Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I just came back from conducting town meetings all across the State of North Dakota. When the people I represent consider the priority in which this body and this Congress ought to move forward in response to the budget surplus, they uniformly come down, in town meeting after town meeting, with a strong consensus to do something about preserving and extending the solvency of the social security trust fund, to do something about extending the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. The preceding speaker gave an awful lot of statistics, but the bottom line reality is this: The Republican budget resolution passed before the Easter recess by this House does not extend by one day the solvency of the Medicare trust fund, the solvency of the social security trust fund. That is what has led us to this motion to instruct we are offering this afternoon. Just like the folks I represent think, I bet the folks throughout the country think that we need to take care of the existing responsibilities before we fritter away this surplus. That means doing something to extend trust fund solvency. That means that before tax cuts, we commit the resources to make sure that social security is prolonged and strengthened, that Medicare is prolonged and strengthened. That is what is before us, Mr. Speaker, two alternatives: the budget resolution, which does not extend by a day the solvency targets for the trust funds, and would instead move the tax cuts forward; or the motion to instruct, which would make it very clear that this Congress, in a bipartisan way, hopefully, believes first things first: First we address the solvencies, then we look at what we can do with tax cuts.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, the words of my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, are precisely correct. There is a crisis in agriculture. Mr. Chairman, these are desperate times on the farm. Therefore, I cannot understand why the majority's budget cuts discretionary spending in agriculture; cuts, in fact, that would amount to a reduction in more than $300 million this year alone. To project out, the majority's budget would reduce the purchasing power of agriculture, the discretionary money is reduced to the extent that purchasing power would be reduced for the U.S. Department of Agriculture 33 percent over 10 years, 25 percent over 5 years. The Republican budget is also a sham. I know that my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, has worked on crop insurance. There is funding for crop insurance for 5 years, and then it goes away altogether. Looking at this budget, we can only conclude it is a sham. They purport to prop up crop insurance, but only for a few years. Then the money is zeroed out, resulting in loss of the crop insurance program or other deep cuts in other mandatory spending areas critical to propping up farming. For the life of me, I cannot understand, when we have people that have farmed for generations being forced off their farms this Spring, not just in the area that I represent but across the country, we would have a Republican budget that cuts discretionary spending in agriculture, and then puts forward a crop insurance program but only funds it for a couple of years, 5 years, before the funding goes away altogether. Let me tell my colleagues something, the Democratic alternative is different. We preserve funding for the discretionary account in agriculture. We are $400 million better next year alone, and we continue the funding for the crop insurance program, not just for 5 years, my friends, but on into the future altogether.

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

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 1141, a bill to provide supplemental appropriations for hurricane relief in Central America and additional loan funding for our nation's struggling farmers. Although I will vote in favor of the bill, I deeply regret that the majority has once again chosen to load an urgently needed relief measure with extraneous policy provisions and objectionable offsets. I am reminded of the supplemental fight of two years ago when relief for Grand Forks, North Dakota and other disaster stricken communities was delayed for weeks because the majority added unrelated and highly controversial provisions to the emergency supplemental bill. Rather than repeat its past mistakes, I had hoped that the majority would advance a clean measure that would gain the support of the President. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The one and only reason I am supporting this legislation is because it includes desperately need loan funds for cash-strapped farmers in North Dakota and throughout the country. Without these loans, many farmers in my state will be literally unable to get into the fields this spring to plant a crop. When the House and Senate convene a conference committee to craft the final version of this bill, however, I hope the leaders have the good sense to reach accommodation with the administration so that the bill can be passed and signed into law as quickly as possible.