Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume. To have the effort to break loose the budget stalemate in conference committee by having our House pass something similar to what the Senate in a bipartisan vote passed is a serious effort. Obviously they are taking it pretty seriously. They have the chairman of the Committee on the Budget on the floor. And rather than rebut the rather painful underlying reality about the Nation slipping into what would almost appear to be an irreversible hemorrhage of red ink, in very bellicose and sarcastic tones, he wants to point at individual votes and accuse other Members of hypocrisy. I guess that is kind of a refuge when they do not have arguments on the issue, let us blow a little smoke, let us have a little fun, let us throw a little political rhetoric around. But this deserves so much more than that. I would say to my friend from Iowa, it is not ruining printers that concerns me, it is ruining the Nation. And I really do believe that the red ink that we are generating and continuing in escalating fashion as the baby boomers move into retirement is a dire threat to the future of our country. I believe that you have already put us on a path, with you serving in your leadership as position as Committee on the Budget chairman, working with the administration, working with the Senate Budget Committee, to diminish the prospects of our children by so undermining the fiscal strength of our country.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as required to close and I will speak from the other podium. I thank my friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for joining in this spirited debate, but to any one of our colleagues watching, there is something that we know for sure and that is that bluster does not cover facts. Energetic presentation of lots and lots of stuff does not mask an economic record reflected in these charts. This is what has happened to the deficit during the last 2 years, and this is where we are going over the next 10 years. Now, what we are seeking with this motion is budget enforcement ability to try and level out this deeply alarming trend line on national debt. Pay-as-you-go means that if you spend more, you have got to cut somewhere else; or if you cut taxes, you have got to cut spending and show where you do it; or if you cut taxes, you have got to raise taxes somewhere else. It has all got to work out in a zero-sum game. You cannot continue to make the budget situation worse. We can get lost in the economics and the numbers, but I think it is helpful to just think of it this way. We pay as you go now, or our kids pay when we go later, because these things are not balancing out. Representations that tax cuts are producing more revenue are not at all borne out. The Federal revenues from individual income taxes in the year 2000 was $1.4 trillion. The 2004 estimate is $765 billion, almost down a quarter. As you have revenues fall so precipitously, you have had the debt line grow so significantly. We have had some job numbers thrown out. The fact is we are down 1.6 million jobs. This administration is the first administration on track to have a net loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover was President, but those are issues for another day. Let us just understand that if you like the economy of the 1990s better than the economy we have seen this decade, realize that throughout the 1990s we had pay-as-you-go budget enforcement, which meant we were trying to get a handle on national debt. We have absolutely lost our way when it comes to fiscal sanity, and that is why we have had this explosion of debt, a deficit leading to debt, and we have got to get our hands around it. So I believe that if this House took the step of instructing conferees to go with what the Senate has passed, and that is a bipartisan vote to embrace this pay-as-you-go requirement, we can once again get on track. This has been the very issue that has received bipartisan agreement in the past, 1990, 1995, 1997, and now it is time in 2004 for us to do it once again. It is time for us to do this for our children. We put pay-as-you-go in the budget or it is you pay when we go to our children. As a father of an 8- and a 10-year old back home in Bismarck, North Dakota, I know we owe them a good deal better than this, a very unstable fiscal situation just when baby boomers retire and start drawing on Medicare and Social Security. We could turn this around, and passing this motion is the place to do it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on S. Con. Res. 95, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget For Fiscal Year 2005. The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, here we are, another week, another tax debate. Another occasion in the House of Representatives where the GOP majority has offered nothing, nothing substantive about the looming deficit crisis that is racking up historic levels of debt in this country. I do not suppose it is a mystery they do not want to talk about it because when they bring their budget, whenever they can get it out of conference, it will include, we are told, an increase in the borrowing limit for our country. It will take the borrowing limit to the highest levels in the history of the United States. Some are saying it will take the borrowing limit over $10 trillion. That is $10 trillion of debt to be incurred under their fiscal plan for this Nation. Debt we will leave to our children and debt we can not responsibly pass on. So as we take a look at something imperative like doing something to respond to the AMT, let us, for goodness sake, put in place a provision to pay for it so we do not even drive this monstrous debt they have given us even deeper. That is what the substitute is about. It talks about clamping down on high-flying tax cheats, some of the worst avoidance schemes, some of the most shallow, unjustifiable schemes created simply to cheat the Federal Government by the high flyers that can afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal and accounting bills to dream up these schemes. The Republican majority in this debate has become ``amen corner'' for tax cheats in this country. You might think the next thing we will see from this outfit is a resolution commending the Enron executives for their creative financing. The fact is there is a whole lot of tax avoidance illegally done in this country. I am very pleased with the announcement made by IRS Commissioner Mark Everson today about an initiative launched by the IRS that they believe is going to target just in 1,500 to potentially 5,000 multi-millionaires and corporations, a crackdown on an illegal tax scheme that they think will generate for this Treasury 5 to $10 billion. So do not stand over here and tell us that cracking down on tax cheats is raising taxes. Taxes are what hard working Americans pay because they owe it. But the tax avoidance and tax cheats that you salute so highly in this debate is something else again. We believe we ought to capture that revenue so we do not drive this debt deeper for our kids. That is what the substitute is about. I urge Members' support.