Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I reclaim my time on that. I would just note that after the convening of the conference committee, there was no further input by the minority whatsoever. I have been told by our ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, repeated calls went unanswered, repeated requests for information were denied, and indeed he was not given the numbers to the budget that we were to vote on in the wee hours of the morning until after midnight of this night and that was a procedure that the chairman of the Committee on Rules was advancing in his role and it was only come on strong because of the incompetence of the Committee on the Budget in missing a couple of critical pages. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, and I appreciate the comments of the gentleman. His comments, like the comments of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, now in appreciation for a full opportunity to vigorously debate this important matter, should have been a part of the process from the very beginning, not only a consequence of incompetence in your failure to execute the plan you had to shut out the minority from meaningful participation. That is the point I would like to make.

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

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, under my reservation, I would just note for the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, it is slightly incongruous to me that he would at this point note with great relief for both sides the opportunity to actually study this budget for several days before having the opportunity to vote on it. He as the budget chairman was obviously deeply involved in a procedure that was going to bring it to the floor in a very different manner, filing after midnight for a vote after the budget on the minority side had had 1 hour to review the budget, and you would have proceeded with this plan as I understand it correctly but for your inadvertent error in bringing it to the Committee on Rules in a manner that was so flawed, so screwed up that he could not proceed. He apologizes to the body for the error on the two pages. I am sorry that the gentleman has left the floor. I think the apology to this body ought to be for the overall process, bringing a budget of this country to the floor with no minority input, with no adequate time for minority review. What a sad thing. It would take sheer incompetence of the majority as opposed to legislative decency to give the minority the time to adequately review the document as certainly would comport with any fair-minded view of legislative process in the first place.

Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, although the question is more of a rules one on this point.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I still have the time under my reservation. I will yield to the gentleman in a moment. That is how you have chosen to proceed. It is certainly in vast contrast to any parliamentary proceeding I have ever been a part of in my years in a legislative body. Be that as it may, I do not think that it is too much to ask for a very detailed explanation of why then the about face by the Committee on Rules and the majority in terms of why we cannot further proceed tonight. My question therefore would be, were indeed Senate signatures required that could not be obtained?

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

Mr. POMEROY. Continuing my reservation, it is my understanding that indeed upon ascertaining that critical pages were missing from the report that was belatedly filed, an effort was made to track down the required Senators whose signatures needed to be affixed to the document for purposes of bringing it into conformance with all appropriate requirements and that indeed because the Senate had left, these signatures could not be obtained.

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, not being a member of the Committee on Rules, I want to verify that the information that we heard from the Committee on Rules is indeed correct. That it was not possible to proceed tonight because the report filed around midnight which had earlier been promised to be delivered sometime this morning representing the budget of the United States to be agreed upon by this House today was missing two critical pages, in fact the pages, the instructions on reconciliation, and that is why we could not proceed further for final disposition on this matter this evening.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Colleagues, the bill contains language on disclosure for cash balance conversions advanced by the White House in consultation with Congress last year. The motion should be defeated, because although it talks about mandating choice between defined benefit and cash balance, it says nothing about changing the pension plan all together for a defined contribution plan or, worse, scrapping it all together. Those are much more serious options than moving from traditional defined balance to cash balance. Therefore, although well intended, this motion does not work. It should be defeated.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and specifically commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). Their work has been exemplary bipartisanship in advancing a substantive response on one of the most troubling issues facing the country and, that is, the insufficiency of retirement savings. As in every instance when there is exemplary congressional performance, there are some outstanding staff performances backing it up. I want to cite particularly David Koshgarian backing up the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and Barbara Pate backing up the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). Their work has contributed immeasurably to this legislation. I think there are three things about this bill we should cite in particular. First of all, it makes a direct effort at revitalizing defined benefit pensions in the marketplace today. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) noted, the number of workers covered by the reliable, traditional pension program has fallen 40 percent during the 20-year period between 1975 and 1995; and I believe it has fallen, no doubt, significantly further even today. By raising the limits, you bring the employers, you bring the decisionmakers within a company back into the qualified plan and, I believe, enhance the prospects that the worker on the line, on the shop floor keeps the pension in its traditional form. Secondly, the bill advances portability by incorporating the retirement account portability legislation I have introduced in the last three Congresses. We have a hodgepodge in the Tax Code of retirement savings provisions, different ones for for-profit, different ones for nonprofit, different ones for State and local government. You can have, for example, a worker through their career, let us say they come out of college and go into nursing for a nonprofit hospital. They would have a 403(b) defined contribution plan. Let us say after that they go to State government and work in the health department. They would have a 457 plan. Ultimately they end up in a private for- profit clinic where they would have a 401(k) plan. Each of these is incompatible with the other under existing law and you could not combine your accounts. The result is people have their accounts distributed. We know that in over half the cases where they take the lump sum distribution, they do not reinvest them in retirement savings. This is a case where the Tax Code, rather than trying to incent Americans to save, actually discourages savings. It is 100 percent the wrong way to go. That is why the portability feature is so important. Finally, vesting. We know that on average workers are staying with an employer in the workforce about 4\1/2\ years. It takes 5 years before the employer's share is vested in a retirement savings account where the employer has that provision. Under Federal law, they are allowed to have vesting be a 5-year period. This brings that down to 3 years, recognizing that there is very substantial mobility in the workforce today and that after 3 years in the workforce for one employer, the employer's share should accrue at that point to the employee. They will be vested. They will have that to take with them as they move on in the workforce. All in all, the bill will enhance retirement savings efforts of American workers. It is extremely important. Again I commend the sponsors and ask for broad bipartisan support on the House floor today.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kind remarks. I believe he has made a significant contribution to the debate today by offering the substitute, which I intend to support. As I said when we considered this last Congress, the problem with Portman-Cardin is not what is in the bill, the problem is what is left out. And what is left out is a more meaningful incentive to those who are having the most difficult time saving, moderate-earning households, that simply do not have adequate discretionary income. For that reason we have structured the substitute as an additive proposal. It takes all of Portman-Cardin and adds this to it. After all, the last two Congresses have passed a variety of new incentives for saving for retirement, but have done virtually nothing for the $50,000 and below household who already had the tax deductible IRA. I think we ought to look at what is actually happening out there. In a recent study commissioned by the Consumer Federation of America, and conducted by Ohio State economist Catherine Montalto, indicates exactly the problem. Only 44 percent of households in this country are saving at a rate that will provide them an adequate retirement income. Not surprisingly, that is differentiated exactly along earnings lines. Twenty-three percent of those earning between $10,000 and $25,000 have adequate savings; one out of four, one out of four of those earning below $25,000. Fifty-four percent of those $50,000 to a $100,000 households have adequate savings; 69 percent of those over $100,000. Now that tells us that right across the board we have a lot of work to do, but nowhere do we have more work to do in this than in the plight of moderate- to middle-earning households. For me, the situation for this Congress is to basically pay now or pay later. Either we enhance the ability of these families to accumulate some of their own assets in retirement savings, help them accumulate assets to pay for their own retirement income security, or we are going to have to provide government programs in the future for destitute elderly that were unable to acquire savings. Ten percent of those presently eligible are saving in IRAs. Ten percent. So for us to say, well, now you can save $5,000 as opposed to $2,000 really may fall short of what they need. If they cannot save $2,000, let me tell my colleagues, they are not going to save $5,000. We need to help them save. I believe conceptually the simplest way to do it on a universal basis is by taking that tax deduction and making a tax credit. I would frankly structure it slightly differently than the substitute puts this provision forward, but I think the substitute offers a way for us to examine the legitimacy of strengthening savings incentives for modest-earning households. It is basically market principles. They need more incentive to save. Let us help them save, as the substitute does.