Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join my distinguished colleague Congressman Barrett of Nebraska, along with Representatives Petri, Baldacci, and Thune, in introducing the Rural Education Initiative. This legislation will provide smaller rural school districts across the country with the flexibility and funding they need to provide a quality education for our children. A strong investment in the public education system is critical to our nation's future. In recent years, Congress has recognized that reality by increasing federal support for education. These funds are currently disproportionately channeled to larger school districts. Many small and rural school districts have simply fallen through the cracks. Small school districts, including many in North Dakota, have had to forgo federal dollars because they lack the personnel and the resources to apply for competitive grants. Also, due to low enrollment and a lack of special categories of students in these schools, single formula grants fail to provide sufficient revenue to fund any one significant project. As currently structured, these federal grant programs fail to meet the needs of rural school districts. To address the unique circumstances of smaller rural schools, the Rural Education Initiative would allow school districts with fewer than 600 students to combine funds from four distinct federal programs and provide additional funds based on enrollment. In North Dakota, Belfield Public School District, for example, which has an enrollment of 310 students, would receive a minimum grant of $50,000 under this legislation. By combining and increasing federal funds to rural districts like Belfield, this legislation would give school administrators the resources and flexibility they need to support local educational priorities. Mr. Chairman, as Congress moves forward with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), we can not overlook our small and rural school districts. Thirty-five percent of all school districts in the United States and 86 percent of school districts in North Dakota have fewer than 600 students, and are currently struggling to make ends meet. The Rural Education Initiative would take a strong step forward by leveling the playing field for rural school districts, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I am signing the discharge petition for the purpose of forcing floor consideration of the Patient's Bill of Rights. I have held back from this action before this time out of my expectation the House Speaker would have brought this issue--if not this bill--forward before the August recess. I am disappointed the majority leadership has broken its commitment to have House action on this matter this week. The Senate has acted. The American people want Congress to act. Because the indefinate House delay is irresponsible and very unfortunate I am signing the discharge petition. I hope all minority members who have yet to sign will join me in this action. I further hope that we will be joined by a sufficient number of Republicans who understand that it is time to act, in order to finally force House action on this issue.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Largent amendment to H.R. 2587. This measure would undermine efforts to place children in the foster care system in the District of Columbia in permanent homes. There are currently over 3,000 children in the D.C. foster care system, more than 1,000 of whom are currently eligible for adoption. Many of these children have special needs and are difficult to place. No other development will have as great an impact on these children's lives as whether they will be able to be part of a family of their own. By placing restrictions on joint adoptions, the Largent amendment lessens the chance that these 3,000 children will ever be part of a ``forever family.'' The Largent amendment would also prevent child welfare workers from making decisions based on the best interests of individual children. The success of the child welfare system depends upon its ability to recognize that every waiting child has individual needs. The Largent amendment favors the judgment of Congress over that of child welfare professionals, who are experts at determining what constitutes a safe and loving home. Child advocacy organizations across the country, including the Children's Defense Fund and the Child Welfare League of America, also oppose this amendment and have recognized that it could endanger the future of over 3,000 children. Mr. Chairman, no event has so profoundly transformed my own family as the adoption of my children, Kathryn and Scott. I will always be deeply grateful that my wife and I were able to welcome these two exceptional children into our home. The Largent amendment could prevent other families from experiencing this joy, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the Chairman, Mr. Callahan, for including in this legislation the report language regarding the Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation described below. This legislation provides $48,000,000 for the Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation including $8,000,000 for cooperatives. This fund enables United States cooperatives and credit unions to share their self-help business approaches with developing and market transition countries. Congressman Bereuter and I recently sent a letter to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) supporting this important office and its funding for US cooperatives. In addition, the Committee notes that in Central America, US cooperatives in countries hard-hit by Hurricanes George and Mitch. The Committee encourages USAID to fully utilize the expertise of U.S. and indigenous cooperatives in this region, especially in the expansion