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The bill before us is not the least we can do. It is well beneath the least we should do. It is saying that if, when they are serving their country on extended deployment in the National Guard, they need to go into their retirement accounts to avoid family bankruptcy, that we are not going to charge them the penalty fee for early withdrawal of their retirement money. I am going to support this legislation because grim reality is many of our soldiers and their families are in precisely this fiscal predicament. But the leadership on the that majority side that allowed this bill to come up on the suspension calendar had so many other options, I wish it had done something more meaningful. One of the options is legislation I have introduced, the Guard and Reserve Fairness Act, H.R. 3317, and let me contrast the rather pitiful step we are taking with this legislation to what is in this bill. This bill, the Guard and Reserve Fairness Act, would allow those employers that continue to top off the pay of their employee who is on Guard deployment, it would allow them a tax credit for the dollars they advance holding the salary of their soldier level. This is a step we have to take to encourage employers to make the extra step so that their soldiers, their departed employees now on deployment, do not take the financial hit. On Sunday night I greeted a planeload of returning guardsmen from about 15 months of very hazardous duty in Iraq as they arrived home in Bismark, North Dakota. It was quite a scene; tears of joy as families were reunited after all they had been through. But to think that we are putting them through, on top of everything else, great financial hardship because the pay in the military is below what so many of them are making in the private sector, it is just unacceptable. So let us advance the step of doing much more than this so that we can avoid the financial hardship to our soldiers.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I commend him and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for their very hard work in trying to move this through conference committee. I also see my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), in the Chamber. He has been a tireless advocate of moving in place this much- needed pension fix. I admire very much his leadership and work in this effort. The bill before us must pass. It is estimated by Watson Wyatt, the consulting firm, that 20 percent of defined benefit pension plans, one in five, have been frozen or canceled within the last 3 years alone. We are seeing a wholesale rout in the marketplace of defined benefit plans, and what is so sad about this is this is the old traditional pension. This is the thing that provides that guaranteed monthly payment upon retirement based upon a calculation of earnings and years served that really does provide secure retirement income in retirement. We have some work ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, in trying to fix the underlying funding requirements of pension plans in this country. Because when times are good, we prohibit additional funding flowing into the plans. When times are bad, and we are asking these businesses to do everything they can to grow and hire more workers, we also require, under the formula, disproportionate funding of the pension program. At a time when they can least afford it, we make them fund it the most. There are many industries hard hit with this, but the airline industry has been particularly hard hit. They have encountered the perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances. No need to go into them here. We are all aware of them. But we literally are going to be pushing airlines into bankruptcy if this legislation does not move. Now we need to again look longer term at addressing their pension funding issues and doing so in a way that comports with reason. So I support the bill. Everything in it is good, but something is missing: support for the multi-employer pension plans. I specifically asked the Secretary of Labor when she was before the Ways and Means if the administration opposed helping multi-employer plans. She refused to answer. She said she would get back to us. I am still waiting. But we know what is clear is the role they played in the conference committee in terms of trying to stop the conference from providing assistance to the multi-employer plans as well. Our motion to recommit will fix that, which is why I will be voting for the motion to recommit and then for the underlying bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I have learned that my cosponsor on the portion of ethanol tax that is included in this bill, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), is not participating in debate this morning because he is attending, tragically, the funeral of his mother. We will all remember the gentleman from Missouri in our thoughts and prayers as he deals with this issue, even while the work of the Congress continues. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I urge passage of this bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, included in this bill is a provision drawn from H.R. 3119, the ``Renewable Fuels and Transportation Infrastructure Enhancement Act of 2003.'' This is a proposal which I introduced along with my friend and colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). I am very pleased that this provision has, through this action, been included in this legislation. The bill restructures the ethanol tax incentive from an excise tax exemption to an excise tax credit, and it eliminates hundreds of millions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse by those blending gasoline with ethanol. The provisions attributed to the ethanol tax incentive will add up to $14.2 billion in revenues to the Highway Trust Fund over the 6-year life of the transportation bill. As we wrestle with the size of the highway package, let us keep in mind this provision alone relating to ethanol is generating $14.2 billion in revenues. Mr. Chairman, the provision is important for a number of reasons, but I want to especially mention the jobs that will flow from this highway bill. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, each billion dollars spent on transportation and highway projects creates 47,500 jobs. Therefore, the ethanol proposal will create an additional 674,500 jobs, much-needed jobs, in this economy. Separately, the ethanol industry itself is a significant generator of additional jobs for our economy. The industry has built 74 ethanol plants, created nearly 150,000 new jobs, 12,000 jobs in America's beleaguered manufacturing sector. In 2004 alone, the industry will add 22,000 new jobs and more than $1.3 billion to the gross output of the American economy. The industry is going to continue to grow with this legislation. There are thirteen plants already under construction and dozens more in the final planning stage. Further, as newly-drafted, this ethanol tax incentive will have no negative impact on the Highway Trust Fund. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it will save the Federal Government more than $3.2 billion in lower farm program payments this year. The ethanol tax incentive makes a particular difference with the creation of jobs in rural America. The one new 40 million gallon ethanol plant can expand the economic base of the local economy by $110 million, creating as many as 694 permanent new jobs throughout the entire economy and generating $1.2 million in new tax revenues for State and local governments. Beyond all of that, it increases the local average basis of corn by an estimated 5 cents to 10 cents per bushel. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is suffering from a growing energy crisis, a stagnant economy where job development is scarce, particularly across rural America. That is why Congress's commitment to the increased production and use of ethanol is so important. This brings me to my next point, the one issue where the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) and I will continue to work, because this provision was left out of the bill. Other domestically-produced renewable fuels can and should have a role in our total fuel strategies as a Nation. To this end, I specifically encourage the inclusion of a new tax incentive for biodiesel, consistent with the agreement reached during the energy bill conference last year. Together, ethanol and biodiesel can enhance the country's energy independence, increase domestic fuel supplies, reduce crude oil imports, reduce the U.S. trade deficit, and improve air quality. Together, the transportation and ethanol sectors are creating jobs across America. This bill establishes that good transportation policy and good energy policy can go hand in hand. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on comments recently advanced by my colleague from Hawaii, someone who has so quickly thrown himself, tried to make some sense of them, and I appreciate very much the gentleman's conclusions. We have got a runaway debt. We have got a very serious financial situation facing this country. We are all familiar with the concept of credit card limits. Maybe we get pretty little limits. Maybe we get even generous limits. But somewhere there is a limit on how much money we can run up on our credit card. The Nation, similarly, Congress establishes the limit, the credit card limit, for the Federal Government. We do that by a vote of Congress, how much money we are allowed to borrow as a country. And we have got a limit of $7.384 trillion, $7.384 trillion. We are allowed to borrow that much as a Nation. That might give one pause. One might wonder how in the world are we going to get that debt paid off before we all leave the workforce, retire, and turn the country over to our children. Surely it would not be fair to leave our children with this debt. As bad as this credit card limit is, as troubling as it ought to be to all of us, $7.384 trillion, I have got very bad news for the Members. In the budget conference presently underway in the bowels of the Capitol, there will be an additional borrowing authority added to this country. The bill, the budget bill, to come out of conference to be voted on by the House of Representatives, will raise the credit card limit for our Nation. We do not know how much because no one is talking about this in public. No one wants the American people to realize that $7.384 trillion is not enough, that we are going to raise it even more by $1 trillion, more by $2 trillion. One projection that we have seen from the majority would take the credit card limit of this Nation over $10 trillion. One of the things I think that is lost in financial debates is these numbers get too big and one really does not know what they mean. They are just enormous. I went recently to an instruction course on how to teach mathematics. And the presenter said 1 trillion, do we know how many seconds are in 1 trillion? If we took 1 trillion seconds, we would go back in time 16,000 years. So obviously 1 trillion is a staggering number, and we are now finding that, under the budget plans of the majority party and the administration that drive this national debt ever higher, $7.384 trillion is not enough. I think the American people had better say it is enough. We do not as families, we do not as families plan our financial affairs where mom and dad run up the credit cards, happily thinking the kids will pay them off. I know of families that I represent much like the family that raised me, just an awful lot of sacrifice in the mom and dad to leave things better for the kids, not tipping it on its head where we really do not care