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleague from Wisconsin, Representative Paul Ryan, in introducing legislation to allow certain non-certified resident assistants to continue to be employed by nursing facilities in North Dakota, Wisconsin, and up to 8 other states under a 3-year demonstration project. For several years, nursing facilities in these and other states have relied upon single-task employees, specifically assistants who help their residents dine, to supplement professional nurse staffing levels and increase patient care. Unfortunately, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has given our states' facilities until August 31, 2001 to discontinue the employment of feeding assistants. With the current national shortage in nursing facility employees, the loss of these valuable workers will further strain our nursing homes. Particularly as our elderly population increases in future years, we must ensure that nursing homes do not lose existing staff. Unless Congress acts, significantly fewer trained professionals will be available to ensure that nursing home residents can comfortably and safely enjoy their meals. In North Dakota alone, 40 percent, or two out of five, of the state's nursing facilities have had to deny new admissions in the past 12 months due to staffing shortages. The state currently has 600 open positions for Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). While the North Dakota Long Term Care Association encourages all feeding assistants to become CNAs, many assistants are members of a contingent workforce and are not able to become CNAs due to physical or other limitations. I understand that certain consumer groups, patient advocates, and labor organizations have concerns regarding the continued employment of feeding assistants in long-term care facilities. I also believe, as do these organizations, that we must act during this Congress to address the nursing shortage in our nation, increase wages for certified and licensed nurse professionals, and improve the work conditions of these individuals. At the same time, I believe that moderate steps can be taken to address the reservations regarding feeding assistants without compromising the ability of nursing facilities to care for our nation's seniors. Specifically, I support efforts to allow only feeding assistants to continue to be employed by nursing facilities in a few states through a pilot project administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Under such a program, these assistants augment staffing levels in a facility--they do not supplant professional nurses and are not counted toward any minimum staffing levels. Furthermore, these feeding assistants would have to complete a state-reviewed training and competency evaluation, and would only complete a limited number of tasks under onsite supervision by a licensed health professional. I believe that these safeguards, among others, would ensure the quality of care without obviating the need for CNAs and other nurse professionals in long-term care facilities. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues this year to ensure that our nursing facilities have the staff and resources necessary to care for our families and friends in the years to come.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). The majority would have us believe that estate taxes collected by the Federal Government are the single greatest obstacle interrupting the passage of a family farm, a small business from one generation to the next. To place the issue in perspective, 2 percent of all estates in this country were subject to the estate tax at present levels. Of those 2 percent, a single percent had assets that were at least half involved in farming. Ninety-nine percent of the 2 percent had not had operations involved in farming. Mr. Speaker, I represent more production acres than any other Member of this body, and I will tell my colleagues there are an awful lot more farms lost to the ruinous cost of long-term care than ever lost to estate taxes collected by the Federal Government, but the majority has nothing in this bill to address that issue. By passing this bill, it will deprive this body of the resources to ever address the long-term care cost issue threatening the passage of farms and small businesses. The motion to recommit has three fundamental principles: first, we should provide relief now, as opposed to relief later. The bulk of the majority bill takes effect 10 years from now. Mr. Speaker, we cannot bind future Congresses. There will be no fewer than four additional Congresses past this one that would have the opportunity to tinker with the majority's bill. Let us put relief in place now. The second point, this should not explode in the outyears. It should take a relatively level hit on the Federal budget so we know what we are dealing with. The explosion of the majority bill just at the time the baby boomers move into retirement, escalating the costs of Social Security and Medicare will wreck the Federal budget. Why would we want to pass this on? Let us deal with it now. The third, and very important, point, the majority bill exposes farms and small businesses to a level of capital gains that they do not have presently. Today, we have farms and small businesses that will pass under the estate tax but be fully protected against capital gains in a subsequent sale because of this stepped-up basis ultimately used to calculate capital gains. Mr. Speaker, the majority bill does away with that, puts back in carry-over basis. The effect is to tax farms and small businesses that do not have a capital gains exposure and gives them capital gains exposure. That is not the kind of tax relief our farmers are looking for. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is about very real tax relief now to deal with those 2 percent of American households that may have estate tax issues to deal with versus a promise of tax relief 10 years to come. This chart shows what happens under the majority bill: Very substantial estate tax collection for a decade, then nothing. Are the American people really to believe that the next 2\1/2\ presidential terms, the next five Congresses will not revisit this issue? We cannot commit what will happen one decade from now. We are best off dealing with the substitute, real relief now. This chart shows the significant difference in providing meaningful estate tax relief by moving to the substitute, effectively $4 million estate tax exclusion for a couple phased in to $5 million after 5 years. Estates with a value below $10 million do better under the minority substitute than the majority plan. In addition, there is a very insidious feature to the majority bill which will actually cause taxes to rise for a substantial number of households. By repealing the step-up basis and moving in the carryover basis, they hurt exactly some of the same people they talk so much about helping, farmers and small businesses. An estate that presently is not taxable because of a significant level of debt that passes at the time of the estate could become very definitely taxable for capital gains under the majority proposal. The specific application of the capital gains carryover change advanced in the majority bill would hurt farmers, is very bad public policy, and damage small businesses. I represent more production acres than any other Member of this House. The family farms that I see are much more threatened, and I have seen a lot more farms lost to the ruinous cost of nursing homes than I have had application of Federal estate tax liability. The majority on the other hand does nothing to address the cost of nursing homes, nothing to address the very real present cost to these estates. Instead, they offer a plan that does not take meaningful effect for a full decade and then takes effect in such a way as to raise capital gains tax exposure for family farms, for small businesses, for literally thousands of families that today have no estate tax difficulties. This is the kind of proposal that should be defeated. Support the minority substitute.

Mr. POMEROY. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the Rail Merger Reform and Customer Protection Act. This legislation would extend the reach of the antitrust laws to the railroad industry while providing the Surface Transportation Board (STB) with additional criteria on which to evaluate future railroad mergers. For virtually every business in the United States, mergers and acquisitions in excess of $10 million are subject to antitrust review by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Railroads, however, are treated differently. Under current law, the STB has exclusive jurisdiction over most matters concerning rail transportation including mergers and acquisitions. In exercising that authority, the STB has approved a series of mergers over the past 20 years since passage of the Staggers Act which has resulted in widespread consolidation in the rail industry. This consolidation has reduced the number of rail carriers from 63 Class I railroads to just 7, resulting in significant service disruptions, negative impacts on shippers and a reduction in competition. Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, the railroad industry is the only industry, except for America's favorite pastime, baseball, that is almost entirely exempt from the substance of the antitrust laws. With the rail industry now consolidated to seven major railroads, and the stage set for a possible final consolidation, there is an increased potential for the rail industry to exercise market power and monopoly abuse against shippers. In order to protect shippers and promote true competition, it makes sense to treat the railroads like other industries and subject them to the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice and full application of antitrust laws. Currently, the Department of Justice can only comment on proposed mergers. In previous mergers the recommendations of DOJ were ignored. For example, the Department of Justice pegged the Union Pacific- Southern Pacific merger ``most anti-competitive rail merger in history.'' In that merger, the STB ignored not only the concerns expressed by Department of Justice, but also the concerns of rail customers, organized labor, and the United States Department of Agriculture. I believe that the Department of Justice, an agency that can objectively evaluate the impact of mergers and protect shippers from the continual decrease in competition, needs to have a strong voice in mergers reviewed by the Surface Transportation Board. My legislation would require both the Department of Justice and the STB to review and approve future rail mergers. Under this proposed regulatory framework, the DOJ would approve a merger unless it substantially restrains commerce in any section of the country or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce. The STB would still be required to review and approve a merger under a similar standard but it would also judge the proposed merger by a broader public interest standard. However, my legislation would not allow a merger to move forward without approval from both Department of Justice and Surface Transportation Board. In this day and age, there is no public policy reason to justify the industry's special treatment, particularly since the railroads have enjoyed considerable deregulation under the Staggers Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Termination Act. The passage of these laws which reduced the scope