Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

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

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to express my appreciate for the Speaker's latitude in allowing us to reflect briefly upon the service of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) here. As your term comes to a close, let me just indicate that I, for one, certainly am going to continue to think about the example of strength and counsel that you have shown during your time here. I think that the fundamental thing our constituents expect of us as we stand and ask for their vote and then take their trust and come to Congress to represent their interests is that we act out of the courage of our convictions and we stand by our beliefs. And in the course of now four terms, I cannot recall an example where I have seen someone exercise the courage of their convictions in the way you have. Obviously putting yourself at tremendous political risk and irrespective of the consequences, you did it because in your heart you felt it was what you had to do. Our constituents can expect no finer performance of our responsibilities than how you have exhibited, and your example is going to be reflected upon by so many of us for a long time to come.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which includes badly misplaced priorities in the areas of health care and education. There is a crisis among rural health care providers. As a steering committee member of the Rural Health Care Coalition, I have fought long and hard to address and alleviate this crisis. Too many rural hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies are being forced to cut back on their services or to shut their doors because Medicare reimbursement levels are inadequate to cover essential costs. Unfortunately, rather than provide sufficient funding for these essential providers, the bill before us directs a whopping 41 percent of the available funds to managed care companies--even though HMOs provide coverage for only about one in six seniors nationwide. Because this bill provides a disproportionate share of funds to HMOs, all the other providers have been shortchanged. One of my priorities, and one of the priorities of our nation's hospitals, is to provide them with a full inflationary update over the next two fiscal years. As prescribed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, hospitals did not receive an inflationary update in fiscal year 1998 and thereafter have received reduced updates. Rural hospitals depend more upon Medicare reimbursements than do urban facilities and feel a greater impact from payment reforms and reduction. In fact, in my home state of North Dakota, hospital payments are still expected to decrease by $416 million, or 11 percent, from pre-BBA levels during fiscal years 1998- 2004. This is unacceptable. I am disappointed, therefore, that this measure provides hospitals with a full inflationary update for only one year, fiscal year 2001. At the end of that fiscal year, the promise that some my colleagues are making to these health care providers, a promise to help them keep their doors open, may be broken. I intend to uphold this promise; I have been in personal contact with the Administration, and they have assured me that they, too, are committed to our nation's hospitals and will continue to fight for a full, two-year inflationary update. The least we can do is to provide our hospitals with an annual Medicare payment update that reflects an unreduced adjustment for inflation, the same adjustment we provide in other federal programs that seniors rely upon, such as Social Security. The development of home health services as part of the Medicare program has been of great benefit to our nation's seniors. With home care, our seniors receive quality, skilled care in their very own homes, postponing or eliminating the need for care in more costly, and often more isolated, settings. Unfortunately, home health agencies have also suffered financially under the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act. This measure was supposed to cut $16 billion in home health care spending over five years; new estimates show that we have actually cut $69 billion, over four times what was anticipated. Congress has a chance to do some good this year; we can eliminate the further 15 percent reduction in Medicare payments to home health agencies scheduled to go into effect in October 2001. This Congress, however, is voting on a measure that will only delay this cut for one more year, until October 2002. This, too, is unacceptable. Providers are already doing all they can to keep their doors open under these financial constraints. This has not been easy. Across the nation, thousands of home health agencies have closed or stopped serving Medicare beneficiaries. In North Dakota, four of the state's 36 Medicare-certified agencies have been forced to do the same. As a result, the number of patients receiving Medicare home health services has dropped. In 1997, 3.6 beneficiaries received home care across the nation; in North Dakota, about 9,000 Medicare patients were served. Only one year later, the number of Medicare patients served by home care dropped an amazing 17 percent nationwide and 10 percent in North Dakota. We cannot continue to address the financial crisis facing our home health agencies on a year to year basis. We have to act now to end this trend by repealing the 15 percent cut in Medicare payments for once and for all. I am also disappointed with the Republican school modernization provision in this legislation. I believe that we have a responsibility to provide our children with a quality education in a safe, modern environment. As a father I want to be sure that my children, Kathryn and Scotty, are learning in the best possible environment. As a Members of Congress, I want that for all American children. The proposal before us would not achieve that goal. Mr. Speaker, studies have shown that American schools would need an additional $125 billion in construction and renovation funds to be able to provide our children with the best education. In North Dakota alone, the National Education Association estimates the need for an additional $545 million to adequately address school modernization issues. To provide schools with the resources they need, we must pass the bipartisan Johnson/Rangel bill, which would provide almost $25 billion in tax credits to pay the interest on school construction bonds. Unfortunately, the legislation we consider today would provide less that half of that amount. