Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to begin by commending the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the subcommittee chairman, for sponsoring this legislation, H.R. 4647, the Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1998. We have, from time to time, embarked on a horridly foolish embargo strategy. The unilateral embargo has absolutely had the effect of the hurt America first strategy. I remember vividly the reaction in our part of the country to the ill-advised Soviet grain embargo of 1980. Farmer after farmer could watch their year's profits go down the drain as, as a Nation, we embarked on a policy that did nothing to discourage the Soviet Union, the object of that embargo, but did everything to give great encouragement to our trade competitors who rushed in with their own grain, easily filling the market while we bore 100 percent of the cost of that venture. Let us learn from this mistake, because an embargo of that nature does not just cost us in terms of this year's lost markets, it makes us unreliable as a trading partner, so that next year we do not get the sale and the year after that we do not get the sale. We need to establish structurally everything we can to have confidence in our ongoing presence as a trading partner. That is why I think this bill is so well put together. It does not unilaterally say no, no, never, never, because we cannot possibly foresee the future, but it does bring Congress fully into the mix. After 100 days, the evaluation period provided in this legislation, we can be darn sure that, if an embargo continued, it was only because there was a very strong, very deep national consensus that this is the direction that we ought to go. I think that this legislation gets the balance just right and hopefully is going to put an end to the hurt America first strategy of prior agriculture embargoes. I want to end with a word of caution, because this legislation itself is not in any way a comprehensive response to the deep crisis we have today in the farm country. We need to do our part to replenish the International Monetary Fund. Our trading partners across the country, our grain customers are in deep financial trouble. We need to do our part in this international effort to shore up the stability of the financial markets across the world. Secondly, even today, we have States imposing rigorous grain inspections against Canadian grain imports. Underscoring that it is not just free trade, it is fair trade that we have to focus on, and the subsidized grain imports into our country are not fair trade, and we have a right to fair trade with respect to those imports. Finally, we will continue in this town in the next few days to evaluate whether the package of agriculture relief appropriated by the House last Friday is adequate. I adamantly maintain that we have not done enough to help farmers through this period of prices tanking because, after all, prior farm bills provided a measure of protection when prices collapsed. We are now in a farm bill environment that does not provide the protection, and we are going to lose farmers if we do not make a very significant response, one more significant than the one that this Congress has moved forward. In the end, though, I commend the chairman for his legislation and also would like to reiterate the comments of another subcommittee chairman regarding the leadership the gentleman from Oregon (Chairman Smith) has brought to the Committee on Agriculture. I have respected him about as much as any legislator I have had the opportunity to work with. His departure is going to leave a big old hole in the Committee on Agriculture. He has done a wonderful job as the chairman in this session.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations, and the chairman of the agriculture authorizing committee, as well as the ranking members, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). Mr. Speaker, I like these individuals a lot; they have put real hard work into this bill. However, I must rise and oppose this conference report. It is not my style, as the Members will note, to oppose agriculture appropriations bills, much less ask for a motion to recommit late on a Friday afternoon. But that is precisely what I am doing today, because the amount of relief in this bill is simply nowhere near adequate to meet the magnitude of the catastrophe unfolding in farm country. We have had a collapse of commodity prices. Wheat is down $1.66 a bushel in the last 2 years. That is a 36 percent drop. The relief provided under the AMTA increase in this bill would amount to 13 cents a bushel. Mr. Speaker, corn is down $2.37 a bushel; that is a 57 percent drop in market price. The relief in this bill would amount to 2 cents a bushel. Soybeans, $1.90 a bushel drop from 2 years ago, a 27 percent fall. The relief in this bill amounts to 2 cents a bushel. Mr. Speaker, the worst thing we can do is hold forth to the public some agriculture disaster response and then go home and let the farmers realize that it amounts to pennies on the dollar, compared to what their problems are. There is a difference as we look at what we face this fall, and the difference is, we no longer have a farm program that automatically triggers in relief when market prices collapse. Market prices have collapsed. There has been a start made in the bill to give farmers relief for both disaster assistance and market price collapse. The disaster assistance goes a lot further to meeting the need than the market price collapse. It is a good start, but we have to do more. The President has held out a veto threat on this bill. Let us not run this down Pennsylvania Avenue, have it vetoed, have it come back. Let us get it right the first time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be making a motion to recommit. My motion is going to provide that within the scope of the conference we recommit to increase the assistance available to family farmers suffering economic loss as a result of record low prices, deteriorating market conditions, and/or natural disasters. The fact of the matter is we have not done an adequate job in this bill. We need more relief. We will lose thousands and thousands of farmers across the country, and if it was not just so darn desperate, there is no way in the world I would try and make this motion on this bill at this time, but we have to do more. Please support the motion to recommit.