what happens afterwards, after we are gone. If that is how we operate as families, as moms and dads worrying about making things better for our children, why should this Nation representing all the moms and dads in this country be running it a way so significantly different? Why should this Nation run up a debt like there is no tomorrow? Because there is a tomorrow, and it will be our children's tomorrow, and our children's tomorrow will be diminished by the fact that this generation is refusing to pay its way. I am going to vote against the budget that comes out of conference because I believe it is wrong, absolutely wrong, to raise the borrowing limit for this country, leaving more debt for our children, when there is no plan anywhere in terms of how we ever get out of this mess. The minority advanced a plan that brought us to a balanced budget in about 8 years. Some might think that is just not fast enough. That was a very difficult task. That is how far in the hole we now are. But the majority budget does not have any plan at all. And that is why they want to raise the debt, and that is why their budget should be rejected. We owe it to our children to get our Nation's finances back on track.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, at an event last year commemorating North Dakota's Prisoner of War and Missing in Action soldiers, I had the privilege of listening to Joanna Sherman read from her essay, ``Freedom's Obligation.'' Joanna's work was chosen as the North Dakota State winner in the Veterans of Foreign Wars Voice of Democracy Scholarship Contest. This essay is a testament to the great value of instilling patriotism and the appreciation of our Nation's freedom into our Nation's youth. I would like to include in the Record her essay, which eloquently describes the meaning of freedom and the cost of preserving it. I commend Joanna for her achievement. Freedom's Obligation (By Joanna Sherman) The ancient Athenian leader Pericles, a proponent of democracy, once said, ``Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.'' Freedom is America's greatest gift, and it is the duty of the American people to honor and cherish it. Our great gift of freedom relies heavily on three obligations: remembering the past, understanding the present, and committing to the future. How can we ensure tomorrow's freedom? We must remember that today's freedom was paid for by the sacrifices of yesterday. From the past, there are countless personal stories that remember freedom's fight. My grandparents' story is only one of them. They were married July 2, 1942. One week later my grandfather was inducted into the army at Fort Snelling. During World War II, he served in Patton's Third Army in the European Theatre and fought in ``The Battle of the Bulge.'' My grandmother has told us many stories of these difficult times. During the first months after their marriage, she was able to follow him across the country while he completed his training and was on maneuvers. Each day he would call her from the base and would tell her, ``Lucille, one day my calls will stop, and you will know that means I have been shipped out.'' One day the calls did stop. She went back to her hometown and waited. Three long years later, he returned home. They were so lucky. Her younger brother, many of his friends, and so many others, did not come back. Our freedoms were ``paid in full'' by those brave men and women who have put freedom far above themselves. However, the luxury of our freedom must not make us complacent. We too may find ourselves again face to face with hardships such as those experienced by past generations. We must remember their courage. In remembering their stories of honor, dignity and sacrifice, I can only pray that we preserve our freedom today with the same measure of success. Samuel Johnson once wrote, ``The future is purchased by the present.'' I believe that freedom is no different. We must have an understanding of the evil present today. On September 11th, our freedom and our way of life came under attack. The brave men and women of the past who sacrificed their lives to extinguish evil in the world, will have not died in vain if we continue to extinguish the evil that is present today. Like yesterday's Nazis, today's terrorists want to drive freedom into extinction. They must not, and will not win if we defend our precious freedom. We must do it for ourselves, and for the future generations of Americans. Now is the time to purchase the freedom of the future. We have a supreme obligation to commit ourselves to do our duty for our country. We must pay the price for tomorrow's freedom. Tomorrow's children must be assured by our generation that it is our duty to protect their freedom. Some of us will become soldiers like my grandfather, and some will serve in other ways, but all of us must be willing to sacrifice, and remain committed to play a part and pay the price today for freedom tomorrow. All of us can help pay for tomorrow's freedom by dedicating ourselves to what our ancestors have fought so hard for, and carrying out obligations of remembrance, understanding, and commitment. Remember by learning your history and by listening to those with stories to tell. Understand by being aware and mindful of current history, and commit to this country by being willing to sacrifice to preserve our freedom. Call it patriotism. Call it love of country. Call it loyalty. But whatever you call it, keep it in your heart, and freedom will always follow. My grandparents have been married for 60 years. They are my heroes!