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for the comments she has just made regarding the crisis on the American farm. Representing the State of North Dakota in this body, a congressional district that has more production acres for agriculture than any other district in the House of Representatives, I can only affirm all too well the truth of what she is saying. There is a crisis on the farm. If we do not act as a Congress and act quickly, the face of farming in this country will be changed. We will move from agriculture production primarily based with family farmers to vast corporate farms, changing forever the way our food is produced and a way of life in much of our country. The critical element that has made the low commodity prices so particularly hard on our farmers relates directly back to a change made by this Congress in the farm bill that we are presently under. In 1948, Congress acted to establish some measure of price protection for farmers, recognizing that there is going to be great volatility in the prices commodities will bring given any number of circumstances, but more recently it has been the ebb and flow of demand in the global marketplace. The prior policy for farm programs has been that the United States Government has got the capacity to backstop individual farmers to protect them from the worst ravages of loss when prices fall through the floor. The last farm bill changed all that. We no longer afford our farmers any price protection. We have protected the Treasury of the Federal Government but we have left the fortunes of individual families out there on the farmsteads completely exposed to the ebb and flow of market prices. The Asia financial collapse has absolutely destroyed commodity prices in this country. Small wonder. Japan, our number one export market for small grains, down 10 percent; Korea, number 4 market, off one-third, and so it goes. So we have much more supply relative to market and prices' fall, and this time without a safety net. Small wonder in year two of the new farm bill its critical weakness was already glaringly exposed and exposed to such a dimension that in a bipartisan way we had to quickly get some money out of the Treasury and commit it to farmers in the shape of a disaster bill passed last fall in light of the national dimensions of the crisis in agriculture we had seen. We have more to do this Congress. Do not think for one second that that disaster bill passed in October forestalls a total catastrophe in farm country without further action. The first thing we must do is pass the supplemental. The White House has advanced an appropriations request that will afford absolutely critically needed loan money and guaranteed loan money available so that a number of farmers can get in the fields this spring that otherwise will not have operating capital to do so and that for others still they will be able to restructure their financial situation in such a way that they will be able to cashflow, whereas otherwise they would not be able to cashflow. Let me say something about cashflow, however. In my neck of the woods, given the commodities we produce, primarily small grains, one can get in today's market prices enough at the elevator to cover the costs that have been invested in that product. Therefore, lenders this spring are engaging in what is called equity lending; equity lending. It does not sound all that bad but let me say what it means. It means that farmers are reducing their net worth. They are having to capitalize their assets because they cannot even make enough on the sale of their crop for what it takes to grow the crop. We need to come back and visit this whole safety net for farming issue. We need to make some changes in the farm bill. It has fallen short and we now see where. Farmers need price protection. We need to make certain that there is a measure of price protection restored. Otherwise, we are going to be in this situation spring and fall every single year. Mark my words on this. We are going to have emergency supplemental bills in the spring and we are going to have disaster bills at harvest time trying to prop up America's farmers. Let us not leave them hanging on the next action of Congress acting in such an ad hoc way every spring and every fall. Let us restore a safety net for America's farmers. Anything else will be catastrophic for the family farmers of this country.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution expressing congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. My support, however, is given with a degree of reluctance. I believe that the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is in direct conflict with the spirit of the Oslo Accords and would be a fatal blow to the ongoing peace process. I hope that our Palestinian and Israeli friends will continue to work together through the negotiating process to come to resolution on the final status of Palestine. Mr. Speaker, I am, however, disappointed with the one-sidedness of this resolution. I am disappointed that my colleagues on the International Relations Committee did not see fit to amend the resolution as my colleague Mr. Gejdenson proposed. He asked that the resolution reflect the positive efforts made thus far by both parties to the negotiations and acknowledged that unilateral actions of any kind by either party are contrary to the spirit of negotiation. I wholeheartedly agree. Though I will vote in favor of this resolution, it is my hope that in the future this body keep in mind the necessity of fairmindedness in language and treatment for all parties in the Middle East working to find resolution to these extremely sensitive, contentious issues. In a recent editorial to the Washington Post, Dr. Henry Kissinger noted that the role of the United States in the peace process is to help each party find terms that meet their own needs and yet are compatible with the necessities of the other. ``As keepers of the diplomatic process, we should be steering the parties to a realistic dialogue on those subjects on which the survival of both sides truly depends.'' Today, we are sending a strong message to the Palestinian Authority not to take irrevocable action for which serious consequences will result. However, by condemning unilateral action by only one party to the negotiation, I believe we fail to meet our obligation to help the parties raise the dialogue to a higher level.