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit this conference report, with instructions.

Mr. POMEROY. I am opposed to the conference report in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to address my colleagues this afternoon on an issue that is absolutely vital, not just vital to the State of North Dakota, that I represent, but vital to the rural dimension of this country of ours, and that is the plight facing farmers right across the country due to the collapse of commodity prices. What has made the problem so particularly acute this year over preceding years is that, as prices have fallen, we have learned the failing of the last farm bill all too clearly. There is no longer a safety net when prices collapse, and the farmers are hitting the deck all across the country. For years, farm policy in this country recognized that there were a couple of areas of risk that a family farmer could not individually deal with. One of the risks was the loss of production due to an act of God. A hail storm comes along and wipes out the field. It does not matter how good someone is at farming, that is a risk they cannot control. The other type of risk was the risk of price collapse; depending upon the particular vagaries of the world market in a given period of time. An individual could be the best farmer in the county, but if prices plunged so that at the county elevator they are not even getting the cost of production, they are going to have trouble feeding their family in the winter ahead. Well, we had a farm bill last time that represented the most significant change in agriculture policy in four decades. I voted against it. I voted against it because I believed it left farmers with bare exposure to these risks and was vitally unfair in that important respect. This afternoon I want us to focus in particular on the aspect of price protection, because this is the single largest peril facing family farmers this fall. As many of us read about the growing financial difficulties in Asia, we did not really understand what that would mean to our economy. Well, let me tell my colleagues, the first aspect of our economy to get this square in the face was agriculture, because 45 percent of the agriculture exports in this country went to Asia. They quit buying our Ag exports and prices have fallen dramatically. Exports to Asia are down 30 percent. Our major customers walked away from 30 percent of what they had previously bought from us. Imagine the impact on price. This was made even worse by the fact that across the world production of farm commodities was quite strong. So we have way more supply than we used to have, and the result is a lot of supply, slack demand, and prices tanking. Now, unlike preceding years, where we had the U.S. Department of Agriculture there to help farmers through these tough times, provide some cushion, we no longer have that safety net. We just have farmers taking it and taking it without any relief whatsoever. Let me try to put this in some perspective. Two years ago, as this farm bill just came into effect, the price of wheat was $1.66 per bushel above what it is today. Average price at the county elevator this month in North Dakota is $2.70 a bushel. We used to provide price protection down to $4 a bushel. I am not suggesting going back to the old farm bill, but I am suggesting we have to have some protection for farmers when prices collapse. For a farmer to get $1.66 a bushel less is just catastrophic. What are we thinking of doing about it in this particular Congress? We are putting together a disaster bill that will be wrapped into the Ag appropriations bill. We may be voting on it as early as tomorrow. But here is where it falls short. The relief it provides to farmers, in light of these collapsed prices, is nominal, insignificant, does not make them whole, will not keep them on the farms. Let me give my colleagues the hard reality. $1.66 collapse in prices on wheat. The farm bill relief proposed by the Republican majority will help farmers to 13 cents a bushel. Their price plunge is $1.66 a bushel; we are going to help them up to 13 cents a bushel. That does not cover the cost of production. That does not cover the cost they have sunk into their crop. That is not going to get the job done for our farmers. It is not just wheat that is in trouble. The relief for corn will be 7 cents a bushel. The relief for soybeans will be 2 cents a bushel. This is not help. We issue a press release: Big Ag relief package coming through Congress. It is almost worse than nothing because it falls so far short of what is required. My colleagues, stand with me and help us build a relief package for our farmers that actually means something and will help them get through the winter.