Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Clearly, the initial disaster package added to the agriculture appropriations bill does not begin to compensate the economic loss that North Carolina has sustained. I just know from again my own flood experience in North Dakota, everything that filthy water touches it destroys. And so, once that water recedes it leaves your families' belongings, some of their most treasured things, in a distorted, grotesque, and disgusting condition requiring removal. And then you build back starting from scratch. We are going to have to have a bigger Federal response helping your people off the floor, just as the Federal Government helped Grand Forks, North Dakota off the floor; and I stand to help my colleague.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to for the next hour be coordinating a special order on the very important topic of Social Security. In the course of the next hour I am going to be talking about the very critical importance of this program. We are also going to put in perspective something about the present debate waging in this Chamber even as Congress works to conclude this session, and clearly we are in the final weeks of this session. I also want then to highlight the emerging opportunity that we have in this Congress still this year to take the steps necessary to do something to strengthen Social Security, to prolong the solvency of the program, to push the life of the trust fund out from its present expectation, and these will be the areas that we will be discussing. I am very pleased that joining me during this hour to discuss this matter will be a number of Members, and we will be pleased to incorporate them into the discussion. I will begin just by talking about the Social Security program. It is our foremost family protection program. It is truly, when you talk Social Security, a program of all of us for each of us, and it has been that way for 6 decades. I do not think there is much question about what has made Social Security America's most successful Federal program. It comes down to the fact that it helps families in very real ways with risks that they otherwise cannot avoid. We all have risks of life. We may die too soon. We may become ill and unable to work. We may outlive our assets. Maybe we live too long and outlive our assets. All of these are risks, all of us have them, and yet Social Security steps in and helps mitigate those risks by helping us in very fundamental ways. Let me just outline three of the coverages of the Social Security program. The first, retirement income. There are millions in this country that every month receive a Social Security check that are in retirement years. This retirement check will continue as long as they live. It will be inflation adjusted to keep pace with rising costs. This program is the primary source of income for more than two-thirds of those on Social Security. It is 90 to 100 percent of the income for one-third on Social Security. Let me make that clear again. Social Security is most of the income for two-thirds of Social Security's retirement recipients. It is all of the income for one-third of the recipients. You do not have to figure too hard given statistics like that to conclude how vitally important this program is to seniors on retirement depending upon this income. But that is not what is the best known of the Social Security coverages. It is certainly not the only coverage because Social Security also provides a survivors benefit. Now what is that? That is coverage that applies when the bread winner dies prematurely leaving dependents at home. Ninety-eight percent, 98 percent of the children in this country are covered under that survivor's protection. If their dad dies, they are going to have some support while the family tries to recover from that devastating tragedy. There, I do not think, is another program that has ever been passed that provides such comprehensive coverage to the children of this country, 98 percent. The third is disability benefits because if you become disabled and are unable to make an income, what are you going to do? There are an awful lot of people in that category that simply have no other means for support. In fact, the disability benefit provided from Social Security is the only disability protection for three out of four in the workplace today. You think about it. All the millions of people in the workplace today, driving to work this morning, absolutely depending on their paycheck at the end of the day or the end of the month or the end of the pay period to make it. Suddenly they become disabled, unable to work. What happens then? Well, thanks to Social Security, they can make it because there is a Social Security check under that disability component of the program. Now sometimes, as my colleagues know, we get up here and we talk about programs, and it sounds like just so much politics and government nonsense. Social Security has had a very personal impact in the lives of millions of Americans, and I know well, because it has had a very personal impact in my life. My dad died when I was a teenager. I received a Social Security check. I have been a Social Security beneficiary. I, quite frankly, have no idea what my family would have done without the protection of Social Security, as we tried to regroup after the unanticipated death of my father at a relatively young age. My mother now has another experience with Social Security. She is now, some 25 or more years later, 79 years old. She is living independently, thanks to that Social Security check that arrives every month. My grandmother really did not have that opportunity. In the late fifties and early sixties, my grandmother's final years, she had to live with my family because she did not have the financial independence that my mother now has because of the Social Security check. Again, it could not be more personal to me, this program, which allows my mother the independence that she wants and deserves, thanks again to Social Security. Well, Social Security is running a surplus now, but we know that that changes in the years ahead. Right now, the demographic bulge known as the baby-boomers are in prime career years, and they are generating the surpluses into the Social Security account. Those surpluses end in the year 2011, and at that time the claims payments equal the cash inflow from the FICA tax. Over the next 10 years we actually have to draw down the interest on the trust fund that has accrued in the Social Security trust fund to make the cash flow obligations of the Social Security system. But it does not stop there, because in the year 2024 the interest part has been exhausted and you are dipping into principal, and, for the next 10 years, that principal is drawn down. So the Social Security checks are paid by the FICA taxes coming in and the liquidation of the Social Security trust fund until the Social Security trust fund is broke in the year 2034. At that time, the only thing available to pay the benefits will be the cash flow coming in from the taxes, and that will only pay 75 percent of what the Social Security recipients would otherwise be expecting to receive. Benefits will fall by one-quarter in the year 2034 if we do not take steps now to strengthen the trust fund, to prolong the life of the system, and that is why taking steps now to address the long-term are so critically important. Take note of these changing demographics: In 1960, 5 workers per retiree; in 1998, 3.4 workers per retiree, so today, 3.4 workers per retiree; the year 2035, when the baby-boomers are fully into retirement and advancing in age, 2 workers per retiree, just 2 workers per retiree. So if we do not bank this money now and keep it and take steps to strengthen the trust fund going forward, we are going to have the prospect of collapsed benefits and a tax obligation on our children and grandchildren that is impossible for them to bear. That is why we have to act. Basically there are three ways to strengthen the solvency of Social Security. It is very, very simple. You can cut benefits, reduce that benefit, kick out the COLA, the cost of living adjustment. I do not think you ought to do that. The average Social Security check in this country is $700 a month. Remember, one-third of the people are living on that. For two-thirds of the recipients, that is most of their income. So we better not cut that monthly benefit. Far from it, we must stand resolved to hold that benefit and the cost of living adjustment on it. Another way to cut benefits is to raise the retirement age. But, you know, the retirement age is already set to go up to 67. I do not think we ought to have 70-year-olds in the workforce because they cannot draw a Social Security check. I am against raising the retirement age. We have had people work for decades, counting on Social Security to be there when they retire, and to raise that retirement age, I believe, is just fundamentally wrong. So if you are not going to cut those benefits, what else can you do to prop up Social Security solvency? Well, you can raise taxes. But I do not think you should do that either. The FICA tax presently is 12.4 percent. We are at a point in this country where more people pay more in FICA taxes than they pay in income taxes. For those of us that have an employer, we pay the employee's share and the employer pays the employer's share, but I represent a lot of farms and self-employed people. They pay the whole 12.4 percent, and it is breaking their back to do it. So that tax is as high as it can go. I would like to see tax relief on that one. So what else are you going to do? You cannot raise the taxes. The only