Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am informed that the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies has brought this bill to the floor within their 302(b) allocation and therefore am of the opinion that it is funded by general fund revenues and has nothing to do with the Social Security funds the gentleman is speaking to.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want us to look very closely at what is going on here. This is an appropriations bill brought up pursuant to the budget plan passed by this House. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies was given a 302(b) allocation and he has brought his bill forward under that allocation. This is not about emergency spending. This is not about extra allocation spending. This is a chairman that has done everything right, operating under the 302(b) allocation the Committee on Appropriations received under the budget plan passed by the majority. So I simply do not believe that it is rooted in fact that we need to look at this for other than it is, spending for agriculture.

Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I was respectful to the gentleman in his 5 minutes and I want to make a couple of points. The farmers of this country are in a world of hurt. I have lived all my life in North Dakota and I have never seen it as bad as it is today. We have prices that do not cover the cost of production. This body made a decision that we were not going to protect farmers when prices collapsed and prices have collapsed below the cost of production. As a result, we have got farmers going bankrupt all over the country. We have got auction sales in North Dakota that do not quit. Now, this Congress because we have got a farm bill that is not working has tried to do a lot of things. Members will remember last year, we passed increasing the AMTA payments, we passed accelerating the AMTA payments, more money to farmers to somehow tide them through this situation. We passed a disaster bill that has proven to be the most confusing disaster bill ever passed and the U.S. Department of Agriculture did not even get it all fully available until June of this year. Now, through this all, the farmer understands one thing. He is losing money, and he is about out of time. He does not understand all these relief measures that we are trying to pass because they are confusing, they are haphazard, they have been passed in a happenstance way and in an ad hoc way. The Public Information Office of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has never been more important. And if you think everyone gets it in terms of what is available for them, you just call one of your farmers right this afternoon and ask them. It is chaos out there and confusion. They do not know what is available. The U.S. Department of Agriculture needs to do a better job. Secondly, it needs the resources so that it can do the job we expect them to do. We have changed the farm program. We have ended the price support that has been part of farm policy for four decades. We are now operating under ad hoc, give them some money here, get them some money there, build a program, try to tide us through, and all of that is very confusing. This public information function is vital. When we pass a response to farmers, that just does not mean that money appears in the bank account. You have got to run the program. That means have the people understand it, have them come in, have it administered in the field offices and get the checks out. This is an essential part of that bargain. This is under the absolute legitimate function of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture operating under their allocation bringing this money to the floor. I notice that all of the Republican leadership voted for the last Coburn amendment. Does the Republican leadership not understand the crisis that we have in farm country? We have an absolutely deadly threat to our farmers. We are going to lose family farming as we know it today without responding. And so I do not want this to be a Republican or Democrat majority-minority thing. This is a bill for farmers at a time when they have never ever needed it more. So let us save those arguments about these unrelated matters, make them in special orders, make them another time, but let us today, this afternoon, stand for our farmers. They desperately need the help.

Mr. POMEROY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am profoundly surprised by what is occurring on the floor. I represent farmers, and these farmers are in a world of hurt. A bill comes to the floor, the agriculture appropriations bill, prepared and reported out of the committee with a bipartisan vote within the appropriations allocation assigned to that committee, and we begin to see a slew of amendments, amendments that would eviscerate the help my farmers need. Now we see, with the unanimous consent request before this body, just what haphazard nonsense these amendments are. They have not been printed, they have not been distributed. We have had no notice. They are not even accurate. Now the Member seeks unanimous consent to correct his amendment on the floor as we meet as a Committee of the Whole, because he did not even go to the preparation of getting it in proper form before bringing it to us. We have also heard in the preceding discussion that we can expect more than 100 similar amendments to be offered from this Member. Back in North Dakota, just like all across this country, farmers are trying to get their spring financing together. They are trying to get their crop in. They are trying to figure out how they are going to make it another year, in light of the financial trouble they are under. Here in Congress, we cannot even get an agriculture appropriations bill out of this Chamber without having Members of this body attack this bill in this fashion. It is shameful. The only thing that is more shameful than the amendments themselves is the fact that they have had the support of the majority leadership, leadership which we are led to believe gave no notice to the subcommittee chairman that his budget was going to come under attack in this fashion. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) owe it to the farmers of this country to stop these amendments and get this bill out. Mr. Chairman, I object to the Member trying to correct his amendment. If he wanted to have this amendment considered, he should have had it in proper form the first time.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduced the Pesticide Registration Harmonization Act of 1999. I am pleased to have Representative Rick Hill of Montana and Representative John Baldacci of Maine as original cosponsors on this very important legislation for American farmers and ranchers. The premise of this legislation is quite simple. As a Member of Congress representing a border-state with Canada, I believe that it is essential for American farmers to be on the same level ``playing field'' as their international counterparts. I am hopeful that the Pesticide Harmonization Act of 1999 will begin a much needed dialogue between the United States and Canada on chemical harmonization as we head into the 21st Century. The Pesticide Harmonization Act of 1999 is designed to establish a process under which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could be requested to review registration requests for certain pesticide products. The types of pesticides that would be reviewed are registered for use on a specific crop in Canada and are also registered in the United States but not for use on that specific crop. In addition, the chemical must be needed to respond to critical pest control needs of United States growers which are not otherwise being met, and supported for registration by their manufacturers. If the chemical meets these criteria then the EPA review process would be expedited. The EPA would have 180 days after receiving a request from the registrant for a specific product to either agree to accept the registration package approved by the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) or to explain their reasons for not approving the request. Clearly, there is an inequity in pesticide registrations, particularly for canola, wheat, and barley, between the United States and Canada. In the case of canola, Canada has about 40 pesticides registered while the United States has only seven. American farmers ought to have access to the same, environmentally safe pest control tools that are available to their Canadian counterparts. Mr. Speaker, American farmers are facing 50 year low commodity prices, at the same time costs of production are continuing to rise. The Pesticide Registration Harmonization Act of 1999 is a step in the right direction of leveling the playing field for American producers.