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege of meeting with John Strauss, one of North Dakota's distinguished World War II veterans at the North Dakota Veterans Home. John's unit, the 164th Infantry Battalion, saw more than 600 days of fierce combat in the South Pacific. For his heroism, John was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. I would like to include in the Record an article from the Ransom County Gazette in North Dakota about John's life and military service. [From the Ranson County Gazette] NDVH Resident, John Strauss Tells of His World War II Experiences (By Janet Hansen) John Strauss, a resident of the North Dakota Veterans Home (NDVH), Lisbon, was a member of the U.S. Army's 164th Infantry Batallion which spent three years in the South Pacific during World War II. Strauss, who recently celebrated his 90th birthday, can still recall clearly the details of that time in America's history. Strauss was born on September 5, 1913. He was next to the youngest in a family of six boys and two girls. He and his younger sister, Mary Bartholomay of Sheldon, are the last two surviving siblings. He was raised on a farm near Harvey, North Dakota and attended the Whitby School, a one-room country school located just a half mile from the Strauss farmstead. He received his high school education at Harvey High School, from which he graduated in 1932. Following his graduation from high school, Strauss worked at various farm and construction jobs. He spent some time working in the Sheldon area on the Muscha and Stansbury farms. He milked cows as well as caring for a herd of Angus beef cattle. His other jobs included working for a plumbing and heating business, doing construction and cement work, and spending ten months as a maintenance man at the hospital in Harvey In January of 1941 Strauss joined the National Guard. ``I was 27 years old when I joined the guard,'' commented Strauss. ``Most of the guys signing up were only 18. We organized our own company. Up to that time, Harvey did not have a Guard unit of its own, although there were several units in surrounding towns. Since there was a need for an anti-tank company, that is what our unit became.'' Shortly after Harvey's National Guard unit was organized. its members were shipped to Camp Claiborne, Louisiana, where they underwent training for ten months. Then came the attack on Pearl Harbor, which pushed the United States into World War II and the National Guard into active duty. ``It wasn't long after the attack on Pearl Harbor that we were loaded on a troop train for San Francisco. We expected to get sent overseas immediately, but we were instead sent up north to guard installations such as roads and bridges which were thought to be vulnerable to attack by the Japanese. In March of 1942 Strauss and his fellow guardsmen were loaded onto an old luxury liner, the President Coolidge, for their long trip to Melbourne, Australia. ``The ship was nice,'' recalls Strauss. ``It still had a swimming pool and a continental lounge with a grand piano. I enjoyed sitting around listening to various soldiers playing boogie-woogie music on that piano. But the ship was very crowded! There were many other soldiers besides our battalion on board. I believe there were about 5,000 of us in all. The ship had two-room apartments with a bath between. Each had been made to house a husband and wife. The single compartments designed for one person were each crammed with about a dozen soldiers in bunk beds.'' Strauss does not complain about the accommodations. He says he was happy with two decent meals a day. He spent much of his time on the deck of the large ship. ``I loved it on the water,'' he said. ``I didn't get seasick. I liked to stand on deck and watch the waves roll by.'' After a long ocean voyage, the ship finally reached Melbourne. ``We had to unload all our gear and equipment from that ship onto three small Dutch ships which were waitin for us in the harbor.'' said Strauss. ``They were old wooden vessels with crews from the Indonesian island of Java. The crew members were dirty and used to eating tired old mutton for meat. It didn't look or smell fit to eat, and tasted as bad as it looked, but I managed to eat enough to get by.'' The old Dutch ships took the soldiers to New Caledonia, a French held island in the South Pacific east of Australia. It was believed that that island might be one of the next Japanese targets. The troops immediately set about fortifying the beach by digging in gun enplacements. The soldiers lived in tents. It was hot and humid during the day but cooled off at night. The Japanese attack which had been expected did not come. Strauss recalls hearing that some troops encountered problems with the Communist French but it didn't affect those with whom he was encamped on the shoreline.'' From New Caledonia, Strauss and his fellow soldiers were sent to Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands. ``We only found out a day in advance that we were to be sent there,'' Strauss said. ``We arrived there just after daylight. We had to unload our own ships with small boats that ferried the cargo from the large ship to shore. We had only a day in which to complete the job because the ships wanted to leave the harbor while it was still daylight. There was too much danger from Japanese air strikes to chance staying there at night.'' Strauss said that the first night at Guadalcanal was the most frightening time which he experienced during his entire tour of duty. ``We sat on the beach,'' he said. ``There was a lot of confusion with people milling around. There were air raids going on and we were pretty scared because of the lack of protection. In the evening they lined us up in formation and told us to march. I did not know where we were going. I just followed the guy in front of me. Suddenly all hell broke loose! There were Japanese ships in the bay and they were attacking Guadalcanal. The attack from air and sea lasted until morning. The area was all lit up by the explosions. We got initiated fast! We felt completely helpless.'' ``The main target of the attack was the airbase at Henderson Field. The Japanese had originally built the airstrips and the United States had taken control of the base. The Japanese wanted it back. Around 10,000 Japanese troops landed on the island. They were on the opposite end of the island from where we had landed. The Japanese would come in swarms at night but we were safer on our side of the island than we would have been if we had landed on the other side.'' Strauss explained that his battalion's first objective was to entrench their 37 millimeter guns along the beach. ``We were sent in to help the Marines at Guadalcanal,'' he said. ``We served under General Vandegrift, Commander of the 1st Marine Division. As a result of their service under the Marines at Guadalcanal, Strauss and his fellow members of the 164th infantry were each awarded the Presidential Unit Citation, which is given by the commander of the regiment. ``To my knowledge we were the only