other way to strengthen the solvency of the Social Security trust fund is to invest general fund revenues so that this Social Security program, the crown jewel of the Federal Government, stays able to meet its commitments over the long haul. Fortunately, there is a plan that has been advanced that would afford us doing that, and I will describe it in a minute. Before I do, I want to describe instead the position taken by the House majority this session on Social Security, because right now we are in the middle of a pitched battle where the House majority has launched frankly the most audacious attack against Democrats that I have ever seen launched on this issue. They have accused us of raiding Social Security to pay for programs, to finance government programs, and they say they are trying to stop it and they are going to save Social Security. These charges are unfounded, they are hypocritical, and they are untrue. Let us look at the record. First of all, this is a GOP-controlled Chamber. They have the majority. We are operating under their budget. Their majority passes the appropriations bills. So for them to suggest that the Democrats, operating from the minority position, are raiding Social Security, is flat-out baseless and untrue. In short, it is a damnable lie. You do not have to take my word for it, because it has been very heavily covered in the media across this country. Take a look at this Wall Street Journal coverage. ``Social Security surplus triggers concern. CBO study shows Congress intends to spend billions on unrelated programs.'' Wall Street Journal coverage of the GOP budget and appropriations bills. Here is what the Congressional Budget Office shows has already been spent out of the Social Security surplus, looking at the appropriations bills passed and marked up by this Republican majority. Already into it to the tune of $14 billion. And yet this same crowd that is spending the surplus are running the ads in my district and other districts across the country saying that the Democrats are doing it. It is really a new level of political hypocrisy: Do something, and then charge your opponents with doing that very same thing. Washington Post story: ``GOP spending bills tap Social Security surplus. CBO notes planned use of $18 billion.'' Again, the source document for all of this is the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan number crunchers in the bowels of the Capitol here that relay the factual information on the budget. ``CBO notes planned use of $18 billion of Social Security revenue.'' Here is in fact a copy of the letter from Dan Crippen, head of the Congressional Budget Office, that outlines where that spending has occurred. So for a start you have to fault them on the pure baseless hypocrisy of their attack that the Democrats have raided Social Security. The spending that has occurred in this Chamber has been under the GOP budget by GOP-passed appropriations bills. Make no mistake about that. Even more importantly than that, however, is that this focus on trust fund spending as we try to get the last appropriations bills worked out distract from the true measure of who has done something for Social Security. The true measure of who has done something for Social Security depends upon who has advanced the life of the trust fund. That trust fund, slated to go bust in 2034, that trust fund that, if not replenished, will cause benefits to fall 25 percent just when baby- boomers are most dependent on Social Security. We are now at the end of a full legislative year. The President advanced a plan for Social Security in January, and what have we seen come to the floor? Nothing. Not one thing, not one vote, not one debate on the floor of this House on how to strengthen the Social Security trust fund. They are not even talking about it. Why are they not talking about it? I think they are not talking about it, frankly, because the tax bill that passed this very Chamber last summer, and, fortunately, was vetoed by the President in September, would have taken all of the general fund revenues that we need to fix Social Security for the long haul and sent it out the door in a tax cut benefiting disproportionately the wealthiest people in this country. That is the hard fact. Their tax bill, passed by this majority, vetoed by the President, would have taken the general revenue we need to strengthen Social Security and it would have shipped it out the door, forcing us to one of the following alternatives: Benefit cuts, tax increases, or a busted trust fund in the year 2034. We have quite a different plan. The plan of the Democrats is to take the Social Security surplus and preserve it for Social Security. Put them in and invest those proceeds in a way that draws down the national debt. This national debt drawdown will produce tremendous savings for this country. Debt held by the public in 1997 was $3.77 trillion, 47 percent of the gross domestic product. Today it stands at $3.4 trillion. By drawing down the surplus in this fashion, we can reduce this debt to a point that by the year 2011 we are saving in interest charges paid alone $107 billion every year. Do you know that 15 percent of every tax dollar today goes to pay interest on this debt? Fifteen percent. If you just think about it for a second, if you bring that debt down, think of the money you save, that you no longer have to pay in those interest charges. The Democrats' plan is pay down the debt, take the interest money saved and invest that back in Social Security. That is where you get the general fund revenue available to invest in Social Security to strengthen the trust fund, to prolong the life of the trust fund, to strengthen Social Security, so that it is there past the year 2034 when we need it most. That is the President's plan. That is the plan that is being introduced into this Chamber, and we strongly support, because it really gets to the core issue, who is doing something to strengthen Social Security for the long haul? And on that one, this majority has fallen woefully short. I used to be an insurance commissioner. I would regulate agents. Sometimes I would see sales practices that were really shocking. The more they talked, the louder they talked, the more fancy materials they had, often masked the fact they were doing the opposite of what they were saying, and time after time I would revoke their license and put them out of business for lying to their customers. You know, sometimes I wish we had kind of similar restraints on the action of both political parties here. If that was the case, these guys would be out of business, because they are flat out lying to their customers, the taxpayers of the United States, about their intentions for Social Security. I am very pleased that we have had a couple of other Members join me in this Chamber. I would like to incorporate them into the discussion right now, beginning by yielding to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentlewoman very much for her comments. There have been, in the course of our discussion, some comments made as to a series of ads, and among the places they are being run is in the State of North Dakota. I would just read for my colleagues the text of this ad, to put in context what we are dealing with as we try to make difficult decisions at the end of a legislative session. The majority party has unfortunately decided to launch, as a political strategy, apparently some sleight-of-hand way to disguise what they are doing on Social Security. This is the text of the ad that has already run in North Dakota. It begins with a fadeup of shots of threatening criminals looking at the camera. Cut to the criminals. He looks to the camera and smiles, and here is the text: Imagine a world where there's no punishment for committing a crime, where thieves can steal from unsuspecting victims. It is hard to imagine, yet it is about to happen in Washington. The Democrat and the President's budget could raid Social Security and spend our retirement money on big government programs. Protect your family's future. Insist every penny of the Social Security trust fund go to the people who paid into it. ``Call Congressman Pomeroy. Tell him keep his hands off Social Security.'' This ad, run to the people that I have lived with all my life, actually implies that somehow I am engaged in criminal activity involving a raid of the Social Security Trust Fund. It is run by the same majority that the Washington Post has analyzed has already spent Social Security surplus, ``CBO notes planned use of $18 billion.'' That is the crew that paid for that television ad. So they have done what they are actually buying advertising to accuse others of doing. This is a House operating under the GOP budget. It is a GOP majority. Those are GOP appropriations bills. It is their control of this chamber that would result in spending that Social Security-derived revenue. But the question, the broader and most important question, is has anyone in the majority offered on this floor a plan to strengthen the trust fund? And on that one, regrettably, we must conclude, no, there has not been a plan to strengthen the trust fund. Any plan that does not call for an additional infusion of resources to strengthen Social Security for the long haul is going to rely instead on benefit cuts, higher retirement age, or higher FICA taxes. There is just no other way around it. So when the Republican tax plan took all the available general fund revenue and kicked it out the door, going primarily to the wealthiest people in this country, it was a plan that would have savaged Social Security and required steep benefit cuts after the year 2034 because there would have been no way to make the fund solvent for the long term. That is their record. Not only have they done that which they accuse us of doing, they have passed a tax bill, fortunately vetoed, never to become law, that would have taken the means to strengthen Social Security and taken away from us instead forcing us to rely on benefit cuts. We are now in the final minutes of this presentation, and I have a request that has come in from the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) who has experienced a situation I am very familiar with, disastrous flooding for her neighborhoods. And so, for the concluding 5 minutes of this special order, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) to bring us up to date as to the heartache and the tragedy her folks are experiencing. I would just say to my colleague in yielding, representing the City of Grand Forks, the city that was inundated in 1997 and is clawing its way back now thanks to the strong support of Federal disaster aid, we would not have made it without disaster aid programs. I will listen closely to the description of the problems of my colleague. And if we can help, we need to help with a similar Federal response so that her brave constituents can similarly make the tough road back. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). Federal Disaster Aid