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Congressman J.D. Hayworth, in introducing the Federally Impacted School Improvement Act. This legislation is designed to provide matching grants to federally impacted schools to meet their urgent repair and construction needs. The Impact Aid program was built on the premise of a shared responsibility between the federal, state and local governments. Since 1950, the federal government has recognized and accepted its responsibility to assist school districts and communities that are impacted by a federal presence such as a military base or Indian reservation. The federal government has made payments to school districts in the form of federal property, disability and basic support payments to help cover the cost of educating federally connected children. Across the country, 1,600 school districts and 1.5 million children depend on the Impact Aid program for a quality education. Up until 1994, Congress has provided assistance to help these school districts build and repair their schools, particularly districts whose property tax circumstances make it almost impossible to pass school construction bonds. Since 1994, however, the Impact Aid school construction account has suffered. The funding provided in the section 8007 construction account has become woefully inadequate and is spread too thinly among the over two hundred qualifying schools. As a result, many of these school buildings are antiquated, overcrowded and most troubling, compromise the health and safety of their students. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to two particular instances in my state where Impact Aid section 8007 construction funding has fallen far short of meeting schools' most basic repair and construction needs. The Grand Forks school district in North Dakota has been plagued by severe ventilation and air quality problems for some time. The meager funds Grand Forks receives through section 8007 have not enabled the district to make even urgent repairs. One school has had to delay renovation projects because of insufficient funds, and ultimately, to borrow from their Basic Support Payments when renovation needs became too urgent to ignore. In order to improve the air quality so that children are not at risk, this one school would need $800,000. However, the entire Grand Forks school district will receive only $40,000 in section 8007 money this year. Another Impact Aid school that has become a particular concern for me is Cannonball Elementary, located on the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota. As a result of inadequate Impact Aid construction funding over the years, Cannonball has long been neglected. Storage rooms have been converted to makeshift classrooms and portions of the building that have been condemned continue to house students. Students and teachers are often forced to move from classroom to classroom to escape the stench of sewer back-up that permeates the building. I have walked the halls of this school and have found the conditions these students face on a day-to-day basis to be deplorable. The legislation we are introducing today offers the best opportunity for Cannonball, and the Grand Forks School District to meet these urgent construction needs. Our legislation would create a separate Impact Aid construction account and authorize a federal appropriation of $50 million for each of the next five fiscal years. The funding would be divided equally between Indian land/federal property and military schools and would create a reserve account for emergency repair needs. Under the legislation, an individual school district could receive a grant up of to $3 million any time during the five year authorization period. In order to make the limited federal funds go farther, the bill targets funding directly to those school districts located on Federal property or that serve a high concentration of federally-connected students. Additionally, the bill requires districts to provide matching funds on all but the small portion of funds reserved for emergencies. Mr. Speaker, the federal government has a clear obligation to federally impacted schools, and only by stepping up its support can these schools continue to provide a quality education to thousands of children across the country. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support Impact Aid schools. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, which would enable federally impacted schools across the country to meet their urgent construction and repair needs.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I am voting today against H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act, and am voting in favor of the Conyers substitute. Both alternatives fall short of providing the proactive measured relief warranted on this unique issue, but the flaw in H.R. 775 is fatal in its character, while the Conyers substitute offers a platform for further refinement in conference committee. The fatal flaw in H.R. 775 is the ``loser pays'' provision which holds a litigant liable to pay the other side's attorneys' fees if the plaintiff rejects a pre-trial settlement offer, and then ultimately secures a less favorable verdict from the court. The ``loser pays'' provision (Section 507) is drastic overkill which could actually discourage companies from fixing their computer systems in advance of the problem. The ``loser pays'' provision will create a particular problem for small businesses and middle income victims of Y2K failures because these groups have far less financial resources than large defendant corporations and cannot afford the risk of paying a large corporation's legal fees based on the outcome of a trial. In effect, the possibility of an adverse verdict will deter small businesses from pursuing even the most egregious claims to court. The provision is so onerous that it would even apply to a harmed party that prevails in a Y2K action so long as they obtain less than a pre-trial settlement. This would have the perverse effect of rewarding a negligent or reckless defendant and punishing an innocent victim. I do not believe, however, the Conyers substitute does enough to address joint and several liability exposure. I am concerned that many high technology firms will be held accountable for an entire damage award simply because they played some small role in designing a system several years ago, even when the principal party responsible makes little or no effort to update their systems into Y2K compliance. H.R. 777's proportionate liability provision makes a defendant liable solely for the portion of the judgment that corresponds to the percentage of responsibility of that company, and if amended to address responsibility for orphan shares, represents reform I could support. Mr. Chairman, I truly hope that we can address these outstanding issues and work together to strike the proper legal balance that addresses the Y2K liability question. Unfortunately the vote today does not represent an acceptable package. I vote ``no'' and hope further legislative activity on this issue will create an appropriate response that I will be able to support.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this session Congress once again finds itself debating ways to strengthen our most important domestic program: Social Security. Like many Members, I have long valued the wise counsel of one of Social Security's greatest defenders, Mr. Robert M. Ball. For six decades, Mr. Ball has worked on behalf of our nation's elderly and the Social Security program. I have found that his long-term perspective and familiarity with the program invariably transcend the whims of today's younger critics. Earlier this week, I read with great pleasure an article on Mr. Ball's achievements in the New York Times. The article which I include for the Record, eloquently describes his long-standing commitment to the Social Security program, and gives me hope that we will continue to benefit from his wisdom for years to come. [From the New York Times, May 3, 1999] A Great Defender of the Social Security Battles On (By Robin Toner) The conventional wisdom these days is that any major change to Social Security is unlikely before next year's elections, but Robert M. Ball remains ever vigilant. In the unending debate over the nation's pension system, Mr. Ball stands as the great defender of traditional Social Security, the genius of its basic principles, the soundness of its basic approach. ``Though I feel good about our position,'' he said in a lull in the struggle on a lazy spring afternoon, ``people who think like I do better be very careful, and we better have good proposals and we better be alert. Or something may happen that we don't like.'' Mr. Ball comes by his passion honestly, having been at the Social Security wars for a very long time. He went to work for Social Security in 1939, ran the program as Commissioner from 1962 to 1973, and has since played a principal role on some of the important advisory commissions. He is a regular source of advice for leading Congressional Democrats, has sent a series of memorandums on the issue to the White House over the last few years and, yes, is a Social Security beneficiary himself. Mr. Ball, who is 85, said he had no complaints about life on the other end of the Social Security check. ``They do a good job,'' he said, happily settled for the moment like any other cardigan-clad retiree in the living room of his ranch house in Alexandria, Va. For many Democrats engaged in the issue, Mr. Ball is an irreplaceable link with 60 years of history. ``There's a reason why the program is what it is,'' said Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, a Democratic point man on Social Security in the House. ``And Bob Ball can explain it to you.'' For the last few