of cash crops such as coffee and sesame. U.S. cooperatives have been working overseas for more than three decades. They are at work in the villages of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In Central and Eastern Europe, they are helping to achieve a free market, democratic way of life--one that cooperatives and uniquely to help other achieve. Cooperatives have the advantage of keeping economic benefits within a community. Profit is not siphoned off by outside interests, because the co-op's members are its owners, and the co-op exists to fill a need in a community that is not being met to other businesses. Electric and telephone co-ops meet rural consumers' needs for power and telecommunications not satisfied by private businesses. Farm co-ops help in the production and marketing of commodities. Housing co-ops give low-income people the opportunity to own their own homes. Cooperative insurance protects individuals and small businesses from risk. Credit unions serve people of limited income not reached by commercial banks, and extend credit to micro entrepreneurs who otherwise might not be able to secure funding. Cooperatives promote democracy by allowing members to jointly own their business. They share capital, elect a board of directors, and receive the benefits of ownership through better service and patronage refunds based on use. Co-ops teach people how to resolve problems democratically. Many individuals who received their education in democracy from cooperatives have gone on to become political leaders in their nations. In emerging democracies, co-ops help throw off the shackles of a non-market economy. Their members develop the skills of entrepreneurship and learn market values. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Callahan for including this critical language in the legislation before us.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding this time to me. I also thank her for her work on identifying rural America as having unusually important needs in the area of recruitment and retention of teachers, for legislation she introduced which I cosponsored is very, very similar to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) and I commend him for his amendment. North Dakota, just for an example, reported recently that nearly one- third of its public school teachers are over the age of 50, and we have so many parts of the State that are depopulating, becoming even more difficult to recruit and retain State teachers. Our classroom performance of our students is at or near the top on so many important benchmarks, and clearly quality classroom teachers has been a cornerstone of the success of North Dakota public education. But we need help; we need the kind of help that the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) offers, and I appreciate very much the support my colleagues are giving to those rural areas struggling to maintain quality public schools.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1033, the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act, and I want to personally thank Congressman Bereuter, the sponsor of the legislation, for his work on this issue. Nearly two hundred years after the Corps of Discovery, Americans of all ages have begun a national pilgrimage to follow the steps of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. The journey today stands as one of the most remarkable and productive scientific and military exploring expeditions in all of American History. H.R. 1033 recognizes this extraordinary journey and the discipline, sacrifice and strength shown by Lewis and Clark by authorizing the Treasury to mint one-dollar and half-dollar coins to commemorate the bicentennial of the expedition. The bill will not only serve to highlight this historic expedition and the roles of Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and the many Native Americans who aided in the journey, but it will also provide a source of financial support for commemorative activities. After the cost of minting is covered, the proceeds from the sale of the coin will be distributed to the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council and the National Park Service which will allow both entities to continue their work in planning and organizing bicentennial events. As we continue preparing for the bicentennial of this historic expedition, it is important that Congress play an active role in supporting and promoting its commemoration. I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of the Lewis and Clark expedition to the nation and the efforts of the bicentennial council and the National Park Service to highlight its bicentennial by passing this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, this is not a bill about China. Transshipments are illegal. This is a bill about trying to inject a measure of investment and opportunity into one of the most catastrophically depressed regions of the world. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that our corporations, our workers cannot compete with this region? Clearly, that is a false assumption. This is a win for Africa, but it is also an important win for the United States. This is a region of 700 million people. U.S. agriculture exports into this area are a tiny fraction of that compared just to Europe alone. And the growth opportunity is extremely significant if we begin building the kinds of relationships that will flow from the trade that is established from this act. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his leadership in advancing a bill that is going to offer a real measure of hope to a region of the world that so desperately needs it.