and effectiveness of the regulatory agency, makes it more necessary than ever for shippers to have the full panoply of remedies available against monopolistic activities. Under my legislation, the STB would also be required to examine several additional criteria before approving a merger. Future mergers and consolidations would not be approved unless it was shown that the merger: (1) provides additional rail to rail competition and competitive options for rail customers; (2) improves service to customers; and (3) will not reduce competitive rail routes available to current railroad customers. Additionally, the legislation ensures that relief can be sought under the current regulatory framework or through the antitrust laws. I am pleased that the Alliance for Rail Competition, the Consumers United for Rail Equity, National Farmers Union, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Wheat Growers, the American Forest and Paper Association, the Transportation Intermediaries Association, Otter Trail Power, Minnesota Power, the National Association of Chemical Distributors, and the American Chemistry Council have endorsed this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to ensure that the railroad industry is subject to the same laws as every other industry. It is in the public interest to raise the bar for review of the last few remaining mergers and to have oversight by the Department of Justice on the actions of the railroads.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The Rangel substitute represents a better way to proceed on getting tax relief to the American people, in sharp contrast to the majority bill which we know is step one of a series of measures committing all of the general fund surplus based on an optimistic revenue forecast stretching out 10 years. The Rangel bill is responsible; it fits within a framework that commits nearly a trillion dollars of the projected surplus to tax relief, but also recognizes there are other budget priorities like paying down the debt. The majority bill backs off of debt retirement. It poses the prospect that we might dissipate the surplus now and leave the national debt behind for our children to take care of. The Rangel substitute focuses tax relief on middle-income families, and as a result, does a better job of giving them relief than the majority bill. It also gets relief to the millions of Americans who pay payroll taxes but earn at levels so modest they do not have income tax liability. They get nothing under the majority bill; they get relief under the Rangel substitute. Mr. Speaker, a final strength of the Rangel substitute is that unlike the majority bill, it fully protects the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Folks think the money they pay in payroll taxes and Social Security and Medicare ought to be used exclusively for those purposes, but only the Rangel substitute makes that so. It is time for tax relief, and the Rangel substitute is the right way to do it.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001. I share my colleagues' belief that personal bankruptcy filings impose a cost on all of us, and that debtors should not be allowed to use bankruptcy as a financial planning device. I also believe, however, that this legislation does not adequately address an important factor in bankruptcy reform--the sometimes predatory practices of creditors selling unsecured debt. Mr. Chairman, there is little dispute that the increase in bankruptcy filings represents a disturbing trend that must be addressed. When debtors are able to ``game the system'' and walk away from the consequences, the cost is transferred to creditors, and ultimately, to all American taxpayers. Congress can and should restore integrity to the bankruptcy system while ensuring that the system is fair to debtors and creditors. H.R. 333 would make several appropriate adjustments toward that end. While H.R. 333 does make important adjustments to the bankruptcy system, I believe that it fails to address several important issues. First and foremost, H.R. 333 provides inadequate relief for consumers from the misleading and often intentionally deceptive practices of some credit card companies. While there are many responsible creditors in this country, those that engage in predatory lending cause considerable harm, often to unsophisticated and moderate-income debtors. Such companies have become more aggressive in selling unsecured credit, using tactics like hidden fees and inadequate disclosure statements. Not surprisingly, according to the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, the amount of revolving credit outstanding (including credit card debt) increased seven-fold during 1980 and 1995. Between 1993 and 1997, during the sharpest increases in the bankruptcy filings, the amount of credit card debt doubled. It is simply illogical to me to address bankruptcy reform without also examining the marketing practices that lead to high rates of consumer debt. I am also concerned that this legislation includes an extraneous provision that would prevent U.S. courts from enforcing certain civil judgments rendered in foreign courts. This provision, Section 1310, is inconsistent with U.S. trade policy, interferes with state insurance regulation, and unnecessarily intrudes into private business dealings. Mr. Chairman, this provision was offered to protect a number of American investors from liability for monetary judgment imposed by British courts. The New York State Supreme Court for New York County and the U.S. District Court in Northern Illinois both found these judgments to be valid. The American investors are currently appealing these findings to, respectively, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As the cases are currently