follow the words of our founder George Washington, that we give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution, no assistance.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the effort to bring competition to this very important effort in communications and satellites. In my home State of Mississippi, WorldCom, who would have believed the number one provider of Internet services would come from a rural State like Mississippi? This is what we have been trying to do since the telecommunications bill. If we look at our efforts since 1994 to bring competition and deregulation in market after market, whether it is agriculture or telecommunications, and this is one more important area where we can make a difference by supporting this very important piece of legislation that will bring more competition, more choice, lower prices, and technology and innovation to the marketplace. So with great honor, I rise in support of the efforts today of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and look forward to supporting this very important legislation.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of legislation designating the U.S. Post Office facility located in Taylorsville, Mississippi, as the ``Blaine H. Eaton Post Office Building.'' A native of Smith County, Mississippi, Mr. Eaton attended Jones Junior College from 1932-1934 and was named ``Alumni of the Year in 1984.'' He also attended the University of Mississippi and George Washington Law School. He began his professional career as a farmer and cotton buyer from Anderson-Clayton Company and in 1942, he became the first executive secretary to former U.S. Senator James O. Eastland (D-MS). Mr Eaton served our Nation in the U.S. Navy from 1944 to 1946. Upon returning home from world War II, he was elected to serve in the Mississippi House of Representatives, and he effectively served the people of Smith County for 12 years. His leadership as chairman of the Highway and Highway Finance Committee resulted in the successful passage of the ``Farm-to-Market'' legislation that is still benefiting Mississippi today as the ``State Aid Road Program.'' After leaving public office in 1958, Mr. Eaton became the manager of the Southern Pine Electric Power Association. His outstanding service and accomplishments were recognized by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association with the ``Clyde T. Ellis Award'' for distinguished service and outstanding leadership. Although retiring from his professional career in 1982, Mr. Eaton remained active in community service and enriched the lives of many by volunteering his time and leadership abilities to such organizations as the Lions Club International, the Hiram Masonic Lodge, the Southeast Mississippi Livestock Association, and the Economic Development Foundation. He was also a loyal member of the First Baptist Church of Taylorsville where he taught Sunday School classes for 25 years. With the death of Blaine Eaton in 1995, our State lost one of its finest citizens. Designating the Taylorsville Post Office as the ``Blaine H. Eaton Post Office Building'' will commemorate the public service of their extraordinary Mississippian who dedicated his life to the betterment of the community and State he loved so much.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to return to the House floor last evening due to a scheduling conflict and missed the following vote: Rollcall vote No. 7, passage of H. J. Res. 107. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 624 and 625, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 624 and ``no'' on rollcall 625.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I come with two personal questions. As the father of four and as a son with a mother and father could I ask them for money to buy needles to then inject drugs into another person's veins? Could any in this Chamber actually stick a needle in another person's veins, and fill them with deadly drugs? That will give them a slow but sure death? Congress must say no. It is immoral to do otherwise? We must stand together to give a clear signal that the problem is drug addiction. It is not AIDS. For the best in public health, for the most compassionate response, I ask all to join in support of this amendment to prohibit taxpayer's money, from funding something that we believe is wrong. At a time when drug abuse in this country is spiraling out of control and we hear daily of tragic tales where families have been devastated by drug abuse--I believe that this amendment sends the right kind of message. The Federal Government is actively fighting a war on drugs, yet there has recently been a debate to federalize a program to provide syringes to drug addicts in hopes of lessening the spread of AIDS. This is clearly an emotionally charged debate, but we cannot lose sight of what kind of message this sends to the children of this Nation. I believe a federalized needle exchange program sends a mixed signal that will undermine the credibility of all our other anti-drug efforts. By implementing a needle exchange program we will be telling our children to ``Just say no,'' unless you have a free needle! Let me take a moment to remind my colleagues that heroin use is still illegal in this country. I find it morally repugnant to think that we would even contemplate making the United States Government a co- conspirator in illegal drug use--that is destroying lives across this Nation. If we truly want to fight and win the war on drugs, we must stop coddling addicts. Drug users need treatment, not encouragement to keep injecting deadly drugs into their bodies--and those of their unborn children. I agree with Roman Catholic Cardinal John O'Connor who has said that the needle exchange program ``drags down the standards of all society. * * * It is an act born of desperation.'' Those who favor this program say that we may reduce the spread of AIDS and we may not increase drug use. But, the President's own former drug czar, Lee Brown, stated that his office could ``find no compelling reason for the administration to depart from existing Federal policy regarding needle exchange''--which does not allow for a Federal needle exchange program. The new majority in Congress has encouraged and fostered personal responsibility. If we truly want the American people to take responsibility for their own actions, we cannot in the same breath give them a formal sanction for their illegal activities. If the true intention of supporters of this program is the reduction of AIDS by drug users, then they should join us in eliminating the use of illegal drugs, not subsidizing it. We should help addicts rid drugs from their lives, not give them a cleaner, better way of shooting up. The problem is not AIDS or needles--it is drug addiction.