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Nadler amendment to H.R. 1691. This amendment will safeguard religious liberty, while also protecting other critical civil rights. This Nation was founded on the conviction that all individuals have the right to the free and full expression of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution has protected that right for over 200 years. Unfortunately, no court can be completely free of human error when interpreting the Constitution. Beginning with the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Oregon Dept. Of Human Resources v. Smith, religious expression has been subject to substantial and unnecessary restriction by governmental policies. Therefore, it is both necessary and appropriate for Congress to pass this legislation. As drafted, however, H.R. 1691 could have the unintended consequence of eroding critical civil rights and undermining state and local statutes. Several states and municipalities have passed laws prohibiting discrimination in housing and employment due to marital status, pregnancy status, or disability. Unless amended, H.R. 1691 could undermine state laws and allow discrimination. A widowed mother or disabled individual should not be deprived equal access to housing or employment under the guide of ensuring religious liberty. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Nadler amendment prevents the preemption of state and local statutes, while affording religious expression the highest level of constitutional protection. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this crucial provision.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The Exchange Stabilization Fund has never been more important than now. We are in an interlinked global economy where currency is transferred in the blink of an eye over an electronic infrastructure. Capital flows can cause a national treasury to hemorrhage. And let me tell my colleagues how this works, briefly. If there is great investor uncertainty, money is pulled out. Without the Exchange Stabilization Fund able to assist for a brief period of time in shoring up currency, providing investor, stabilizing investor confidence, we literally have a run on the bank situation which can lead to catastrophic national bankruptcy. I read from a letter that I will introduce for the Record from Secretary Larry Summers, who played such a critical role in stabilizing Korea that was teetering on the very brink of bankruptcy. On Christmas Eve, the ESF permitted the United States to participate in a critical time-sensitive effort to forestall financial default in Korea, where 37,000 American troops are stationed. The economic and national security consequences of default were clearly unacceptable to the United States. That was on December 24, 1997. Do my colleagues know when Congress went home that year? November 13. And when did the Congress come back? January 27. Congress was missing in action for nearly 3 months, and in the middle of this period we had almost an Asia financial meltdown, forestalled just barely by the extraordinary work of Secretary Summers, using as an integral part of his effort the Exchange Stabilization Fund. It would not have worked, it would not have been there if the congressional requirement the amendment seeks would have been in place. Congress was home. We must defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the letter from Secretary Summers I earlier referred to follows for the Record: Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, July 15, 1999. Hon. Steny Hoyer, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, Washington, DC. Dear Steny: I am extremely concerned that an amendment to restrict severely the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) may be considered during House action on the Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill. Such an amendment would constitute an unacceptable limitation on the executive branch's ability to protect critical U.S. economic interests, and I would be forced to recommend a Presidential veto if the final bill contained such restrictions. The original ESF statute deliberately provided the executive branch with the flexibility needed to respond expeditiously and effectively when justified by important national economic interests. Because the nature of financial crises sometimes requires urgent action to stabilize markets and protect the U.S. economy, it is necessary to act more quickly than is permitted by the deliberative procedures of the legislative branch. This is particularly true in today's large, fast-moving financial markets. Two recent examples illustrate how the ESF works to protect American interests. On Christmas Eve, 1997, the ESF permitted the United States--with broad international cooperation--to participate in a critical, highly time-sensitive effort to forestall financial default in Korea, where 37,000 American troops are stationed. The economic and national security consequences of Korean default were clearly unacceptable risks for the U.S., and the availability and flexibility of ESF resources were indispensable to our stabilization efforts. Similarly, the ESF and bilateral resources from other countries were essential to the international effort last year to help Brazil avert the kind of financial collapse that could have had very severe consequences in our own hemisphere, with obvious implications for the U.S. economy. Let me make clear that we fully accept our responsibility to account to Congress for our actions under the ESF statute. Treasury submits detailed monthly reports on ESF transactions to the Banking Committees, and the President submits an annual report to the Congress. We believe strongly that our use of the ESF has been prudent and consistent with the spirit and letter of the law. We simply cannot afford to compromise our nation's vital economic and financial interests by limiting our