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999. My colleagues, Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan, are introducing a companion bill in the Senate today. This bill represents an unprecedented agreement among North Dakota's congressional delegation, the States' elected leaders and a variety of State organzations. After years of negotiations, this legislation embodies a bipartisan effort to meet the comprehensive water needs of North Dakota, including the State's four Indian reservations. Without a dependable source of quality water the State's potential for economic development will be crippeld. The Dakota Water Resources Act amends the Garrison Diversion Reformulation act of 1986 and would refocus the project from large- scale irrigation to the delivery of safe water. Throughout North Dakota, people realize that the project as outliend under the 1986 act will not happen, and they support the more affordable, realistic provisions that would meet the State's water needs. Right now, much of the State lacks a supply of quality water. Many communities have unresolved Safe Drinking water Act compliance problems. Rural water systems and regional water supply systems have been formed to meed the water needs, but much more needs to be done to complete those systems. To meet cities and towns' needs for safe water, the act authorizes $300 million for municiapal, rural, and industrial water systems (MR&I) projects. It allows the State to provide grants or loans to MR&I systems. This means the State could establish a revolving loan fund and continue to use funds from repaid loans for MR&I systems. In conjunction with the State's need for MR&I, it is important to note the additional authorization of $200 million which would provide for MR&I on the four Indian reservations. Additionally, authorization for irrigation on the reservations is included in this legislation, along with a provision which gives tribes the flexibility to determine which sites to irrigate within the reservation. The Standing Rock, Fort Berthold, Turtle Mountain, and Fort Totten Indian Reservations would finally be able to meet their long overdue water needs with these provisions. Another major feature of this legislation which has not been realized under the 1986 act is the ability to meet the water needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota. This would provide $200 million for the State to choose the method of delivering Missouri River water to the Red River Valley. The communities of Fargo, and Grand Forks, as well as other towns up and down the valley would have a reliable source of water for continued growth in population and commercial activity. Any project that would be completed under the act must comply with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. We fully intend, and are required, to comply with the 1909 treaty between the United States and Canada when considering completion of any component of the project. In addition to meeting the State and the Indian reservation's comprehensive and future water needs, this act involves significant environmental achievements. As nature resources trust would receive $25 million to preserve, enhance, restore, and manage wetlands and associated wildlife habitat, grassland conservation and riparian areas in the State. Other sections of the act include authorization for the State to develop water conservation programs using MR&I funding. A bank stabilization study along the Missouri River below the Garrison Dam would be authorized. Also, the current Lonetree Reservoir would be designated as a wildlife conservation area. All of these provisions and the entire Dakota Water Resources Act have been worked out with painstaking detail among numerous groups. I would like to personally thank the Senators from North Dakota, Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Dorgan and their very capable staff, as well as North Dakota's State engineer and counsel, for their tireless work on the extraordinary agreement.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, what does it say about the United States and its NATO allies that we cannot take on a two-bit bully down the block? By allowing Milosevic to get away with his third brutal war in a decade, the United States and NATO will send an encouraging message to dictators, aggressors, and terrorists around the globe. Those are not my words, Mr. Chairman. Those are the words of majority leader Bob Dole in his testimony yesterday to the Committee on International Relations. He is now charged with getting the parties to an agreement, and is in the final stages of accomplishing that extraordinarily difficult undertaking. It is therefore deeply regrettable, Mr. Chairman, that we are having this debate today. How can we reasonably make a decision on a resolution regarding a peace agreement when the peace agreement itself has yet to be finalized? But we are where we are, so I urge Members to vote for the resolution. The slaughter that has been occurring in Kosovo is so deeply disturbing. If we look at the statistics, they are shocking. If we look at the individual accounts, they are even more disturbing. I have a 5-year-old daughter at home. When I read the New York Times account of the 5-year-old that was hunted down in her backyard and brutally murdered, and the photograph of her little shoes in the garden, it is something of a tragedy of a magnitude we cannot ignore. The U.S. role being considered is only a minor, supporting role. Our participation will be 15 percent or less, we are told. It is a situation where we have to do our part to bring the genocide and atrocities to an end. Vote yes on the resolution.