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the education of our children is worth more than that. This legislation also includes a change to the tax-exempt bond arbitrage rules that largely fails to meet the stated objective of modernizing schools, especially in rural areas. Under the Republican proposal, school districts would have four years to spend school construction bond proceeds rather than the two years currently permitted. Accordingly to Republicans, this would enable school districts to invest bond proceeds for a longer period and recognize greater arbitrage profits. The truth is, many school districts will receive no benefits from the Republican proposal. Schools with urgent needs, forced to teach children in trailers and dilapidated buildings, would not benefit from this legislation. Their backlog of unmet needs means that they do not have the luxury of waiting four years before completing school construction. The school modernization provision in the Republican tax bill is simply inadequate to address the urgent construction and renovation needs of our nation's schools, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on September 28-30 of this year, the North Dakota Stockmen's Association held its annual convention in Bismarck, ND. I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues the remarks of one of the conference presenters. Ms. Teresa Oe, a high school student from Belfield, North Dakota and North Dakota's State Beef Ambassador, gave an impressive speech to the convention delegates. Ms. Oe's remarks addressed the environmental benefits of cattle grazing. I would encourage my colleagues to take a moment to review her remarks which may help to bridge communication between cattlemen and environmentalists. The Misunderstanding (By: Teresa Oe--North Dakota State Beef Ambassador) Cattlemen and environmentalists have long regarded each other as the enemy. Rarely do they wish to converse with one another, let alone compromise. When they eventually agreed to ``discuss'' matters, the resulting arguments are based primarily on biased opinion and accusations. This communication gap has led to the disastrous misunderstanding that cattle and conservation cannot successfully coexist. The irony in this notion, however, is that modern day cattlemen, equipped with new range management tools, are extremely capable and dedicated conservationalists. Believe it or not, grazing cattle are their most valuable means for upgrading environmental well being. According to the 2000 Cattle and Beef Handbook, produced by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, ``Grazing lands comprise about one-third of the land in the United States.'' Due to steep terrain or dry conditions, these lands often are not suitable for cultivation or development. Cattle graze these virtually useless lands, utilizing grass, one of our country's most ample, renewable resources. Cattle are capable of efficiently transforming grass and other forage into nutritious high-protein beef. Nevertheless, more and more every day, environmentalists are questioning if cattle belong on the rangelands. Surely, if environmental agencies only knew the significance of cattle to these areas, then their minds would be at ease and our cattle could continue to do their job. With this motive in mind, it is my privilege to share with you five major environmental benefits of cattle on the rangelands. First of all, properly grazed cattle promote healthy soil and plant vigor. As a matter of fact, as documented in the Soil and Land Conditions publication, the Wildflower Research Center states, ``Grazing is necessary for the maintenance of grassland systems.'' Cattle actually help plants and grasses grow by aerating the soil with their hooves. When cattle saunter over the land, they loosen the dirt which allows more oxygen to enter the soil. Without this oxygen, the soil develops a hard crust and is unable to readily absorb water and nutrients. Moreover, cattle naturally fertilize the soil in the form of manure. Cattle also encourage plant reproduction. As a natural means of reseeding, they scatter the seeds of various plant life and bury them in the ground, surrounding them in soil that is necessary for the onset of growth. Regulating bothersome weeds and shrubs is also characteristic of cattle. They consume these nuisances which, otherwise, without the use of herbicides, would have the potential to grow and reproduce uncontrollably. Furthermore, cattle are doing a large favor for many species of wildlife. Elk, deer, wild sheep, antelope, and geese, among others, are partial to young, palatable grass shoots. In order to stimulate and enhance this new, preferred growth, cattle must first remove the rank fall vegetation that other animals are hesitant to eat. Last, but certainly not least, cattle grazing aids in preventing fires. Longer vegetation helps carry uncontrolled wildfires that cause mass destruction and expense. In the Wow that Cow! pamphlet published by the American National Cattle Women Inc., it points out that grazing these areas reduces the amount of matter on the ground, thus limiting the quantity of fuel to burn and restricting