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Madam Speaker, I rise today to take notice of a very special man, Coach Ron Polk. He served as the head baseball coach at Mississippi State University for 20 years, where he led his Bulldogs to the college world series five times. Coach Polk has compiled an incredible record at Mississippi State with a record 888 wins. Last February, he became only the 16th coach in college baseball history to reach the 1,000 win pinnacle. He has been selected as the National Coach of the Year on two separate occasions and coached the U.S. Olympic baseball team three times. Coach Polk has taught and coached 18 all- Americans and 98 players who have gone on to the ranks of professional baseball. In addition, tonight he is serving as the honorary coach of the Republican congressional baseball team. We hope to have one more victory for his record tonight. He arrived last night just in time for the budget deal to be reached, and we hope that that is a good omen that, as he comes to town, we do good things in Congress for the American people and hopefully we will win one for him tonight. It is with great honor that I recognize his achievements. The king of college baseball, he has served Mississippi State and college baseball with great distinction.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. After this discussion and debate, it is good to rise to enter into a colloquy that concerns an issue of great importance to the veterans in my State but that also honors my predecessor, Sonny Montgomery and I hope this will lead to some work that will complete an effort that he began. That is the Sonny Montgomery VA Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. I would like to ask for the support of the chairman in working with the administration in our efforts to collocate the Jackson, Mississippi Veterans' Affairs Regional Office and the G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery Medical Center. With this consolidation of facilities we can provide one-stop service to our veterans and also save taxpayer dollars.

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

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would like to add that if we finalize the collocation of these facilities, it will require that we finish the construction of the third floor of the VA Regional Office in Jackson. The VA estimates that it will require approximately $1.45 million to finish the construction of the third floor in this building. Mr. Chairman, the VA is currently paying $590,221 annually to rent the equivalent office space in this area. It is because they have failed to complete the construction of the third floor. The VA projects the completion and collocation would pay for itself within five years and provide savings over $500,000 in the years following. By ensuring the completion of this project, we not only fulfill our pledge to our veterans but we will better serve the taxpayers by being good stewards of their money. Mr. Chairman, I believe this project just makes good business sense.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. It is my understanding that since this project is under $4 million, the administration can move forward on its own. I ask the gentleman to encourage the VA to do so and for his continued oversight and support to complete this project. Finally, part of this facility, as I mentioned earlier, is named in honor of my most distinguished predecessor, G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery. He has been known as ``Mr. Veteran'' throughout his career, and the completion of this work, the completion of this facility will provide for the welfare of the veterans that he so loved and will also allow us to honor his example and his legacy. Once again, I thank the distinguished chairman and appreciate his time and support.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Farm Credit Opportunity Act of 1997, a bill that will correct an inequity in the Farm Service Agency's [FSA] Guaranteed Loan Program. Currently, this program has upper limits on the amounts that can be guaranteed by the FSA. Specifically, the two types of loans administered under this program--farm ownership loans and operating loans--have caps of $300,000 and $400,000, respectively. The farm ownership loan cap was adjusted to its current level in 1978, while the operating loan cap was last raised in 1984. At these times, farm ownership and operating costs could be adequately financed within both of these cap limits. However, given today's larger and more capital-intensive farming operations, the limits must be raised in order to meet the needs of those seeking financing through the Guaranteed Loan Program. For example, in my home State of Mississippi, poultry is a growing industry. In the early 1980's a typical poultry house cost approximately $65,000. Today the same poultry house can cost up to $125,000. Also, more volume is necessary to compete on the world market. In fact, most banks will not finance a beginning poultry farm with less than four poultry houses. It is easy to see that a minimum of four poultry houses at a cost of $125,000 per house exceeds the farm ownership cap level of $300,000 in the Guaranteed Loan Program. This is just one example of how the upper limits on loans can take qualified applicants out of the market. This problem exists throughout the entire agricultural sector, not just the poultry industry. To address this problem, I am introducing the Family Farm Credit Opportunity Act of 1997 which would raise the cap limits on both the farm ownership loan and the operating loan to $600,000. The poultry example displays how much agriculture has changed since the caps were last amended in 1978 and 1984. In fact, while the increase in the cap limits may seem substantial at