pending before U.S. courts, I believe that Congressional interference is unwarranted. Eight U.S. circuit courts, including the Seventh Circuit, have previously held that the original dispute between these investors and Lloyd's should be heard in English courts. In addition, this provision, if enacted, would have serious repercussions for international trade policy and could invite retaliation by our trading partners. When U.S. businesses enter into international contracts, they often negotiate for U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over disputes that may arise. We cannot reasonably expect other countries to respect the judgments of U.S. courts if we override the decisions of foreign courts by legislative fiat. In fact, the U.S. State Department has said that this provision would interfere with its efforts to negotiate a new international convention on the enforcement of civil judgments. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) opposes this provision as an unwarranted intrusion on the traditional authority of states to regulate insurance. The NAIC is specifically concerned about the effect this provision could have on the large number of American insurance companies that depend on foreign insurers for insurance and reinsurance coverage. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, I do support reform of the bankruptcy system, and will cast my vote in favor of this legislation. I am disappointed, however, that this legislation does not do a better job of addressing the concerns I have raised. I am hopeful that those concerns may yet be satisfactorily addressed during the 107th Congress, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring that about.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleagues that I, along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), will this afternoon be briefly addressing the importance of an issue we care passionately about: children's education, children's basic education, girls' education, and our U.S. international assistance dollars in helping developing countries make schools and educational opportunities available. Last Congress I had the privilege of serving on the House Committee on International Relations. From that position, I began to focus on identifying which foreign aid dollars could actually make a lasting difference and bring systemic changes in the areas that we are trying to help. Too often we are just late to the crime scene. Whether it is famine, war, epidemic, we are just trying to pick up after the catastrophe has already occurred. We need to commit our scarce foreign assistance dollars in ways that help bring lasting improvements, build better opportunities, and prevent these cycles of tragedy. As I researched the question, I became convinced of the value of one development investment in particular: international basic education. I was intrigued to learn that educating children, particularly making a special effort to get girls into schools, because so often they are not allowed to participate, yields a higher rate of return than virtually any other effort we can make in the international developing world. The data seemed almost too good to be true. With increased education, women live healthier lives. They marry later, live longer, have fewer children, and their children have vastly superior survival rates. The data compiled by the World Bank and other international organizations report that for every year of education a little girl receives beyond grade four, there is a 10 percent reduction in family size, a 15 percent drop in child malnutrition, a 10 percent reduction in infant mortality, and up to a 20 percent increase in wages and microenterprise development. The statistics support what economists and development experts already know: educating children, again especially girls, creates a powerful impact, improving the lives of little children, subsequently improving the lives of their families, and improving the lives resulting later in the villages and the entire communities. After hearing all this, I had a strong desire to actually see some of these schools, see our U.S. assistance dollars in action; and so along with my colleague, the gentleman from Green Bay, Wisconsin (Mr. Green), we made a bipartisan effort sponsored by some of the NGOs that are implementing these assistance dollars to look firsthand to see how this was working. Our trip left me with a rock-solid conviction that the data on girls education is correct. In both Ghana and Mali, our taxpayer dollars have made a significant difference in the lives of children and families. And even more effectively than the dollars that are used, we were struck by the deep commitment in terms of USAID officials, the professionals in the NGO community implementing these programs, the families and the personnel from the countries making these little schools run themselves. This is driving systemic change in these areas. We visited many classrooms, spoke to parents and community leaders and learned firsthand of the changes being made. This picture reflects a meeting with parents we had in a very small rural village. This individual, the village hunter, the one responsible for bagging the game to feed the village, told us that with the children even getting basic primary education, the cotton traders buying their products can no longer cheat them by the scales. They use the children to make certain they get a fair deal. Time and time again we heard of this kind of change. We heard from parents that now children can help them find when they are buying medicine that has already got expiration dates; they will help them watch for expiration dates on foods and help them write letters; that schools are a safe place for them to be. They