Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been put together as an effort to bring forward contracting as a tool, as an option, to America's dairy farmers. The original bill that was introduced to allow forward contracting for dairy farmers in this country was a bill that we introduced, and I have always been a big supporter of that because I believe that forward contracting is an extremely important tool that our Nation's dairy farmers should have. They should have the ability to contract with someone on the outside, some corporation, some business, some processor out there, to contract for the sale of their milk over a long period of time to manage their risk on their particular operation. I believe that very strongly. I think the future for America's dairy farmers will include the ability to do forward contracting. As we move forward with this particular bill, it became very apparent that a number of our producers, a number of our dairy farmers throughout the country, were dead set opposed to doing forward contracting. They did not want that tool, they did not want that ability, and our opportunity to bring forward contracting to America's dairy farmers, I believe, was very threatened. I salute the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for working with me over the past couple of months to come up with this amendment that is, in some ways, a compromise that allows us to bring forward contracting to two-thirds of the dairy producers that are out there, to give them the opportunity to manage their risk with doing forward contracting. It is not perfect. It is a pilot program. It gives us the ability to try this over the next couple of years and prove that it will work. I believe it will work, but without this amendment passing we will not have forward contracting as part of the ultimate bill; and I believe that that will be a bigger risk for America's dairy farmers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just take a couple of minutes to hopefully try to explain to my colleagues how we arrived at the position that we are in in terms of this legislation. A couple of years ago when we passed the Freedom to Farm Act, as part of that legislation, as part of the farm bill, we directed USDA to go in and look at the dairy program, to redo the milk marketing orders and the rules that we play by, and they spent a considerable amount of time in public hearings, in internal work, to try to come up with a plan that they felt would work. I think all of my colleagues realize that the current dairy program is extremely complicated. A lot of times it does not make a lot of sense to a lot of Members, and to those of us that have spent a huge amount of time working on dairy policy it does not make a lot of sense to us either. It has been extremely difficult to work our way through 60 years of dairy policy and try and come up with something that is going to operate, something that is going to work and something that will be a transition period for America's dairy farmers to go away from a command-and-control, government-knows-best dairy policy into a more free-market policy, which I believe is the majority of our goal that we would like to achieve. That transition that we are in the middle of right now, USDA came out with their recommendation, and some people cheered it and others were extremely opposed to it because of the changes that they made. What the Committee attempted to do was to come up with a compromise piece of legislation, legislation that would give us the ability to transition away from the government-run dairy policy into a more free market dairy policy. The bill that we will have before us today is part of that transition. I do not like everything that is in the legislation. In fact, there are many things in there that I dislike. But I do believe it is a reasonable transition. One of the important things in our part of this legislation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) talked about before was the ability to do forward contracting. I do believe that this is part of the future of dairy in this country, and it is an important tool that our dairy farmers ought to be able to use. Mr. Chairman, with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I am introducing an amendment that I believe puts safeguards into that particular part of the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support that amendment.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would have to agree with the statement that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) just said, but I think it needs to be expanded upon a little bit so that all of my colleagues can understand the problem that we have. Right now, it is not possible for a dairy farmer to go out and forward contract their milk with anyone except for their co-op. What this amendment is doing is it is saying that two-thirds of the milk that is being produced, they will be able to go out and forward contract with anyone that they want. The debate that we are having, and the Dooley amendment will bring up later, is whether or not to make it 100 percent of the milk or two- thirds of the milk. The problem that we have is that we do have a 60- odd-year-old law that the dairy farmers have become used to, that they have become dependent upon, and a certain amount of dependency has grown up around that current law that is on the books, so obviously there is a lot of fear when we get into any major change in the way milk is marketed. If Members truly believe that forward contracting is part of the future for marketing milk in this country, then they have to support this amendment, because by doing it as a pilot program, by doing it on a somewhat limited scale is the only way we are going to be able to use this program, prove it works, prove to the dairy farmers that it is a tool that they need, that they should use for the future. I believe that the only way we are going to see forward contracting in the future is if Members support this amendment and if they oppose the Dooley amendment later.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin is accurate in one aspect, and that is that current dairy policy is responsible for, one, putting a lot of dairy farmers out of business, and two, for keeping a lot of dairy farmers in business. It is inefficient. It has, I believe, all of the bad elements of what happens when government gets involved with regulating private business. But having said that, I believe that it is extremely important that we continue on with the transition between a government-run, regulated dairy industry into a free market industry. One of the ways of doing that is by allowing forward contracting, by allowing individual dairy farmers to go out and contract for the future how much they are going to get for their milk. I truly believe that the only way that we are going to advance that debate further, that we are going to advance the ability for dairy farmers to have the chance to forward contract on their milk, is by passing this amendment. Having said, I ask my colleagues to support the Stenholm-Pombo amendment and to oppose the Dooley amendment.

Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would have to say that I believe the gentleman is inaccurate to say it would be 1-A modified. Because after this has passed and become the law, what the gentleman is doing is going back to whatever was the law underneath the generic law. I believe what this legislation would do, if the U.S. Trade Representative decided that we were not achieving somebody's trade policy objectives, that we would then go back to the 1937 act as the generic act. I do not think, in fact, I know there is no one in this place that can explain what the 1937 act is because nobody can explain what the 1996 act is.

Mr. POMBO. I will not debate the gentleman on the merits of the current dairy policy in this country.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe that it does what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) wants it to in terms of the way it is drafted, but I believe it does a whole lot more than quite simply making this abide by current international trade agreements. If we read the actual amendment, it says the U.S. Trade Representative has to notify the Secretary that the act and amendments made by the act present no risk of interference with any international trade negotiation to which the United States is current a party or the achievement of trade policy objectives. So not only do we have to agree with international agreements but any trade negotiation that we are currently negotiating with anyone or that we achieve someone's trade policy objectives. And the U.S. Trade Representative's office has the ability to look at this and decide whether or not it meets these, what I believe are very fuzzy goals, and has the ability to stop this legislation from being implemented. Now, we have already, as a Congress, many times, abdicated our responsibility when it comes to trade agreements, but this goes even one step further than that. We are now going to abdicate our responsibility in terms of dairy policy. We are now going to give that to the U.S. Trade Representative. And I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment or either of the sponsors of the amendment a question. If the United States Trade Representative's office decides this is somehow not with the achievement of the trade policy objectives of the United States, and this does not become law, what then becomes the law in terms of dairy policy in this country? Do we go back to the 1937 generic act, do we go back to the 1995 act, or do we go back to the 1985 act? Exactly what becomes law in this country if the new secretary of agriculture at the U.S. Trade Representative's office decides that this does not meet somebody's objectives?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by saying that I urge my colleagues to stick to the transition period that we all approved in the 1996 farm bill. That is the only fair way to take dairy from a regulated bureaucratic business into a free market economy, and I urge opposition to the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in opposition to the amendment, not because I do not think that one day this amendment will be necessary and will come true, because I believe the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is right. I believe that this is the direction that we will ultimately end up going with American dairy. But the problem that I have with this amendment at this time is that in 1996, when we started on the path of deregulating American agriculture, we said that there had to be a transition period, there had to be a period of time when we went from a heavy-handed, government-regulated bureaucracy that dictated everything that happened in American agriculture to a time of free market. And I believe that that transition is taking place. It has been sometimes topsy-turvy, sometimes very difficult, but it is happening. It is happening much slower than some people would like to see, including a dairyman that I just had lunch with not too long ago from my district. He told me that he knows that one day we will have an unregulated dairy economy, that we will not have the Federal Government setting prices. He said he knows that one day that is going to happen and that he looks forward to that day happening. But what will happen if this amendment passes today is that it would send the dairy economy into chaos immediately. And, unfortunately, we just cannot handle that right now. I support what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is trying to do in the aspect that the Federal Government should not be involved with how many cows somebody milks, how many pounds of milk they produce, and where they sell that. I do not want dairymen having to come back to Washington, D.C. to ask us for something, for some change on dairy policy. It should not happen. But we need an orderly transition to be able to go from this government-run bureaucracy that was handed to us before we pass a farm bill to a free market economy. That transition is going to take place. Now, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) held up a poster that had policies in place for going from the Congress to the cow and everything that had to happen in order for those prices to be set. That is the exact reason why this amendment cannot pass today. So much dependency has grown up around that system that it is going to take some time to unwind all of that, and it is going to take some time to create a system that the American dairy farmers can understand and use, and eventually we will do that. I would also like to say we have heard a lot of reasons why this amendment is not good, and a lot of those reasons are no longer relevant today. American dairy farmers are the most efficient dairy farmers in the world. We have the most efficient delivery system of anywhere in the world, and we have the ability to compete with any dairy farmers in the world. But in doing so, we need to take the time that is necessary to transition away from the dependency that has grown up around a bureaucratic government program to the free market. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment today. I pledge to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), to continue to work with him to see that his vision one day comes true.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce into the Record a resolution that was recently introduced and passed unanimously by the Portuguese assembly dealing with the recent events in East Timor, and I would like to briefly state one part of that resolution. It is impossible for the international community and particularly for the U.N. to allow the steadily worsening situation to continue for one more day without jeopardizing their own credibility. Mr. Speaker, I think we have all heard about what is going on in East Timor right now, and it is time for the U.S. Congress for the United States to act.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the subcommittee is aware, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order. The purpose of this amendment is to take $150,000 from the ``General Investigation'' section under Title 1 for a project in my district and place that amount in the ``General Construction'' section of that same project. After discussing this in detail with the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), while this is an authorized project and I view it as sound policy, I have decided not to offer that amendment at this time.