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for very well articulated remarks. I come to a slightly different conclusion. I rise to speak in favor of the Gejdenson amendment and in opposition to the Fowler amendment. First, let me speak to the alternative amendment advanced by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). I believe that it is extremely ill-advised of this House to be debating this resolution at all. We are debating involvement in a peace agreement that has yet to be finalized, so it is not timely right from the outset. To even try and interject this House into the negotiations underway by placing proscriptions on what the negotiators might come up with is, in my opinion, the direct intervention of this House into the formulation of foreign policy, something placed in the executive branch under the Constitution for very good reasons. We are not constituted as individual representatives representing this country to try and steer negotiations even as they unfold. Senator Dole, certainly someone who knows the legislative process as well as any American, advised the Committee on International Relations yesterday that the time for congressional involvement in these matters is after the agreements themselves have been reached. Let us look at what the President might bring back, evaluated and debated at that time, but not before. I favor the Gejdenson amendment, because in the absence of orderly consideration of this matter, it is appropriate, I think, that we not extend a blank check, but rather a measured authorization, and that is the Gejdenson amendment before us. It would encourage a conclusion of the peace process and authorize a NATO force with U.S. involvement of up to 15 percent. That is clearly a minor supporting role in this process, but an essential one, in light of the standing of the United States of America in the world today. To try and absolutely foreclose any participation by the United States in a peacekeeping force that might be agreed to under the agreement, should an agreement be reached, would I believe give great comfort to those who are the enemies of peace in this region, and who want no peace agreement. All of us are involved in our legislative responsibilities in negotiations, and we know that negotiations are, in large part, about leverage. Why would we want to give Slobodan Milosevic, a perpetrator of unspeakable horrors in this region, the leverage at this time in the peace process that, precluding any U.S. troop involvement, would extend to this evil leader. Mr. Milosevic 11 years ago went down to Kosovo and began his own ascendancy in the region by commencing a reign of terror on the Kosovars of Albanian ethnicity. During the course of that reign of terror, their autonomy has been stripped and they have been the victims of unspeakable horrors. We need to bring this to a conclusion with a negotiated peace, but that is made infinitely more difficult by the House debate today, and if we should adopt the Fowler amendment it would be made, in my opinion and the opinion of many observing this process, it would be made impossible. The Scriptures tell us, blessed are the peacemakers, and we in the House want to do everything we can to make their job more difficult, if not altogether impossible, at this terribly important time. So let me conclude by saying, let us oppose the Fowler amendment. I believe it would forestall a conclusion of the peace process. Let us support the Gejdenson amendment, which would place very significant and appropriate strictures on the U.S. involvement in what might be a NATO force, an involvement not to exceed 15 percent; a limited, minor supporting role, but an essential one, to stop the killing and the atrocities that have plagued that region.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to this rule which will provide for the House to debate the U.S. involvement in the Kosovo peace agreement. The reason I object to consideration of this issue at this time is that as of today, there is no peace agreement and the process leading to the arriving at a peace agreement is at a terribly tenuous, sensitive and delicate stage. We have all read with horror about the atrocities committed in Kosovo. Innocent civilians, including little children, have been savagely and brutally murdered. For the sake of humanity and decency, we all want this butchery to end. It will require a peace agreement to end this killing. Our taking up the resolution now while the deliberations are still underway can only make it more difficult to resolve this. Yesterday, former Majority Leader Bob Dole gave advice to the Committee on International Relations. He says, ``We have 2 steps here. First, we get an agreement, then the President goes to the American people to explain it.'' Mr. Speaker, I think we must follow Majority Leader Dole's advice. Defeat this rule and let the deliberations leading to peace be concluded.