no longer have to worry about the children when they go to market. We heard from the village chief and president of a parents' association tell us that educating a little girl is like lighting a dark room. He said that their school is giving priority to girls' participation in enrollment, making a difference for the first time in bringing girls into primary education and the opportunities that flow from that. The parents told us that once the girls learn to read and write they teach others in the family and they become better mothers. Even in a young teenager's years, they are doing it. I just want to, in closing, show you one of the little girls participating in one of the schools that we observed. This little girl wants to be a doctor and help others in her community. Her chances without our assistance dollars would be a million to one. But with our assistance dollars, this dream is possible. We need to continue our commitment in this area, and I am very pleased to work with the gentleman from Wisconsin and others in a bipartisan effort to continue to support this work.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Charles E. Crist. I have had the pleasure of working with Chuck for the past five years in his position as Deputy for Program and Project Management with the St. Paul District of the Corps of Engineers. Quite simply put, he is one of the finest public servants I have had the opportunity to work with. Throughout his time with the St. Paul District, Chuck has stood out as an individual who could tackle complex, sensitive water resource issues. He is a man of great integrity, with a deep commitment to the issues he works on. His contributions to the Corps are numerous, but one that will always be recognized is his efforts to make the Corps a truly responsive agency to the needs of the communities it serves. During the devastating flood of 1997, Chuck worked to coordinate emergency response measures in Grand Forks, North Dakota and all along the Red River. In the aftermath of the flood, Chuck assembled a team within the Corps to design plans for a permanent flood control project for Grand Forks. He was instrumental in leading efforts to expedite the development of the project reports needed to secure authorization. Without the quick, creative work of Chuck and his team within the Corps, we would have missed a critical window to secure congressional authorization. In recognition of this work, the team received the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Outstanding Planning Achievement Award for Planning Team of the Year. Thanks to Chuck's dedicated efforts, Grand Forks is now getting the protection it so desperately needs. In addition to his work in Grand Forks, Chuck has also led efforts to address the ongoing flooding in the Devils Lake Basin. His work has been critical to protecting the future of a town that has experienced eight years of continual flooding. All throughout this process, he has been able to balance a wide range of issues while implementing workable solutions. No matter what the challenge, Chuck has always been able to meet or exceed it. Chuck's friendly demeanor and genuine sympathetic nature have made him a trusted public servant. He has been wholeheartedly committed to working with North Dakota communities through difficult water problems and challenges. Through tough and daunting times, he has always maintained a level of optimism that has gone unmatched. There is no doubt that North Dakota has been well-served under his leadership. Above all, Chuck is a valued friend and partner. Chuck will be missed for his personality, remembered for his professionalism, and honored for the positive change he brought to the Corps. After a distinguished career that has spanned more than 32 years, I want to thank Chuck for his service to the Corps and the State of North Dakota. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2485, an act to develop a regional heritage center for the St. Croix Island International Historic Site in Calais, Maine. As we prepare to celebrate the bicentennial of the historic Lewis and Clark expedition opening up the West, it is also important to note that the 400th anniversary of the first European settlements established in North America--including the St. Croix Island settlement established 396 years ago. This site--the St. Croix Island--is a strikingly beautiful site in the St. Croix River, the river which forms the border between the United States and Canada. As such, it is a jointly operated site by the United States and Canada--the only internationally operated historic site in the entire park system. I have been to the areas in each of the last 5 years and have found it to be a fascinating area to explore and learn about its rich history. With the approaching anniversary, it is important to move now to get the infrastructure in place to facilitate those who will come to the area in the years ahead. I am pleased to see the bill providing for the construction of a heritage center at Calais, Maine as part of this infrastructure. Calais is a delightful town in wonderful Washington County and is close to the island while being a crossroads for international traffic and tourism. It will enhance and increase tourist interest in this important historic site. I have become well acquainted with the people of Calais over the last several summers and have found them to be friendly and helpful to those visiting the area. They will be a great host for the center. I commend Representative John Baldacci for his leadership in getting this matter brought to the floor for our action today. He is a great ambassador for his district and, as our legislative action on this matter represents, a very effective representative of the region in Congress.