ability to act responsibly and expeditiously during times of urgent crises, and I urge the Congress to preserve the ESF statute in its current form. Sincerely, Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the Sanders Amendment which provides increased funding for the low- income weatherization program. I have always been a strong supporter of the weatherization program. This program is highly successful in providing critical funding to improve the energy efficiency of homes for low-income households. In my home state of North Dakota which confronts bitterly cold winters every year, the program provides assistance to an average 1,200 households annually. This investment saves a household nearly $200 in annual energy costs, yielding $2.40 in energy, health and safety benefits for every federal dollar invested. In the environment of utility deregulation and welfare reform, I believe that the funding commitment of the federal government to this program must reflect our commitment to energy efficiency and self-sufficiency for low income families, and this can only be done through continued strong funding. Unfortunately, the amendment before us today, while providing important funding for the weatherization program, cuts funding for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when we are facing a severely depressed world-wide oil market. To help alleviate the crisis in the oil industry we have used this funding to purchase oil and place it in the strategic reserve. At this time, we cannot cut back on our efforts to assist this industry by cutting funding for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Sanders amendment presents us with a false choice between making an investment to place more oil in the strategic reserve which will aid a depressed industry and funding a program which will provide critical weatherization assistance to low income families. This should not be the trade off.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize the winner of the 1999 ``Great American Think-Off.'' This year's champion is Mark Friestad, a high school social studies teacher who proved to his students that learning is a life-long pursuit to be enjoyed and celebrated. Mark is a dedicated young teacher in my hometown of Valley City, North Dakota, who exemplifies the state's exceptional teachers. He was among 500 contestants from around the country competing in the Great American Think-Off held in New York Mills, Minnesota. The task was the best answer to the question: Which is more dangerous: Science or Religion? Selected as one of four finalists to debate the merits of his essay, Mark convinced the crowd of 400 with thoughful arguments supporting his thesis. At the end of the day, the audience felt that he had best illustrated his point that the more dangerous idea between science and religion is the one accepted more blindly--science. While Mark is to be commended for his insightful debate and well- researched essay, perhaps just as important is his participation. Reading about and studying topics of interest should not be limited to our school years, but rather encouraged and practiced at every age level. Formal education and official degrees are the runways for learning, but our country has taken flight thanks to the help of great life-long thinkers. How fortunate we are to have thoughtful, studious individuals who dedicate their careers to the public education of our young people. I congratulate Mr. Friestad for teaching by example, and picking up the title of ``America's Greatest Thinker'' along the way.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, I am reluctantly voting yes on H.R. 10. It needs work--a lot of work--in conference committee to fully establish functional regulation of insurance in state insurance departments. In light of assurances I have received from the Banking Committee Chairman and Ranking Member to revisit the concerns I have advanced in this regard I will vote for the bill to keep the process moving forward. We desperately need financial services modernization, but it is vitally important the legislation establishing these reforms get it done right.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this is a very dysfunctional Chamber. Blind partisan hatred infuses, it seems like all issues, even something as we look back at a successful completion of a military conflict, an end of a series of atrocities against a people too horrible to fully contemplate. The preceding speaker is 100 percent incorrect in suggesting that this conflict created the humanitarian catastrophe unleashed by Slobodan Milosevic. The American people know what happened. The military action under the leadership of the President ended this humanitarian crisis and stopped the slaughter of a people. We ought to be proud as Americans for the role played by our military, the role played by our troops, the role played by our leaders, including President Clinton, and it might be tough in light of this partisan period that we are in to say so, but nothing less is deserved. The President provided leadership when leadership was needed, and the military conflict has been successfully concluded.