years, Mr. Ball's consuming cause has been beating back the forces of privatization: the notion that at least part of Social Security should be replaced with individual accounts that workers could invest as they see fit. He sees privatization as a ``slippery slope,'' a dangerous step away from the guaranteed benefits of Social Security. He contends that the system can be shored up for the next century by far less radical measures, like raising the maximum amount of earnings subject to Social Security taxes. Mr. Ball acknowledges that his views are shaped by a very different world than that of the young privatizers. One of three children of a Methodist minister, he grew up in northern New Jersey and graduated from Wesleyan University with a master's degree in economics during the Depression. There were no jobs. For help, he turned to his thesis adviser, who happened to have a friend involved in the new Social Security program. ``He said, `Well, this program is just starting up. It's going to be a big program. It's an attractive program and an important social program, and it would be a good thing if you got in on it in the beginning.' '' So Mr. Ball took the Civil Service exam during his honeymoon (he spent the rest of the time on a camping trip with his wife, Doris) and began work as a field representative in the Newark office of Social Security for $1,620 a year. He spent his early years visiting employers, trying to straighten out wage records and, along the way, proselytizing for a program that seemed quite revolutionary at the time. On the wall of his office at home, he has a picture of that Newark field staff, earnest young foot soldiers of the New Deal. There are other pictures on that wall: President Lyndon B. Johnson signing the law creating Medicare, which Mr. Ball helped put into effect. The Presidential commission, signed by John F. Kennedy, that named Mr. Ball head of Social Security. (Mr. Ball noted that it mentioned more than once that he served at the pleasure of the President.) A picture of the Balls with President Richard M. Nixon in 1973, when Mr. Ball was leaving office. The newspapers at the time said he was ``pushed out.'' Mr. Ball says: ``I was perfectly happy to go, but I couldn't have stayed if I wanted to. I lasted for the first term.'' Along the way, the Balls brought up two children: their son is a psychotherapist; their daughter, an art therapist. Mr. Ball acknowledges that his retirement has been less than restful. He does a lot of reading, and not just on social insurance issues, he said a trifle defensively. Mostly novels and Romantic poetry. But the care and tending of Social Security keeps pulling him back. ``There was a time when I felt a lot of pressure on the basis that there wasn't anybody else really working on it very much,'' he said. ``Now there's a whole group. They'll carry on whether I die tomorrow and do as good or better job.'' That was the idea behind the National Academy of Social Insurance, a nonprofit organization that does research on social insurance and tries to ``enhance public understanding'' of the issues; Mr. Ball was one of its founders 11 years ago. Still, it is not at all clear that Mr. Ball is ready to pass the torch and enter the land of retirement he helped create. ``My wife and I had dinner with him and Doris two nights ago,'' said Henry Aaron, an economist at the Brookings Institution. ``I don't know of any other 85-year-old who's wrestling with what he's going to do, new. But Bob is wrestling with that. I think he sees the health care issue emerging anew.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, on May 9, America will celebrate Mother's Day. This second Sunday in May was set aside for us to thank our mothers for raising us, for giving us a sense of security and independence, and for offering us their unconditional love. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all mothers, who know that there is perhaps no more important, more difficult, and ultimately more rewarding undertaking than raising a child. I was very fortunate to have been raised by a loving mother in a stable and caring home. As we approach Mother's Day, however, I can't help but be reminded of the over 500,000 children in the foster care system in this country who await permanent homes. Although in recent years we have made great strides in improving the child welfare system, through legislation such as the Adoption and Safe Families Act, there is no substitute for loving parents and a permanent home. For thousands of children who are still waiting, adoption offers the hope to finally find a ``forever family''. I would like to remember the children who still wait to celebrate Mother's Day in a permanent home, as well as those families whom adoption has brought together. Mr. Speaker, children are awaiting adoptive parents not only in this country, but in nations all over the world. For years, American families have reached across cultural and national boundaries to embrace children through international adoption. My own family was forever changed and enriched by the adoption of our two children from Korea. It is difficult for me to express how deeply grateful I am to have Kathryn and Scott in my life. This Mother's Day, it is my greatest hope that every family and every child still waiting will also have the opportunity to experience the joy of adoption.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, there is a vile partisanship in this Chamber. We may have a new Speaker, but make no mistake about it, we have the same utterly dysfunctional leadership that saw us through government shutdowns and that made a partisan mockery out of the constitutional impeachment responsibility in this body. Yesterday more than 30 Members of the majority voted against stopping U.S. participation in the NATO action, against the horrendous ethnic cleansing of Slobodan Milosevic, but then refused to vote for a resolution in support of the NATO action. There can only be one explanation for the House vote against the NATO campaign. The Republican majority will seize any opportunity to strike at President Clinton, even if it means giving encouragement to such a vile criminal as Slobodan Milosevic. Our national interest must rise above our partisan inclinations. The memory of those killed and raped in Kosovo and the support of the brave men and women carrying out this mission on NATO's behalf deserve better than this vote.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, these loan applications have been mounting in the FSA offices in counties across North Dakota. Farmers turn away from their banker, come in to FSA, put in the application, and they evaluate whether the application is creditworthy or not. We cannot make loans that are not creditworthy, but so often the case is they are creditworthy loans that should be financed if the loan money was available. We now have stockpiled, in other words, applications filed that cannot be funded, $45 million worth of loan requests. If the gentleman wants to calculate how many farmers are waiting, holding their breath, not knowing whether they will be in the field or selling out in just a month, we just have to figure how many loans, how many farmers can be served by $45 million. Farming is an expensive business, but there are a whole lot of operating loans represented in that size of capital, and that is just North Dakota alone. Across the country, they reckon that this $1.1 billion in additional lending authority that funding the agriculture supplemental will make available will be literally thousands, thousands of family farmers that are either reduced to auction sales, or on with the business of farming, the business that is their profession, the business that has been their family's heritage. That is really what it all comes down to. Sometimes I think that we get so wrapped up, and in fact, the venal partisanship of this place has absolutely taken over our ability to see reality anymore, and we spend all our time thinking about how we can jam the other side and utterly quit thinking about what ought to be job one for us, and that is serving the interests of the people that elected us to these offices. There is nothing Republican or Democrat about a farmer being able to get the loan money they need to get in the field. There is not a Republican ideology or a Democrat ideology on this loan request, this funding request sent up by Secretary Glickman in February that would make this funding available for these farm loans. Why in the world one would take the plight of family farmers and put them in the middle of this vicious, disgusting, unworthy partisan contest is beyond me. But I will tell the Members this, the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) owes us better. He is the Speaker. He is the leader of this Chamber. He is the leader of the Republican Party, not the majority whip. It is time for this Speaker to stand up and be counted. It is time for this Speaker to lead, and to lead on behalf of the farmers that are in his State of Illinois and in my State of North Dakota and the gentleman's State of Arkansas and all across this country. Until he does that, every day the planting deadlines are passing for some farmers in more southern latitudes than North Dakota, and if we do not act soon, it is going to be too late for all of us.

Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I wish some of the Members that have worked so hard to keep this from coming to the floor would have their own paychecks in the same kind of uncertainty that we have placed these farmers. I wish they would get up in the morning, sit at the breakfast table drinking coffee with their wives, not knowing whether or not they would be able to get a crop in the field in a few weeks, whether or not they would have their job, whether or not they would be able to provide for their family. Maybe then some of these Members that are working so hard to ignore the plight of our farmers in favor of partisan games, if they had the same kinds of uncertainties our farmers were dealing with, they would not be quite so cavalier. Because what we are doing to people is absolutely cruel. We have got people that will not know, they cannot know today whether or not they will be able to keep this farm going, the farm that has not just been their life's work, but was their daddy's before that and their granddaddy's before that; literally generations of family tradition resulting in the livelihood for these farmers, the way they provide for their families and put shoes on their kids' feet, and they do not even know whether they will be able to keep at it one more growing season because this Congress is playing party politics instead of kicking out the loan money as requested by Secretary Glickman. I simply do not understand it.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would echo the comments so ably made in the course of this Special Order about the crisis in agriculture. The crisis is a deep, threatening crisis that will in North Dakota cause more families to leave their farms in search of other work than we have seen in many, many years. I have with me just some photocopies of auction bills. We are seeing an awful lot of these auction bills, and for those not from farm country, they may not realize that each of these represents the end of a family tradition, heritage, history. Farms that have been in the land and under constant cultivation for more than the last 100 years, farms continuously held by families since the prairie on the Northern Plains was broken, now going under because of inadequate prices, because of a farm program that is not working anywhere near what was promised when it was passed in the 104th Congress. As a result, as a result of the loss of profitability in agriculture, we do not just have people selling out, we have other people knocking on the door of their banks for credit and being turned away. Now, the funds that are at issue for agriculture lending, that we so critically need in this supplemental appropriation, are required because they are available to guarantee credit privately offered through banks to farmers, as per the Federal programs to provide that kind of credit guarantee, keep the credit available for farmers, or funds directly lent by the farm service agency itself, the lender of last resort for farmers. Well, believe me, this is the last resort, and that is why they are calling, calling to the tune of 150 a week. In fact, the statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture are that they have received more than 8,000 loan applications since the supplemental request for additional loan money was sent up to Congress on February 26, 62 days ago. Our new Speaker, Dennis Hastert, is from Illinois. He knows agriculture. They have an awful lot of agriculture in Illinois. He knows one thing, that between now and February 26 when this first request came up, that has been planting season, a very critical time in a farmer's year. You go to the bank and get the loan, the operating loan. With that loan you buy seed, fertilizer, gas for the tractor. You go and put in the crop, but you can only put in the crop if you get the essential operating capital for the beginning of the crop year. What happens if Congress continues to wait, if Speaker Hastert continues to fail to lead, to bring this bill to the floor so we can get the money out there, is the window will close. I represent North Dakota. It has one of the latest planting periods in the country because of our northern location, and yet even in North Dakota we are seeing the window come perilously close to shutting altogether because we have failed to act on this supplemental. I cannot think of a more heedless, tone-deaf signal for the Congress to send to the farmers of this country than to dilly-dally around, play politics, wring our hands so piously during our trips back to the district during the weekend about our concern for farmers, but fail to pass the essential operating loan money they need until after the period has passed and they can no longer get their crops in the ground. That would really be the limit. Unfortunately, we are reaching the edge of that limit by Congress' failure to bring up the agriculture appropriations supplemental. We are putting farmers, individual families that have farmed for generations, in the circumstance where, even as the clock is tolling relative to making essential spring planting decisions, they do not even know whether they will have the financing capital. I cannot think of a more cruel hoax to play for farmers, dangling the prospect out there that we will be there to help them, but then somehow getting too politically distracted in our own internal partisan warfare that seems to have taken on its own reality, irrespective of the real needs of this country and the people we represent. I ask the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), I hope the gentleman is listening, because he owes this body more, he owes our Nation's farmers more. When the gentleman fails to lead, others take over. The way others are running this place, they are not responding to the very real needs of the American people that we represent, and in this case, the needs of the American farmer, farmers that the Speaker knows very well because of his long, distinguished representation of the State of Illinois. I cannot for the life of me understand what is going on in the Speaker's mind to let this situation linger and to leave our farmers in this kind of predicament. I have now heard that they are seriously considering bringing funding for the Kosovo campaign to the floor without addressing the needs of our farms. I think that, without question, the NATO involvement, the expense of U.S. participation in the NATO involvement is a legitimate exercise and obviously requires additional financial support, appropriately passed on an emergency basis. But this crisis halfway around the world is no more important in the scheme of things to our country than the crisis right here at home on our farms. To leave the plight of our farmers behind as we respond to situations across the world would be the absolute height of foolishness. I would implore majority leadership to think again and not address Kosovo without addressing our farmers. On April 26 of this year we sent a letter to the Speaker, signed by almost 30 members of both political parties, urging the action on the agriculture supplemental appropriations. This is a bipartisan appeal from farm country, Mr. Speaker, so that the Speaker might be able to bring up the appropriations so desperately needed by our farmers. Do not leave our farmers out, even while we respond to situations halfway across the world. I would be happy to entertain a dialogue with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), a further discussion on the critical need facing our farmers and why Congress has to act now.