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I also join the preceding speakers in strongly supporting this legislation. Those of us representing farm country know we are in the middle of a deep crisis, because commodity prices have collapsed. We need to pass disaster relief responding to the production and price collapse that we see throughout farm country. In addition, though, we need to work on structural issues that build markets for the long haul, and certainly increasing our effort at renewable fuels, such as bio-diesel, is a step in that right direction. By allowing vehicle fleet managers that use diesel the ability to use bio-diesel in their fleets and earn the required credits under EPACT, we clean the air and we bolster prices. It is a very good move, and my congratulations to the sponsors of this legislation. Please vote for it.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4579, a fiscally irresponsible bill that would spend Social Security trust funds on an election-year tax cut. I urge my colleagues to reject the bill and to support the alternative offered by the Ranking Minority Member Mr. Rangel to defer the tax bill until Congress and the President have agreed on legislation to protect the long-term future of Social Security. Earlier this year, when the country embarked on a two-year effort to reform Social Security, we appeared to have bipartisan agreement on reserving the entire federal budget surplus until Congress enacted a comprehensive plan to assure Social Security's future. This commitment made sense since, after all, the entire budget surplus came from surpluses building up within the Social Security system. If there is any lingering doubt on this front, I direct my colleagues to the August 1998 report of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). According to CBO, every dollar of the projected surplus for the next five years comes from Social Security. In fact, without Social Security, the federal budget is in deficit by $137 billion. Despite this clear evidence as to where our present surplus comes from, the congressional majority today backs away from its bipartisan commitment to Social Security reform and moves to spend the surplus before Congress has met its responsibility to secure Social Security's future. This is simply irresponsible. Social Security faces a financing shortfall over the long-term, and it is our solemn responsibility to address this shortfall and secure the future of this program that has done so much to protect America's families, mine included. By spending the Social Security surplus, the congressional majority digs the financing hole deeper and makes the work of securing Social Security even more difficult. Plain and simple, this takes us in the wrong direction. Mr. Chairman, our first step in making Social Security sound for the long haul must not be a step backward. Unfortunately, that is precisely the step the congressional majority takes today. I support targeted tax cuts for working families, farmers, and senior citizens, and in fact I voted for such tax cuts last year. The difference is that the tax cuts enacted last year to help young people go to college, to help working families raise their children, and to help all Americans save for retirement were fully off-set by spending cuts. Tax cuts off-set by spending reductions or paid for out of general revenues is fiscally responsible and protects Social Security. While I object to the use of Social Security to pay for tax cuts, I strongly support many of the tax changes proposed in this bill. I introduced legislation to provide full deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self-employed on the first day of this Congress and my bill has more bipartisan cosponsors than any other self-employed deduction bill. I am a cosponsor of legislation to allow farmers to average their income and I am pleased the provision was included in the tax bill last year. I strongly support estate tax relief for family farmers that was also addressed in last year's tax bill. I have cosponsored legislation to reduce the marriage penalty, and I support increasing the earnings limit for Social Security recipients. For members who support the tax provisions in this bill but who want to protect the long-term future of Social Security, I encourage your support for the Rangel alternative. Let us reserve the surplus until Congress and the President have agreed on legislation to protect Social Security and then enact well-earned tax cuts for the American people.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on the issue before us, this Congress stands at a very important crossroads: Do we go down the easy path of dissipating the Social Security surplus on election year gimmicks like this proposed tax cut, or do we brace ourselves for the tough march that lies ahead to secure Social Security, to address the long-term solvency problem in Social Security so it will work as well for our grandchildren as it has worked for our parents and grandparents? It is a critical question. Dissipating Social Security trust funds makes our problem worse. We already have bills before this session that would require someone to work until they are 70 years old before they would get their Social Security payment, or that would raise the tax on Social Security, making wage-earners pay even more into Social Security. Both of these measures are to fill the solvency hole we already have. Mr. Speaker, a tax cut on the Social Security surplus would only make the problem worse. The question before us is one most of us have never faced before, the first surplus we have seen in 30 years. Let us hold the Social Security surplus for Social Security. Pass the Rangel substitute.