Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I oppose H.R. 8 and strongly support the Rangel substitute. Proponents have said this about helping farmers pass the farm from one generation to the other. If that is the issue, then pass the Rangel substitute. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says 99 percent of the farms in this country have a net worth below $3 million. The Rangel substitute takes a farm couple and allows them to pass a farm worth $4 million of net worth. We take care of more than 99 percent of the farms in this country under the Rangel substitute. Similarly, small businesses, up to $4 million. Another way the substitute is better than the majority bill is that it takes effect and it takes effect next year. No 10-year wait for the relief they are talking about. Next year. Another thing about the Rangel substitute, the President will sign it. There is a veto threat on their bill. It will never become law. Let us provide the relief and make it real, not just issue press releases about another House debate. Vote the Rangel substitute for meaningful relief for family farmers. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8 and in strong support of the Rangel substitute. Unlike the underlying bill, the Rangel substitute provides immediate estate tax relief for family farmers and small businesses, does not drain resources from other urgent priorities, and, most importantly, it could be enacted into law this year. First, the Rangel substitute eliminates estate taxes for more than 99 percent of family farms not in 10 years, as under H.R. 8, but immediately. The Rangel substitute allows family farms an estate tax exclusion of $4 million, which exceeds the net worth of more than 99 percent of family farms according to USDA. For all but a handful of the largest farms in the country, the Rangel substitute provides greater estate tax relief than the underlying bill. Because it is targeted, the Rangel substitute can offer more tax relief for farms and small business without draining resources from other urgent priorities, including tax cuts for working families. By contrast, H.R. 8 would ultimately result in a revenue loss of $50 billion annually, or $500 billion over the second 10-year period. For the cost of repealing the estate tax altogether, Congress could enact tax cuts to reduce the cost of child care, open the doors to higher education, increase the affordability of long-term care, and still have $35 billion left over either to reduce the debt, provide a prescription drug benefit, strengthen our national defense or address a similarly urgent priority. Finally, the Rangel substitute is the only estate tax relief measure on the floor today that can actually be enacted this year. The administration supports estate tax relief for small business and family farms but has stated unequivocally that the President would veto H.R. 8. As estate tax bill that will never be signed is of no value to the farmers I represent. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute and to oppose H.R. 8.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member, for this legislation and the inclusive process they initiated that brought this legislation about. This is my fourth term as a Member of this Congress. In my view, the crop insurance piece of this package before us reflects the very finest dimensions of bipartisan corporation on difficult problems that I have ever experienced as a Member of this body. It really took extraordinary leadership from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and I appreciate it very much. Bottom line, this legislation brings farmers higher levels of coverage of premiums they can afford. Farmers risk an awful lot of capital every year, and they need to protect that risk with crop insurance that gets the job done. This higher coverage at affordable premiums will take a big part of that. Additionally, when farmers lose several years in a row because of weather cycles beyond their circumstance, they require the ability to continue to have adequate coverage. We fix the APH flaw in the existing program with this legislation, and it will mean much better protection going forward for farmers in that regard. Finally, as has been alluded to by previous speakers, the disaster response contained in this legislation responding to the continued low- price environment our farmers face is also extremely important. Imagine, when it costs more to grow the crop than one can get paid for at the elevator after harvest time. Nobody can stay in business very long under those circumstances. We need to build over the long haul countercyclical price protection in the farm program so that we do not have to go through this exercise of appropriating every year disaster assistance; but in the meantime this help is desperately needed, very meaningful.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, a bill to provide permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to China. By passing this legislation, Congress will create substantial new export opportunities for American farmers and businesses, advance the cause of personal freedom for the Chinese people, and promote United States strategic interests in East Asia. It is important to be clear about what the House is voting on. This is not a vote on whether China joins the World Trade Organization (WTO)--the WTO will admit China later this year. The question before us is whether to give China the same trade status that all WTO members are required to give each other--permanent normal trade relations. If we do, U.S. farmers and businesspeople will enjoy dramatically increased access to the world's most populous market. If we do not, the United States will be largely shut out of the China market while our trade competitors will capitalize on China's market opening measures. The United States routinely approves NTR on an annual basis. Even in the wake of Tiananmen Square, we did not revoke NTR because to do so would not only spark a trade war but would also risk even graver conflict between the United States and China. As a result, the annual NTR debate has never provided effective leverage to change the behavior of the Chinese Government because revoking NTR has never been a credible threat. For American agriculture, opening the China market is a clear win, which is why nearly every farm and commodity organization in the country supports this bill. The USDA has conservatively estimated that China's market opening measures will increase American agriculture exports by $2 billion annually. Under the terms of its agreement to join the WTO, Chinese tariffs on wheat will drop from 20 percent to just 1 percent; tariffs on beef will fall from 45 percent to 12 percent; poultry from 20 percent to 10 percent; and pork tariffs will decline from 20 percent to 12 percent. In addition, China has agreed to eliminate all export subsides on agriculture commodities. Opponents of PNTR have raised many valid concerns, including China's poor record on human rights, lack of religious and political freedom, threats against Taiwan, and a growing trade surplus with the United States. I share each of these concerns but disagree about the best way to address them. In my view, building commercial relationships with the Chinese people will lessen the control of the central government in Beijing; giving China a stake in the international economy will make it less likely to be aggressive toward its neighbors; and reducing China's trade barriers will help increase United States exports and reduce our trade deficit. With respect to human rights, many of the most prominent Chinese political dissidents have urged Congress to approve PNTR. Wang Dan, the leader of the Tiananmen Square demonstration, has said that PNTR ``will be beneficial for the long-term future of China.'' Martin Lee, the democratic leader of Hong Kong, Dai Qing, Bao Tong, and many other influential activists have all expressed their support for PNTR. Their shared opinion is that engagement with the United States advances the cause of personal freedom in China. In addition, no less authority that the Dalai Lama has said that Chinese participation in the international economy is good for religious freedom in China. Approving PNTR for China also serves our national security interests. Secretary of Defense William Cohen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, and many other military experts have said that bringing China into the WTO and approving this legislation will enhance our security interests in East Asia. The recently and democratically elected President of Taiwan, Chen Shui-bian, also supports the normal trade relations between the United States and China. In sum, Mr. Speaker, approving PNTR and opening the China market helps American framers, workers, and small businesspeople, supports the cause of political and religious freedom in China, and strengthens United States security interests in Asia. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased 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 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 twenty 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 40 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 ``the 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. Under my legislation, the STB would also be required to examine several additional criteria before approving a merger. The merger (1) cannot eliminate transportation alternatives; (2) must improve transportation alternatives; (3) must improve competition among rail carriers; (4) must improve service to customers. Additionally, the legislation ensures that relief can be sought under the current regulatory framework or through the antitrust laws. In light of the recent decision by the Surface Transportation Board to place a 15-month moratorium on mergers and its solicitation on how merger rules can and should be revised, we have an unprecedented opportunity to reshape railroad policy for the 21st Century. 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 both 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. 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, Northern States Power, the American Forests and Paper Association and the National Association of Chemical Distributors 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 of the actions of the railroads.