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on May 1st through 3rd of this year, high school students from across the country will compete in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the students of Flasher High School of Flasher, North Dakota, who will represent my home state in this event. These students have worked hard to reach this stage of the competition and have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the principals underlying our constitutional democracy. We the People is the most extensive program in the country designed to teach students the history and philosophy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings held in the United States Congress. These mock hearings consist of oral presentations by the student participants before a panel of adult judges. The students testify as constitutional experts before a ``congressional committee'' of judges representing various regions of the country and appropriate professional fields. The students' testimony is followed by a question and answer period during which the judges test students on their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The knowledge these students have acquired to reach the national level of this competition is truly impressive. Mr. Speaker, I ask that a copy of the questions posed to the students at these hearings be included in the record. I would also like to especially recognize our talented representatives from Flasher High School, of Flasher, North Dakota. This is the first year that Flasher High School has competed in the We the People program, and after months of hard work and preparation, all 31 students in the senior class will be coming to Washington to represent North Dakota in the national competition. In just over a month, these students raised $17,000 to fund this trip. I would like to recognize by name the dedicated students from Flasher High School: Ashley Bahm, Lori Boeshans, Cheryl Breiner, Nikki Erhardt, Scott Fisher, Nadine Fleck, Nicolle Fleck, Joe Fleck, Sherry Gerhardt, Albert Heinert, Amber Heinz, Nathan Honrath, Sylvia Koch, Randy Kovar, Jody Kraft, Jessy Meyer, Adrian Miller, Justin Miller, Sunshine Schmidt, Travis Schmidt, Dan Schmidt, Brielle Schmidt, Joy Schmidt, Keesha Stroh, Brent Ternes, Kyle Ternes, Kevan Thornton, Mitch Tishmack, Thomas Tschida, Paul Wienberger, Steve Zeller. I would also like to recognize and thank their teacher, Michael Severson, for his critical role in these students' success and their interest in American government. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the student team from Flasher High School to Washington, and wish them the very best of luck. They have made all of us in North Dakota very proud. We The People--The Citizen And The Constitution national hearing questions, academic year 1998-99 Unit one: What Are the Philosophical and Historical Foundations of the American Political System? 1. The U.S. Constitution guarantees Americans a ``republican form of government.'' Republicanism, however, has taken on different meanings in different times and places. What did the phrase mean to the Framers of the Constitution? How was their understanding of the term different from that of the ancients? What specific provisions of the U.S. Constitution help us to understand the Framers' definition of republicanism? 2. Two of the three monuments erected to the Magna Carta at Runnymede in England are American. A copy of the Great Charter now resides alongside the documents of our nation's founding in the National Archives. Why has this document, above all other legacies of British constitutionalism, been so cherished by Americans? What impact did the Magna Carta have on the founding of the American colonies? In the events leading to the American Revolution? On the U.S. Bill of Rights? What tenets or principles are embodied in the Magna Carta and why were they important to the development of constitutional government? 3. At the time of their independence from Great Britain the American people could call upon over a century of experience in self-government, especially in the management of local affairs. Many historians believe that this colonial legacy was crucial to the success of the new nation after 1776. What were the most important principles, practices, and institutions of this legacy? What examples can you identify of written guarantees of basic rights in colonial America? Why were these written guarantees important to the colonists? How did they influence the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? Many of the new democracies of the post-Cold War era have no such experience of self-governance on which to draw. How might this affect their chances for success? What special burdens or needs does this lack of experience place upon them? Unit two: How Did the Framers Create the Constitution? 1. George Washington, James Madison, and other Framers used the word ``miracle'' to describe the accomplishments of the Constitutional Convention. Historians since have suggested that much of the success of the Convention had to do with timing. They have pointed out that what the Framers were able to accomplish in the Philadelphia summer of 1787 would not have been possible a few years earlier or later. Do you agree or disagree? Explain your position. What circumstances and developments helped to create a window of opportunity in 1787? In what ways did the American experience with state governments and constitutions between 1776 and 1787 influence the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787? 2. One of the arguments used by the Framers to reject the creation of a monarchical executive was the belief that kings, unlike their ministers, could never be impeached. Monarchy was rejected and provision for the impeachment of presidents included in the Constitution. But only two of our nation's 42 chief executives have been impeached and none have been convicted in the course of 210 years. Does this suggest that Americans have, in fact, elevated their presidents to a status not unlike that of a monarch? Why or why not? Because U.S. presidents are heads of state as well as chief executives, should the bar of justification for their removal from office be higher than that for other public officials? Why or why not? Should a national recall vote be substituted for Senate trial in the case of impeached presidents? Explain your position. 3. In the debates over the Constitution's ratification, the Federalists argued that the Constitution was a true and proper culmination of the American Revolution. The Constitution, they claimed, brought to life the basic principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. What arguments did the Federalists use to support such claims? Do you agree or disagree with their position? Why? Do you believe that the decision of the Framers to scrap the Articles of Confederation, establish an entirely new government, and lay down the rules for its implementation was consistent or inconsistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence? Explain your position. Why did the Framers insist that the Constitution be ratified by popularly elected state conventions? Unit Three: How Did the Values and Principles Embodied in the Constitution Shape American Institutions and Practices? 1. A modern biographer of our country's first president has argued that if Washington ``had been taken by smallpox or dropped by an Indian bullet as a young man, the future United States might well have come into being in some form or other. But it would have been harder, and it might have been a lot harder.'' \1\ Do you agree with that statement? Why or why not? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Richard Brookhiser, Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington (New York: Simon & Schuster), 1996. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where do you believe Washington's contribution was the most crucial: in securing independence from Great Britain, in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, or in the implementation of the executive branch? Washington's contemporary admirers spoke of the man's ``majestic fabrick,'' ``commanding countenance,'' ``martial dignity,'' ``graceful bearing,'' and ``wonderful control.'' How important are style and charisma to political leadership? Would you put such qualities on a par with consistency or purity of principles? Why or why not? 2. The Federalists argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary in a constitution of enumerated powers, checks and balances, and popular sovereignty. Why did they believe these features of the Constitution would protect individual rights? How did the Anti-Federalists and other advocates of a national bill of rights respond to such arguments? The Federalists and some constitutional scholars have argued that the original constitution as drafted in 1787 was itself a ``bill of rights.'' What basis did they have for making this claim? 3. In Federalist 81 Alexander Hamilton argued that the authority of judicial review can be deduced ``from the general theory of a limited constitution.'' Do you believe his deduction is correct? Why or why not? What specific provisions of the Constitution provide the basis for judicial review? Does Chief Justice John Marshall's statement, that ``it is emphatically the provenance and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,'' mean that representatives of the other two branches of government do not have the authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution? Why or why not? Unit four: How Have the Protections of the Bill of Rights been Developed and Expanded? 1. Both George III in 1776 and Abraham Lincoln in 1861 rejected the right of rebellion. Lincoln argued that no government on earth could function if it recognized a right of rebellion. Compare the positions of the British monarch and the American president. How were they alike? How were they different? Why would George III have rejected the arguments of the Declaration of Independence? What might have been his reply? Why did Lincoln reject the attempt of the Southern states to apply the principles of 1776 to their secession in 1860- 61? 