Mr. POMEROY. I certainly will. Then I would very much invite the gentleman's presentation on this vital topic, because I want to hear it and I know that we all do. The way we have constructed this package is that the general fund money we get to strengthen Social Security comes from the interest we are no longer paying on this debt. Remember again, there are three ways to make this trust fund more secure: Cut benefits, you do not want to do that; raise taxes, you do not want to do that. You have to invest some general fund money. Where are you going to find the general fund money? Over time, by drawing down that debt, you free up interest payments that we are now having to make. You have got a smaller debt. You have got a smaller interest payment. You take the difference in interest payment, and you put it into the Social Security Trust Fund, and you strengthen it for years. In fact, under the plan that we have introduced, it will carry the life of this trust fund out to the year 2050, 2050. What is so important about that is this baby boom demographic bulge that we have got, it will be pretty well wiped out by then. I say so as a baby boomer myself, born in 1952. I would be 98 years old in 2050. Quite frankly, I do not think I will be drawing a Social Security check anymore personally. Most of us will not be. Our time will be at an end. That is why our children and grandchildren and their children will have a shot at getting a Social Security benefit themselves because we will have seen this program pass the middle of the 21st century, and that is exactly the steps we need to take to make sure this program can meet our needs going forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), because he has been very patient listening to me, and I would like to hear his presentation, his own personal reflections on Social Security.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Agribusiness Merger Moratorium Act of 1999. I am honored to have Judiciary Committee Member Tammy Baldwin and my colleague on the Agriculture Committee, David Minge, join me as original cosponsors of this important legislation. Our legislation is very similar to the Senate legislation that was introduced recently by Senators Wellstone, Dorgan, Harkin, and Daschle. Unfortunately, the agriculture sector of our economy has experienced rapid consolidation, disrupting the competitive dynamic of the market place. Today, concentration is more prevalent than ever in agriculture as we have observed with the recent acquisitions of Continental Grain by Cargill and the Smithfield Foods merger with Murphy Family Farms. For example, if the proposed acquisition of Continental Grain by Cargill is allowed with the divestitures set forth in the proposed consent decree, Cargill will handle more than 25 percent of the all of the Nation's export markets. To illustrate the degree of concentration in agriculture processing, in 1999, 80 percent of beef cattle are slaughtered by only four meat packers, 75 percent of sheep are processed by only four firms, and 60 percent of hogs are slaughtered by only four firms. At the same time concentration has been drastically increasing, a farmer's share of every food dollar spent decreased from 37 cents to 23 cents from 1980 to 1998. The Agribusiness Merger Moratorium Act of 1999 is a short-term legislative response to the rapid consolidation that I have described. This legislation would establish an 18-month moratorium on mergers and acquisitions by large agribusinesses. It would create a commission to determine whether concentration in the agriculture industry has reached a point where market competition can no longer be counted on to get family farmers and ranchers a fair price for the products they produce. The moratorium would apply to any proposed merger and acquisition that involves at least one firm with annual net revenues or assets of more than $100 million and another firm with assets of at least $10 million. Agricultural cooperatives would be exempted from this legislation. Clearly, this legislation is only a short-term response. The long- term solution is enforcement and strengthening of our antitrust laws. But, with the current dire economic conditions farmers and ranchers across the United States are facing, we, as Federal lawmakers, must provide immediate action. Mr. Speaker, as we enter the new millennium, it is ironic that Congress faces the same challenges our colleagues faced 100 years ago. To paraphrase one of North Dakota's favorite adopted sons, our Nation's 26th President Teddy Roosevelt, ``We must carry a big stick to return fairness and freedom to the marketplace.'' The Agribusiness Merger Moratorium Act of 1999 is a step in that direction.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my words of recognition and condolences to the family of Senator Chafee. He clearly distinguished the legislative branch of government with service that was bipartisan, common sense, moderate, centrist, and simply was a personal example of integrity and honesty and courage, the like of which some suggest we have too little of around here at this time. In any event, he set the bar very high and it would do well for all of us as we mourn his passing to reflect carefully on his example and embrace it in our own lives to the extent we can. Again, that would be a tall order. Senator Chafee in my last visit with him was leading a bipartisan discussion on how we might somehow form a breakthrough in a knotty health policy issue that had divided the parties, divided the Chambers. It was just one example I got to see up close and personal the kind of bipartisan, nonideological, let-us-solve-the-problem leadership that Senator Chafee brought to his work, and clearly the work of the legislative branch was distinguished as a result of his efforts. Tonight, I am leading a special order about Social Security. In the course of our discussion, I want to provide background about the nature of the program. I also want to discuss the debate that is waging at the moment relative to the budget discussions between the two political parties, and I want to focus on really the missing element of what has captured much of the present discussion, and that is the steps we must take to preserve the solvency of the program, to make certain that it is there not just for us but for our children and our grandchildren as well. As will be the course in the course of this hour, as commonly happens during these special orders, I have invited several Members of the Democratic Caucus to join me on the floor this evening, and while many will no longer be available in light of the hour, I am very pleased to see the gentleman from Florida here. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman from Florida, I want to thank him for an excellent discussion which really is reflective of a great deal of work the gentleman has provided and leadership on this issue. I thank him very much for his contribution. Madam Speaker, as I discussed in the opening, what I want to do over the next few minutes is talk about Social Security in its full context. I want to do that as a predicate to talk about specifically the very shallow, empty and false rhetoric coming from the majority relative to the stakes regarding Social Security as we discuss the final appropriations bills before this body this session. I then want to get to what I believe is the most important responsibility on all of us, Republican and Democrat alike, and that is lengthening the life of the Social Security trust fund so that it might be there to provide future generations the secure retirement it is presently affording. I want to talk about specifically even in the closing weeks of this session the opportunity that is before us to take this action, to promote the length of Social Security. Social Security is our Nation's family protection program. It protects all of us. It is really a program of all of us protecting each of us, because it is a program truly that we all have a stake in. It offers us three distinct kinds of protection. First and of course the best known is the retirement income. Retirement income, payable every month, adjusted for inflation, coverage that you cannot outlive no matter how long you may live. You will have just as dependable as the first of the month that Social Security check for support. It