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and would assert in direct refutation to my friend from Massachusetts that this has everything, everything to do about the larger issues of peace on the Korean peninsula. I am rather astounded that this amendment would be before us. We have come, since 1994, from the brink of military conflict to now the eve of a historic summit between leaders in that area. Lasting peace is a long ways away, but this summit is a historic opportunity for an advance, and here we are acting as though there has been nothing successful achieved under the nuclear framework. This framework was negotiated because of the concern that the nuclear facility at Yongbyon could produce weapons grade material, and in fact, that they were moving plans to do that very kind of processing. The agreement to move to a light-water nuclear electricity capacity for North Korea deprives them of this material which is so very dangerous in light of its potential application for weapons grade plutonium. We asked Secretary Perry, who negotiated this initial agreement, to go back and take a look at whether the framework was working. He reported to the Committee on International Relations, and I quote, ``The nuclear facilities remain frozen, a result that is critical for security on the peninsula since during the last 5 years those facilities could have produced enough plutonium to make a substantial number of nuclear weapons.'' Now, earlier this week, just days earlier, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) was part of another legislative initiative along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the Gilman-Markey amendment which would require House prior approval before the United States would enter nuclear cooperative agreements or provide key components, restricted components on the A-10 list as part of a nuclear agreement. This prior House approval resolution passed 374-6. We have established the oversight opportunity to carefully watch this. Let us not pass this resolution which reflects the worst kind of armchair quarterbacking, coming in without being a party to the discussions at all despite their successful 5-year record so far and try to pick apart and undermine their future prospects for success even while the leaders prepare for the historic summit in Korea. Reject this amendment. It is well intended but wrongheaded. Stick with the Gilman-Markey approval we earlier passed. We have all the oversight we need.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act. In addition to its other important components, this legislation includes a critical provision that would help federally impacted schools in North Dakota and across the country meet their urgent repair needs. Since 1950, through the Impact Aid program, the federal government has recognized its responsibility to assist school districts and communities that are impacted by a federal presence such as a military base or Indian reservation. Today over 1\1/2\ million children in over 1,600 school districts across the country depend on the Impact Aid program for a quality education. Until 1994, Congress provided substantial assistance to help federally impacted districts build and repair their schools. This assistance is particularly important to districts whose property tax circumstances make it almost impossible to pass school construction bonds. Since 1994, however, federal funding for the Impact Aid school construction account has fallen off and no longer meets the needs of the over two hundred qualifying schools. As a result, many of these school buildings have become run down, overcrowded, and in some cases, a danger to the health and safety of their students. I became ware of the real impact of inadequate construction funding when I visited a federally impacted school in my district, Cannonball Elementary. Cannonball Elementary is located on the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota, and serves as a perfect example of the many challenges Impact Aid schools face in trying to provide a safe and healthy learning environment with serverly limited resources. The Standing Rock Reservation currently suffers from staggering unemployment rates and overall economic depression. A quality education is critical in ensuring that the children on this reservation escape a life of poverty. As in all federally impacted schools, a quality education for children at Cannonball depends upon the willingness of the federal government to fulfill the responsibility to it acknowledged in 1950. For the past several years, however, the federal government's commitment to Impact Aid has fallen short of meeting the most basic needs of these students. As a result of inadequate construction funding, Cannonball has fallen into despair. Storage rooms have been converted to makeshift classrooms and entire portions of the building have been condemned. Students and teachers are often forced to move from classroom to classroom to dodge the stench of sewer back-up that permeates through the building. I have walked the halls of Cannonball Elementary and have found the conditions these children face on a day- to-day basis to be simply deplorable. Cannonball Elementary and federally impacted schools like it across the country find themselves in a kind of ``Catch 22'' when trying to keep up with their construction needs. Although these schools depend upon the federal government to fund their construction needs, current funding is barely sufficient to cover the daily operating expenses of Impact Aid schools, and repair needs have become increasingly desperate. Last year, a mere $10 million was allocated to section 8007, the Impact Act school construction account. Moreover, $3 million of the $10 million appropriated for section 8007 was earmarked for special projects. The remaining Impact Act schools were left with the balance-- only $7 million to address all construction and renovation needs for over 1,600 schools. The Cannonball School relies on federal Impact Air funds to meet its repair needs, and when that funding is not adequate, the school literally has no other source of funds. The ``Catch-22'' for schools like Cannonball is that when Impact Aid funding is insufficient, they are left out in the cold because they lack a property tax base and the capacity to pass school construction bonds to support urgent repairs. Several other districts in North Dakota, including Minot and Grand Forks Air Force Base school districts, also face the same problem. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the legislation we will vote on today offer great hope that the Cannonball school and others can finally address their urgent needs. Specifically, H.R. 3616 would create a new section 8007(b) within the Impact Air program to fund urgent school modernization projects. Under this legislation, an individual school district could receive a grant of up to $3 million any time during the five-year authorization period. In order to make the federal funds go farther, the bill also required districts to provide matching funds, but allows for in-kind contributions to count towards the match. This provision of H.R. 3616 is based on the Federally Impacted School Improvement Act legislation Representative Hayworth (R-AZ) and I introduced last year. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Representative Hayworth and other members of the House Impact Aid Coalition for their role in the inclusion of section 8007 (b) in this legislation. I would also like to recognize John Forkenbrock in Brady King of the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools Association (NAFIS) for their tireless advocacy on behalf of Impact Aid school districts across the country. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representative Kildee, (D-MI), the Ranking Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Our success today is due in no small part to Mr. Kildee's vocal support of the inclusion of a school modernization provision in H.R. 3616. On behalf of the students of Cannonball Elementary and thousands like them across the country, I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Kildee for his dedication to improving the educational opportunities of our children. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation, which would help federally impacted schools across the country provide a quality education in a safe, healthy, learning environment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I am voting for this bill because I believe the American public deserves unfettered and untaxed access to the Internet--perhaps the most significant technological innovation impacting our way of life in decades. I firmly believe that Internet access must remain open to everyone. We cannot place roadblocks in the path of those eager to join this new and exciting world. The Internet is not simply a source of entertainment or a virtual shopping mall. Today, people use this valuable tool to access a variety of information, ranging from which car to buy to reading weather and news reports to researching job opportunities or accessing college applications. The possibilities are limitless. The Internet has provided states such as North Dakota an unprecedented opportunity to overcome the traditional geographic disadvantages. We cannot stifle the growth of this fast moving virtual world. Unfortunately, the Commission formed to address the important issue of Internet taxation failed to develop a comprehensive plan to address this matter. The bill before us does not interfere with the ability of states to collect taxes on purchases made over the Internet. Instead it is aimed at ensuring that Internet Service providers, such as AOL, do not pass additional tax burdens onto Internet users. However, we must address the taxation of items purchased on the Internet. We cannot allow our main street shops to operate at a competitive disadvantage to Internet sales. As the Internet continues to flourish, Congress must look at these issues and take careful, appropriate action to level the playing field. Again Mr. Chairman, I believe that all Americans should have open access to the Internet, and for that reason, I rise in support of this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, today I support H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) introduced by House Resources Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member George Miller. This legislation has been referred as ``the most comprehensive conservation and recreation legislation the Congress has considered in decades and provides permanent funding for valuable conservation and recreational opportunities that will benefit the lives of all Americans.'' The legislation establishes a permanent, automatic funding mechanism that channels the revenues from off-shore oil drilling royalties to numerous federal and state land and resources conservation programs. Also, the bill establishes a new fund--the Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund or ``CARA Fund''--within the Department of Treasury to be used for various conservation, resource protection, and recreation programs. The cornerstone of funding for the legislation is derived from the royalties received from outer-continental shelf (OCS) drilling in conjunction with establishing a new fund to help coastal states mitigate the various impacts of offshore drilling and other OCS activities, which will generate revenues of $1 billion annually. Moreover, the legislation directs $900 million annually in guaranteed funding from the CARA fund to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), dedicates $350 million annually for the CARA fund to the existing Pittman-Robertson wildlife conservation and restoration program, provides $125 million annually from the CARA Fund to the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program, distributes $100 million from the CARA fund annually to the Historic Preservation Fund, provides $200 million in annual mandatory funding for a coordinated program on federal and Indian Lands Restoration, and allocates $150 million in Conservation Easements and Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery. In my home state of North Dakota, CARA has huge, positive impacts for our rural communities to the amount of nearly $15 million annually. According to the North Dakota State Park and Recreation Department, H.R. 701, provides North Dakota with the opportunities to provide for local communities to maintain and improve their conservation and recreation bases that need much needed assistance. I realize that some of my colleagues have raised concerns regarding private property provision in CARA. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to protect the private property rights of all citizens. I am pleased that CARA has provisions in it that specifically stipulate that the federal government is not authorized to take private property without just compensation and that federal agencies may not regulate any lands until they are acquired. In fact, in North Dakota, the State Park and Recreation Department requires all state agencies to comply with regulations assuring local and state support before land is acquired. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the National Governors' Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and more than 300 of my bipartisan colleagues in support of this comprehensive, historic legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this week America observes the 15th annual National Teacher Appreciation Week and celebrates the vital role that teachers play in the lives of our children. Today is also National Teacher Day, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all American educators. I would also like to recognize one teacher in particular, Marianna Malm, who teaches English at North High School in Fargo, North Dakota. Marianna was chosen to be the Teacher of the Year from my home state of North Dakota, and on behalf of the entire state, I would like to thank her for her dedication to our children. All of us, whether as children or as parents, are aware of the positive role that teachers play in our lives. Despite that fact, there is a growing disconnect between our admiration for educators and our willingness to take the steps required to recruit and retrain them. In North Dakota, the recruitment and retention of teachers has rightfully become a dominant topic of discussion, especially after news stories have reported that nearly one-third of the state's public school teachers are older than 50 and nearing retirement. From my kindergarten days in Valley City all the way through law school at the University of North Dakota, I was blessed to have been influenced by teachers who cared enough about me and their vocation to engage my interest in the vast world opened up by education. As these educators and others begin to retire in numbers we have never before experienced, we must reassess our federal, state and local policies to attract and retain quality teachers. First and foremost, we need to reevaluate our own priorities. Just as North Dakota's farmers invest in their crops, knowing that better seeds produce a better yield, we as a state must ensure our children's future by investing in high-quality teachers. This nation's greatest natural resource is our children--and those who dedicate their lives to their education should be appropriately rewarded for their commitment. Keeping four-star teachers like Marianna in North Dakota schools is a challenge, particularly in more rural regions of the state. I have cosponsored legislation, the Rural Teachers Recruitment Act, which would establish grants for rural school districts to develop teacher incentive programs. While the `Information Age' has opened up an entirely new world for rural schools, no computer or internet connection can replace a committed teacher. Every school district, no matter how big or how small, should be built on quality teachers. The changing face of North Dakota's countryside will continue to affect our classrooms. We should use this time of change to remember the importance of a top-notch education and the teachers who make it happen. We cannot continue the pattern of training our educators in top-quality North Dakota universities only to lose them to other states with higher teacher salaries. There is no profession more important to America's future, and North Dakota's future, than teaching. During National Teachers Appreciation Week, we need to take the time to say thank you to those who taught us when we were children and to those who teach our children today. This week and every week, we should express our gratitude to our quality teachers like Marianna Malm by working hard to keep them in North Dakota schools.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will take 60 minutes this evening. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for a very interesting and thoughtful presentation preceding mine. Mr. Speaker, I intend tonight to address the issue of social security. I am pleased to see that the candidates for president are each speaking to this vital issue, and I want in the next several minutes to present some background in terms of what is encompassed within the social security program, what are the strains on the program that need to be addressed in the future, and how the parties differ on the early proposals for change they are advancing, things that we need to look at very closely to make certain that we have a strong social security program going forward. Let me begin by talking about social security. First of all, the program passed in 1935. Someone suggested that of the many initiatives of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, social security remains in place as perhaps his most significant contribution to this country. I like to think of social security as a program designed to respond to the unavoidable, completely inescapable risks each of us have as Americans: dying at a time when we have dependents; becoming disabled and unable to make a living; or outliving one's assets in retirement years, each a very serious right-to-the-core financial threat to us and our families. Social security was built as a system whereby all of us as Americans insure each of us against these perils. I think it is vitally important that we remember social security is more than a retirement program. There is going to be a lot of discussion, I guarantee Members, over the next many months, a lot of discussion about whether a person is making enough return on their social security payments, the taxes withheld from our paycheck for social security; is the return on that what we might make if we just had that money and could go and invest it in the market? Most of that discussion does not acknowledge at all that in addition to the retirement benefit there is an insurance policy, essentially, that covers workers in the workplace if they die prematurely leaving dependents at home. More than one in seven Americans today will die before their 67th birthday. It is very foreseeable that they would have dependents at home depending on them, depending upon the income that no longer comes in. I know something about this particular coverage. When my father died with a sudden and unanticipated heart attack, just struck down, a complete shock to all of us, he had dependents. I was one of them, a teenager; my younger brother was another; my mother, a displaced homemaker without employment skills; all of us absolutely not just in an emotional state of shock, but without the resources to make it. The social security checks came. I have been a social security beneficiary. This vital support from social security helped us stabilize and allowed my brother and myself to get an education, to go out and get careers; allowed my mother that period of time she needed to get a job skill, get into the work force so she could make it on her own. That was what that social security survivors' benefit meant to my family, and that is a very, very common story. I would challenge anyone who really does not know about this survivors' benefit in the social security program to ask around. They will not have to ask far to find out someone who has benefited when a loved one has died leaving them with dependents, and depending upon, therefore, social security. Ninety-eight percent of the children in this country are covered under the survivors' benefit under social security, 98 percent. As we look at issues like uninsured children for health and other issues, we design programs anymore that if they get half of that, we think it would be a smashing success. We literally have all but universal coverage of our children in this country if their dad or mom die while they are still in dependent years. That is something we do not talk about. Remember that survivors' benefit. It is a vital part of the protection social security provides. Of course, we also have the disability coverage. Someone is working, becomes disabled, and can no longer make a living. What are they going to do? This is one of those core risks that social security responds to with its disability payment. This was designed in the thirties. I had a grandpa who was smashed against a barn driving a team of horses. Members can well imagine the kind of disability threats that accompanied the hard physical labor in the thirties. But believe me, it is still very much part of the work force, very much with men and women going to work today. In fact, if we just take 20-year-olds at a time in their lives where they are the strongest, healthiest, and have their career years right in front of them, it is pretty sobering to think that three out of 10 will at sometime in their lives become disabled and unable to work before retirement, three out of ten 20-year-olds today. That is the kind of risk that is associated with disability. If you are in the