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 144 expressing the support of Congress in the celebration of the bicentennial of the historic Lewis and Clark Expedition. Nearly two hundred years ago, Congress played a role in this historic journey by financing a small part of the expedition which was charged with finding an all water route to the Pacific. Today, Congress can again play a role in one of the most remarkable and productive scientific and military exploring expeditions in all of American history by signaling its support for the bicentennial celebration activities and events. The Corps of Discovery contributed greatly to our knowledge of the West, not only with respect to geography but also of the natural resources, flora, fauna and animals present. Recognizing the pivotal role the journey played in our nation's history and the inevitable movement westward, the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council is playing a leading role in coordinating and planning a variety of activities and events to commemorate the bicentennial. In addition, many committees and advisory boards have been formed across the country and are diligently working to ensure that the Lewis and Clark expedition is highlighted not only in the states in which the Corps of Discovery transversed, but throughout the nation. 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 success of the bicentennial commemorative activities planned all along the route will require the cooperation of all federal agencies, American Indian tribes, public officials and citizens alike. I believe it is important for all Americans to join in the celebration of this important American journey. We, as Members of Congress, must do all we can to support, promote and participate in the commemorative activities of the expedition, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues, the observance of the National POW/MIA Recognition Day. To commemorate this day, there will be an interservice flyover of the Pentagon & two of the four pilots hail from my state of North Dakota. Captain Jon Wutzke, and Major Michael Wobbema, will pilot two F-16s from the 199th Fighter Wing of the North Dakota Air National Guard. Otherwise known as the ``The Happy Hooligans'', this wing is one of the most proficient and decorated units in the U.S. military. It was the first Air National Guard Unit to fly in a NATO operation in 1986. In 1994 this group entered and won the William Tell Air Competition against fighter squadrons from around the world. Captain ``Moose'' Wutzke and Major ``Beamer`` Wobbema, will help focus the attention of our nation on the over 85,000 military personnel who have been taken Prisoner of War or became Missing in Action since the beginning of World War II. I've included their call names because this identifies them as more than just military personnel with a rank, but individuals with personalities. The flight formation used in this event is the ``Missing Man'' formation in which the number three position flown by our Major Wobbema draws attention to those who have not returned. Having said that, we must not forget those who cannot experience the things we take for granted every day, our lives, our homes, our families and our country. These pilots are trying to remind us of the risk all our military personnel take so that we may continue our daily lives with safety and without fear.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank her very much for her leadership by bringing this motion to instruct. I have the greatest respect for the chairman and appreciate the comments he just made. What is before the body, however, is what we can do right now, and what this body can do right now is pass this motion to instruct our conferees to go ahead and accept the Senate disaster provision into the conference report for the agriculture appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, we have an unprecedented disaster facing farm country, and working together, Republicans and Democrats, we have to respond. It is estimated that we could lose up to one-third of the farmers in the State I represent if we do not do something meaningful. This is urgent. This is a crisis. Our region, the Upper Great Plains, has been swamped by a 5-year wet cycle that has left 1.4 million acres inundated, under water, not able to be productive. In addition to that, the same wet cycle has produced a disease called Scab, which has devastated production, and for crop we are able to get that is afflicted with this Scab, we get steeply discounted prices. Just when we thought nothing could possibly get worse, we have a collapse in Asia markets and the price of wheat and barley is literally at a 50-year low. Mr. Speaker, this situation is so dire that according to the Department of Commerce, farm income in North Dakota declined by an astounding 98 percent, a 98 percent decline in net farm income between 1996 to 1997. Now, our pain, and our pain could not be greater, is spreading. We do not take joy in having company in our plight, but we do acknowledge that the drought which wiped out the 1998 cotton crop in Texas created dire circumstances for farmers in the southern plains; hurricanes have hit the Carolinas; commodity prices have been hurt from Maine to California. We have a disaster of national dimension and we must respond to it. Now, the motion to instruct calls upon House conferees to take the action by delivering immediate assistance to America's farmers and to acknowledge the flat reality that this is an emergency. This is an emergency. Our response to it needs to be afforded the emergency status provided for in our budget rules and not be offset, but be funded under the emergency basis. That is the action the Senate took, and it will be key to our being able to make a meaningful response to the dimensions of this plight. The motion to instruct conferees to accept the Senate provisions in light of the mounting farm losses will probably need to be plussed up. We are going to need more money than the $500 million in the Senate bill. I think that this motion, however, directs us exactly in the way we need to go. We have an emergency, we have to respond to it. Republicans, Democrats, farm country, urban legislatures, please unite to pass this motion.