has played an enormously important role in the lives of tens of millions of American families. Just think about the retirement income statistics that follow. It is the primary income for two-thirds of all retirees over age 65; 90 percent of the income for one-third of the retirees. It is all they have got, which underscores how critically important when it comes to safeguarding, protecting and strengthening Social Security, how critical that challenge is. Again, one-third of all Social Security recipients have it for 90 percent or more of all their income. There are two other benefits I need to mention in addition to the retirement benefit. One is the survivors benefit. This is when the breadwinner dies prematurely, leaving young dependents in the home. They have coverage through the Social Security program. Ninety-eight percent of the children in this country have coverage because of this feature of the Social Security program. When we think of Social Security, we think of an old people's program. Well, it is also a program for America's kids. And make no mistake about that. Thirdly, it is a disability program, because if someone becomes disabled and unable to work, Social Security will be there. Three out of four workers in the workplace today have no other coverage but for Social Security. It is a vital protection. And without this, if they become banged up, cannot work, that is it, they do not have an income. With Social Security, they have an income. Again, three out of four, it is their only disability insurance policy. Now, these are kind of black and white, programmatic examples of how Social Security works, but I want to put this in a very personal context, because Social Security has been very important to my family and to me personally. I was a teenager when my father died. I have received Social Security checks personally. Quite frankly, I do not know how I would have gotten through college without the Social Security program. My mother is now 79 years old. Unlike my grandmother who in her last years moved in with our family because she had not the financial resources to live independently, my mom lives independently and hopefully she will live independently for a good many years to come, because she has that Social Security check coming every month. It really makes a difference in our family between my mom living alone, as she prefers, or living with us as she is always welcome, but it is not her preference. Finally, I have also, like many of us do, friends that have become disabled in one form or another. I have a friend, a good friend, but he has developed a very disabling bipolar mental illness and simply has been unable to work. Without Social Security, I do not know what he would do. He is now in his late 40's, does not have family to support him, and that Social Security check keeps my friend going. Without it, I shudder to think of what might be the consequences. But it has been vital. So when we talk about retirement income, we talk about survivors income, we talk about disability income, we are talking about literally Social Security achieving a miraculous benefit to the families that it touches every day, and across the country, of course, we are talking about millions and millions of families. Now that we reflect on the program, think about the good it is doing, let us think about the challenges that face it. It is running a surplus now. In fact very healthy surpluses. But if we look at the obligations upon the program going forward, we see the story starts to change. By 2011, the Social Security program will no longer be in surplus. While that is a good ways out, you may think, well, what is the problem, we need to collect and hold the surpluses for Social Security so that the resources will be there as the baby boomers move into retirement and the draw on the program starts to accelerate. By the year 2021, we are not just paying Social Security benefits based on the FICA tax revenue, the interest of the Social Security trust fund, we at that point start to actually draw down the principal in the trust fund itself. By the year 2034 at present projection, we will wipe out the Social Security trust fund and benefits are scheduled to fall a full 25 percent. Driving this, of course, is the shift in the demographics of the country: 5.1 workers per retiree in 1960, 3.4 workers per retiree today. In the year 2035, 2 workers per retiree. So we see that the cash flow generating capacity of the workforce changes and the retirement need, the draw on the program accelerates. The key to answering the question which party is fighting for Social Security is to look at which party addresses the date at which the program goes bust; 2034 it is scheduled to go bust. Benefits fall 25 percent. Which party is addressing that figure? It is the long-term solvency of the program that is really what is at stake here. There are three ways to prolong solvency: raise taxes. The taxes are already at 12.4 percent. I believe they are already absolutely as high as can be tolerated, and if we can figure out a way to reduce them without damaging the solvency of the program, I would be all for that. The other alternative: cut benefits. And you do have people talking about cutting benefits, no longer having some people in this country participate in Social Security, raising the retirement age. Well, the average Social Security check each month is about $700 a month. You cannot reduce the average Social Security check in this country without doing significant harm to the one-third of the recipients that are depending on that to live. And raising retirement age. I tell you I do not know about all of the country, but the people I represent back in North Dakota do not think that they ought to have to try and make it on the farm or doing whatever they are doing until age 70 or even higher to receive a Social Security check. They are counting on it as is presently constituted in law. Well, if you are not going to raise taxes, if you are not going to cut benefits, the way you add to the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund is to ultimately interject general fund balance into this program to preserve it over the long haul. That is the backdrop of Social Security, but there is quite a different picture being presented at the present time, and I would talk about that briefly and engage my colleagues in the discussion as well. The House majority has truly launched the most audacious attack that I have seen, charging Democrats with raiding the Social Security revenues. The facts of the matter are it is not true. The fact of the matter is that the charges are hypocritical and untrue. We are operating under a Republican-passed budget. They are the majority party in this Chamber, and they passed a budget almost on straight party lines. Spending that has occurred within this Chamber has been under the budget resolution, that is, the Republican budget resolution. The particular spending bills that have been brought forward have been passing with Republican majorities. They are the majority party, they are passing the spending bills, and we have some important third- party validation in terms of what those spending bills have produced so far. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that Social Security revenues have been drawn on already to the tune of $14 billion, and I will tell you that that ticker is still running, that amount is still accelerating; and so the very things that the Republicans are charging the Democrats for doing, they have already done even though they have used every appropriations and budget gimmick in the book for a little sleight of hand to try and indicate that that is not the case. In any event, take that as it will. In any event it does nothing to preserve the solvency of Social Security. For all their rhetoric, they have done nothing. Not one piece of legislation has been considered on this floor this year to advance the solvency of Social Security one day. Let us look at that legislative record. Here we are very late in the first year of this session. For all the late-bloom rhetoric on Social Security, why in the world have they not brought a plan to the floor to advance the solvency of the trust fund? Nothing by way of activity. Why? Well, I believe it has something to do with their tax cut bill which was earlier considered, passed by the Republican majority, passed by the Senate Republican majority, sent to the President, which fortunately he vetoed because that tax bill would have gobbled up all the general fund revenue that might otherwise have been available to preserve Social Security. They took the funds for which we can strengthen Social Security, and they shipped them out the door in a great big tax cut benefiting the wealthiest people in this country. Thank goodness the President vetoed that bill and we were able to sustain that veto on the House floor. What I think is amazing is mere weeks after we stopped them from basically taking the funds that we need to preserve and strengthen Social Security and shipping it out to the wealthiest contributors in the form of their tax cut, just weeks after that they parade around on the floor of the House talking about how they are saving Social Security when they have not strengthened this one bit; they have not added one day to the solvency of the trust fund. I think one has a responsibility to do more than just critique, however, an important matter like this; and I would just offer the following plan for strengthening, for actually doing something about trust fund solvency. We are at a point to capture the Social Security surpluses. We must do that. Over time we must capture every dollar coming in and allocate it to the Social Security program. We must do so in a way that draws down the debt held by this country. As you invest those Social Security trust funds, in this case we will actually be redeeming publicly held debt, bringing the debt down from the country. And then thirdly, because ultimately when you draw that debt down from these Social Security surpluses, you are going to have a windfall in terms of money now going to pay on interest that is no longer needed to go on interest. You take that money, and you invest it in the Social Security Trust Fund. Basically, Social Security earned that money, you can argue; Social Security ought to get that money. Taking that step would take that trust fund I was talking about and move it from 2034 to 2050. 