army outfit in the world to get a citation from the Marines,'' said Strauss. Strauss states that his main job was to guard the beach area. He manned a 37 millimeter gun entrenched in the sand. ``I was glad to stay there instead of going farther onto the island,'' he said. ``We stayed there for six months. There were a few small battles, but we were mostly mopping up.'' ``The Marines left in January and we followed in March,'' said Strauss. He explains that by the time they left Guadalcanal most of the men in his outfit had dysentery and/ or malaria. ``Most of us were sent to the Fiji Islands for some R & R (rest and relaxation) time,'' related Strauss. Some members of his division enjoyed their vacation, but Strauss spent five months in the hospital because of a tropical ulcer on his leg. The ulcer started as a sand fly bite and became infected by his boot rubbing on it. After two and a half months with no results in the treatment of of the ulcer, a doctor tried grafting some skin over the ulcerated area. After that it finally began to heal and he was released from the hospital. ``I was out of the hospital for one day,'' said Strauss, ``and I came down with malaria.'' I spent another two and a half months in the hospital recuperating.'' By the time Strauss got out of the hospital his company's R & R time was over and it was time to train once again. ``We were in Fiji for a total of nine months,'' said Strauss. ``From there we were shipped to Bougainville Island, where we stayed for the next year. Again, we were sent there to do some mopping up. We saw action, but it was usually small attacks. However I actually saw more action there than I had previously.'' Strauss explained that he served as sergeant of a flame thrower platoon. ``I had 26 men under me,'' he said. ``Of those 26, 13 lost their lives during our stay on Bougainville Island. Our job was to dig machine gun nests out of the big banyon tree roots where the Japanese had placed them. It was my job to lay down in a root trench and receive the flame throwers from one of my men. I would then drop the flame thrower down a hole which looked like a gopher hole to try to destroy the machine guns.'' Strauss would then have to scramble out of the hole as quickly as possible. We continued that dangerous mission for seven days but were unable to burn the machine gun nests out.'' He explains that the flame throwing itself was not the hard part of the mission. The difficult part was getting back to their line without being hit by enemy fire. He goes on to explain that on one of his flame throwing missions he received a head wound which was believed to have been from shrapnel but which he describes as ``just a nick or scratch.'' For that wound he received a Purple Heart which he proudly displays with his other medals. He also received a Bronze Star for meritorious service while under the call of duty. From Bougainville the 164th Infantry was shipped to the Philippines. Shortly after arriving there, Strauss came down with a strange skin disease. He received orders to go to the medics and, as a result, ended up in the hospital again. After a couple weeks he was shipped back to the United States, since his skin condition seemed to be getting worse instead of better. He was hospitalized at Harmon General Hospital in Longview, Texas for a few months and then was sent home for a month. An army doctor in Texas diagnosed his skin condition, which had been previously thought to be `jungle rot,' as dermatitis. Once the correct diagnosis was made and proper treatment provided, his skin cleared up. He told his doctor that he was afraid of getting it back when he went back to the Philippines, since it seemed to be the dirty conditions in which the soldiers were forced to live that caused it. The doctor replied that he did not have to be afraid of that happening because he was sending him home instead. In June of 1945 Strauss was sent to Fort Snelling where papers were filled out for his discharge. He was then sent back to his home town of Harvey. After his discharge Strauss went back to work at the plumbing and heating business where he had been formerly employed. He was sent to a private machine shop in Wahpeton for six months of training, on a lathe. He later spent some time working on a ranch in the Bowman area. He then answered an ad for a maintenance worker at the Harvey hospital and was hired. He eventually became head of maintenance there and worked there for six years. He left that position in 1969 and went to work for the Bureau of Reclamation with a crew that was working on the McClusky Dam. He worked at the commissary at the Fortuna Air Force Base at Crosby for a while and then worked in Housing and Maintainence at the same base for a couple years. Strauss retired in 1975, at 62 years of age, and moved into an apartment in Harvey. He continued to do odd jobs in the Harvey area. When his health began to fail in 1998 Strauss moved to the North Dakota Veterans Home. ``I always had it in mind that I wanted to live here some day,'' said Strauss. ``I had visited the home a few times and thought it was a nice place. I have never been sorry for a minute that I came here.'' Strauss celebrated his 90th birthday with cake and ice cream treats at the NDVH in September. His nephew, David Strauss, Valley City, planned a big party for him. Strauss's sister Mary and several nephews and nieces were on hand to help him celebrate. Outside of some arthritis and a few heart problems Strauss said he is doing fine. He explained that he got the flu last spring and was sick for several months. However, once he recuperated from that bout he has been back to his old self. ``They are so good to me here,'' he said. ``Anything you need, you get. The staff people are always smiling. I couldn't have found a better home anywhere.