2. Reconstruction's attempt to secure equality of citizenship for African Americans was in large measure a failure. The civil rights movement of the middle decades of this century (sometimes referred to as the ``Second Era of Reconstruction'') has achieved a large measure of success. How do you account for the failure of the one and the success of the other? What does a comparison of these two series of events suggest about the abilities and limitations of constitutional solutions to the nation's problems? What remedies other than constitutional amendments or laws might reduce or prevent discrimination? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these remedies? 3. In 1972 Congress approved and referred to the states the Equal Rights Amendment, specifying that ``equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' Approved by 35 states, three short of the necessary two-thirds majority (a few states subsequently rescinded their approval), the ERA failed ratification. Is there a need for such an amendment today? Why or why not? Do you believe that the Fourteenth Amendment argues for or against the need for such an amendment? Explain your position. How have developments in the quarter-century since the ERA was first introduced affected this issue? Do you believe that such an amendment is more or less necessary than it was in 1972? Explain your position. Unit five: What Rights Does the Bill of Rights Protect? 1. Although the right of association is not mentioned in the Constitution, courts have ruled that it is a right implied by the enumerated rights of the First Amendment and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. What is the basis for this implication? What role has the right of association played in protecting other individual rights? Under what circumstances do you think restrictions on freedom of association can be justified? Explain your position. 2. In 1956 Justice Hugo Black declared that ``there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.'' \2\ Do you agree with Justice Black's statement? Why or why not? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Griffin v. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How have the nation's courts attempted to reduce the disparities of justice between rich and poor? Should the courts' objective be equality of legal resources or assurance of access to minimal legal resources? What's the difference? 3. The Fourth Amendment is said to be both one of the most important protections of individual liberty and one of the most troublesome provisions of the Bill of Rights. Why was the Fourth Amendment added to the Constitution and what rights does it protect? Why has determining what is an ``unreasonable'' search and seizure proved to be so difficult? How is the Fourth Amendment related to what courts have said is an individual's ``legitimate expectation of privacy''? Given the variety of activities for which Americans use their cars and the amount of time and money they invest in them, should vehicles be accorded the same degree of constitutional protection as residences, i.e., should the car as well as the home be regarded as a person's ``castle''? Unit six: What Are the Roles of the Citizen in American Democracy? 1. The Founders believed that republican self-government required a greater degree of civic virtue than did other forms of government. Why did they hold that belief? How did they reconcile it with their belief in the natural rights philosophy? How was Tocqueville's view of good citizenship different from that of the Founders? To promote good citizenship the Founders supported both religious instruction and civic education. What purposes did they believe each of these experiences would serve? Are those purposes still important to good citizenship today? Why or why not? 2. The Internet has been called the ``electronic frontier.'' The current absence of government regulation of this new world of cyberspace is similar in certain respects to Locke's state of nature. How might Locke and the other natural rights philosophers have resolved the issues of life, liberty, and property as these rights exist on the Internet? Should government regulate freedom of expression in cyberspace? Why or why not? Has the potential of the Internet fundamentally altered the nature of representative government? Why or why not? 3. American constitutionalism, especially its principles of federalism, and independent judiciary, and fundamental rights, has had a major impact on the development of constitutional democracy in other countries. The American form of government, however, has not been widely copied. Most of the world's democracies have opted instead for a parliamentary form of government rather than one of shared powers among three coequal branches of government. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of these two different systems? Do you believe that the American system of divided government has become impractical in the complex, fast-paced world of today? Explain your position. What constitutional reforms might you suggest to improve the effectiveness of our form of government?

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have a great deal of respect for our new colleague, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and her unique expertise, but I flat out disagree with her in a couple of important respects. I believe it is ludicrous to assume that but for the NATO air campaign, Slobodan Milosevic would not have turned 1 million people out of their homes. He could not, Mr. Speaker, forcibly evict 1 million people from their homes in 2 weeks without having a very thoroughly developed plan well in advance. Do not kid yourselves. This was on the game plan of Slobodan Milosevic and would have occurred irrespective of the NATO air campaign. I also disagree with my colleague in believing that it is time to pack it in, to let Slobodan Milosevic have his evil way. The gentlewoman from New Mexico supported that approach in a vote earlier today and it was rejected. We must now stand together, just like happened in the Senate, in a bipartisan way, to support the air campaign. A vote for this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is a vote for our troops, a vote for NATO, a vote for American leadership and a vote to end the ethnic slaughter in Kosovo. Children and the elderly are dying by the side of the road today as Serb forces shove them to the border. Thousands and thousands of young men have disappeared, many more murdered perhaps right now, even as I am speaking. We cannot turn our back on this dimension of ethnic cleansing. While we send an unequivocal message to Milosevic, let us send with this resolution an equally clear message to our troops and all of the troops, Americans and others, involved in the NATO engagement. We need to support our troops and can do so with this resolution. I regret and regret very much we have no alternatives but to continue with this intervention. It is now our only option. I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1569, a bill to prohibit the funding of ground elements in Yugoslavia without prior Congressional authorization. Let me be clear. If at some point in the future our military commanders determine that ground troops are necessary to achieve our military objectives in Yugoslavia, I believe Congress ought to vote on their deployment. This bill, however, extends far beyond that simple objective and could seriously jeopardize the security of U.S. forces currently in the region. This bill does not just prohibit the funding of ground troops prior to Congressional authorization, but rather prohibits the funding of all U.S. ground ``elements'' in Yugoslavia. This ill-defined language would create a legal quagmire for the U.S. forces already deployed in the Balkans. For example, would this bill prohibit the funding of Apache maintenance crews in Albania because the Apache is as an air-to-ground weapon that is deployed in Yugoslavia? It is an open question. There is no question, however, that this bill would legally prohibit U.S. forces in the region from launching a preemptive strike against forces in Yugoslavia even if they received intelligence that they were about to be attacked. If Yugoslavia were to attack beyond its borders, this bill would legally prohibit U.S. forces from carrying the battle into Yugoslavia even if our military commanders considered such action vital to the protection of American troops. In the name of protecting U.S. troops, Mr. Speaker, this bill actually endangers the brave men and women who are already