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the language of the resolution before us. The religious faiths and practices of all of us as Americans are as important as they are personal. This country was founded in part by people of strong religious beliefs who came to this new land seeking the freedom to worship totally beyond the reach of government. The doctrine of completely separating church and state was written into our Bill of Rights to protect our fundamental right to worship whenever we want, however we want, or even if we want. I am very uncomfortable with this Congress--in a formal resolution-- voting to observe ``a day of solemn prayer, fasting, and humiliation before God''. The way for us to urge prayer and humility before God is by our example as individuals--not our political rhetoric as members of Congress. I believe the teachings of Jesus as written in Matthew 6 verses 4-6 has application to the resolution before us: ``And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.'' (Matthew 6:4-6) Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``Present'' on this resolution. I believe it is very important for people of all faiths to pray, reflect and seek divine guidance. It is not, however, the business of government to direct or prescribe this fundamental activity.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers amendment to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act. This amendment takes reasonable steps to reduce gun violence, while preserving personal freedoms. I believe strongly that law-abiding citizens have a constitutionally protected right to purchase and responsibly use firearms. The federal government does not and should not have the power to prevent its citizens from enjoying recreational activities that involve firearms, such as hunting and target shooting. Neither does the federal government have the power to restrict our ability to defend ourselves by banning the possession of hand guns. My constituents in North Dakota, and all American citizens, have the right to use firearms in recreation, just as they have the right to use firearms to defend themselves and their families. The full strength of the Second Amendment to the Constitution is behind that right. However, I also believe that the moderate gun safety measures included in the Conyers amendment uphold constitutional rights while helping to prevent the gun violence that threatens public safety and shatters families. The gun safety measures in this amendment are identical to those passed last month by the Senate, and offer a common- sense approach to gun safety. Specifically, the expansion of the National Instant Check System to include background checks at gun shows will help keep firearms out of the hands of violent criminals. The National Instant Check System (NICS) set up by the Brady bill has proven to be highly successful at preventing convicted criminals from accessing firearms. In the last six months, the NICS has prevented over 90,000 illegal gun transactions, many of which would have armed violent criminals. I do recognize that concerns exist regarding the impact of gun show background checks on citizens' rights to purchase firearms. However, the NICS system has proven effective at deterring criminals without placing an undue burden on law-abiding gun buyers. Nearly ninety-five percent of all background checks are resolved within two hours; a full seventy-three percent are completed instantly. The handful of background checks that take longer than two hours are usually due to an arrest record that needs to be investigated further. Law-abiding gun owners in this country will not be burdened by this provision, but instituting background checks at gun shows will help keep guns out of the wrong hands. I also support the Senate-passed provision included in this amendment that would require safety locks or secure storage devices on every newly purchased handgun. This provision would help parents safeguard their children from the epidemic of accidental shootings that has infected this country. This amendment does not mandate that the gun owner take advantage of the safety device; the gun owner may remove the device immediately upon purchase of the weapon. This proposal would only aid efforts to avoid preventable deaths. Mr. Chairman, the Conyers amendment to H.R. 2122 does not tamper with our nation's strong tradition of the protection of the right to bear arms. This amendment provides a common-sense approach to gun safety, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Security Assistance Act of 1999, I commend Chairman Gilman and Mr. Gedjenson for their bipartisan work on this legislation. The Security Assistance Act includes several important measures that will enhance our nation's security. The bill updates and codifies U.S. policy with respect to the transfer of military items, it directs the President to negotiate an international ``code of conduct'' to control the sale of arms to governments that violate human rights, it increases penalties for violations of the arms export laws, and it strengthens the role of Congress in overseeing arms exports. This bill is especially timely and appropriate in light of recent revelations of Chinese espionage activities and our ongoing concern over the proliferation of advanced weapons among rogue nations. In addition to its national security provisions, the Security Assistance Act is one of two bills the House will consider today that together represent a significant victory for American farmers in the fight to reform our sanctions policy. This bill, and the Selective Agriculture Embargoes Act considered earlier, reflects a growing bipartisan acknowledgment that unilateral food sanctions have failed to achieve our foreign policy objectives while causing significant harm to American farmers by denying them access to valuable export markets. This bill recognizes that we have many tools in our arsenal to fight the proliferation of weapons, but that food should not be among them. Specifically, I would like to thank Chairman Gilman for including Section 602 in this bill, which permanently excludes USDA export programs from the list of programs subject to elimination under the Arms Export Control Act. My colleagues will remember that this issue surfaced last spring following the nuclear detonations by India and Pakistan. At the time, the Administration determined that the Arms Export Control Act