first, neither increase reflects the increase in inflation. Shouldn't we at least keep up with inflation for a program that has served as a consistent vehicle of opportunity for the small family farmer? In today's budget-minded era, I believe we must find solutions that will not only correct problems that have been developing over the years, but also do them at a relatively low cost to the taxpayer with a long-term solution in mind. That is why my bill increases the cap limits to specific amounts, $600,000 for the coming year, but also includes a provision to index both caps for inflation beginning in year 2. This last provision will allow the caps to automatically adjust for inflation, which will provide a long-term fix to the problem and assure that the family farm does not outgrow the upper limits of the farm ownership loan or the operating loan over time. I would like to point out that my bill will not guarantee acceptance of applications submitted to the FSA. Farmers would still have to go through an application process, but if the individual is eligible and accepted he or she would have the opportunity to receive adequate financing through a farm ownership or operating loan. In order to preserve the family farm and continue America's tradition of promoting the family farmer, we must provide a mechanism which enables them to receive the funds necessary for ownership and operation of a farming business. Congress appropriates money for the FSA Guaranteed Loan Program each year. Shouldn't we put this money to its best and most efficient use? Should we also be willing to step back and take a good look at what a family farmer in 1997 really is? Of course we should use these funds as efficiently as possible and in a way that positively affects our overall economy. As for the family farmer, they still exist and are successful, but they aren't the same as they were 19 years ago in 1978 or even in 1984. Why? Well, let's take a look at some of the changes that have occurred over this period. First of all, markets have become global. Not only do our farmers have to compete with each other, but also farmers around the world in China, Japan, Russia, Canada, Mexico just to name a few. Technology and research have both been overwhelmingly successful in allowing us to increase our production with less land, enabling us to idle environmentally sensitive land that is less productive and therefore ensure that we never revert back to the ``Dust Bowl'' days of the 1930's. Capital intensive is a word that was not as common in the late 1970's and early 1980's as it is today. In fact, we cannot talk about agriculture today without mentioning how the industry has drastically shifted from a labor-intensive industry to an industry dominated by capital. Twenty years ago, who could have imagined that we would be using satellites to level our land or to tell us exactly where chemical application was needed? Who could have imagined that biotechnology would yield such complex seed developments? Who could have imagined that we would have the technology to so closely monitor the growth of our animals that we would have the ability to specifically and scientifically regulate diets in order to achieve faster growth with less fat? My point, Mr. Speaker is that agriculture has changed and so has the family farmer. The Guaranteed Loan Program was designed to help the family farmer. In order to continue this goal, we must address the needs of today by providing the capital necessary to compete and be successful. The family farmer is a larger operator relative to 1978 standards. We need cap limits that reflect this change. If we truly want to help the family farmer, let's fix a program that has historically been successful in helping this critical sector of our country. Let us not stop the progress of our farmers. We should not deny any eligible person in our Nation the opportunity to own and operate a family farm in order to pursue their idea of the American dream. This legislation will help our farmers expand their opportunities, increase our markets, improve our competitiveness, and make possible those dreams.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation designating the U.S. Post Office facility located in Taylorsville, MS, as the ``Blaine H. Eaton Post Office Building.'' A native of Smith County, MS, Mr. Eaton attended Jones Junior College from 1932 to 1934 and was named ``Alumni of the Year in 1984.'' He also attended the University of Mississippi and George Washington Law School. He began his professional career as a farmer and cotton buyer from Anderson-Clayton Co. and in 1942, he became the first executive secretary to former U.S. Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat, of Mississippi. Mr. Eaton served our Nation in the U.S. Navy from 1944 to 1946. Upon returning home from the war, he was elected to serve in the Mississippi House of Representatives, and he effectively served the people of Smith County for 12 years. His leadership as chairman of the highway and highway finance committee resulted in the successful passage of the farm-to-market legislation that is still benefiting Mississippi today as the State aid road program. After leaving public office in 1958, Mr. Eaton became the manager of the Southern Pine Electric Power Association. His outstanding service and accomplishments were recognized by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association with the Clyde T. Ellis Award for distinguished service and outstanding leadership. Although retiring from his professional career in 1982, Mr. Eaton remained active in community service and enriched the lives of many by volunteering his time and leadership abilities to such organizations as the Lion Club International, the Hiram Masonic Lodge, the Southeast Mississippi Livestock Association, and the Economic Development Foundation. He was also a loyal member of the First Baptist Church of Taylorsville where he taught Sunday school classes for 25 years. With the death of Blaine Eaton in 1995, our State lost one of its finest citizens. Designating the Taylorsville Post Office as the ``Blaine H. Eaton Post Office Building'' will commemorate the public service of this extraordinary Mississippian who dedicated his life to the betterment of the community and State he loved so much.