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 800, the Education, Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, also known as the ``Ed- Flex'' bill. This legislation would allow states to waive federal requirements for certain education programs and tailor federal dollars to local needs. Mr. Chairman, the Ed-Flex authority currently operating in twelve states allows them to waive sometimes cumbersome federal regulations and has created a climate of real innovation in education. Simply put, the Ed-Flex programs allows states to decide what is best for local schools. A recent GAO report has confirmed that Ed-Flex empowers states to use flexibility to achieve real results. The state of Texas, for example, has used Ed-Flex authority to improve student performance using clearly defined numerical goals. Maryland has used Ed-Flex to reduce student-teacher ratios for students with special needs in math and science from 25 to 1 to 12 to 1. The experience of Texas and Maryland conveys a powerful message: when schools take advantage of flexibility using clear standards and objectives, students benefit. My own state of North Dakota is home to some of the finest schools in the nation, and Ed-Flex will help those schools achieve even more. The Ed-Flex bill also contains critical safeguards that will prevent the dilution of federal program objectives. First, certain targeted education programs such as IDEA and the Bilingual Education Program are not affected by Ed-Flex. Furthermore, health, safety, and civil rights requirements cannot be waived with Ed-Flex authority. These provisions will grant flexibility while preserving the mission of federal aid to classrooms--to provide equal access to a quality education for all children. Mr. Chairman, the Ed-Flex program grants states the freedom to use innovative strategies to improve our public schools. I believe that this program should be expanded to include all fifty states, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 800.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Well, they run considerably more than that. In fact, the least expensive individual account structure could be brought on line potentially for 8 percent, 800 times what we are presently paying; and a more likely scenario could be 30 to 40 percent in a completely privatized environment, reducing benefits in favor of administrative costs while you reduce the assurances. It is just not the way to go.

Mr. POMEROY. The administrative cost under Social Security is under 1 percent. It is truly the most efficient mechanism of getting benefits available to Americans.

Mr. POMEROY. I certainly do, Congressman, and I want to thank you for your leadership as well as, Congressman McDermott and Congresswoman Thurman, for your leadership on the Committee on Ways and Means. I know that you have been having many hearings on this topic awaiting the reform proposal of the majority. While it is difficult to try and see what they may be proposing, I know, as you have told me, the thrust of the debate seems to be shaping up to be between those that want to reform and reduce Social Security protections and those that want to strengthen and protect and extend those protections so that the next generation has the same protections that our parents, grandparents and we will have as well. I think that, as we see this take focus, it appears as though those who want to reduce Social Security will be advancing a proposal of individual accounts replacing the guarantees and assurances that today protect one in six families in this country, one in six Americans in this country receiving a Social Security payment in exchange for an individual account proposal. You have mentioned earlier a study that was released today, and I also want to call it to the attention of the body, a study authorized by the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare conducted by a Republican economist that shows there are distinct winners and losers under a proposal to go to the individual account. But most of us, virtually all of us living today, fall in the losing category. The individual account winner fell to one narrow class of males in affluent earnings that will be born in about 20 years. All of the rest of us lose, and we lose for one fundamental reason: You have to continue making payments on the existing structure, the structure that today is meeting the needs of more than 40 million Americans, even while you begin to create these individual accounts and direct money to those so that that is going to work to replace the Social Security payments in the future. The thought behind this economist's study was a very simple but straightforward one. It is always, always more expensive to pay for retirement twice than once. And so if we fund the existing system and fund the individual account system, we are in essence paying twice, and that is the cost that ultimately reduces what Social Security offers to Americans.

Mr. POMEROY. Well, in fact, they run into the things that we have been discussing, higher administrative fees, greater investment return uncertainty, the same things that would face, in fact, the reform of Social Security. The fact of the matter is that I think we need to appreciate the fact that as individuals deal with at-work retirement plans, they are already taking on a good deal more risk than they traditionally have. In the past you had your pension, the assets were managed elsewhere, and you put in your time, and you got your retirement check. Presently, you have a 401(k) plan. Workers in the work force today struggle to make a matching contribution so they get some money accumulating in their 401(k) accounts. We know that over half the 401(k) accounts in the marketplace have less than $10,000 in them, hardly anything that is going to sustain a comfortable retirement. We also know that those 401(k) accounts carry a level of investment risk, and quite often workers are mystified, bewildered by the investment choices that confound them. The last thing they want to do is take the one piece of security they have in retirement, Social Security, the bedrock, the foundation, and put risk into the foundation as well. This is what we build on for retirement security. We do not want to crack the bedrock assurances social security has offered, creating even more uncertainty as to the ability to make it in retirement years.