serving in the region. I support Congressional approval before ground troops are deployed in a hostile environment, but I cannot support legislation that ties the hands of our nation's military commanders. For this reason, I oppose H.R. 1569 and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Crop Insurance Improvement Act of 1999. I am honored to have Representative Thune, Representative Minge, and Representative Boswell joining me as original cosponsors of this comprehensive crop insurance reform proposal. The basis for this legislation is quite simple. Frankly, the current federal crop insurance program is broken and needs serious repair. Too many of our nation's farmers--especially in North Dakota--have suffered from severe weather disasters in recent years only to fall victim to a federal crop insurance program that does not protect them adequately. With so many producers being driven off the land because of uncontrolled circumstances caused by Mother Nature, the federal government must act quickly and thoroughly in enacting comprehensive crop insurance to allow our nation's farmers the opportunity to manage their risk. However, I caution that even though crop insurance reform is deperately needed, it is only the first step in reforming a safety net in American agriculture. The Crop Insurance Improvement Act of 1999 reforms the current program by encouraging the broadest possible participation of producers in the program and to ensure greater affordability of the program for producers. It reforms the current program by increasing the subsidy levels to encourage higher participation at the buy-up coverage levels, alleviating the impact of natural disasters on producers' actual production history (APH), assigning 100 percent transitional yields (T- yield) for the newly acquired acreage and new crops, creates cost of production, rating methodologies, and livestock revenue insurance pilot projects, and restructuring the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Board of Directors to better represent producers' interests. During the 106th Congress, I am hopeful that the crop insurance reform will occur. Both Congress and the Administration, have made crop insurance their number one priority in agriculture. In fact, Secretary Glickman coined 1999 as the ``year of the safety net.'' I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner with my colleagues in Congress to pass a comprehensive crop insurance reform bill. The Crop Insurance Improvement Act of 1999 is a step in that direction.

Mr. POMEROY

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

Mr. POMEROY. The issue the gentleman is speaking to is one of the greatest problems facing this country. His leadership has been very significant. The legislation he has advanced I believe goes a long way to expanding retirement income security for Americans. I am proud to be a cosponsor.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the special order time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comments of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) relative to the agriculture crisis. I cannot say how terrible it is relative to the farm economy in North Dakota. I have with me today some auction bills. We have been seeing a lot of these auction bills. Consider that each auction bill represents a sale of a family farm, the end of literally generations of tradition of farming the land. It goes on for pages. Recently, Ag Week Periodical, which covers the Red River Valley, the most prosperous part of agriculture in my State, published 150 farm auctions. This is 150 individual operators throwing in the towel, ending, again, the tradition handed down for generations of making a living off their land. In each case, it is a tragedy and something to be avoided. One friend of mine, and I am going to offer this for the Record, who is selling out after 120 consecutive years of production on this family farm, wrote an op-ed to the newspaper and he has on the title of it, now at least we do not have to wonder anymore. Mr. Speaker, there are an awful lot of families wondering tonight whether or not they will be able to get a crop in the ground this spring. Imagine, we all deal with career uncertainty surely as Members of the House up for election every other year. We really never know until the election is over what we are going to be doing, but we have people at this late point in the spring not knowing whether they will be able to put a crop in the ground right now. Obviously, if they cannot get the financing to get a crop in the ground they have no idea what they are going to do to put shoes on their kids' feet, to put food on the table. We have got a full-blown crisis in agriculture directly related to the financing capital farmers need to get their crop in the ground this spring. For that reason, the administration advanced several weeks ago emergency funding requests so that we might have additional loan authority funded. The request is for $152 million and it is part of the supplemental appropriations bill sent up by the White House; $109 million of that would make $1.1 billion in additional lending authority available to farmers, $42 million so that the USDA could actually hire additional staff to process these applications and get the money out. Here is what has happened. In light of the collapse in commodity prices, farmers have had terrible losses. As they sit down with their regular bankers, they are unable to show cash flow and, therefore, unable, ineligible in many cases, for the financing that they had otherwise expected. Now there are programs available for these farmers, FSA lending programs, direct lending programs, USDA loan guarantee programs, but because so many have had trouble in lending in the normal course, they have come to the USDA and overwhelmed the resources available for those USDA loans. Right now North Dakota, we have a backlog. We do not have enough money to meet the loan need now and it is anticipated that that loan need is going to increase dramatically over the next few days. There is $4.4 million in unmet loan need that has come into the North Dakota FSA offices over the last 2 days alone. This is a crisis, and it is a crisis with a very narrow window of time for us to address. If a farmer cannot get the crop in the ground in the spring, the money coming along here in July or August is not going to do a lick of good. The window is gone. They have lost the chance to plant, and for these operators that means they have lost the farm. I would say to my colleagues, please let us move this supplemental appropriation request along. Everyone knows of the urgent straits in farm country, not just in North Dakota or South Dakota but throughout the country, and we must respond to this by getting that loan guarantee money replenished so that it can get out to the farmers so they can get their crop in the ground this spring, so they don't lose their farms. It is as simple as that. It is very straightforward. This is a body that unfortunately sometimes cannot operate very quickly, but there is just no mistake. The urgency is now. We have to act. Failure to act is going to mean a lot more auction bills and that, in each instance, is a tragedy. Now We Don't Have to Wonder Anymore Bismarck, N.D.--On June 15, near Mayville, N.D., there will be another farm auction--just another farm auction--barely noticed by most in these days of collapsing agriculture as we know it. Just another sale bill. Just another gathering of neighbors, family, friends and buyers--buyers who realize that with all sales at this time, there should be some pieces of equipment useful to them that will go at a bargain price. Friends and neighbors will come to offer moral support and experience the friendly social atmosphere that is unique to rural America. Family members will come to witness the end of the family tradition. Last year was the 120th crop planted and harvested since the original homestead was taken in 1878. Some of the family members want to witness the auction as a closure, similar to attending a funeral for a loved one. Sometimes it takes an event to provide acceptance of what has happened. For many years we have seen hundreds of sale bills, been to auctions and wondered what these folks were going through-- what they were feeling. I'm sure that for most it was every bit as difficult as it is now for us. I would guess that after the initial sense of failure and depression, there is an uneasy sense of relief that the hopelessness can now be dismissed and energies can be devoted to something positive. Now we don't have to wonder anymore. The initial feelings have come and gone. The personal feelings have been pushed aside for the most part--at least on the surface. Now the business decisions must take