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I will be casting my vote against this bill today because of many serious flaws in this legislation, flaws that were included in the bill despite widespread, overwhelming opposition. Additionally, the bill tragically underfunds several key programs, such as funding for education reform and veterans. Included in this legislation is language to delay the implementation of country-of-origin labeling until 2006. Country-of-origin labeling was required by the 2002 Farm Bill and is necessary to give U.S. consumers important information and give U.S. producers credit for the considerable investment they have made in the quality and safety of their products. Included in this legislation are provisions that could make 8 million women and men lose the overtime pay that they use to feed their families, pay for medicine, and educate their children. These provisions were not approved by a majority of the House and Senate. Included in this legislation today is language to allow television networks to own as much as 39 percent of a market. Shortly after the Federal Communications Commission made its decision to allow television networks to own stations reaching as much as 45 percent of the country earlier this year, both chambers of Congress went on record for supporting lowering the limit to 35 percent. In addition, while I support the intentions of last year's education reform promise to leave no child behind, I am also convinced that the success of this new law will be determined in part by the investment made in this historic reform effort. I am deeply disappointed that this funding plan falls more than $7.8 billion short of the resources promised. I am pleased to have supported the inclusion of a number of important North Dakota projects in this legislation. However, the House could and should consider clean legislation that does not contain those provisions not supported by a majority of representatives. I hope this bill is taken up again in January without these objectionable provisions.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution condemning the terrorist attacks in Istanbul, Turkey on November 15 and 20, 2003. I wish to express my most sincere and heartfelt condolences to the Turkish government and the relatives of those killed or injured. My thoughts are with Turkey and its people in this time of sorrow. If there is one thing these cowardly acts have demonstrated, it is that terrorism knows no borders. These catastrophic attacks were not just an attack on Turkey, but an attack on humanity and civilization. As Americans who have experienced terrorism firsthand, we share in Turkey's grief. I am convinced that the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with Turkey as it defends its safety and protects its liberty by bringing to justice those responsible for these heinous acts. Together, we must stand ready to provide any assistance deemed necessary to ensure that justice is served--not solely to account for the lives taken and injuries inflicted against the Turkish people, but in defense of freedom around the world. In the end, Madam Speaker, these tragedies will be remembered as a time of incredible loss and sadness. But it will also mark a time when America and Turkey came even closer together to respond to global terrorism. We are united today as never to ensure that terrorism is defeated, completely and finally.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of the House rule XXII, I hereby notify the House of my intention tomorrow to offer the following motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 2660, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004. The form of the motion is as follows: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 2660, be instructed to agree a level of $8,410,000,000 for the Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the Social Security Administration, as proposed by the Senate.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on November 4, 2003, I missed rollcall votes no. 602 and 603 due to a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on these votes.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I will be voting for H.R. 2691, the fiscal year 2003 Interior Appropriations Conference Report, but doing so with some reluctance. This report includes a provision that keeps the Department of Interior from performing its legal responsibility to conduct a complete accounting of the individual Indian trust. I voted to strike a similar provision in the FY 2003 Interior Appropriations bill, which was stripped from the House-passed bill, and I am disappointed that it has reemerged in the conference report. I understand the Committee's concern for the Cobell v. Norton class action lawsuit, which has been stalled for years with no satisfactory end in sight. We should certainly take aggressive steps to ensure that this case moves forward. However, I do not believe that Congress should circumvent due process by attaching this rider to the Interior Appropriations bill. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this provision sends a terrible message to Indian country that the Federal Government is not committed to working in close consultation with the tribes on issues such as trust reform, or for that matter, ensuring that they have their day in court.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on October 30, 2003, I missed rollcall vote No. 582. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this vote, expressing my strong support for H. Con. Res. 291.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and in particular, applaud him for the effort and research and expertise he has developed in this area, as well as our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). Certainly, the Portman-Cardin legislation that appears unlikely to pass this session of Congress was a bill that advanced these considerations and did so in a more thorough way than the bill before us. I think it is important to have in perspective, really, what this is all about. Defined benefit pension plans are those retirement savings vehicles made available to employees at the workplace that give them a monthly annuity benefit every month in retirement. It is the retirement cash flow that they cannot outlive. That is what makes pensions so important. That is why, for many of us, we view pensions in the defined benefit context as a superior retirement benefit than the defined contribution 401(k) account where one saves up a little nest egg and hopes it lasts as long as they need it. The defined benefit pension plan guarantees cash flow for life. Agreeing then on the importance of defined benefit pension plans, it is also important to really look at how we are presently regulating them