the fires ability to spread quickly. Many members of our society have been misinformed that rangelands are in pitiful condition and that cattle are to blame, when in fact, just the opposite is true. As quoted by Rockwood Research in 1996, ``73 percent of cattlemen's range of pasture land had been reported as improved in the past ten years, while only six percent had declared a decline.'' Not surprisingly, this study also showed that 62 percent of cattlemen reported an increase in wildlife. People for the USA! Grazing Position Paper states, ``Scientists and range experts are constantly proving that rangelands are currently in their best condition since the turn of the 20th century, and the improvement is continuing.'' If statistics verify that rangelands and the wildlife therein are truly thriving, why then do members of the environmental community still feel the cattle should be removed from these areas? Mistakes by ranchers of the past are mostly responsible for the negative attention that cattle receive, but this is unfair. Cattle can only be as efficient workers as their owners are good managers. Ranchers of the past did not have the educational resources that are available to us now. Today's cattlemen have a tremendous understanding of the correlation between the proper maintenance of natural recources and their success as livestock producers. Educated ranchers of this generation are better able to make use of cattle grazing as an effective management tool. Please, take just a moment to visualize the rangelands without cattle. Better yet, try to imagine McDonald's without hamburgers, a shower without soap, Tupperware In order to prevent this dilemma, we must enlighten others with the truth about cattle and grazing. The devastating misunderstanding that cattle and conservation cannot successfully coexist will be reversed only by knowledge and communication. Please take it upon yourselves to share with others the virtue of cattle on our rangelands and beef in our every day lives. Bibliography Cattle and Beef Handbook Facts, Figures, and Information, National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Englewood, CO. (June 1999) Grazing. National Cattlemen's Beef Association. (1996). [Online], Available: http//www.teachfree.com/ffyf/ grazing.html Non-Federal Grazing Lands in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture. (1997). [Online], Available: http//www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/BSC/grace/nonfed.html Grazing Position Paper: Facts vs. Fiction. People for the USA! [Online], Available: www.pfw.org/grazing Soil and Land Conditions: Myths and Facts about Beef Production. [Online], Available: www.beef.org/library/myths- facts Wow That Cow! American National CattleWomen, Inc. Englewood, CO.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, last weekend more than 450 alumni of the Experiment in International Living, a global student exchange program, gathered for their first-ever annual reunion in Brattleboro, VT. The reunion commemorated the Experiment's 68 year history of helping young Americans break down national and cultural barriers and forge relationships that have sustained them over years and across thousands of miles. Founded in 1932, the Experiment in International Living is now a program of World Learning, a widely respected international educational services organization. Every year, Experiment students travel to countries in Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Oceania as part of a summer abroad program. Through this exchange, Experimenters are immersed in the daily culture of a single place and its people as they embark on journey of cultural and personal discovery. Mr. Speaker, I am personally invested in the success of the Experiment in International Living in part the program made a personal investment in me over 25 years ago. In 1973, I traveled to Yugoslavia and spent ten weeks with a host family through the Experiment in International Living program. Even as a 19-year-old college student, I recognized the life-changing effect this experience would have. Today, as a member of the House International Relations Committee, I can trace my strong interest in the Balkans in particular and international affairs more generally to those wonderful ten weeks. It is my great hope that I, along with my colleagues in the House, can help make it possible for thousands more young Americans to join the Experiment and participate in the life-changing journey that it embodies. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate World Learning, the Experiment in International Living and its alumni for their remarkable success in forging international connections. As attendees of last weekend's reunion can attest, the Experiment in International Living teaches young people to understand the differences that sometimes divide us while recognizing the common bonds that make us all part of the human family.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think that, in this hour, it perhaps does us good to put aside for a minute the geopolitical discussions advanced by the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), my friend speaking before me, and concentrate instead on the loss that we have suffered, memorialize and honor the service of the men and women of the U.S.S. Cole, and grieve with them the loss of their classmates. When the terrible news about this terrorist attack flashed across the television sets of this country, we had a sick feeling across the entire country about this senseless loss of life in a pathetic, cowardly terrorist act. This feeling of sadness became much deeper when we learned that one of the dead was one of our own. Kevin Shawn Rux from Portland, North Dakota. Kevin was 30 years old. He was an electronic warfare technician, second class. He was the son of a Navy man, the nephew of another Navy man, and he was