over. Emotions will have to give way to the matters at hand. The plans on how to best organize and handle preparations for the sale are now a priority. Occasionally regrets surface, and I wonder what we could have done differently to have avoided the present situation. What did my grandparents do when faced with the perils of pioneer life at the turn of the century? What did my parents do when they were faced with hard times prior to and during the depression of the 1930s? The accounts of their struggles are fresh on my mind. I listened intently as they described how drought, rust and low prices nearly pushed them over the edge. Only hard work, hope, determination and a strong faith sustained them. Faith in God and in a society that would ultimately rescue America from a bad situation. They endured and persevered. And with the help of federal farm programs at the last, even prospered. This came at a time when the world seemed to care about its food supply and those who produced it. As time passed and a degree of prosperity continued some became frustrated with the aspect and methods of supply management. A bit of arrogance told some that we no longer needed any help from the federal government and that we could handle things now. The commodity traders, food processors and exploiters of the ag sector of our economy could now have their way. Congress listened to the wrong people--those whose interests were not supportive of farm families. A non farm bill called ``Freedom to Farm'' was crafted and passed over the objections of our rural congressional delegations. This, along with the years of crop disease, bad foreign trade policies and apathetic citizens, all contributed to our present situation. Our country has never experienced overall hunger. Many European countries have, and they appreciate and protect their agriculture producers. We have been scolded for not being efficient. We have been told to produce more--we have. We have been told to market smarter--we have. We have been told to expand--we have. None of this helps without a equitable price. In the Legislature we have attempted in a small way to address the problems with the proposals forwarded by the Commission on the Future of Agriculture. Nearly all proposals have been defeated by the Republican majority. What now? Do we in the North Dakota Legislature turn our backs on the No. 1 industry in our state and let what is left crumble further? Or do we put some plans forward to help solve the problems at the state level? It may already be too late to ask Congress for help given the demographics of our rural/urban population split. Are we going to offer any hope that we are willing to save agriculture as we know it? It is too late for some of us. But it is still not too late for North Dakota. We must use what we have left of this session to get to the business of supporting rural families and communities.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize an impressive young North Dakotan. Margretta Hanson of Blanchard is the winner of the 1999 Veterans of Foreign Wars' Voice of Democracy Broadcast Scriptwriting Contest. Miss Hanson's essay is based on the theme ``My Service To America.'' I am very pleased to see such wonderful patriotism and values coming from North Dakota's youth. It is my pleasure to submit Miss Hanson's essay for inclusion in the Congressional Record. ``My Service to America'' 1998-99 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Competition North Dakota Winner Margretta Hanson ``Be all that you can be,'' is a popular slogan of the United States Army. By joining the armed forces, one is showing true patriotism and devotion to the protection and betterment of our great nation, the United States of America. To put one's life on the line by defending the freedoms of the people of this country is a noble deed, but I feel that this is not the only way that one can give service to America. My service to America is to ``be all that I can be'' as an American citizen. We don't have to risk our lives to make a difference. By simply smiling as you pass someone on the street or in the hallway, you're bringing joy into the lives of others. Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.'' I want to make the most of the talents and opportunities that I have been blessed with. Some people say that the future of the United States is looking glum. They fear that our youth are committing more crimes, they fear that our youth are abusing more illegal substances, they fear that our youth are showing less respect, they fear that our youth are becoming less motivated, and they fear that our youth are lacking ethical morals and values. What can I do to change the destiny of my generation? Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard's Almanac, ``A good example is the best sermon of all.'' Through my service to America, I am ``preaching'' to my peers through the positive choices I make in my life. Joined with the efforts of other young men and women of my generation who are also striving to make positive choices in their personal lives, my efforts will make a difference. I have been a Girl Scout for 11 years. In Girl Scouts, we promise, ``On my honor, I will try: To serve God and my country, To help people at all times, And to live by the Girl Scout Law.'' A large part of being a Girl Scout is trying to help other people by following our promise and law. I have held true to my promise by giving my time and talents for the betterment of my community and church. By investing my time in community service and church activities, I am not only bettering my community, but I am also setting a positive example for others. I strongly believe that the best leadership is leadership by example. The impact of one individual who sets a good example is amazing. It is important to me that I do what I can to better myself and the world around me by making positive choices. One person who develops a strong set of values and upholds themself to high moral standards can make a positive influence on the lives of others. The power of a single individual who tries to be the best person he or she possibly can as they put their talents to work for the betterment of themself, their work, and others is very impressive. By making positive choices in my own life, I am serving as a role-model for everyone around me. My service to America is setting a good example for others in the choices that I have made and the choices I will make in the future. I am working towards the ultimate goal of being all that I can be by working hard towards my goals, showing respect towards others, and abstaining from destructive behaviors. These choices, among others, are permitting me to work towards becoming all that I can be. I have challenged myself to be all that I can be. My service to America is not one of enlistment in the armed forces, but one that I hope will be beneficial to myself, my community, and this great nation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, today in Kosovo, a baby will die. Three weeks ago, this same little one was healthy and happy. She will not, however, be strong enough to cope with the cold, the hunger, the exposure and the inevitable disease, and today she will die in the arms of a desperate mother who is powerless to keep her daughter safe and well. Madam Speaker, today in Kosovo, a young woman will be raped. Three weeks ago she was thinking of her studies and her friends, reveling in the beauty and innocence of one who has only celebrated her 16th birthday. Madam Speaker, today in Kosovo, a loving husband, an adoring father, an affectionate son and a beloved brother will be shot to death as he stands unarmed and unable to comprehend why he is about to die. Three weeks ago he provided for his family, puttered about his house, attended to those he loved and participated in his community. He lived the life and held the dreams of ordinary folks the world over. These unspeakable tragedies, Madam Speaker, will repeat themselves hundreds, thousands or very possibly tens of thousands of times as the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo continues to unfold. As we wrestle with the complexities of the United States's response to this horror, I hope this great House, the people's house, will rise above the partisanship that has all too often characterized debate in this Chamber. For the sake of those whose lives have been abruptly ended, for the sake of those whose families have been destroyed, for the sake of those who have endured life-scarring assaults, let us measure up just at least this one time to the greatness of the people we represent. Let us, Madam Speaker, deliberate with wisdom and seriousness of purpose the grave question of how our country should respond to the horrific situation in Kosovo.