Mr. POMEROY. That is precisely correct. The gentlewoman is exactly right. These earlier studies have been flawed, and they are being corrected by a spate of recent studies done by all perspectives out there analyzing this very important issue. I cite for the gentlewoman's attention a November, 1998, EBRI study. Now EBRI is the Employee Benefits Research Institute, a business- funded research group assessing the impact of administrative fees on these individual accounts. The thrust of the study, quite likely the administrative fees certainly eclipse any enhanced earning opportunity under the individual account proposal, if they are administratively possible in the first place.

Mr. POMEROY. Well, the fact of the matter is is you are precisely right, and pensioners and near-to-be pensioners have lost millions, all told. In the experience of Chile, in the experience of the United Kingdom, two prevalent examples asserted by those that want to create individual accounts, look a little deeper and you see that the administrative expense component is really coming home to roost in those experiments. The other real-life example we have is a private alternative to a Social Security program being run down in Galveston, Texas.

Mr. POMEROY. Well, this is a study by the General Accounting Office, and this is not a group with any stake in this debate. They are providing the strict analysis, and they find precisely that those that have gone not with the Social Security but with this alternative plan for the local public employees have not fared as well as they would have done under Social Security. As we approach this vitally important program, it is really important, because of its critical importance to American families, that we not deal with, you know, ideology and theories and concepts. If we would make this change, we would not be able to change back, and so it is vitally important that the research come up a good measure from what those favoring individual accounts are presently asserting. For example, they say that African Americans would benefit under a move to individual accounts. Today's study shows quite conclusively that African Americans would lose and lose big. They hold this out as an opportunity for modest income workers to accumulate wealth. Today's study shows that middle income, modest income workers lose and lose significantly, as opposed to the assurances they now have with Social Security. And then finally women, the biggest losers of all under the shift to individual accounts. I look at the perspective from my own family. I cite the three women in my life: my 78-year-old mother, my 46-year-old wife and my 5-year- old daughter spanning three generations. All lose, moving away from the guarantees of our Social Security program into the untested uncertainties of the individual account environment. The study today shows it is a loser and we leave people less well off, with greater risk and lower benefits. Clearly, this is absolutely not the way to go with a program as important to Social Security. I think at this point in time, if the majority wants to continue to pursue this radical reform proposal, reducing the assurances of Social Security in exchange for the individual account proposal, it is time for them to stop shooting at the framework advanced by President Clinton that preserves the guarantees and advances specific proposals that would establish the individual accounts. I am convinced, in light of what these studies have shown, that when analysis is run on any individual account proposal they will bring forward, we will show reduced benefits, higher risk, lower assurances and a step backwards in terms of providing retirement, income security for American families. I thank the gentleman for this discussion.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. The resolution calls for equal treatment in Social Security across generations, especially for workers of minorities. It says Congress must recognize the unique obstacles facing women and the disabled. The resolution says we must guarantee a lifetime benefit for America's elderly and those future retirees and avoid, in the process, increasing taxes. Now, I support these principles, and I believe the President's framework also advances these principles in the administration's proposal for dealing with Social Security. I am, therefore, going to vote for this resolution. But I want to note the resolution, in and of itself, does nothing. A point of concern I would have about it is that sometimes I have seen resolutions offered by majorities that have no intention on actually advancing legislation to get something done. I have also seen resolutions extolling principles advanced when the plan is to advance legislation that actually achieves something quite different. Now, the ultimate question, and the point of uncertainty, can only be addressed by a plan. So I say to the majority, give us a plan. Let us move the debate past meaningless resolutions to actual debate.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am one of those Members who hopes that 1999 will be a year in which both parties and the President come together to enact legislation to preserve and strengthen Social Security for the 21st century. I was delighted with the emphasis Speaker Hastert made on Social Security in his remarks. The rule we are proposing ought to serve as the bipartisan point of departure for important debate on Social Security. We ought to agree today, the first day of this Congress, that all of the revenue generated by Social Security will be dedicated to Social Security, that all budget surpluses will be saved until the long-term solvency of Social Security is secure. Unlike the Senate, there is no House rule at present against consideration of a bill that uses the surplus generated by Social Security. Our rule proposed in this motion would provide for the first time real enforcement of Social Security's off-budget status. The rule also maintains fiscal discipline and keeps our country on the course to a budget that is balanced and does not rely on Social Security to conceal deficits in the rest of the budget. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 98 percent of the unified budget surplus over the next 10 years is Social Security money. Let us adopt this rule. If we do not, the temporary surpluses from Social Security may be dissipated, spent, devastating our ability to preserve the long-term solvency of Social Security. Let us agree, we are going to fix Social Security; and starting today, we are going to commit that Social Security dollars will only be used for Social Security benefits.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my original cosponsorship of the Country of Origin Meat Labeling Act of 1999. I am looking forward to working in a bipartisan manner with my colleague, Representative Chenoweth of Idaho, on this important legislation for America's ranchers, farmers, and consumers. The Country of Origin Meat Labeling Act of 1999 is designed to provide American consumers with the right to know where the meat products they are feeding their families are produced. As we all know, American consumers can easily determine which country their automobiles are from and which country their shoes, shirts, and trousers are from, but they have no idea where the meat and meat products they feed their families originate. Throughout my service in the House of Representatives, I have been a strong supporter of country of origin labeling--especially for meat and meat products--because of its common-sense nature, its benefits to ranchers and consumers, and its cost-free benefit to taxpayers. During the 105th Congress, I joined Representative Chenoweth as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1371, the Country of Origin Meat Labeling Act of 1997. I was pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment identical to H.R. 1371 by unanimous consent during consideration of the FY 1999 Agriculture Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, the special interests prevailed during the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Committee and the meat labeling provision was dropped from the report. Instead, Congress directed the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct another study to determine the empirical impacts of country of origin labeling for consumers, packers, and producers. Basically, the study provides the packing industry with yet more time to delay this important, consumer-friendly legislation. Mr. Speaker, America's livestock industry is in dire straits. Livestock prices are near record lows while at the same time packers' profits are at near record highs. America's ranchers and farmers have invested heavily in genetic research and nutrients to produce the most cost-effective and nutritious products in the world. But, unfortunately, without country of origin labeling, consumers have no idea where the meat products they purchase originate, leaving American cattlemen's efforts for naught. I look forward to working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, the National Farmers Union, the National Cattlemens Beef Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Sheep Industry Association, and the National Consumers League in the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, impeachment in the Constitution was meant to be applied when the elected President misuses the office in a way that threatens our structure of government. The conduct of President Clinton at issue here was reprehensible but does not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor as required for removal by impeachment. No President is above the law, but that does not mean every alleged crime is an impeachable crime. The crimes alleged here may warrant prosecution when the President's term expires, but they do not rise to the standard required by the Constitution for impeachment. Mr. Speaker, I am bitterly disappointed the majority blocked this House from considering the option of censuring the President instead of the false choice between removal by impeachment or no action whatsoever. Basic fairness as well as basic respect for the deep divisions and the thinking of Americans would have allowed all options to be before us. History will not be kind to this Congress for its handling of this matter. I hope our country will never ever again have a congressional majority as heedless of the spirit of justice and the Constitution as this one. Impeachment as established in the Constitution was meant to be applied when the elected President was misusing the powers of the Executive Branch in a way that was threatening to our very structure of government. The conduct of President Clinton at issue here is reprehensible. It does not, however, constitute a high crime or misdemeanor as required for removal by impeachment. No president is above the law but that does not mean every crime is an impeachable crime. The crimes alleged against President Clinton may well warrant prosecution when his term expires, but they do not rise to the standard required by the Constitution for impeachment. These proceedings represent an extremely important moment in the Constitutional history of this country. I'm bitterly disappointed the majority leadership blocked this House from considering a full range of options, including the option of censuring the President instead of the false choice between removal by impeachment or no action whatsoever. Basic fairness as well as basic respect for the deep divisions in the thinking of Americans on this matter would allow all options to be before us. The blind drive of majority leadership to win this impeachment vote regardless of any and all other considerations is revealed by their refusal to delay this debate, even a few days, to allow the attack against Iraq to run its course. The brave men and women executing the attack on our behalf deserve our full focused support behind their brave actions. History will not be kind to this Congress for its handling of this matter. I hope our country will never again have a congressional majority of either party as heedless of the spirit of justice and the Constitution as this one.