required the termination of credit guarantees to both countries. In the case of Pakistan, the loss of credit guarantees threatened to halt the sale of U.S. wheat to the third largest market in the world for our wheat farmers. The Canadians, Australians, and Europeans were eagerly standing by to fill the vacuum. Fortunately, Congress acted swiftly with the support of the Administration to enact legislation exempting agriculture export programs from the Arms Export Control Act for a period of one year, ending September 30, 1999. With the expiration of this earlier legislation now only 14 weeks away, however, the Security Assistance Act is needed to provide permanent assurance that our vital agriculture export tools will remain at our disposal. In summary, I thank the Chairman and his staff for including this provision in the bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Security Assistance Act.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, we all know as Members of this institution that this is a troubled House of Representatives. At times in the history of this institution it has also been similarly troubled. But I have heard from many who have served longer than the 3\1/2\ terms I have served that they have never remembered the place being as mean- spirited, as venal, as partisan as it is now. I think we ought to be working on ways to change that, and I know many of the Members on both sides of the aisle are men and women of good spirit that would very much like to work to get a greater comity of views, even across the wide divergence of opinion in this body. That really depends upon process, rules of fair play. There is a majority. There is a minority. But if the rules of fair play are engaged in, losing votes is something the minority will understand, just as long as the process is a fair one. Now, what is so objectionable about the amendment offered by the chairman is that it completely blows up any notion of fairness in the appropriations process. The process for appropriations is that you have allocations. Each of the subcommittees is given a certain amount of money to spend. It is set by the budget that was earlier passed by this body. This once again just like the agriculture budget a few days before, agriculture appropriations of a few days before, is a budget brought that comports with the allocation. Hearings have been held. Bipartisan votes have been cast. The subcommittee has reached an agreement. They have brought a recommendation to the floor. That is the process working as it should. Now it totally blows away that process when the majority says, ``Oh, by the way, without any advanced notice to you all in the minority, we're going to give another whack right across the board without so much as a discussion in committee about what we are doing.'' The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is a man that we know well, he served long, we respect him deeply, and really it is beneath his leadership to subvert the process of fair play in the fashion the amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill and this amendment represent. I believe that if this body, if this majority, wants to take additional sums out, go back and revise the allocations, send the appropriation subcommittees back to work, and at least we again have the process functioning; but this last minute, eleventh hour, blind side, irrespective of consequences, totally shutting out minority opinion, is the very type of foul play that makes the minority feel utterly disenfranchised, that makes the constituents we represent totally shut out of the process and that creates and contributes to the vile, bad spirit that plagues this place. Treat us fairly. Adhere to process. Let the legislative function work. Mr. Chairman, that would mean rejecting this amendment tonight.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skelton amendment. I have seen the refugee camps in Albania, the refugee camps in Macedonia. They are unlike anything I have ever seen, and I cannot do an adequate job of recounting to my colleagues the horror that the ethnic Albanians have been through. I do want to quote to my colleagues from a letter written to the President from Elie Weisel, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and himself a Holocaust survivor, in terms of his observations as he visited the camps on behalf of President Clinton. What I saw and heard there was often unbearable to the survivor that still lives in my memory. In fact, I never thought I would hear such tales of cruelty again. Now I must share them with you in this brief report, which began in anguish and ended in qualified, vacillating hope. While I sat in my last session with the former prisoners of Milosevic's police, the Yugoslav parliament approved NATO's conditions for surrender. Mr. Chairman, we know much has happened since then to advance that fragile hope for peace. Milosevic agreed to the terms, the G-8 agreed to the terms, U.N. language, U.N. Security Council language, was negotiated and agreed to across the G-8. We know in the negotiation with the Serbian generals they had nothing but trouble. The generals tried to renege, more bombs were dropped, more Serbs were killed. Ultimately, the generals reconsidered and are back on the agreement. The only doubt raised this afternoon on this peace is raised on the floor of this House, and that is an incredible thing. Across this 19- nation alliance, engaged in trying to address these horrors, this House, the People's House of the United States of America, would raise a doubt about our commitment to see this peace treaty go forward. Support the Skelton amendment. Without passage of this amendment, we leave open the question, come October 1, whether the United States will continue to provide the vital leadership in bringing this matter to an end.