in his 11th year of service to our country in the United States Navy. Earlier, in the week, Kevin had called his wife Olivia in Norfolk, Virginia to extend his love on their 10th anniversary. He was halfway across the world, serving his country. On his anniversary, perhaps his last visit with Olivia, he extended his love in this fashion. We cannot really fully appreciate, until a tragedy drives us to really think about it, the measure of commitment and sacrifice that the men and women in our military make. I mean they are some of our finest. They are in really up-close personal ways some of our very finest. Some of those who went to high school with Mr. Rux were quoted as saying, ``He was a friendly, good student, wrestler, not a trouble maker, had his head screwed on straight.'' His former wrestling coach was quoted as saying, ``Kevin was a tough little cookie. He was all business. He was consistent. He was always there. He knew his role.'' Well, those observations of a high school wrestling coach were very true of his service to our country in the Navy as well. He had his head screwed on straight. He was always there. He was a tough little cookie. What a tragedy for his wife and his family. What a tragedy for us in North Dakota. What a tragedy for our country to have lost sailors the caliber of Mr. Rux. So I ask that we in this time think and pray for the departed and their families. They have served their country very well.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, during the month of October, people across the nation will don purple ribbons in support of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. As an effort to increase public awareness of a problem that causes anguish to so many, residents in my home state of North Dakota, as well as across the nation, will participate in myriad events, such as candlelight vigils, ``Take Back the Night'' rallies, and other educational demonstrations. Domestic violence is one of our nation's most prevalent, yet misunderstood, tragedies. The North Dakota Council on Abused Women's Services recently released statistics concerning domestic violence and sexual assault in 1999 that should alarm us all. Last year, 5,821 incidents of domestic violence were reported to crisis intervention centers in North Dakota. These incidents involved 3,597 new victims. Among the victims, 95% were women, 37% were under the age of 30, and 2% were under the age of 18. The North Dakota Council on Abused Women's Services also reported that at least 4,750 children were directly impacted by domestic violence incidents in 1999. This does not include the large number of unreported cases. Withdrawal, low self-esteem, nightmares, self-blame and aggression against peers, family members and property are just a few of the emotional and behavioral disturbances that children who witness violence at home display. These effects stay with a child ultimately influencing their educational, professional and personal life. While commemorating this month of awareness, I am proud to also mark the sixth anniversary of one of the most important stands Congress has ever taken against domestic violence: The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Through programs that bolster prosecution of sexual assault and domestic violence, increase victim services, and step up education and prevention activities, VAWA has gone far to protect individuals from sexual offenses and domestic abuse. I am pleased to announce that through a bipartisan effort H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Act of 1999, of which I was an original co-sponsor, passed in the House of Representatives. This legislation reauthorizes VAWA programs for five more years allowing a number of federal grant programs intended to care for those affected by these tragic crimes to continue. Domestic violence will not end until the nation as a whole unites in saying ``no more!'' Each time one person learns of a domestic violence situation and decides to turn her head she is, in effect, approving of the situation and allowing it to continue. As members of society we must become proactive and take a stand against this horrific situation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, when the House considered the Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report nearly two weeks ago, I voiced my strong opposition to the legislative rider that would prevent the Corps of Engineers from moving forward to revise the Missouri River Master Manual. At the time I indicated that I would vote to sustain the President's veto if the conference report came back to the House and I intend to do that today. Today, the Missouri River is managed by the Corps of Engineers on the basis of a manual that was adopted over 40 years ago. Under the manual, the Corps manages the river by trying to maintain steady water levels through the spring and summer to ensure there is always enough water to support barge traffic downstream. Unfortunately, under this management system, navigation has been emphasized on the Missouri River to the detriment of upstream interests, including recreation, which is much more important now than it was in 1960. The projections on barge traffic used to justify the manual have never materialized and have actually declined since its peak in the late 1970s. The manual used today does not provide an appropriate balance among the competing interests. The time has come for the management of the Missouri River to reflect the current economic realities of a $90 million annual recreation impact upstream, versus a $7 million annual navigation impact downstream. The Corps should not be stopped in their efforts to revise and update the manual and achieve a balance between all parties who use and rely on the Missouri River.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 278 and in honor of the millions of women who have shown the strength and courage to fight back against breast cancer. Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among women in the United States. This year, almost 182,800 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed and an estimated 40,800 women will die from this terrible disease. Breast cancer touches not only the lives of those afflicted with the disease, but also their loved ones. Recently, my fellow North Dakotans came together to pray for a courageous woman, a woman who has dedicated her life to improving the health and welfare of others. Heidi Heitkamp, our state Attorney General, was diagnosed with breast cancer. Like so many afflicted with this disease, however, the strength, determination, and sheer will that Heidi has displayed through this most difficult of times has been an inspiration to her family, friends and all who know her. Mr. Speaker, the story of Heidi Heitkamp, like that of so many other women, is also a story of hope. Each year, the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has slowly fallen. Increased education and increased technology has extended the life and increased the survival rate of those afflicted with this disease. The fight against breast cancer can be won. I call on my colleagues to join the fight by increasing funding for breast cancer research, increasing access to screening and treatment options, and increasing awareness. I call on my colleagues to fight for the lives of their mothers, sisters and other loved ones.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report provides critical funding for many important water projects in my state of North Dakota. Under the bill we will be able to provide a clean, reliable water supply to communities across North Dakota and on the reservations. We will be able to continue work on the construction of a permanent flood control project to protect the city of Grand Forks. Finally, we will be able to continue preconstruction, engineering and design of an emergency outlet to relieve flooding in Devils Lake. However, while I will be supporting the conference report, I strongly object to language included in the conference report that would prevent the Corps of Engineers from moving forward to revise the Missouri River Master Manual. Today, the Army Corps of Engineers is managing the Missouri River on the basis of a manual that was adopted in the 1960s. Under the manual, the Corps manages the river by trying to maintain steady water levels through the spring and summer to ensure there is always enough water to support barge traffic downstream. Unfortunately, under this management system, navigation has been emphasized on the Missouri River to the detriment of upstream interests, including recreation, which is much more important now than it was in 1960. The projections on barge traffic used to justify the manual have never materialized and have actually declined since its peak in the late 1970s. After more than 40 years, the time has come for the management of the Missouri River to reflect the current economic realities of a $90 million annual recreation impact upstream, versus a $7 million annual navigation impact downstream. The Corps has proposed to revise the master manual to increase spring flows, known as a spring rise, once every 3 years in an effort to bring back the river's natural flow and reduce summer flows every year. The President has indicated that he intends to veto the conference report because of this provision. If the conference report comes back to the House with this provision in it, I will vote to sustain the President's veto. I firmly believe the Corps should not be stopped in their efforts to revise and update the manual.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. There are 4 days left under the existing authorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Thank goodness we were able to take the action today so that hopefully there will not be any gap whatsoever in the authorization for this legislation. The fight against domestic violence is simply too important for us to signal somehow that this authorization and our commitment to this fight is going to be disrupted. In my own State of North Dakota in 1999 there were 5,800 incidents of domestic violence and 3,600 victims reporting to State crisis intervention centers. The programs and the funding that flow from this authorization are critically linked to the fight so admirably waged by the advocates on the ground helping these victims. The fight is just too important to walk away from; and I am very pleased and commend all who, in a bipartisan manner, have brought this matter to the floor today for our action.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, for moving this legislation forward. It is clear that Slobodan Milosevic is not part of the solution in the Balkans but, rather, is the problem. Milosevic has started, and lost, four wars this past decade, with Slovenia, with Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and finally with NATO over Kosovo. He may now be preparing his fifth war, this time against Montenegro and its democratic reformist government. Milosevic has run an authoritarian state, suppressing dissent, threatening his opponents, purging the army and police, and manipulating the electronic media to misinform the Serbian public. But in spite of all of that, yesterday's dramatic election results from Belgrade show the Serbian people have had quite enough of Slobodan Milosevic. It is clear from the independent and opposition sources that the democratic opposition of Serbia has won a decisive victory. The Center for Free Election and Democracy has reported that Serbia's democratic opposition has won 58 percent of the votes cast as compared to 32 percent for Milosevic. Milosevic should respect the wishes of the Serbian people and step down; no manipulating or manufacturing of ballots from