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 459, a resolution commemorating 50 years of relations between the Untied States and the Republic of Korea. I want to personally thank Congressman Gilman, the sponsor of the legislation, for his work on this issue. Since the liberation from colonial Japanese rule and the end of the Korean War, the United States has been a staunch supporter of Korea. During the cold War era, Korea played a key role in impeding the spread of communism around the world. Korea has demonstrated through its own successful transition to democracy that cooperative efforts have been beneficial. Last year, Korea was on the verge of national financial turmoil, but, instead of falling into a depression, it started to rise again with the assistance and cooperation of the Untied States. It is with respect that we commemorate 50 years of close relations between our countries. As a father of two adopted children from Korea--Kathryn and Scott--I understand how closely connected Korea is with us. Koreans and Americans have formed a brotherhood, uniting in our common interests and values, which includes the welfare of our children. As we continue pursuing even stronger bilateral relations, Congress should play a positive role in promoting our relations with Korea. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1560, 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. 1560 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, Thomas Jefferson 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. Speaker, following a meeting this morning with farmers and grain shippers in Minot, North Dakota, I experienced an unavoidable travel delay on my return trip to Washington. As a result, I was absent for the roll call votes taken today, August 3.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Lazio Amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. While I supported H.R. 2, the housing reform bill when it was brought to the floor last year, I do not believe the appropriations bill before us in an appropriate vehicle to move the bill forward. I am supportive of reforming our public housing, however, reform needs to take place in the proper forum. Attaching a complicated bill like H.R. 2 to an appropriations bill has the potential to delay critical funding for our nation's veterans, housing for low income families and other vital programs. Conference negotiations on the bill could even be delayed to the point of another government shutdown. After witnessing the negative effects of the government shutdown in 1995, we must ensure that we never face that situation again. I have concerns about the provision in H.R. 2 dealing with the untested home rule provision. The home rule provision would essentially eliminate the role of housing authorities in any decision affecting Section 8 and public housing programs by turning the administration of these programs over to local governments. This and other modifications to public housing need to be thought through carefully. Unfortunately, an appropriations bill does not provide for that type of comprehensive consideration.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today, North Dakotans said goodbye to a great friend and one of the most compassionate leaders the State has ever seen. State Representative Bill Oban passed away last week and I would like to take this opportunity to pay him tribute. As a leader in the State legislature over the past 14 years, Bill worked tirelessly on behalf of those who needed the most help. His energy seemed endless during tough battles over compensation for injured workers and education for students with special needs. Bill represented the best part of the Democratic Party--he was, as one good friend described him, the party's conscience--giving a voice to so many people without one. During a time when our country is long on political rhetoric and in short supply of people with vision working on behalf of others, Bill stood tall as a true champion. You see, Bill was less interested in taking credit than he was in making a difference. And with that attitude, what a difference he did make! Sadly, he leaves behind a wonderful family that is just beginning to deal with their great loss. His wife Alice and his children Heather, Shawn and Chad are in my thoughts and prayers during this terribly difficult time. North Dakotans not only lost a smart, caring legislator--they lost a good friend in Bill Oban. The newspaper from the State's largest city, The Forum, joined with the rest of the State in mourning the huge loss, calling Bill a family man first, an educator second, a lawmaker third. Knowing Bill, I am sure that is exactly how he would have liked people to remember him. Bill Oban Will Be Missed North Dakotans didn't have to agree with state Rep. Bill Oban in order to respect his commitment to the people of his state. When the Bismarck Democrat died Friday from injuries suffered in an automobile crash a few days