work force, working for a living, getting by on your own, you become disabled and unable to pull down that paycheck, that is a very important coverage of social security. There is private disability coverage available. It is expensive. It is medically underwritten. Most do not have it. In fact, three of four workers in the work force today, 75 percent of men and women going to work today, only have social security if they become disabled. But that is another thing we really do not talk about as being wrapped into social security. Next time we hear somebody at the work force talking about, well, I am just not making on that social security money what I could make in the stock market, just ask them what they think the value of having coverage for their kids is if they get killed on the way home from work in an auto accident; or if tomorrow they have a stroke and they cannot work anymore, what the values of those coverages are like. Let me tell the Members, it improves the return on that social security investment very, very significantly immediately. Of course, the hallmark, the feature that social security is best known for, is its survivors' benefit. On average, social security pays $800 a month for individuals in retirement, $800 a month. It is not enough to live comfortably on at the margin one can get by on if that is all they have, so there is a tremendous pressure to do more, with social security as the foundation for retirement income and more, retirement savings; even earnings, and we have lifted the earnings cap so people can earn whatever they can earn once they get 65 and their social security starts, because we want to help people get a comfortable income in retirement. The reality is that $800 a month, that is more than 50 percent of the income for more than two-thirds, more than 66 percent, two-thirds of Americans receiving social security retirement payments. For one-third, the millions that represent one-third of social security retirement retirees, that social security check is all they have got. More than half of the income for two-thirds, that is all they got, for one-third. Let us face it, that $800 a month average payment, it may not seem like a lot to some, but to some it is everything. That is why, when it comes to social security, we have to be very, very serious and careful because it is the retirement foundation. I do not believe it is one place where we should add risk, more risk, to Americans than we already have about our retirement savings earnings. Social security at its formation was never intended to be a retirement plan, a stand-alone, this is all you need, live happy, plan. That is not what it was supposed to be. It was supposed to be the foundation. It continues to be just the foundation. No one aspiring to living on $800 a month in retirement years is looking at a standard of living that they might more fully aspire to. We need retirement savings in addition to achieve that. Let us just talk about how that one is coming along. We know that Americans' savings rate, their household savings rate as measured by the Department of Commerce is at its lowest point since the Depression. The February statistic of .8 percent was the lowest retirement savings rate since the Depression. Between World War II and 1980, it averaged 8 percent. Now it is .8 percent. We are on a spending binge. I worry a lot about it. I think we need to try and encourage more savings in this country so people can live comfortably in retirement. If personal savings is not getting the job done, let us take a look at, are people saving in the work force, do they have their 401(k)s or whatever they have at the workplace that will help them save for retirement? Here the news is also very, very disturbing. One-half of the workers in the work force have no retirement savings plan at work, even a 401(k) where the boss does not kick in anything. They do not even have that. They have nothing, nothing at work, so no personal savings and no savings plan at work for 75 million. Fifty million Americans have no retirement savings whatsoever, another statistic that we know. We know that more than half of all Americans have never calculated whether the savings that they have is going to match their expected need in retirement years. That can be pretty sobering. Maybe they stick a couple of hundred in now and then, maybe they get $1,000 in the tax return that people manage not to spend and put that in and they figure, well, we are working away at it. For the average man reaching the age of 65 today, he has 15 more years that he has to figure out how he is going to finance. For the average woman, it is even more telling, 19 additional years. They can expect 19 additional years once they have reached the age of 65. Yet, more than half of all Americans have not calculated whether they are saving enough with their workplace retirement plan and other savings to meet those needs in retirement. There is another evolution going on. Even within those places where there are retirement plans at work, we are going to a new design of plans. We are going away from the old pension plan where, no matter how long you live, you had that guaranteed pension payment. We are going more to what is called a defined contribution model, where what you will have to sustain you in retirement is dependent upon what you have saved and how well you invested. Unlike the old days when you did not have an investment responsibility, you now do have an investment responsibility under those 401(k) plans. We know some use it well and some do not use it well. We also know that for the millions that are depending upon their 401(k) plans to sustain them in retirement years, those amounts may not be up to the test. Remember, there are literally lots and lots of years to account for once a person reaches the age of 65. Yet, a February year 2000 study by the Employment Benefits Research Institute shows that 47 percent, 47 percent of the 401(k) plans have less than $10,000 in them. The average account balance on average is $47,000. Now try to sustain a comfortable living for 19 years if your balance is somewhere between $10,000 and $47,000. It is one mean trick, let me say. That is why we keep circling back to social security. It is the foundation. It must remain. We cannot have additional risk jeopardizing even that payment because we know we have all kinds of trouble on the private retirement savings side. I think the conclusion we can draw from all of this is that Congress has to pay attention to private retirement savings. We have to make it easier for people to save individually for retirement savings. We have to help modest income households even under tight discretionary income circumstances save for retirement. We also have to do more to help employers across this country offer retirement savings plans for their work force. Sometimes Congress has been guilty of putting in place way too much rigmarole and regulation. We have actually discouraged the very retirement savings that we want to encourage. We need to address that. That has to happen on the private retirement savings side. But now we get to Social Security. Where are we standing on this one? Well, I am pleased to say that over the years I have been in Congress working on Social Security, the solvency outlook for Social Security has improved significantly. I do not claim full credit for that. It is a feature of our robust economy. It is a feature of more people in the workforce paying payroll taxes. And as a result, the solvency of this program has improved almost 10 years from only 2 or 3 years ago. The strain, of course, on Social Security is that we do not have an evenly allocated age range across the population of the United States. We have got this bulge, the much-discussed baby boomers. And while we are in the workforce today, and I am one of them, we are going to move into retirement in disproportionate numbers. The number of active workers today is three to one. And by the time all the baby boomers retire, it is going to be two workers per retiree. That is what causes the strain on this Social Security program. The earlier projections were that the surplus that has been generated will be completely exhausted by the year 2029, just when the baby boomers really are fully into retirement. Again, because of the increased participation in the workforce, low unemployment, a sustained record-setting economy in the history of this country, we have generated significant contribution to Social Security beyond what was anticipated by the actuaries even 3 years ago, and the most recent projection is that the Social Security Trust Fund will not be exhausted until the year 2037, and that is if nothing whatsoever is done with it. At the time, 2037, benefits fall 30 percent. It is not as if Social Security payments stop, but they are funded only by the payroll tax coming in. That is not enough to fully make those payments, so benefits collapse 30 percent. Therefore, we need to take action. And anyone that knows something about this is going to say: The earlier we take action, the less painful it needs to be to make the fixes to sustain Social Security for the long haul. So that is the backdrop to the presidential debate on Social Security that we will have in this upcoming election year. It is an absolutely vital program for Americans. It pays not just retirement, but survivors benefits and disability benefits. Its solvency has improved, and improved quite significantly, in recent years in light of the very healthy economy that we have had. But we have a shortfall and we have to address it. Let us take a look at the competing proposals to address Social Security. Vice President Al Gore has advanced a proposal that basically captures the strengths of our existing economy. He holds absolutely secure all of the surplus being generated by Social Security. And, again, that surplus is because we have got a three-to-one ratio, three workers per retiree. So as we generate the Social Security withholding taxes, we are generating a lot more surplus than required to pay the benefit. The Vice President would first of all hold that surplus secure for Social Security. He would use the surplus dollars to retire and eliminate completely the Federal debt owed by this country. He would save the money that the Federal Government now pays in interest on the debt, and commit it to the Social Security program. Let me go through this again. Here is the Vice President's plan: Hold Social Security surplus secure; eliminate the Federal debt; calculate the amount of money that the Federal Government has been paying in interest and, because there is no debt and that money is not owed in interest anymore, take that amount and pay it into the Social Security program to sustain