Kosovo or Montenegro, no fiddling with the constitution to stay in power through next summer, no desperate moves of violence against Montenegro, Kosovo, or citizens of Serbia. In order to bring stability to southeast Europe and unlock the economic potential of the region, Milosevic must relinquish power to a new democratic government in Serbia. I spent a summer in Serbia when I was in college. I lived with a family, and I care about these people and look forward to them moving to the post-Milosevic nightmare period into hope for the future. This act supports the democratic opposition by authorizing $50 million for promoting democracy and civil society in Serbia and $55 million for assisting the government of Montenegro. It also authorizes increased broadcasting to Yugoslavia by the Voice of America and by Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. The act's strength is that it follows the strong and effective policy crafted by the administration and the demonstrated will of the Serbian people themselves as evidenced by yesterday's vote. The legislation codifies the so-called outer wall of sanctions against Yugoslavia by multilateral organizations, including international financial institutions. It also authorizes other measures against Yugoslavia, including blocking Yugoslavia's assets in the United States; prohibiting the issuance of visas and admission to the United States; and prohibiting strategic exports to Yugoslavia, loans and investment, and military-to-military cooperation. It is important to note that yesterday's encouraging election results from Serbia do not negate the need for this legislation. Milosevic may not relinquish control, making support for democratic forces, nongovernmental organizations, and free media even more vital. Even if a peaceful transition were to somehow occur, as one recently took place in neighboring Croatia, a new government and independent media would desperately need international support in a nation that has known authoritarianism and corruption for far too long. And so, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1064. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and just wish to additionally commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for his impassioned and very insightful comments.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, my friend; and also the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific; as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, for introducing the International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000. The International Food Relief Partnership Act of 2000 authorizes, as was described by the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), the stockpiling, rapid transportation, delivery and distribution of shelf stabled prepackaged foods to needy individuals in foreign countries. Mr. Speaker, this bill creates a public-private partnership to leverage the donation of nutritious food by volunteers to needy families around the globe at times of famine, disaster, and other critical needs. The bill also seeks to increase participation by nonprofit organizations in the provision of donated food to populations in need around the world. Finally, I want to take this opportunity, although not specifically on point with the matter before us, to reiterate my concern about the funding source for our food relief, title II of the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill passed by the House. This bill now is in conference committee, but it is important to note that House funding is not adequate to meet our commitment to countries during famines, droughts and other disasters. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations will follow the example set by the Senate and that we ultimately will end up fully funding the administration's requests for PL-480 Title II at $837 million, ultimately, that relates directly to the bill before us. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5224. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to at this point extend my congratulations to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest). As a member of the House Committee on Agriculture, I believe that he has had a very distinguished term in leading that committee and is personally responsible for the restoration of a constructive bipartisan spirit in that committee. His other major ally in achieving that progress has been the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we see this matter very much as the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) has outlined. The Export Administration Act has been the principle authority for the regulation in the export of dual- use items from the United States. When this bill lapsed in August of 1994, the President invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and other authorities to continue the export control system, including the Export Administration Regulations. Now, there has been a recent court ruling that calls into question whether or not the government can essentially hide behind emergency powers to revive an expired law. This calls into question the Commerce Department's ability to keep sensitive export information provided by exporters from public disclosure using the EAA's confidentiality provision. We have got to pass this law to make sure that they can keep the information confidential so that the exporters will fully use the Commerce Department's assistance in exporting our products. We have got a record trade-in balance. We need to export more. We need to pass this law as an important part of making certain that the Commerce Department is there to provide as much assistance as possible in moving products overseas. For that reason, we fully concur that this is passed. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to override the President's veto of H.R. 4810, a bill that purportedly addresses the marriage penalty but in fact misses the mark. I strongly support marriage penalty relief. In my view, the tax code should not penalize couples because they choose to get married. That is why I have repeatedly voted for tax cuts to alleviate the marriage penalty for hard working families. Unfortunately, the bill vetoed by the President was inflated to nearly $300 billion with about half the total tax benefit going to high income earners who do not even pay the penalty. As a consequence, the vetoed bill would crowd out our ability to enact other tax cuts for working families, to pay down the national debt, and to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. We can eliminate the marriage penalty without jeopardizing these other important priorities. This override vote need not and should not be the last word on marriage penalty relief this Congress. Members of both parties have offered proposals to address the marriage penalty and there are clearly grounds for compromise. The Republican presidential candidate, for example, has offered a targeted marriage penalty proposal that would restore the 10 percent deduction for two-earner families--a far different approach from the vetoed bill. The distinguished ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, sponsored legislation that provides more relief from the marriage penalty than any other proposal offered this year by allowing couples to choose whether to file jointly or as individuals. In the spirit of compromise, today I am introducing the House companion to the Moynihan amendment. Under my bill, couples who currently pay more in taxes because they're married would have the choice to file as individuals, eliminating the marriage penalty. My bill is simpler, provides more marriage penalty relief, and is more fiscally responsible than the vetoed bill. The one-half of all married couples in this country who pay the marriage penalty deserve our best efforts to reach a compromise. They gain nothing from political posturing and override motions that will inevitably fail. These couples deserve to have a bill enacted this year. We can deliver that tax relief, and I hope the legislation I introduce today can serve as a starting point for how we can address the marriage penalty and protect other key national priorities. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conyers motion to instruct conferees on the Defense Authorization bill. This motion would direct conferees to agree to the federal hate crimes provision contained in the Senate version of this bill. This provision preserves the principle of federalism while recognizing the national imperative to prevent violent crimes motivated by prejudice. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) would provide new protections for individuals who are victims of violent crimes solely because of who they are. Specifically, it would strengthen the existing definition of a federal hate crime to include crimes motivated by the victim's gender, sexual orientation, or disability. I believe that this legislation would increase public education and awareness of these crimes, encourage more victims to come forward and seek justice, and perhaps most importantly, demonstrate the federal government's clear resolve to prosecute these crimes to the fullest extent of the law. Some of my colleagues have argued that federal hate crimes legislation is unnecessary. In making this argument, they cite the case of Matthew Shepard, a college student brutally murdered in Laramie, Wyoming. They state that justice has already been served; Matthew Shepard's killer has already been sentenced to life in prison without parole. What they don't tell you is that because Matthew Shepard's murder is not considered a federal hate crime, Laramie law enforcement officials had to furlough five officials to help cover the cost of prosecuting this crime. Under HCPA, by contrast, Matthew Shepard's grieving family would have had the benefit of additional resources under federal law, easing the burden on local law enforcement officials. Mr. Speaker, by voting in favor of this motion to instruct conferees, we have the opportunity to provide all Americans with additional protection from violent crimes. The vast majority of hate crimes will still be prosecuted in state court. The federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides important protections to victims of violence, protections that supplement, not supplant, those available to victims in state courts. I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers motion.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I represent the State of North Dakota. I represent more production acres of agriculture than any other Member of the House of Representatives. My, my, my, I have not heard so much concern about our family farmers in four terms in this Congress than I am hearing in the course of this debate. The fact of the matter is, it is time for a little truth in advertising. This bill is not about family farms, this bill is about tax relief for the wealthiest few in this country. Let us just take a look at the numbers to put this in perspective. Of taxable estates, those containing farm assets from 1995, 1996, and 1997 represented one-tenth of 1 percent of the taxable estates. That was before the increase, and a significant increase, bringing it to a $2.6 million unified credit today. It is time we raised that credit. We have had some powerful presentations on the other side. The comments of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) were particularly well done in terms of actually having gone to an auction and basically about a family having to sell assets to pay the estate tax. If indeed that is the situation, even for a few family farms, let us address it and let us address it right now. The majority bill does not do that. The vetoed