before, the state lost a compassionate and intelligent legislator. Oban, 51, earned the respect of his colleagues because of his dedication to his ideals. His passion, which sometimes rose to indignant anger, made for lively committee meetings and floor debates in the state House of Representatives. Even his political foes enjoyed Oban's style because they understood his determination to make North Dakota a better place for all. As a member of the minority, he often lost the issue, but never lost his sense of humor. Oban grew up in New Rockford, lived in Grafton, and eventually settled his family in Bismarck. He had a good grasp of the different needs of rural and urban counties. He was a family man first, an educator second, a lawmaker third. That combination served him sell as an advocate for youth, families and people in need. One of Oban's colleagues described him as ``the conscience'' of his political party. We would extend that characterization. His record suggests he was the conscience of the Legislature, often reminding the House of its responsibility to all North Dakotans, no matter their social or economic status. North Dakotans say goodbye to Oban today. We join with his family, friends, and colleagues in mourning his death. He will be missed.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just returned today from 3 weeks in North Dakota. I want my colleagues to understand just how desperately dire the farm situation is in my State and throughout the upper Great Plains. We are absolutely ravaged by the twin disasters of very difficult times producing a crop and then a horribly insufficient price once you get a few bushels to market. In fact, let us focus on the price problem for purpose of the debate before us. Price adjusted for inflation for wheat is at its lowest point in 50 years, this in the face of input costs that have gone up 71 percent since 1992. Under that new farm bill, we have done terrible damage to any functioning safety net for agriculture, as the farmers in my region are so tragically demonstrating. That means we have to do everything possible to try and get that price up. That is why I was so pleased to join the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) in initiating the legislation that is substantially what is before us this afternoon and why we must act and must act now. The USDA has done some brilliant work using the GSM loan program to advance wheat sales. With Pakistan representing potentially 10 percent of our wheat export market, it is vital that we do not lose a day, that we do not lose one sale by virtue of having this GSM program opportunity disrupted by application of the Arms Export Control Act. I have read that act and I, for the life of me, do not really see why we could not have gone forward with this anyway, but the administration has ruled that we needed legislation. So let us pass the legislation and let us pass it today. We should not continue this ``hurt America first'' policy which is the unfortunate aspect of applying sanctions on our agriculture exports. We need this legislation. Please join me in voting for it.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Market Access Program (MAP) and oppose any attempt to further debilitate the program's capacity to aid in the exportation of U.S. agricultural commodities. The Market Access Program boosts agriculture and international trade, and promotes small business and American-made products. Put simply, MAP helps develop foreign markets for U.S. exports. The MAP provides cost-share funds to nearly 800 U.S. businesses, cooperatives, and non-profit trade associations to promote their products overseas. The funding is limited to U.S. entities. America's farmers are still adjusting to ``Freedom to Farm,'' and it would be unwise and unfair to take away other underlying support programs like the MAP. I have said the same thing about research funding and funding for adequate revenue and crop insurance. Congress promised America's farmers certain fundamental support mechanisms as we moved to ``Freedom to Farm.'' Although producers no longer can rely on the government to come through and pick up the tab when commodity prices are lower than target prices, they need to be able to depend on certain supplemental programs run by the Department of Agriculture that keep producers' heads above an already narrow margin. American agriculture is continually threatened by subsidized foreign competition. The European Union and other foreign competitors maintain a 10 to 1 advantage over the U.S. in terms of export subsidies, and with that advantage they can expand their share of the world market at the expense of U.S. farmers and ranchers. In my state of North Dakota, the USDA-Bureau of Census tells us the MAP contributes indirectly to the promotion of approximately $1.7 billion in exports, and 29,300 jobs. Specifically, farmer cooperative- members of the Minn-Dak sugarbeet growers, and North American Bison Cooperative benefit directly from MAP funding. These direct benefits, for instance, produce indirect benefits throughout many facets of the economy. Rural income depends on--and is at the mercy of--many variables. Weather and domestic supply are examples. But the ability to export overseas and compete with foreign markets is another integral piece to maintaining rural income. The MAP offers one small opportunity for American farmers to compete in the international market--during a time when agriculture is our nation's most export- dependent industry and exports account for one-third of U.S. production. The elimination of MAP would represent unilateral disarmament in the face of continued subsidized foreign competition. Oppose reductions to the MAP. Don't take away this important tool which provides access for U.S. farmers to assistance which knocks down foreign barriers and reduces the costs of competing in the world market.