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, back in North Dakota this afternoon there are a number of farmers I represent wondering whether they will even be able to get through until next fall. We have had an unprecedented level of rain. It has destroyed the planting season, on top of the hardship they already faced because prices are below the cost of production, at a time when they have not been able to get for their crop what it costs them to grow the crop, and then on top of it production difficulties that have utterly disrupted their ability to get the crop in the ground. This is a time of crisis in North Dakota. I would think it is a time of crisis well beyond a provincial concern as a North Dakota Congressman, because I am talking constantly with many Members representing farmers around the country. While your production dimensions may be different than ours, the fundamental is the same: Prices have not covered the cost of production, and that is irrespective of commodity and irrespective of region, and it has given us a crisis in agriculture. I believe the floor consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill has been an utter travesty. At one point we had more than 100 amendments filed against it. Fortunately, we have worked that out. But now I cannot tell you how dispiriting it is to be an advocate for farmers in this country and have the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations bring forward a $100-plus million cut. Let me just tell you where $10 million of that would fall: Research and extension. Now, when this body, under a Republican majority, passed the freedom to farm law, you told farmers things were going to be different and they were going to be wonderful. They were going to have freedom to do new things, freedom to plant, freedom to do all kinds of things based upon the marketplace. We know what has happened. Prices have collapsed and farmers are unprotected and farmers are going broke all over the country. The agriculture research and extension component of this budget is what we need to deliver on the promise you made to rural America, research to develop the new crop alternatives for people that cannot make money based on what they have been growing; new production methods that are more cost efficient, that will help keep these people in the game. It is part of the promise you made. Then extension, because it is extension that gets the research out of the universities and the land grant universities and out to the farmers so they can put it to work.

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that was relative to a disaster, an emergency disaster occurring in agriculture. The Farm Bureau, another supporter of the freedom to farm bill, said you should have passed $6 billion, not $600 million. I do not lay this on the chairman's shoulders. I have an enormous amount of respect for the chairman. But the fact of the matter is that that $600 million did not deal with extension and research, the $10 million I am talking about, and I cite that as an example. Just a few months earlier than that, you set a 302(b) allocation for the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) went to work, working with the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and all of the Members. They came up with a bill within the allocation. They did everything right, and it is not right that agriculture should be bushwhacked on the floor of the House in this dark hour of despair by a $100 million cut. I urge Members, put party aside, put urban-rural aside, think about what is right and think about what is fair and reject this amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the sponsor of the 100-plus amendments that have turned the ag appropriations bill into such an utter fiasco on the floor of this House has strong convictions. Good for him. I believe they are heartfelt, and he is certainly articulate in advancing his belief on these things. I have strong convictions, too. In fact, there are 435 of us in this body with strong convictions. Many of us believe that hijacking the floor of this House is not the appropriate way to advance our strong convictions, work within the process, plug along, and ultimately try and make our beliefs prevail. But to unilaterally tee off on America's farmers, as is the case with the 100-plus amendments sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), is fundamentally wrong and utterly unrelated to the concerns that he continues to tell us so much about. There is a budget. It has been adopted by this body. It provides for spending of general fund dollars. The Committee on Appropriations has made allocations to its subcommittees, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), dealing with the appropriation made to agriculture, came up with a bill that enjoyed bipartisan support coming out of that committee. I do not like the bill. I do not think there is enough response to the needs in agriculture funded in the bill brought forward. I believe we needed to do more. But to have the gentleman tee off on agriculture, slice and dice and try to make his ideological points at the expense of America's farmers is wrong. It is his prerogative. We all have our own ways of doing things. Ultimately, the blame for this fiasco falls upon majority leadership. Speaker Hastert, where is he? Majority Leader Armey, where is he? Majority Whip DeLay, where is he? America's farmers need their direction and they need your leadership, and they need it now. I believe that we need to assess what is taking place on this bill, and if Speaker Hastert cared about America's farmers, he would put a stop to it, and there are innumerable ways available to the Speaker of the House to get this bill from being eviscerated in