it well through the middle of the 21st century. Some might say, wait a minute, we have Social Security taxes for Social Security and now we are going to take general fund revenues for Social Security? Absolutely appropriate. It is the Social Security surplus that is retiring the national debt, and this debt payment out of taxpayer dollars is staggering. To think that nearly 15 cents out of every dollar, just 15 cents of every dollar, take the first $15 in taxes out of $100, goes to pay interest on the debt. We are going to eliminate the debt. Eliminate it and then take that surplus, commit it to Social Security, take that savings, commit it into Social Security so that while preserving the full benefit structure, Social Security is with us through the life span of the baby boomers. Mr. Speaker, I was born in 1952. A Social Security solvency program that gets us through the year 2050 takes care of me, believe me, and most of my peers in the baby boomer age group. In the event there continued to be solvency issues past the middle of this century, we can address them. But I think making this strong commitment, given the sound economy of this country, to paying down the debt, capture the interest savings, invest in Social Security so it is there through the middle of the century and beyond, these are the hallmark of the Vice President's plan. I think they are solid principles for Social Security. They absolutely preserve it as the income bedrock for Americans and that is what we have to do. Against that backdrop, the Bush plan, quite frankly, has caused me a great deal of concern. Although it is very sketchy and we hear that there may or may not be greater detail provided about the Bush plan, we know that he would basically carve up the program and create for each Social Security recipient an amount they could voluntarily elect as a private account. Now, who would not like additional private account on top of our individual retirement assets? If someone would say to me, ``You want an additional 2 percent in retirement savings to play around with invest and make some return?'' Sure, what do I have to give up? And this is the critical thing. To the extent that we invest our resources in an individual account, we subtract from the guarantee to the program. Now, there are those that advocate this private account business that say: No problem. We are going to make it a heads-you-win-tails-I-lose situation. If the individual account does not perform spectacularly, giving you more money that you know would otherwise have, the Federal Government is going to pony up the difference. So we have literally a no-lose situation. That sounds great. But, Mr. Speaker, sometimes things that sound so great need a little closer inspection. I used to be an insurance commissioner. My colleagues would not believe some of the sales pitches that I have seen behind complex financial instruments. The fact is I disallowed a lot of them because they were not fundamentally honest. I do not think that promises of that nature that are not based on sound economics, I do not think those promises are fundamentally honest either. Let us talk about the totality of the Bush economic plan and see whether this could possibly work. First of all, we know that instead of tackling that debt and eliminating it, the foundation of the Bush economic plan is a massive tax cut, even larger than the House passed and the President vetoed last fall. A tax cut that would basically take all of the non-Social Security surplus and eliminate it from the Federal budget. Then he would create these individual accounts. And if we are doing our math, at this point we are thinking, let us see. The general fund revenue is gone. And then there is the individual account, and that has got to carve into the Social Security guarantee, but they say it will not. So how do we fund that part? Well, Mr. Speaker, it really has not been made clear. Some of the options, frankly, if we do not have the revenue, would have to include benefit reduction, expanding the retirement age, not actually funding that backstop, that guarantee that we cannot do worse under this program. All of those are really core questions I think that have to come into the proposals advanced by George W. Bush. I give him credit for talking about these issues. These are complicated, controversial issues and I think it is good that he has advanced them as part of his campaign for President. But then it is our responsibility to look at it and ask the questions. Quite frankly, we do not have the dollars. We do not have the dollars with the tax cut he proposes to take the general fund revenue and the additional 2 percent commitment that he makes out of the Social Security revenue. We do not have the dollars to continue that base guarantee. The bottom line is at a time when we have inadequate savings for retirement on the private side, we have individual workers in the workforce taking more and more risk for their retirement by whatever employer program they are covering, at a time when Social Security checks average $800 a month, and we know that Americans have more and more life expectancy to try and make on that kind of income, we know that the Bush plan adds uncertainty into the Social Security picture. The investment counselors would say investors should allocate risk. There is a spectrum of risk in investment strategies, from the high- tech on the risky side down to the bonds on the low end side and that way we kind of protect ourselves. We protect our investment picture. I think we need to look at retirement income similarly. Mr. Speaker, with retirement, we are going to have the high-risk stuff, and that is going to be including the private savings that we might have on a tech stock. It will include the kind of risky stuff that might be an aggressive portfolio of our 401(k). And then it has to include the bedrock, absolutely safe stuff, and that has to be the Social Security program. So this is not a place and we do not add risk on top of risk. We backstop more risk by maintaining the foundation, and that means keeping Social Security, keeping the commitment, keeping the retirement age, keeping the defined benefit guarantee that there is a payment there every month that we cannot outlive. And it is up to us not just to see this program, I think, for retirement needs of those now in retirement or those of us in the baby boom generation about to come on to retirement, but for our children and grandchildren as well. Mr. Speaker, for that reason this Social Security issue teed up in the presidential debate will be generating a great deal more discussion, and I thank you for giving me this time to advance these ideas tonight.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on May 6th through 8th of this year, high school students from across the country will compete in the national finals of the ``We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the students of Wyndmere High School of Wyndmere, North Dakota, who will represent my home state in this event. These students have worked hard to reach this stage of the competition and have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the principals underlying our constitutional democracy. We the People is the most extensive program in the country designed to teach students the history and philosophy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings held in the United States Congress. These mock hearings consist of oral presentations by the student participants before a panel of adult judges. The students testify as constitutional experts before a ``congressional committee'' of judges representing various regions of the country and appropriate professional fields. The students' testimony is followed by a question and answer period during which the judges test students on their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The knowledge these students have acquired to reach the national level of this competition is truly impressive. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize by name our talented representatives from Wyndmere High School, of Wyndmere, North Dakota: Brian Boyer, Mandy David, Julie Dotzenrod, Elisabeth Foertsch, Alissa Haberman, Lindsey Heitcamp, Daniel Hodgson, Jesse Nelson, Kari Schultz, Amy Score, John Totenhagen, and Bobbi Ann Ulvestad. I would also like to recognize and thank their teacher, David Hodgson, for his critical role in these students' success and their interest in American government. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the student team from Wyndmere High School to Washington, and wish them the very best of luck. They have made all of us in North Dakota very proud.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the University of North Dakota's Fighting Sioux hockey team for their exciting win Saturday night over Boston College to clinch the NCAA Division I National Championship for Hockey. Congratulations to UND President Charles Kupchella and UND Hockey Coach Dean Blais and, of course, to the entire Fighting Sioux team. This is the seventh time that the University of North Dakota hockey team has won the NCAA Division I hockey championship. The last time the team won the title was in 1997. This team out of Grand Forks, North Dakota exemplifies the very best features of our great state. They work hard, support each other, rally behind one another, and, through teamwork, they get the job done. These players are true champions on the ice, and, like all true champions, they share the glory. The efforts of these young men are reflected not only in their collective win, but in the honors that some of the individual earned this year. Lee Goren, otherwise known as ``Scorin' Goren,'' earned the tournament's Most Outstanding Player award and led the league in scoring while goalie Karl Goehring, had eight shut-outs during the season. Their accomplishments reflect well on the team, their coach and the spirit at UND. Just, as they are examples of the best of UND athletics, these athletes are also stellar performers in the classroom. Combined, the team has a cumulative grade point average of 3.12; stand-out goalie Karl Goehring has a 4.0 gpa. To me, one of the most exciting statistics about the team this year is that twelve members of the team were named to the WCHA All-American Academic Team. North Dakota has much to be proud of at the University of North Dakota. UND's John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences is one of, if not THE, best non-military aviation program in the world. UND's Energy and Environmental Research Center has clients all over the world and UND's School of Medicine and Health Sciences is a national leader in educating doctors for rural medicine and family practice, and has educated