to determine whether we are doing it in an appropriate way. These are voluntary plans by the employer; and if we do not regulate them correctly, the employers will drop them. There is reason to believe something is terribly wrong with the existing regulatory system on pension plans because it is estimated by Watson Wyatt, the consulting firm, that 20 percent of defined benefit pension plans, one in five, have been frozen or canceled within the last three years alone. Now, that is a staggering problem, and I really regret that the administration has not seized on this as an outright emergency in terms of employee benefits. One out of five pension plans frozen in the last 3 years alone. So the economic record is not just jobs lost, it is also those who still have jobs but do not have pensions, and there are hundreds of thousands of them. One of the reasons causing this problem is the fact that in good times, we do not allow funding, and in bad times, we make them substantially increase the funding of these pension plans. Now, if you are an employer, what sense does that make? Times are good, you have a little cash, and you would like to plus up the pension plan to make sure you have enough in there, but you cannot under the law. On the other hand, in a recession, when you are trying to desperately turn things around, trying to grow your businesses, my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), just explained we make more money to come out of operations and be put into pension reserving. Not because the plan is about to go under, but that is just what the formula says. Well, that is a dramatically screwed-up format, and it places a government disincentive on employers to continue pension plans. We have to fix that. Unfortunately, what we have seen out of this administration, in my view, is only a focus on whether or not the reserving is enough relative to immediately liquid liabilities. Out of the Treasury Department come new formulas for increasing funding, making even more volatile the funding situation facing employers. Out of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, we have just seen a single focus. We need more funding because the plans are under water. Well, we have to keep this in perspective. The Watson Wyatt Research Group has estimated that comparing assets to liabilities, the plans are on average 4 percent under water. Four percent. That is all. And that is measured based upon today's stock market evaluations. Now, if the administration has any confidence at all in its economic plans forecasting growth, forecasting rising stock values, that 4 percent is going to disappear in an instant. That is not a problem. So it is wrong to put this inordinate pressure on employers to increase funding for their liabilities now. It really forces them to do what so many have done, and that is freeze or cancel the plans. Plans need certainty, and we only provide a little bit of certainty in the legislation before us; 2 years of continuing this interim fix. I wish it had been 5 years. I believe maybe even 7 years might have been appropriate. Two years, in my opinion, falls short of what will be required to give employers some relief. I am not at all sure, even if we pass this, that we are going to stop this trend of canceling the defined benefit plans. But certainly it is better than nothing, and I will be voting for it. It is far short of what we should have done. More work lies ahead, and I would point to two areas, in particular, that are going to need some attention. The airline industry, in particular, has been battered by terrorism and battered by a recession in the economy. They have also been battered, unfortunately, by the statutory reserving requirements on the pension plans. We should be able to address their unique circumstance. This bill does not do that. I believe they need relief, and was proud to work with my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) on bipartisan legislation to get that done. Other plans, in particular those protecting the retirement interests of older workers, those places of employment that have, on balance, an older-age mix in their place of employment are going to potentially be very heavily hit on pension reform. And without giving them some assurance, I believe we are going to see the freezing of plans accelerate in these industries. Those who most need the protection, those plans with older workers, will be most likely to have the benefits cut or frozen or discontinued all together. We really have not addressed that in this legislation. I believe this is absolutely the fault of the United States Treasury Department under this administration. We deserve more from them than we have received. I also believe that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has only looked with a green eyeshade at whether or not plans are solvent. The preceding director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, an individual from my hometown, understood that the PBGC has two missions; one was making certain that the plans were adequately funded, but the other was continuing defined benefit pension plans in the workforce. And that is why some balance is needed. That is why the existing administration needs to incorporate more balance in looking at these issues, so that we look at them over a long time frame and in a way that is compatible with continuing defined benefit pension plans, or even increasing the number in the workforce, because it is that important. I thank, again, my colleagues for their responsible bipartisan work on this issue. Obviously, we have a lot more heavy lifting to do.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, someone I respect deeply on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Louisiana. The gentleman notes that the money is fully accommodated for in the House budget. What I want to know is what the relationship of the price tag is relative to the deficit. Now, as I understand it, this $173 billion will deepen the deficit. Is that not the gentleman's understanding?

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield for one brief question, is the $87 billion for Iraq requested by the President in the budget, or will that drive the deficit figure even deeper?

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