bill does not do that. It phases in this credit over time, leaving relief for the very end for those families that are subject to so much discussion on the other side. I want Members to look at this chart right here. This chart shows who is going to get help. The blue is the Democrat alternative. The red is the Republican bill. This is in year one of this Republican plan. We can see the help for these families is right now under the Democrat bill. They say, see us later, see us later, under the majority bill. Okay, let us go down a few years. This is the year 2009, almost a decade from where we stand today, relief under the Democrat bill, and here is relief under the Republican bill, barely phased in. Basically, they have to wait 10 years if they are the kind of family farmer, if they are the small business owner that the other side is talking so much today about. If the need is so urgent, and the majority whip said that this is the final chance, this is the final chance to save family farms and small businesses from being confiscated from the death tax, then why in goodness' name does he wait 10 years to phase in the relief? If it is that much of a problem, let us do something about it and do it now. That is what the Democrat alternative does. We do it in a way that does not bust the budget, that does not take away our chance to pay off the national debt. By skewing this whole package for the wealthiest few at the very top, they deprive relief to those who need it, and they bust the budget while they are at it.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to join Representative David Minge of Minnesota in introducing the Family Farm Safety Net Act. The Family Farm Safety Net Act is designed to permanently extend the availability of marketing assistance loans, raise the loan rates of all commodities and make the loan rates more equitable with each other. This legislation, which is supported by the National Farmers Union, the North Dakota Farmers Union, and the National Barley Growers Association, will go a long way in providing additional assistance to our nation's family farmers. As we all know, our nation's federal farm policy has been a disaster, mostly because of its removal of a price safety net to protect our nation's farmers in times of low prices and bad weather. In many ways, the Northern Plains and especially my home State of North Dakota represents ground zero in the farm crisis, having experienced the twin evils of production loss caused by severe weather and rockbottom commodity prices. In 1996 when Congress passed Freedom to Farm, farm prices were at near record highs. In 1996, wheat was $4.30 per bushel, soybeans were at $7.35 per bushel, and corn was $2.71 per bushel. Total net farm income for 2000 is projected to be only $40.4 billion, nearly $14 billion below what it was in 1996. And, according to the University of Missouri's Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI), by 2009, net farm income will fall to $37 billion if the current farm program is not changed. Moreover, in 2000, direct government payments through the form of Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA) payments and market loss assistance payments will be more than $16 billion, nearly 40 percent of total farm income. I opposed this legislation because of my fear of exactly what we are seeing now--the abysmal collapse of commodity prices and the lack of a safety net to protect farmers. At the time, opposing Freedom to Farm was not a politically popular position. Many believed that the opponents were afraid of change and not willing to allow the farmer to take advantage of the free market. Today, 4 years after its passage, my fear has come true. Wheat is now selling at $2.54 per bushel--a 40 percent drop in price. Corn is now selling at $1.36 per bushel--a 50 percent drop in price, and soybeans are now selling at $4.82--a 34 percent drop in price. Our legislation is quite simple. It raises the loan rate levels of all commodities by making the loan rates more equitable and extends the lengths of the terms of the loan period from to 9 to 20 months. Our legislation restores a price safety net by creating loan rates that are more reflective of producers' costs of production and by providing producers with more time to best determine when to sell their grain in today's volatile market. Under our legislation the loan rate for wheat, which is the largest commodity grown in North Dakota, will be raised from $2.58 per bushel to $3.40 per bushel. Through this increase in the loan rate for wheat, North Dakota's family farmers will see an average of nearly $19 per acre more in a loan deficiency payment (LDP) for their wheat. And, if the Family Farm Safety Net were law during the 1999 crop year, North Dakota wheat producers would have received an additional $200 million in LDPs. This legislation makes the loan rates for all the commodities more comparable to each other. Under the current farm bill, the loan rate for soybeans is $5.26 and the loan rate for wheat is only $2.58. This distortion in loan rates is causing the market to become distorted because many producers are being forced to grow soybeans as their only hopes of ``breaking even.'' As a result of this distortion in loan rates, soybean acreage in the United States has grown more than 10.5 million acres to all-time record of 73.1 million acres since the passage of the farm bill. No other example of this is more evident than in my home State of North Dakota where soybean acreage has grown by more than 100 percent since the passage of the farm bill. As Congress begins to consider alternatives for its next farm bill, I believe the Family Farm Safety Net is the right step to provide a safety net for America's producers who have suffered so severely the last four years. I look forward to working with my colleagues on our efforts to assist our nation's family farmers.