2050. The program without further change would be able to pay benefits through 2050. Now I am a classic baby boomer, born in 1952. Year 2050 comes, I am going to be 98 years old, and in fact I do not know that I will be around to see the year 2050 as a good many of us will not be. But the point I want to make is moving into 2050 in the fashion promoted, actually allows us to strengthen and enhance the solvency of the trust fund. I see that a couple of Members are joining me on the floor, and I want to include them in the discussion. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, and I thank very much the gentleman for participating in the discussion tonight. I think you have laid out a couple of very important ideas. First, the open-mindedness to participate in any kind of bipartisan plan they might move forward that is talking about actually lengthening the life of the trust fund. The President has advanced a plan that lengthens the life of the trust fund. I think we craft the President's long-term plan on the majority's short-term funding plan to get us through this year. You could have the beginnings of a bipartisan deal that ultimately is absolutely true to Social Security because it does something about the length of the trust fund. Your comments are just so critically important in terms of establishing a benchmark by which the public can really evaluate whether anything is going on with Social Security that means anything or not. The test is does it lengthen the solvency of the program? Does it preserve the life of the trust fund? And that really is the core of the issues you very well outlined. I thank the gentleman for participating, and I would yield now to the gentleman who has patiently waited to participate as well, the gentleman from Cleveland (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Cleveland for his very vigilant efforts in this regard. Clearly if you watch what in particular the Republican Presidential candidates are talking about, in the event any of them would end up in the White House, the privatization programs will be before this Congress that fast. So your working your vigilance will be an important matter ongoing. Clearly there are those that would like to actually end Social Security as we know it, as a Federal program of all of us protecting each of us, diminish the Federal role and allocate it out into the private sector somehow in a way that would only significantly increase the risk on the individuals, individuals, again, as we have said, two- thirds of which get 70 percent or better of their income from the program, and one-third wholly dependent upon it. So the stakes are very high. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership. I yield now, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen.

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman's contribution to this special order has been significant and reflects his time and effort and expertise in the Social Security issue. I also appreciate the tone, which is measured, which is factual, which gives the other side their due when they are entitled to their due. I have heard on this floor parties suggest that 100 percent of the economic recovery is due to the fact that some Republicans got elected in 1994 and that everything bad that occurred before then was the fault of Democrat Congresses, notwithstanding Republicans in the White House. You cannot have it both ways. When there is a Republican in the White House, it is entirely the President that gets the credit, and the Democrat Congress gets the blame if something bad happens. Conversely, when it is a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the White House, it is 100 percent the Congress that has saved the day. The people of this country know better. They know that this economic recovery, which is literally without precedent, occurred because of a very courageous step taken in 1993, offered as the budget plan of the new president, passed by this Congress on a straight party line vote, that began to tackle the deficits. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I will give the other side some due for holding down spending, along with Democratic participation, because the balanced budget amendments of 1997 was a bipartisan vote. I was proud to vote for that bill. We have collectively held down spending, but they have been part of that effort. So under the deficit reduction plan passed by the Democrats, combined with fiscal restraint of both parties in the years since, we have reversed a course that brought our country to the brink of economic ruin. Just to cite some statistics, debt to GDP, gross domestic product, in 1980 was 26 percent. What happened in the decade and a half that followed, literally in the 12 years that followed, was complete fiscal irresponsibility. Both parties have plenty to shoulder in terms of blame for that, but that brought us in 1997 to where debt to gross domestic product was 47 percent, fully 20 percent higher than in 1980, just 17 years earlier. We have made some headway, and today it is 40 percent. We are reversing the trends that have brought us so deeply into debt by those terribly out-of-balance budgets. What the President has proposed is to capture this surplus generated by social security, preserve it for social security, and pay down debt held by the public. That would bring us in the year 2015 to where borrowing costs were 2 cents on every Federal dollar. Presently we pay interest, and it costs 15 cents on every taxpayer dollar, just interest. By the year 2015, according to the President's plan, that would be down to 2 percent, the lowest debt to GDP since 1917, literally without precedent in modern history. So this business about having resolved to save social security monies, to apply them to the social security trust fund to pay down the national debt, this has a great deal of importance. But the crux of the President's plan is to basically leverage that savings. If we reduce debt at that rate, by the year 2011 we will be saving every year $107 billion in interest costs. Interest achieves nothing. Interest costs achieve nothing by way of strengthening the national defense. They do not improve our schools, they do not reduce taxes. They are just a burden that we have to carry, much as an American family carries their mortgage interest burden or their credit card interest burden. If we can retire debt to this tune, we can save each year $107 billion. The President's plan is to take this interest savings and pay it into the social security trust fund, because we know we have a shortfall. That is why we are going to run out of money in the year 2034. But rather than raising social security taxes to address that shortfall or cutting benefits to address that shortfall, or making that retirement age go even higher than it already is, the President would take the money we are no longer spending in interest and divert that into the social security trust fund. That is the kind of infusion we need from the general fund that will ultimately push the solvency of the program out to 2050, so it covers virtually all of the retirement needs of the baby-boomer generation. I have been very pleased that in the course of this special order, several of our caucus' leading participants in social security have joined me on the floor. I would like to recognize one other who has just joined me, very recently having completed a hard-fought but very important legislative victory on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am pleased to have the efforts and attention and support of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) now on the issue of social security. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman. I thank him deeply for the kind observations that he made about me, and more importantly, for the contribution he has made in terms of talking about the vital nature of the social security program and the importance of the debate before us. I do not think it is the worst thing that ever happened that the parties find themselves now in an at least rhetorical debate in terms of who can best protect social security. This is good competition. This is good competition. May the best party win in terms of protecting it and preserving it and strengthening it on into the future. We could be in quite a different matter, where all of this surplus is coming in, and rather than looking at the long-range responsibilities for our country, like the families we represent look after their long- term needs when they might have an unexpected windfall, we need to save this and commit it for the long haul, because as we have talked about, social security is a program that is on the books. It is a vital program, but it is going to run out of money in 2034, and benefits are going to fall 25 percent if we do not take the steps now to strengthen it. So again, this debate, this little competition we are having in terms of who can best strengthen and protect social security, that is a good competition. One of the things that will make it good is whether or not there is actually any delivery behind all the rhetoric. I see they are bringing out the charts now, so I guarantee Members in the next hour they are going to get an awful lot of rhetoric about Democrats raiding social security, and all the rest of it. I would expect those listening to what might follow to know that the issue is not the rhetoric, the issue is the performance. Ultimately that can only be measured by one thing. That trust fund, the trust fund that is going to go bust in 2030, is it preserved and strengthened? Is that trust fund date pushed back, or is it not? We have advanced a plan that would measure the interest savings to the Federal Government by paying down the national debt due to these social security revenues. We would then take that savings reflected in general fund dollars and put it into the social security trust fund. Again, the social security trust fund does not have enough money, so there are three things we can do to strengthen the program long-term. We can raise taxes. I do not think we should do that. We can cut benefits, stop the COLAS, raise the retirement age. I do not think we should do that. Or we can interject additional general funds. That I think we have to do, because the other two alternatives are simply unacceptable. So let us have that general fund contribution make sense. If we consider the fact that this debt buy-down that saves these interest charges of the Federal Government is directly attributable to social security in the first place, that, Mr. Speaker, is a very good program for shoring up this program over the long haul. I used to be an insurance commissioner. For 8 years I regulated insurance in North Dakota. That meant that I looked at a lot of phony pitches, put a lot of insurance agents out of business if they were lying about what they were selling, and I fined the heck out of a lot of companies, while I was at it. I would just say that the efforts underway, the rhetorical efforts of the majority to pose as defenders of social security, would certainly not pass any ethical tests that are presently applicable to the sale of insurance in this country. I have put people out of business for charges that were as false as what they are saying about what the Democrats are doing relative to social security. Let me just sum up by emphasizing the core points. We are operating under the budget passed by the majority. The appropriations bills have been passed by the majority. The Congressional Budget Office asserts that the majority, who is paying these ads to run in North Dakota and other places accusing Democrats of raiding the social security trust fund somehow, that they have already spent into that trust fund, those revenues, from the cash flow on social security to the tune of $14 billion and going up. So let us put aside the smoke and the tired political rhetoric and look for bipartisan ways to lengthen the life of the trust fun. Nothing else cuts it. It is only looking at who is extending the life of the trust fund by which voters in the American public can determine who has been advancing the interest of this final program.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a brief response to the thoughts of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston)?

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I think an ongoing dialogue, I would be happy to have one on the floor of the House in the context of special orders, would be beneficial. I would like the topics to include the short-term and longer-term framework for the program. Right now I think it can actually get tripped up in what amounts to kind of blurring accounting-like arguments to the American public. I think we have to discuss the long-term solvency of the program, even as we deal with the appropriations challenge that faces Congress.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, if I might make a final point, like I say, I think if the parties are in genuine competition in terms of which party best defends and strengthens Social Security, the American people win and win big. What we need to check each other on, I think, is whether there is legitimacy, factual legitimacy in the claims that we are making as we purport to strengthen Social Security. I would just say the bottom line for me is, do we preserve and lengthen the trust fund or do we not? Really, that has to be a key kept in our discussions even as we go forward in the last week of session.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2886, legislation introduced by my colleague, Representative Horn (R-CA). This legislation would promote adoption and improve the lives of hundreds of children by allowing immigrant orphan siblings to stay together when being adopted by U.S. citizens. Under current law, a U.S. citizen may bring an immigrant child they have adopted to the United States only if the child is under the age of 16. If a group of siblings are orphaned in their home country, for example, and those children are adopted by U.S. citizens, any siblings aged 16 or older cannot come to the United States with their brothers and sisters under current law. Mr. Chairman, orphaned siblings should not be separated because of an arbitrary age limit. Representative Horn's legislation would allow U.S. citizens to adopt immigrant children ages 16-17 if the adoption would keep a group of siblings together. This legislation would go a long way towards ensuring that orphaned siblings join permanent families. Madam Speaker, this legislation would produce an important change in our nation's immigration policy, but its most significant impact is deeply personal. My own mother was orphaned at a young age, and was separated from her siblings as a result. Through her experience, and later through my own experience as the adoptive father of two beautiful Korean children, I have come to appreciate family unity as precious to parents and children alike. Although the number of families helped by this bill may be relatively small, keeping even one group of siblings together will have an immeasurable impact on those children's lives. As a cosponsor of H.R. 2886 and an adoptive parent, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2723, the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act of 1999. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this legislation would ensure genuine accountability of health plans and put patient care ahead of profits. Today Congress has an historic opportunity to take steps to ensure that doctors and patients are in charge of health care decision-making. I do have serious concerns, however, that the spending offsets originally designated in this legislation were not permitted under the rule. Managed care consumer protections must be enacted, but not while spending the surplus generated by the Social Security trust funds. While I support this legislation today, I certainly hope that spending offsets can be designated during the conference process, and I will not support a conference agreement that does not do so. Congress can and should ensure both quality health care and a secure retirement income for our nation's seniors.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, can we imagine the fireworks that would erupt on this floor if the Democrats brought forward a bill that was $45 billion in a hit to the Treasury, without a nickel in how it is paid for? That is precisely the proposal offered by the majority with this access bill, a $45 billion hit over 10 years to the Treasury, and not one nickel in terms of how those monies would be paid for. I am for full deductibility of health insurance premiums paid by individuals, but let us show how we are going to pay for it, so we are not spending the social security trust fund to do it. I rise for another very important reason on this bill. I am the only former insurance commissioner in Congress. I know the consumer protection role played by State insurance departments. Every day State insurance department officials are helping people get claims paid, helping them deal with insurance complaints. This bill in a major way would preempt all of that. Association health plans, community health center networks, HealthMarts, all of these features of this access bill would take it from State insurance departments and place it into a never-never-land of a soon-to-be- created Federal bureaucracy for regulation. This whole Patients' Bill of Rights is about getting patients protections, because they right now do not have sufficient protections with their HMOs. How ironic that the majority would come up with a proposal that literally would take those who are now protected and push them also into the unprotected categories. Consumers should not have to turn to some Federal bureaucracy to get a claim paid. Consumers should not have to call someone in the Federal bureaucracy to get approval to get the medical procedures that they need. They should go to their State insurance department, fifty State insurance departments, all with toll-free lines located right in the State capitols. This bill, through the association health plans, the community health center networks, and the HealthMarts, would take it all away. Keep consumer protection. Defeat the access bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, October is National Co-op Month, and throughout the month of October cooperatives, whether agricultural, consumer, electrical or child care, from all over the Nation will celebrate the importance of cooperatives. Across