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and the heroic men and women who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces. Even in the midst of a critical domestic debate, we stand firmly united in the face of threats to our interests abroad. Saddam Hussein continues to violate the terms of the agreement that ended the gulf war, and we must contain the threat he poses to the security of the region. Saddam Hussein's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continues to threaten lives in the Persian Gulf and around the world. Mr. Speaker, our Armed Forces risk their lives every day to protect American families against threats like that posed by Saddam Hussein. I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude for their loyal service. It is critical that our troops have a clear and unequivocal understanding that Congress and the American people are one hundred percent behind them. They deserve nothing less than our full and unwavering support in this and all their endeavors.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute one of our Nation's leading public policy institutes on the occasion of its 20th anniversary. For two decades now, the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), under the outstanding leadership of its president Dallas Salisbury, has been providing trusted data and analysis on some of the most important public policy issues of our time--Social Security reform, health coverage and quality, and the changing world of private pensions. As one who has made retirement and health security issues the core of my legislative agenda, I have benefited many times from EBRI's exceptional and nonpartisan research and analysis. I have relied on EBRI to provide me with the very latest findings and developments, and I have called on their stable of experts many times for objective data and analysis as I have begun work on a new legislative initiative. I want to commend EBRI in particular for two of its most recent endeavors. One was the central role EBRI played in organizing this year's National Summit on Retirement Savings, which highlighted the critical issues of saving and planning for retirement. The second is EBRI's recent development of a highly sophisticated computer model of the Social Security system that is now the leading tool in the country for analyzing the effects of Social Security reform proposals. Mr. Speaker, again let me congratulate the Employee Benefit Research Institute for 20 years of outstanding work. I look forward to EBRI's continued contribution to the public policy of our Nation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated repeatedly over the past weeks and months, President Clinton's conduct in having an improper relationship with Monica Lewinsky and not being truthful about it was wrong, plain and simple, and it has left me profoundly disappointed. I believe the House Judiciary Committee should begin an inquiry into whether the report of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr on these matters presents facts that warrant impeachment of President Clinton. The debate today in the House is not about whether to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. It is about how to proceed. Because this is only the third time in our history that Congress has taken the step of initiating an impeachment inquiry against a President, it is vitally important that we proceed in a fair, deliberate and timely manner. We must always remember that our Founding Fathers did not intend the impeachment process to be an exercise in partisan wrangling to be pursued when the legislative and executive branches are controlled by different political parties. Instead, our Constitution establishes impeachment as a solemn and extraordinary removal process triggered only when grounds of ``treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors'' are established against a President. It is critical to establish appropriate ground rules for this extremely rare and constitutionally significant proceeding. A proper inquiry must focus squarely on the matters raised by the Starr report, evaluate the constitutional standard for impeachment, weigh the sufficiency of the evidence, and reach a recommendation on the question of impeachment by the end of this year. As our Nation's history has shown, an ongoing impeachment inquiry is incredibly disruptive to the normal functioning of our government. It is therefore imperative that the process be concluded as quickly as can reasonably be accomplished. North Dakotans and all Americans believe that we must return to the urgent policy matters before us-- strengthening the quality of our schools, preserving Social Security, and assisting our family farmers. The inquiry process advanced by the majority on the House Judiciary Committee is fatally flawed because it lacks focus, a careful process, and a clear end point. While an appropriate inquiry should proceed, a drawn out procedure designed to prolong scandal and achieve political advantage must not. I will vote today against the majority's inquiry resolution and instead to amend the inquiry process so that this very important constitutional proceeding is fair and expeditious, allowing all of us to return to the people's business.