about 20 percent of the Native American doctors currently practicing in the United States. There is no shortage of outstanding programs at the University of North Dakota, but this week, the work of the UND hockey team justifiably takes center ice. They are true champions, and North Dakotans--especially UND alumni such as myself--are proud of their accomplishments. These men are role models both on and off of the ice. They are skilled athletically, academically and are known for their good sportsmanship. I want to commend them for their achievement today. These young men represent North Dakota well. I wish them continued success in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act. I strongly support reforming the nation's tax code to make it fairer, simpler, and less burdensome on the American people. Unfortunately, rather than advancing a constructive tax reform measure, the leadership has proposed a political gimmick--a bill to terminate the tax code without saying what sort of system should replace it. This bill is not only the height of political cynicism, but, if enacted, it could have serious negative consequences for American families, farmers, and businesses. Families and businesses rely on the tax treatment of certain expenditures in making their financial decisions. For example, employers budget for the health and pension benefits of their workers based on the tax deductibility of these expenses. With the uncertainty created by this legislation, however, employers might very well freeze health and retirement benefits until their tax treatment is determined. In fact, employers might even reduce benefits as hedge against Congress deciding not to extend the tax deductibility of employee benefits. Likewise, the value of American homes would be adversely impacted in the real estate market would wait to see whether Congress would continue the mortgage interest deduction. For farmers, the consequences would be even more severe. On the Upper Great Plains, farmers are already struggling with low market prices, adverse growing conditions, and a farm policy that includes no safety net. Even with the best financial planning and management, many farmers are finding it nearly impossible to make ends meet. Farming is, by nature, a highly risky proposition. Added uncertainty about the deductibility of interest on operating loans, equipment and land, would move farming from risky to almost foolhardy. I believe that North Dakotans want fundamental tax reform. However, they're unwilling to buy a ``pig in a poke,'' especially when it relates to taxes. They want to see what system is being proposed as a replacement before simply terminating the code and giving a blank check to Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge members to reject this legislation and to get to work on real meaningful tax reform.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the Souder Amendment. The Souder amendment would allow religious and faith-based organizations to compete for all federal housing, homeless and community development programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Madam Chairman, I strongly believe that religious organizations can play a key role in addressing housing needs throughout our communities and rural areas. However, the legislation would allow the funding to be funneled directly to the religious organizations as opposed to going through a private foundation. I believe it is more appropriate for religious organizations wanting to administer programs to assist the poor and elderly to establish private foundations and apply for federal funding. In fact, many religious organizations have established private foundations like the Catholic Charities and receive funding through various HUD programs to administer to the poor and elderly. I believe it is in the best interest of religious organizations to operate completely independently of the federal government. This independence provides religious organizations with certain protections under federal law, and helps insulate them from government intervention. Madam Chairman, I believe that the Souder amendment needlessly tampers with our nation's strong tradition of the protection of religious institutions from government interference, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3660, a bill to ban a late-term abortion procedure known as partial birth abortion. I will vote in favor of this legislation, in favor of banning the partial birth abortion procedure, as I have done in the both 104th and 105th Congress. I will, however, vote against the rule, which denies members of both parties the opportunity to offer amendments. This legislation should have been considered under a fair and open rule. Mr. Speaker, in the end, I believe that the partial birth abortion procedure is a cruel and unnecessary procedure that should be outlawed. Congress must act accordingly and pass legislation to achieve that end.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join Representative Stupak today as an original cosponsor of the Rural Broadband Enhancement Act (RBEA). This legislation will ensure rural America not be by-passed as high speed Internet access spreads across the urban areas of our nation. The Rural Broadband Enhancement Act will authorize $3 billion in low- interest loans over the next five years to finance the construction of the needed broadband infrastructure in rural communities. These loans would be repayable over 30 years at two percent interest. The program would be administered through the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service, and is considered company neutral and technology neutral, so that entities from regional Bells to rural cooperatives to cable or satellite companies would be able to serve these communities with the best suited technology. The Rural Broadband Enhancement Act is modeled on the Rural Electrification Act which helped light up America when it was enacted more than 60 years ago. We are all well aware that the Internet is now more than just a source of entertainment. Today people use the Internet to access a variety of information, from how to buy a car to the latest trends in the stock market to researching job opportunities or accessing college applications. The Internet is virtually limitless in the variety of information available, and for rural communities, broadband capability has the potential to provide an unprecedented opportunity to overcome the traditional geographic disadvantages. Access to advanced telecommunications services will be an important component to further economic development opportunities in rural America. High-speed Internet is rapidly transforming every facet of business and industry. Economic opportunities will migrate to those areas of the country that can provide the necessary infrastructure to host them. We must make a strong federal commitment to support the deployment of advanced telecommunications services. Only with adequate support will we be able to stimulate facility investment necessary to deploy advanced services throughout rural areas. We must not let the digital divide isolate our rural communities. I look forward to working with Representative Stupak and my other colleagues to help pass this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, the Administration, as part of its fiscal year 2001 budget request, submitted a supplemental request for $6.6 million to begin planning, engineering, and design as well as an environmental review of an emergency outlet for Devils Lake, North Dakota. I am deeply disappointed that the bill before us today fails to provide this critical funding. During consideration of the supplemental by the House Appropriations Committee on March 9, 2000, Congressman Visclosky offered an amendment to include $6.6 million for the Devils Lake emergency outlet. Unfortunately, the amendment failed on a straight party line vote of 24-30. To date, the federal government has spent $300 million in the Devils Lake region, including $80 million to raise roads and $21 million to relocate 505 homes. Currently, eight miles of threatened roads in the basin are in need of significant structural reinforcement so that they can serve as dikes to hold back the encroaching lake from homes and other property. The Corps' preliminary estimate is that approximately $30-50 million will be needed to address just these 8 miles of road. If the lake continues to rise as projected, federal, state and local governments can expect to spend over $500 million more on flood response in the absence of an outlet and other mitigation measures. It is clear that the amount that has been invested in the lake region, combined with the potential costs to reduce damage as this lake rises, make the case that the benefits of an outlet far outweigh the cost. However, what the numbers cannot show is the suffering and personal loss this disaster has brought upon the people of the lake region. It is often said that while the Grand Forks flood of 1997 was a heart attack, the Devils Lake flood is more of a cancer that grows year after year. An outlet is a critical part of the overall strategy to respond to the continuous flooding that has plagued this region for far too long. Further, it is an approach supported by North Dakota's congressional delegation, Governor Ed Schafer and the state elected leadership of North Dakota. Without an outlet, Devils Lake will overflow naturally causing a devastating impact to communities downstream. Action must be taken now to provide relief to this region, and the outlet is the best means to address this crisis. Even though the bill fails to provide funding for this project, the bill does meet our commitment to peace operations in Kosovo and provides critical funding to address the current backlog at the Federal Highway Administration for highway repair funds. For these reasons, I will be supporting the measure. I am hopeful that funding for the Devils Lake outlet will be included in the Senate and I look forward to working with my colleagues to insure this funding will be provided in the final version of this supplemental appropriations bill. We simply cannot wait any longer.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the alternative budget resolution offered by the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, and in opposition to H. Con. Res. 290. The Spratt alternative, in contrast to the majority plan, extends the solvency of Social Security and Medicare; pays down more publicly held debt; provides targeted tax relief for working families; and makes a real commitment to providing prescription drug coverage for senior citizens. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt alternative and to oppose H. Con. Res. 290. The Spratt alternative saves 100 percent of the surplus generated by Social Security for Social Security. The majority plan, if you assume that the so-called reserve funds for additional tax cuts and Medicare are spent, actually drains more than $60 billion of the Social Security surplus over the next ten years. Even if you assume that the reserve funds are not spent and that Social Security surplus is not tapped, the Republican budget still fails to extend the life of either Social Security or Medicare by even one day. In contrast, the Spratt alternative extends Social Security by 15 years by crediting the trust fund with the interest savings generated by the Social Security surplus. With regard to Medicare, the Republican resolution adds nothing to the solvency of the program while the Spratt alternative adds ten years by reserving $300 billion of the on-budget surplus for Medicare. The Spratt alternative makes debt reduction the top fiscal priority rather than exploding tax cuts. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve and countless other economists have advised Congress that paying down the debt is the best thing we can do to maintain our strong economy. Eliminating the debt and lowering interest rates is also the best thing Congress can do for working families. Lower interest rates cut mortgage payments by $2,000 for families with a $100,000 mortgage. The cost of care loans and student loans would also be reduced. Paying down the debt is effectively a large tax cut that also lifts a financial burden from our children and grandchildren. In addition paying down the debt and extending the life of Social Security and Medicare, the Spratt alternative provides targeted tax relief for working families. The Spratt budget allocates more than $210 billion for tax cuts that would allow Congress to enact marriage penalty relief, estate tax relief for family farmers and small business people, full deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed, and tax credits for higher education. By targeting resources to families trying to make ends meet, the Spratt alternative is able to deliver significant tax relief while protecting other key priorities. When it comes to prescription drugs, the Spratt alternative makes a hard commitment of $40 billion over the next five years to provide Medicare prescription drug coverage for all senior citizens. The Spratt alternative will not only allow prescription drug coverage for all senior citizens, it will protect low-income seniors from any cost- sharing requirements. The majority plan, on the other hand, does not actually dedicate resources for a new prescription drug benefit. Rather, the resolution creates a $40 billion reserve fund that depends on improved future budget projections. Finally, the agriculture function in the Spratt alternative is superior to the majority plan. The Spratt budget provides $6 billion in farmer income assistance for fiscal year 2000 and $7.2 billion to reflect the House-passed crop insurance. Unlike the GOP resolution, which freezes discretionary agriculture spending for the next five years, the Spratt budget provides a responsible increase so that critical agriculture research, trade development and marketing programs may continue. The Spratt budget also ensures that USDA will have sufficient administrative resources to deliver key farm programs such as crop insurance as well as income and disaster assistance. In summary, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt alternative and oppose H. Con. Res. 290.

Mr. POMEROY

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing us to express our thoughts on this important matter. I would begin my thoughts by joining the Speaker's expression of regret about the resignation of Dr. Ford, who has served this institution so well and been a dear friend and an important chaplain to each of us. I thought that at some point, I might, as cochair of the chaplain selection process, have the opportunity to address the body as to the version, our version in the minority, of the events that have transpired throughout this chaplain selection process. I did not anticipate it coming today, in the middle of the budget vote; and I did not anticipate following the Speaker of the House, a person for whom I have considerable regard relative to his obviously heartfelt remarks just delivered. My remarks are not prepared. I ask you to bear with me. I want to convey a deep sense of sorrow and regret that a process that began so honorably by the Speaker has ended in this fashion. Clearly, Speaker Hastert wanted to capture the bipartisan efforts of other Speakers as the chaplain was selected but improve upon it. So when Speaker O'Neill asked the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations to go and agree on a chaplain that he might then appoint, that was bipartisanship. It could have been improved upon and Speaker Hastert set upon a process that did improve upon it. It had even broader involvement, eight minority, eight majority. We were even given a cochair opportunity. We were very, very pleased and heartened by this gesture by the Speaker, because we believe that the chaplain is the chaplain of the House, not the Speaker's chaplain, not the majority chaplain, but the chaplain for all of us. We advanced with the work, and it was considerable. Thirty-eight resumes to pore through. We culled it down in a process that had more comity and agreement across the party aisle to 17 interviews. Going through the hours of interviews, we developed friendships across party aisles, members of the committee. I so enjoyed working with my cochair, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and each of the members, majority and minority alike. We then got it down to six semifinalists working toward the list of three. And while the Speaker is absolutely correct, his letter to us says send up to three names, the discussion throughout was to send three names. And we did not seriously consider sending less than three names. As the final balloting occurred, even though this had been a process utterly without partisanship, there were, and it is not surprising, party distinctions in the relative support behind the candidates. The candidate that finished fourth had only Democrat support. The candidate that finished third, Dr. Wright, had Republican support, with 1\1/2\ Democrat votes and a token showing across the party aisle. Two candidates, Dr. Dvorak and Father O'Brien, had significant bipartisan support, with Father O'Brien having the first showing in terms of vote totals. We did not rank these candidates. We decided not to rank them. Ranking involves making a judgment, who is the best one, who is the second best one. We thought all three were qualified individuals, but what was important was the bipartisan consensus behind them. Again, this is the chaplain of the House. It was a bipartisan process; and, therefore, the degree of consensus behind the final three is very important to us in the selection process, because this determines really the candidates that were able to capture support across the party aisle. In this respect, in my presentation to the Speaker, the Minority Leader, as they began their work of the final committee of three, I indicated that Father O'Brien had had the most support; that Dr. Dvorak had the second level of support; that Dr. Wright had the third level of support. I believed that the discussions that followed also captured this sense of consensus behind O'Brien, consensus behind Dvorak, not consensus behind Wright. So there were two meetings, as the Speaker just indicated, largely because they did not come to closure the first time. And the second time, in a divided vote, we in the minority know how divided votes go, you lose them. And the selection was made, Dr. Wright; not a consensus selection. Here is where I really hope you can understand where our hard feelings on this matter arise. We are asked to participate. We willingly participated. We cared a great deal about the chaplaincy, and we felt as though our view was ignored when the final decision was made. Majority only, once again. We felt that. We believed that. You may disagree with that interpretation, but that is what we believed. Others had another feeling as well, and that is that in the passing over of the top candidate, a Roman Catholic priest, there had to be some other motives that were at issue that were untoward. Frankly, I did not have that view. I felt that the problem was ignoring the bipartisan consensus for the candidate, that it did not have bipartisan consensus. We did not ask Dr. Wright to our caucus because Dr. Wright was not the issue for us. The process was the issue. The process was the problem. In reacting to how the Speaker has resolved this matter, we look forward to getting to know Father Coughlin, if I have the name right. He is an individual we have not met. I think we can do better than this going forward. I would ask each of us to seriously consider a resolution that will be offered this week by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) that would call for the selection of the chaplain to be much in the same way as the selection of Inspector General. At the end of the process, two votes, two for the majority, two for the minority. This is the chaplain of the House. This individual will be our minister. This individual will be our counselor. This individual will be our friend, not just the Speaker, not just the majority, but all of us. And so next time, we will never let this happen again, next time. I would ask that we pass this resolution, changing the rules by which we deal with the chaplain and so that both sides have equal say. Perhaps my deepest regret from this is, I felt a lot of good could come from the institution of the chaplain. I still have that hope for the institution and would only echo the Speaker's comments relative to the chaplain and what the chaplain might mean to this institution. I look forward to working collectively under the newly announced chaplain and with the chaplains to come in the future, should I still be a Member of this body. I do think it might be one institution that can play an important role in restoring a greater degree of civility and trust between us.