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

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, the Corps did not include this in its current budget request. In order to ensure that this project is included in the Corps' next fiscal year budget proposal, I drafted this amendment and appreciate the gentleman taking an interest in seeing this important issue resolved.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do not think anybody has to tell me what good work the Forest Service can do and how important it is, the work that they are doing across the country right now. Unfortunately what the gentleman from Colorado points out is that when we do not have the kind of oversight we should over their spending, we end up with programs like this. Obviously the Forest Service must think they have too much money or else they would not spend money on programs like this. Obviously they think that there is so much money coming into their agency that it is important to set aside money to do programs like this. Now, if all they were doing was setting aside money for scientific research, I do not believe this amendment would be necessary. I do not believe that we would be debating this at this time. But because they feel like they have so much money to spend, that they have got extra money to spend on crazy programs that make absolutely no sense, and I do not think that there is a Member of Congress, I do not think there is anyone on the authorizing committee or the Committee on Appropriations that can look at these programs and say that is how we ought to be spending our scarce tax dollars and our even more scarce resources going to the Forest Service. This is outrageous that they would even consider spending money on these programs.

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

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in strong support of this resolution. And I know that all the Members of the House have a great concern over what happened in Sacramento, but I would like to point out two of my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), who immediately saw the value in bringing this resolution to the floor. Last week three synagogues were burned in Sacramento, just a short distance away from my district. Unfortunately, crimes and especially ones of hate and bigotry are nothing new in this day and age, but for me this act of violence has hit way too close to home. We now know, especially after the events of World War II, that when a synagogue is burned, not only is it an attack on the worshipers of that synagogue, it is an attack on the decency and tolerance and the most basic of human rights. When a criminal burns a synagogue or any place of worship, he or she is directly assaulting our Constitution's first amendment, freedom of speech, which directly protects our freedom of religion. I appreciate the work that my colleagues, the civic and religious leaders in our community, including Rabbi Jason Gwasdoff of Temple Israel in Stockton, and all that my constituents have done as a result of these particularly disturbing crimes. They have truly come together as partners and peacemakers. Hatred is nurtured by indifference. It is often said that the easiest way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, and I firmly believe this to be true. In light of all these senseless acts of hatred, I call on all Americans to rededicate themselves to the daily process of promoting peaceful co-existence and tolerance, from the House of Representatives to houses across this country, to prevent crimes like these from happening again. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the comments given on the steps of the Stockton City Hall on June 22, 1999, by Rabbi Jason Gwasdoff of Temple Israel. Last Friday I was awakened by the telephone at about 7:15 a.m. When the phone rings at that hour in my house, it usually means that something is wrong, that someone in my congregation has died, or has been rushed to the hospital, or that some bad thing has befallen a member of my own family. The voice at the other end of the line was Karma, our Temple administrator. She told me briefly of the events that transpired in Sacramento earlier that morning, about the unbelievable news of three synagogues firebombed in the space of 45 minutes. I turned on my television to catch the news and I saw a horrifying sight. It was a synagogue building totally engulfed in flames, a building I had visited just a few months ago while visiting a friend and colleague who leads that congregation. As you can imagine I was shocked and dismayed by what I saw. I felt a rush of emotion . . . anger, sadness, disbelief. No, it was not the first time I have seen footage of synagogues in flames. That scene, unfortunately, is far too familiar. You see, I've seen, like many here, I'm sure, the documentaries on the Holocaust, and I've visited the museums and exhibits. The history we know. Fifty years ago in Europe, almost all of the synagogues were burned, a precursor to the extermination of two-thirds of European Jewry, six million men, women, and children-- murdered. But this was different. I was not watching documentary footage, and these events were not 50 years, a full continent, and an ocean away. This was happening right here and now, just an hour away, on our back doorstep, in Sacramento, in this great State of California where I was born and raised, in our country of freedom and democracy and pluralism, the United States of America. Yes, this sight of a synagogue in flames was very different indeed and it had an entirely different meaning. When I went to my office later that morning, the inevitable calls started coming in, the local newspaper and television media asking for a statement, members of my congregation