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for S. 1069. I want to thank Chairman Young for his personal attention to this bill and for his assistance in bringing it to the floor for immediate consideration. The Fort Berthold Indian Reservation has been working for years to develop partnerships with the oil industry to explore the development of oil and gas resources on its lands. The Fort Berthold Reservation covers about 1 million acres of land in the middle of the proven oil- rich Williston Basin. There has been active oil and gas exploration and development on the lands surrounding the reservation, but the tribe and its members have been able to participate in this activity in a very limited way. The tribal government is eager to explore oil and gas development on tribal lands and their prospects for receiving leasing activity are very good. Economic development should be a top priority in Indian country. Unfortunately, our Federal policies hinder the creation of new economic development opportunities on our Nation's Indian reservations. The bill before us aims to address a provision in Federal law that unnecessarily hampers economic development efforts on the Ft. Berthold reservation in North Dakota. Currently, Federal law requires that 100 percent of all tribal members with ownership in an allotment agree to the leasing of that allotment. Some of the allotted land tracts on the Ft. Berthold reservation are owned by up to 200 individuals. So if one of these owners will not sign the lease, the exploration cannot proceed. This requirement makes it virtually impossible for tribes and its members to pursue this type of economic development, even if a vast majority of allottees are supportive. The requirement shuts Indian oil development down cold. The legislation would allow a leasing agreement to move forward if more than 50 percent of those with an interest in specific allotted lands agree. It is narrowly drawn so as to only apply to the Fort Berthold Reservation. The legislation is strongly supported by the tribal council and the Interior Department. The economic implications of this legislation for the Ft. Berthold Reservation are enormous. This legislation will help Indian people on Fort Berthold achieve economic self-sufficiency. Additionally, I believe the legislation, which is so particularly important to the tribe at issue, may also serve as an example that we might follow later on. And so as we help the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, I believe that we may be doing a favor for all Indian reservations that might be interested in exploring mineral leasing activity in the future. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank all in the majority and minority for helping us bring this matter forward.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to focus on what this is really all about. It is not about Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. It is much more about Paul and Vanessa Kummer, family farmers near the Red River of North Dakota. I heard the preceding speaker say this is about big corporate farming producing sugar. We do not even allow under State law corporate farming in North Dakota, but the sugar program is absolutely a vital part of our agriculture. Our agriculture is under very severe stress, with the value of wheat dropping 33 percent, barley dropping 29 percent, and virtually all of our farmers losing money. The only thing that is lending a level of stability to North Dakota agriculture is the sugar program. If this amendment would pass, the average farmer having 100 acres of sugar beets would lose $6,000 in a single year. We are on our backs with North Dakota agriculture. We need help. This would absolutely kick us when we are down. Please defeat this amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Agriculture Appropriations Act and to commend the good work of the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Skeen, and the ranking member, Mrs. Kaptur. I am especially pleased that the bill includes the legislation introduced by Representative Nethercutt and myself to clarify the status USDA export credit programs under the Arms Export Control Act. Following the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan last month, a serious question was raised as to whether the GSM program, which provides guaranteed financing for American agriculture exports, would have to be suspended for India and Pakistan. The resolution of this issue is vitally important to American wheat farmers since Pakistan is the third largest wheat market in the world, accounts for 10 percent of all U.S. wheat exports, and relies on the GSM program for nearly all of its U.S. wheat imports. The Nethercutt-Pomeroy bill provides needed statutory clarification by specifically excluding USDA export programs from the Arms Export Control Act. I commend Mr. Nethercutt for his leadership, and I would also like to thank the Administration for endorsing the legislation. Just this morning, the President personally expressed his support for the Nethercutt bill during the White House signing ceremony of the Agriculture Research bill. With all parties firmly behind the legislation, I am encouraged that it will be swiftly adopted and that market disruption will be held to a minimum. Mr. Chairman, farmers on the Upper Great Plains are already struggling with miserably low market prices, adverse growing conditions, and devastating crop disease. The crisis in farm country demands a multi-faceted response from Congress, including improvements in crop insurance, an enhanced marketing loan, and an expansion of foreign markets. At a minimum, we should not surrender hard-fought and hard-won foreign markets through unilateral sanctions. The Nethercutt- Pomeroy bill ensures that we will not make that mistake. I urge my colleagues to support the Agriculture Appropriations Act.