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I join the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Council of State Governments, and the National Association of Towns and Townships, and the National Conference of State Legislatures in opposing H.R. 2372. This legislation severely undercuts local decision making authority regarding land use matters and would burden small towns and cities across America with the huge burdens of higher legal fees to protect themselves from lawsuits in federal court. H.R. 2372 supersedes local authority by removing to federal court local disputes concerning land use regulation. Under our federal system of government, land use matters have historically been the responsibility of State and local governments. Local communities, through locally-elected officials, work diligently to develop land use plans to best serve the needs of their citizens. As a Representative of one of the most rural districts in the House-- the entire state of North Dakota--I am also concerned about the financial impact of smaller cities and towns financially. Diane Shea, Associate Legislative Director of the National Association of Counties, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, discussed how the impact of this legislation would be especially severe on smaller cities and towns in the United States. Ms. Shea testified that 97 percent of the cities and towns in America have population under 10,000, and 52 percent have population less than 1,000. Similarly, out of 3,066 counties, 24 percent have population less than 10,000. She stated, ``Virtually without exception, counties, cities, and towns with populations under 10,000 have no full time legal staff. These small communities are forced to hire outside legal counsel each time they are sued, imposing large and unexpected burdens on small governmental budgets.'' Proponents of H.R. 2372 believe this legislation is only ``procedural'' and will better allow landowners to deal with State and local governments when citizens' private property are subject to a regulatory taking. In my opinion, there are better ways to protect citizens private property rather than undermining the principal of local control over land use matters and placing massive legal costs on over-burdened local governments. I urge my colleagues to follow the advice of Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals who wrote in a 1994 opinion, ``Federal courts are not boards of zoning appeals'' and oppose H.R. 2372.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, virtually every day we hear reports of our booming economy and the unprecedented economic expansion. Unemployment and inflation rates are at historic lows. Today we will debate the merits of a one-dollar pay raise for the American worker--a pay raise the American people overwhelmingly support, need and deserve. The 1990s brought our nation's CEOs a 481% rise in pay while the average American worker saw an increase of only 28%. If the minimum wage earner's pay had increased at the same level as the CEOs, they would be now earning nearly $46,000 a year. In order to have the same purchasing power of the 1968 minimum wage, the current minimum wage would have to be raised to $7.49 per hour. Further, the one-dollar wage increase we are debating would only restore the real value of the minimum wage to 1982 levels. As it stands, a working parent with two children will earn $10,700 a year at the current minimum wage--$3,200 below the poverty line. When we debated the last minimum wage increase in 1996, many of my colleagues voiced fears that it would reduce the number of jobs in the workplace, particularly for those harder-to-place employees or welfare recipients moving back into the workforce. It is clear that in the four years since Congress passed the last wage hike, the opposite occurred: nearly 10 million new jobs were created, the unemployment rate dropped and employers are actually having trouble finding enough workers to fill job openings. Mr. Speaker, this increase is about raising the standard of living for more than 10 million hard-working Americans. It is time that we stop delaying and pass this increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the two preceding speakers for recognizing Mr. Brick. All too often I think those that serve us so well do not get the particular commendation that they are so richly deserving of; and I am very pleased that this individual, in the capstone of his distinguished career, received the kind of recognition just provided. Mr. Speaker, this is kick-off day, kick-off of the Rural Caucus. I particularly want to commend the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson); the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton); and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), my cochairs in the Rural Caucus, in announcing the rebirth of this important endeavor. As a representative of one of the most rural districts in the House, the entire State of North Dakota, I am very pleased with this initiative and proud to be a part of it. In the last 7 years, our Nation's economy has been growing by leaps and bounds. Unemployment rates are at all-time lows, consumer confidence is at an all-time high, the rising stock market is creating unprecedented levels of wealth. But for this sky-rocketing economy for so many Americans, the situation in rural America, our smallest towns and villages across the country, has been quite different. The boom of Wall Street is not meeting necessarily the needs of rural Main Streets. I think rural America is at a serious crossroads tonight. As I travel throughout my home State, I literally see many fine, long-standing communities shrinking and disappearing. In an ever-more urban House, we have to understand the distinct and enormous challenges facing rural America. In the House today, there are only 57 Members out of the 435 who represent predominantly rural areas compared to 130 years ago. We know that after the next decennial census now being conducted, the rural representation in this Chamber will shrink even further. According to census information, however, 1 out of 4 Americans, 62 million, live in rural areas. Due to the lack of representation, I believe, of rural America in the House, many rural Americans suffer from funding formulas or programs that do not represent their unique needs. Mr. Speaker, we have had 110 Members, Republican and Democrat both, join in the rebirth and relaunch of the Congressional Rural Caucus. I think that this initial success is due in large part to the stress that the rural areas in each of our districts is experiencing. In North Dakota the agriculture sector is facing a flat-out depression. Farmers are receiving $2.50 a bushel for wheat, nearly 30 percent below the cost of production. In North Dakota the farm auctions replace the church picnic as a social gathering in many communities. I am hopeful that the Congressional Rural Caucus with Members from all over the United States will be able to advocate Federal policies that address our most pressing needs in rural America. In addition to production agriculture, however, there are many interrelated facets of our rural communities that need attention and will be emphasized by the Rural Caucus, issues like education, health care, technology and economic development. They are all essential parts of our small towns in rural America. Without the access to quality education, rural residents fall behind the learning curve. Without access to quality health care, they stand exposed to unexpected health concerns. Without access to technology, rural residents will be left out of the technological revolution. Without investments in rural development, our communities and our residents will not find places of employment, new economic opportunities for them, to continue living in these parts of the world. Education, for one, is a vital component to the prosperity of rural America. We take great pride in the quality of our schools and the student achievement; but in keeping the quality of rural schools, we know that there is going to be an ongoing commitment of resources and partnership between local, State, and increasingly Federal participation. This critical investment in our children is one of the most cost-effective ways to ensure opportunity and prosperity. Unfortunately, most Federal funds are channeled to larger urban school districts. Small and rural school districts, we feel, have not gotten their fair due, and this will be a target area of the caucus. Another pressing issue is rural health care. We hear about millions who lack health care coverage, and yet we see in rural areas the actual care delivery system being strained, people having to drive further and further distances to receive access to even emergency primary health care services. On technology, we see people use the Internet to access a variety of information; and yet we see that the prospect of the digital divide, separating the kind of Internet access that provides so many new opportunities for us across the country, may provide a distinct have and have-not, with rural America being left behind as the latest technology comes on board. For all of these reasons, I am very proud to join with my colleagues in the Rural Caucus. I commend the bipartisan effort, and I know that we will stand together as we face these challenges.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to begin by commending the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who is truly a leader in retirement savings initiatives. How I wish that the provisions in this bill that reflect his very good work were before us in a fair and thoroughly considered way. I think we could have a 100 percent vote out of this House as we advance the opportunities for Americans to save for retirement. But unfortunately, that is anything but the bill that is in front of us. They will talk about this good thing, and they will talk about that good thing and let us recognize them for what they are, window dressing on a bill, the heart of which is an estate tax cut giving direct tax benefit to the wealthiest people in the country. It is a fine thing to do, but is that our first priority for tax relief? Some will say our farmers need this, and I want to contrast in the balance of my remarks their plan versus our plan as it regards farmers. An analysis of their proposal shows that farms under $13 million, farms and small businesses with assets under $13 million fare better under the Democrat substitute. The Democrat substitute effectively takes up to $4 million for estate tax relief. Checking with the census on data in North Dakota, the State I represent, 99.7 percent of the farms fare better under the Democrat plan because they are under that $13 million figure. That lets us know the amount in their plan that goes toward the wealthiest, the very wealthiest people in this country. Only this majority could take what was initially designed to be minimum wage legislation and lard it up with a huge windfall for the wealthiest people in this country. I particularly resent saying that theirs is the one that helps the family farmer. If Members want to help the family farmer, vote for the Democrat substitute that effectively takes estate tax relief to $4 million, not their plan.