the United States more than 100 million Americans benefited by 48,000 cooperatives that will generate $100 billion annually to our Nation's economy. Tonight, I would like to highlight the importance of cooperatives to my home State, North Dakota. Throughout their history cooperatives have been a symbol of rural America just like the wind mill, the old country barn, and the four bottom plow. Cooperatives represent the very fiber of American ingenuity and community that have made this country great. From the first successful cooperative organized in the United States by Benjamin Franklin to the 1990's cooperatives, like housing and baby- sitting cooperatives, cooperatives were created with the belief that individuals joining together in cooperative efforts can best market the product they produce. Cooperatives are associations of people uniting voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs through a jointly owned, democratically controlled organization. Cooperatives are based on the values of self-help, self- responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members believe the ethical values of honesty, openness, and social responsibility in caring for others. In the 1920s, the country witnessed the growth of the dairy cooperatives; in the 1930s country grain elevators were created; in the 1940s oil and gas cooperatives; and in the 1950s, electrical and telephone cooperatives were created. Each of these co-ops provided the basic essential, providing quality products for consumers and producers at the most cost-efficient beneficial means. Over the past 20 years cooperatives have entered a new and exciting phase. We have begun to observe a new wave of cooperation such as the North Dakota examples I will speak about tonight. Specifically in responding to consolidation and concentration in agriculture occurring at an alarming rate, cooperatives have helped provide an avenue for farmers joining together. In North Dakota cooperatives have become, it seems, our State's newest best strategy in bringing to farmers a value-added component of marketing their products. North Dakota is a leader in cooperative development. All the necessary ingredients are there, the long history of progressive prairie populism, its rural population used to pulling together to meet trying times. Now our heavy dependence on agriculture has made the ability to produce the value-added component to the product very, very important. Since 1990, nearly $800 million in value-added facilities have been creating 600 new jobs in North Dakota. Some of the examples, the American Sugar Crystal Cooperative, one of the most recognizable cooperatives in North Dakota founded in 1972, and now with literally hundreds of growers, it has been a very, very successful marriage between the grower and the producer through this shared cooperative experience. The Dakota Pasta Growers, one of the most fascinating cooperatives in North Dakota. The Dakota Pasta Growers, founded in the late 1980s by durum farmers who believed they could pull together and get themselves a better market for their product by actually producing the seminola flour and the pasta products itself; and Dakota pasta has succeeded in the face of many skeptics in Carrington, North Dakota, by hard work, ingenuity and producing a very top quality product. Today they will increase storage capacity from 120,000 to 370,000 bushels doubling milling capacity, all in all an outstanding success. The North American Bison Cooperative, an excellent example of how farmers can band together to try new products. The prairie bison, now jointly slaughtered in this cooperative slaughtering plant. Five years ago, the co-op got off to a terrific start, and every year its product marketing continues to grow. This past year they slaughtered 8,000 bison in this 5-year-old cooperative, to give you an idea of how things have grown. Now clearly as we look at the cooperatives in total, the government at all levels has a role in cooperative development and maintenance. It is important they work. They bring economic opportunity to people, and they have as a result different tax statuses, different contracts and, most importantly, nonprofit philosophies. As a Federal law maker when it comes to cooperatives, I believe it is my role to maintain and preserve the opportunity for development of cooperatives so especially essential to our rural communities. The 1996 farm bill increased the risk of production agriculture on the family farmer. It is more important than ever therefore to have the farmer be able to pull together and create new economic opportunities in the value-added piece, in the wonderful examples of the North Dakota cooperatives that we have demonstrated. The development of rural business today is just as vital today as it was 50 or 75 years ago. As I mentioned before, the smaller business owner, the farmer and the rancher is going to continue to be squeezed in the marketplace in light of the concentration that we are seeing; and their best shot at being able to preserve their ongoing place in production agriculture and in the value-added component is by teaming together through the cooperative philosophy, banding together to achieve collectively what it would be impossible for them to achieve individually. That is the miracle of cooperatives. We certainly are proud to recognize them tonight and wish farmers and others all across the country thinking about how they might achieve a different dimension of success, to urge them to look at the cooperative way. It works as North Dakota examples have shown.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 480, I was unavoidably detained and was absent during the vote. It was my intention to vote ``no'' on this rollcall vote.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise first to commend the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) in bringing this bill to the floor today. The chairman has proven himself, in his time so far as the Committee on Agriculture chairman, to be a square shooter. He is also dealing substantively with the issues and dealing with them in a bipartisan way. I think his comments even on the floor today, his stated intention to hold hearings in the new year on the farm bill to assess its failings, shows that he will honestly follow the facts and not get tied up in partisan positioning; asking the questions that need to be asked, why is this farm bill failing so poorly? Another example of the constructive leadership of the chairman is the bill before us. He represents the southern plains. I represent the northern plains. He is a Republican. I am a Democrat. This bill reflects a consensus product that leaves me very, very enthused about extending the protection to the farmers I represent, as well as farmers throughout the country. I deeply appreciate the bipartisan, constructive leadership he has provided in bringing this bill together. Quickly, let me tell of the importance of crop insurance to farmers. Family farming involves the exposure of a significant amount of capital, literally hundred of thousands of dollars each year; and yet there are risks the farmers cannot control, the risk of production loss and the risk of price collapse. We are passing a disaster bill now, responding in part to the fact that we do not have a farm program responding to price collapse. We need to build that in as part of the farm program in the future. This crop insurance, however, responds to the other risk, production loss, and it does so very meaningfully in three important ways. First, it makes adequate coverage levels affordable to family farmers. Right now, quite frankly, the premiums to put in place the coverage levels that begin to protect the financial investment are simply out of reach for America's family farmers. This makes those premiums more affordable and therefore will greatly help people get the coverage that they depend upon. Secondly, it helps farmers plagued with several years of losses continue to have a production history that produces adequate coverage and adequate coverage opportunity. Right now, through no fault of the farmer, if they have a loss, another loss the next year, another loss the next year, pretty soon no matter what they do, no matter how much they want to pay, they cannot get adequate coverage back in place anymore. This deals with that problem. Thirdly, right now we essentially do not provide adequate coverage at all for farmers that haul their grain to the elevator, and only at the elevator realize a very severe price discount due to quality problems in the grain. That is an uncovered exposure under the present system. This affords the opportunity to the Risk Management Agency to address that problem. This bill goes an awful long way to making permanent changes in crop insurance that will help farmers deal with the risk-of-production loss. It is an excellent starting point to the full breadth of action required by this Congress to rural America, the next step being, of course, a permanent provision for protecting farmers when prices collapse. I thank the chairman and urge support of this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, we are at the 11th hour in the appropriations process to get the funding for the United States Government in place by the beginning of the next fiscal year. This is an hour where the American people have a right to expect straight talk and substantive action. Instead, this majority, in a resolution introduced at 10:30 this morning, gives them this utter nonsense, basically saying we pledge not to do that which we have already done. This resolution gives hypocrisy a bad name. It is patently phony. The fact of the matter is that actions of this body have already spent Social Security trust fund dollars. Let us not try and do some kind of bait and switch on the American public. Be square with them. We know that, to shore up Social Security for the long haul, it will not take paper resolutions that fly in the face of the actions of this Congress. It will take bipartisan action working with the President to substantively resolve the differences before us and ensure this program for the long haul. Vote for the resolution, but it is phony.