who heard the news and wanted to talk or wondered aloud what we could do to help. What I didn't expect or anticipate, however, was the calls and visits from fellow clergy from the interfaith community expressing their concern and support and outrage. They wanted to make sure that I was O.K., and they wanted me to know that they cared. It was a wonderful outpouring of love and fellowship, a recognition that we are united in our mutual concern for one another, and united on our zealousness to safeguard the values upon which our country is built. Three synagogues were burned in Sacramento, an hour away, but the message I was hearing loud and clear is that we are all in this together. Anti-Semitism and bigotry, of all kinds, is nothing new, but we know now, especially after the events of WWII and after the events of these past few months in Kosovo, that when you burn a synagogue in Sacramento, you are not only attacking the Jewish people, you are attacking decency and tolerance and the most basic of human rights. When you burn a synagogue, you are attacking freedom of worship, and freedom from fear, freedom to raise our children to love God and to see God's face reflected in the faces of fellow human beings. I am moved by the presence of my clergy colleagues here today, and I thank you, my Christian and Catholic and Muslim friends, and I am thankful for the presence of these community leaders and fellow citizens, who have come out to these steps to stand together in solidarity to make a statement against hatred and intolerance. It has no place in our community, not in Sacramento, and not in Stockton, not anywhere in our state or nation. We send a united message today to the outlaws and hate mongers, wherever they are, that such acts will not be tolerated. The difference between a synagogue burning in Europe 50 years ago, and a synagogue burning in Sacramento last week, is that we now have a government, and community and religious leaders who will respond, and who will stand with us--who will not tolerate these kinds of acts. Bigotry is nurtured by indifference. There is no indifference in this gathering today. And neither are we afraid. The message that I gave to my congregation last Friday night, and the one I want to repeat here today, is that they will not be intimidated. The best way to respond to these senseless acts of hatred is to be strengthened in our resolve . . . to continue to worship and celebrate and to cherish our rich heritage, people of all faiths, and all walks of life, and to sew the seeds of righteousness. That is what we will do, that is what we must do. We will teach our children to be proud Americans, and, in my community, to be proud Jews. We will teach them that they are lucky to live in a country and in a time when they do not have to be afraid. There is a famous saying in Jewish tradition that the whole world is a very narrow bridge, and the most important thing is not to be afraid. We walk together you and I, and all people, on the same narrow bridge, for this is a small world that we must learn to share. But when we support each other, when we stand united, as we do today, there is no reason for us to be afraid.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and pay tribute to Ms. Sandra K. Hogan, Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Review Office of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Ms. Hogan will retire, July 3rd after 37 years of service to AMS. For 33 of those years, she has not only served 13 AMS Administrators, but has also been a valuable asset to Congress in her role as the Congressional Liaison for AMS. Ms. Hogan's breadth of knowledge about the extensive programs which AMS administers and her professionalism have always been greatly appreciated by all who have worked with her. You always knew that when you needed to get a clear explanation about a complicated AMS issue or quick assistance in drafting legislation, Ms. Hogan would be able to handle the job. AMS issues certainly do not make that job easy. Ms. Hogan has had to be proficient in issues from Federal Milk Marketing Orders, commodity grading, plant patents, agricultural transportation concerns, commodity purchases for the federal feeding programs, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), Organic Certification, and the ever increasing number of commodity checkoff programs, to name a few. To illustrate the breadth of her career, about the same time Ms. Hogan started in the job of Congressional Liaison, Congress passed the first industry funded commodity checkoff legislation for the cotton industry, the Cotton Research and Promotion Act. Ms. Hogan has since supervised the enactment of 19 individual checkoff statutes and the most recently enacted ``generic statute.'' Ms. Hogan is an exceptional breed of public servant who has always put customer service first and luckily for us, she considered Congress to be one of her most important customers. Ms. Hogan's graciousness, professionalism and extensive knowledge of the multitude of AMS programs and history will be sorely missed. I commend her on her distinctive career and wish her well as she returns to her native West Virginia.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the statement of the full committee chairman. I know of the intense interest of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) on this issue as well as a number of other Members of the House. As we have been negotiating and working through this issue, I will assure the gentleman that this is a very important issue, not only to his dairy farmers, but to mine back home, and that we will move through the hearing, the markup process, and move legislation on an expedited manner through the House and try to solve this problem as quickly as we possibly can.