the fashion the gentleman is attempting. Give him an opportunity to have his amendment, one amendment, and then let us get on and appropriate the money so our farmers know where they stand. There is not a component of our economy that is hurting as badly as our family farmers, and we all know that. These are boom times. The Dow flirts with record levels every day it seems like, but in the heartland of American agriculture there is nothing but pain and despair. At a time when our farmers are suffering, and when prices are below the cost of production, to have the agriculture appropriations bill held up for mockery and ridicule and evisceration like the gentleman from Oklahoma, as seemingly endorsed by the majority leadership is doing, is wrong. Rural America needs this Congress to respond to its problems. Those of us that represent farm country, we cannot do it all on our own. We need the body to work together, Republicans and Democrats standing up for farmers, and ultimately that is going to take some leadership out of the leadership. That is what leadership is all about. So I wish Speaker Hastert would think about the farmers in Illinois. I wish Majority Leader Armey would think about his North Dakota roots. I wish Majority Whip Delay would reflect on the pain in rural Texas and put a stop to this process so that we might get on to voting on an agriculture appropriations bill and send some support to our farmers.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the preceding speaker, my Republican friend and colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). I think that Members watching this debate ought to pay special attention to the bipartisan nature of the concern we are expressing. The House is, by its very nature, an urban institution, apportionment allocated by population. That means, those of us representing the country side have a particularly difficult task trying to convey why our issues matter. I do not think anyone watching this spectacle continue to unfold has to have any doubt whatsoever that it is another case of urban interests, this time Republican urban interests, ganging up on agriculture. What is so astounding to me is that the majority leadership continues to let this debacle unfold. I would ask all of my colleagues how they would feel if that which they care about most in the appropriations bills would be taken apart on the floor, like the agriculture budget is being taken apart here. Bear in mind that this is an appropriations report, brought out by the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen), that is within the allocation. We have a distinguished Member that has done everything right in bringing his appropriations bill forward. But now we have some Members indulging themselves in trying to play appropriators. They want to turn the floor of the House into an appropriations subcommittee. The thing that is most alarming is, they know not what they do. Will Rogers once said, ``It is not what the gentleman does not know that scares me, it is what he knows for sure that just ain't so; that is the problem.'' That is the problem with this slew of amendments, however well- intentioned they may be brought by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). He might be trying to make some point, some broad macro budget point, some highly principled ideological point, but the real fact is, he is tearing apart the budget for agriculture at a time when family farmers are in the deepest hurt I have ever seen. I have spent all my life in North Dakota. Agriculture is something that has been a part of me from the time I first formed any cognitive impressions of anything. This is not the time for the Congress of the United States to turn its back on the American farmer. My colleagues can say what they want to about this being the fiscal year 2000 budget. We are talking today about something that is not going to apply for several months. To the American farmer, in their hour of need, my colleagues are playing politics, and they are trivializing that which they care about the most, their bread and butter, agriculture, family farming. This should stop. As Members come to the House in a few minutes for votes, I hope they will stand with me and express just how they feel about this nonsense. It is our appropriations bill today; it could well be theirs tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to think about that. To the majority leadership, as they come to the floor to vote, I hope they will sit and take stock of the spectacle that they have turned the floor of the House into. They are the leaders and they control this place. To the extent that they allow a Member today to totally tie up this institution, they are unleashing a very unpredictable future course for the rest of this Congress, because what is important to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) this afternoon, there will be another issue of equally pressing importance to someone else further; and every appropriations bill about to be considered will be subject to this kind of debacle. The Nation needs to have its work done. We do not need to turn the floor of the House into a debating chamber for a very narrow spectrum of interests. Finally, and for me most importantly, the American farmers need help, and it is wrong for the majority to turn its back on them in their hour of need. Announcement By The Chairman

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will yield further, this House passed a budget. These are the early appropriation bills coming to the floor under that budget. Much was made by the majority in consideration of the budget that it was protecting Social Security. Here we have the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture bringing his bill up within the allocation he had.