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. I believe strongly that action must be taken to address the widespread abuse of class action rules. This legislation, however, would have the effect of removing the vast majority of class action lawsuits to the already overburdened federal courts and denying plaintiffs in legitimate class actions their right to due process. There is little dispute that in recent years the class action device has resulted in serious and rampant abuses of our legal system. Federal rules of civil procedure currently make it exceedingly difficult for defendants to remove a class action case to federal court, even when a case is clearly interstate in nature. Federal ``complete diversity'' rules have allowed endless forum shopping to keep class action cases out of the federal courts. In some cases, plaintiffs are named in class action cases based only on their state of residence, simply to destroy complete diversity. Such legal maneuvers have even been conducted at the expense of plaintiffs involved. In one recent state court class action settlement, consumer class members actually ended up losing money--each one was required to pay $91.13--while the lawyers who brought the lawsuit made $8.5 million. Other such examples abound in which class members received virtually no compensation. Action must be taken to protect both consumers and corporations from such abuses of the legal system. Although I believe strongly in the need for class action tort reform, I reluctantly oppose H.R. 1875 in its current form. By establishing ``minimal diversity'' rules of jurisdiction, H.R. 1875 would shift jurisdiction of most class action lawsuits from state court to federal court. This would have the practical effect of overburdening the already understaffed federal courts, while further delaying and possibly denying justice for injured plaintiffs. Mr. Chairman, although I do not support this particular vehicle for class action tort reform, I remain committed to correcting the abuses of our legal system. I am hopeful that my concerns with H.R. 1875 can be resolved as the bill moves through the Senate, so that I may support the conference report for this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle today in introducing the Intercountry Adoption Act. By providing for the implementation of the Hague Convention, this legislation will help unite American families with waiting children from around the world. For years, American families have reached across cultural and national boundaries to embrace children through international adoption. In 1998 alone, almost 16,000 children were adopted by Americans from abroad. By signing the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, the United States and over 60 other nations recognized the importance of international adoption. The Hague Convention creates a structure to strengthen cooperation among nations in adoption and protects adoptive families from fraud and abuse. Although the United States signed the Hague Convention in 1994, Congress has yet to ratify and implement the Convention. The Intercountry Adoption Act, by providing for the enactment of the Hague Convention, would strengthen the process that builds thousands of international adoptive families every year. Our legislation sends a strong signal that the United States is committed to providing permanent homes for its own children and for children all across the globe. Mr. Speaker, the Hague Convention promotes cooperation among national governments, but its most significant impact is deeply personal. My own family was forever changed and enriched by the adoption of our two children from Korea. I am profoundly grateful to have Kathryn and Scott in my life. The legislation we introduce today will allow me to express my gratitude by aiding efforts to unite every waiting child in every nation with a ``forever family.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a revised version of the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999. The bill I introduced today makes important changes to legislation I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 1137. In addition to technical clarifications, the vast majority of these changes represent the culmination of an agreement reached between the state of North Dakota and the Administration which lead to the Administration's support of the bill. I want to highlight the key items of agreement incorporated into the bill that I am introducing today. First, this improved Dakota Water Resources Act provides $200 million in funding for statewide municipal, rural and industrial (MR&I) program, a $100 million reduction from H.R. 1137. Further, the bill clarifies that if a MR&I revolving loan fund is established, the funds will be treated as federal funds, therefore requiring compliance with federal laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Additionally, the bill today removes the $40 million in authorized funding for the replacement of the Four Bears Bridge across an arm of Lake Sakakawea on the Ft. Berthold Indian Reservation contained in H.R. 1137. The bill also includes a provision to ensure the interests of Canada are met. Prior to the construction of any water delivery system to deliver Missouri River water into the Hudson Bay Basin, the Secretary of Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, must determine that adequate treatment can be provided. Further, the State of North Dakota would be required to pay a pro- rata share of the operation, maintenance and replacement (OM&R) costs on existing principal supply works, including associated mitigation, based on a percentage of capacity use. Secondly, the state would pay 100 percent of OM&R on all new facilities with the exception of facilities required to meet treaty obligations or those for compliance with Reclamation law. Further, the state would be required to pay for all energy costs to authorized facilities. Finally, the bill eliminates the provision in H.R. 1137 which linked the full funding of the Natural Resources Trust to the completion of the Red River Valley project. Mr. Speaker, the Dakota Water Resources Act today represents a broad consensus among various interests across the state of North Dakota and the Administration. I believe that the changes made today further improve the bill and will ensure that we are able to meet North Dakota's future water needs.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join my colleague Representative Dreier in introducing the Youth Financial Education Act. This legislation provides grants to states to carry out youth financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools across the country. Today's dynamic global economy demands more of our nation's young people than ever before. Children are making important financial decisions even before they enter the workforce. In order to make informed choices regarding personal finances, young people must have the skills, knowledge, and experience needed to manage their money and achieve general financial literacy. Financial education is critical to their ability to provide for their families and save for retirement. Despite the importance of youth financial education, the average American high school senior lacks even very basic knowledge of personal financial affairs. A nationwide survey conducted in 1997 by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy examined the knowledge of 1,509 12th graders. On average, survey respondents answered only 57 percent of the questions correctly, and only 5 percent of the respondents received a ``C'' grade or better. It should come as no surprise, then, that personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high in this country, and the personal savings rate is currently in the negative for the first time in decades. Mr. Speaker, our legislation would help improve the financial literacy of our youth by authorizing grants to states of at least $500,000 to carry out financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools. The legislation does not mandate that state or local education agencies teach personal finance; it merely encourages them to integrate financial education into existing courses, such as economics or mathematics. Most importantly, the bill provides states with the resources necessary to develop teacher training and professional development activities in personal financial education. I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to Chairman Dreier for his leadership in this effort. I would also like to personally thank Dara Duguay, executive director of the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, for her organization's critical role in the introduction of this legislation. I look forward to working with Jump$tart and its partners, as well as other member of the education and banking communities, as this legislation moves forward. Mr. Speaker, all young adults should have the educational tools necessary to make informed financial decisions. This legislation will go a long way towards preparing our young people for their financial future, and I urge my colleagues to support it.