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, a year ago Grand Forks, North Dakota, was ravaged by flooding waters from the Red River. The eyes of the Nation watched with horror as this city of 50,000 suffered not just a devastating flooding event, but, in the middle of all else, fires began in the downtown that ravaged 11 of the major buildings in downtown Grand Forks as well. The attention of this body was focused on that event, and the assistance resulting in the disaster supplemental appropriations bill really played a very critical role in our ability to begin the rebuilding process, a process that continues even today. Today I take the floor to tell you of another disaster, a disaster that, at least as far as North Dakota is concerned, is every bit as threatening, every bit as devastating, every bit as disastrous as the Grand Forks flood. But this disaster, chances are you will have never heard of, not seen a second of television footage, and be utterly unaware it is occurring. This is a stealth disaster, and it is a disaster facing the agriculture base of the State of North Dakota. This chart tells the story, just as clearly as this story can be told. The U.S. Department of Commerce reported that in 1996, the net farm income in North Dakota totaled $764 million. One year later, that total had fallen to $15 million net farm income for the entire State, a drop of 98 percent. The average North Dakota producer lost $23,000 last year, and the average North Dakota producer is, by the way, a family farm, relatively modest in income levels, even in the best of years; a loss of $23,000 last year. Across the State, those making loans available to farmers report that 80 of the borrowers lost money last year. This disaster is the stealth disaster. Hopefully the remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), the remarks I am making, and our ongoing effort will make it less of a stealth disaster in the weeks to come, but its depth and its consequences are as serious as I could possibly begin to tell you. One of the consequences inevitably of the kind of economic results I have just spoken of is revealed in this kind of cryptic gallows humor cartoon. It says ``'tis spring, 'tis spring,'' and it has got the vultures flying over the farm auction postings, a very apt characterization of precisely what is reflected in the newspapers advertising farm auctions. Pages and pages and pages of auction sales reflecting the end of a multi-generation of family farming operations. Typically each and every auction revealed in these many pages will be a family farm, initially homesteaded, perhaps a century ago, and then farmed successfully now for several generations, until the devastation we have now seen has made continuation of that family farming entity impossible. Why is this happening? What could possibly be bringing this about? Well, first of all, it is a combination of disastrous production conditions, coupled with disastrous prices, and all occurring in the backdrop of a new farm policy, a farm policy of this country that essentially has substantially reduced in meaningful ways the types of support and assistance the Federal Government had previously maintained for decades to family farmers when they get into trouble. I think it is important for us to look at the changes in farm policy and draw conclusions in terms of what we must do in the future to react. Clearly, the results shown in North Dakota show the existing safety net is not meeting the challenge facing the farmers in our area and across the country.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, while I will be voting for the Energy and Water Appropriations bill at this early point in the legislative process, I want my colleagues to know that the funding in this measure for several important water projects in North Dakota are not adequate and must be improved in conference committee. I am particularly disappointed that the Subcommittee appears to be relying on the Senates' funding commitments for the Devils Lake outlet, the Buford-Trenton irrigation district flowage easements, and the Garrison Diversion MR and I projects to avoid committing appropriate and required funding levels in the House. I will be working closely with the House conferees to obtain a fair result for North Dakota in the conference committee and regret the House bill in its present forum falls so far short of the mark. I am voting for the bill to move us to the next step in the process-- conference committee--because I believe this will be the fastest way to make the needed improvements to this bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman for making that distinction. Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question. The Budget Act does not provide or specify in any way about a letter from the Committee on Appropriations chairman. The procedure is that the Committee on the Budget chairman must submit a letter relative to the spending allocations so that the body may proceed. My question is has the Committee on the Budget chairman submitted a letter pursuant to the legal requirement of the Budget Act?