Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

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

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my name as a cosponsor of the Comprehensive Coal Reform Act Reform Act (H.R. 2231), a bipartisan bill introduced by Representative Deborah Pryce (R-OH) on July 27, 1997. This bill seeks to address certain inequities created by the reachback tax provisions of the Coal Industry Health Benefit Act of 1992 (the Coal Act) while protecting the health benefits of retired mine workers. Under the Coal Act, former employers of retired coal miners are required to pay assessments to a Combined Fund to finance retiree benefits. I believe it is appropriate for former employers to bear this financial responsibility. However, in some cases, the reachback tax is applied unfairly, requiring employers with limited liability to pay large assessments while employers with significant liability pay a lower assessment. H.R. 2231 attempts to correct these inequities while ensuring that the Combined Fund has adequate resources to pay retiree benefits. The language of H.R. 2231 may or may not be the perfect means to achieve these goals. However, I believe that the bill represents an honest attempt to reach a compromise on this important issue.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA) which reauthorizes federal highway spending. States desperately need adequate resources to keep pace with the stresses placed on their transportation infrastructure. While I am supportive of increased funding for transportation infrastructure, I believe the bill before us today contains a flawed funding formula which leaves rural states without the resources to address their transportation needs. Highway funding is vitally important to every state in America, especially my state of North Dakota since we have more miles of road per capita than any state in the nation. Highways are the lifeline of our economy, providing a means to transport commodities to market and linking the distance between our cities and towns. This bill unfortunately short changes several rural states. Large rural states face unique challenges in maintaining, repairing and building their transportation network. However, the funding distribution formula contained in the bill results in a drop in total spending for North Dakota and other rural states from the existing formula. Under BESTEA, North Dakota would receive $34 million a year less than what it would receive if the bill were enacted using the existing formula. Maintaining a sound and efficient transportation network across the country depends on adequate funding for both urban/ suburban and rural areas. The transportation bill which passed the Senate contained a funding formula which strikes a balance between the competing interests of urban/suburban and rural areas. I am hopeful that as the conference committee begins work on the two bills that we can reach a funding formula that recognizes the unique aspects of rural states.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone involved with the Committee on Resources for allowing this bill to come to the floor today, specifically the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth), the chairs of the subcommittees of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), for their participation. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this legislation. This bill to authorize a mineral exchange has been the result of extensive negotiations between Burlington Resources, an oil and gas development company, the U.S. Forest Service, the North Dakota chapters of the Sierra Club and Wildlife Society, the Governor of North Dakota and the Bureau of Land Management Resources Advisory Council. Now, why so much time and attention put on such an issue? As you can see, this is some of the most beautiful scenic area in western North Dakota. It is of a unique historical nature as well. General Custer and his troops rolled through this area looking for gold. Teddy Roosevelt ranched and hunted bison and grizzly in this region. There are unique geological formations which have caused the area to be considered sacred by the native Mandan and Hidatsa Indian tribes. In this area alone, 26 archeological, 8 historical and 27 isolated artifact sites are known to exist. By passing this legislation, you will help us protect this region. The bill is a win-win, because both the environmental and mineral exploration in western North Dakota are advanced by this legislation. Because of the fragmented land ownership pattern in this area, this exchange is going to have the effect of better protecting bighorn sheep habitat and lambing areas, and the viewshed of the Little Missouri River, indicated by this picture. For the mineral company, the exchange facilitates exploration in a way that is compatible with the unique features of the area. The bill accomplishes the following: Swaps mineral interests of the Federal Forest Service for mineral interests of the Burlington resources area; it authorizes the exchange of any other private mineral rights for the Federal mineral rights within 180 days of enactment subject to the Secretary's approval; it requires Burlington Resources, as a condition of exchange, to secure the release of any contractual property rights that may exist; assures no provision of the legislation can be interpreted to limit, restrict, or otherwise affect the application of the principle of multiple use in the national grasslands. Also, the bill does not change the amount of surface ownership of the Federal Forest Service; decrease the Federal land available for oil and gas development; decrease the revenue to the county, State, or Federal governments. It does not provide Burlington Resources or the Forest Service with mineral rights of a greater value than those they now hold, and it does not change or address the ongoing issue of wilderness designation in this area. In conclusion, this is simply positive legislation that allows for optimal preservation and optimal development in western North Dakota. There is a specific issue raised by the Committee on Commerce which I want to speak to in the concluding portion of my remarks. After the Committee on Resources reported out H.R. 2574, an identical version of the bill before us today, S. 750, a question was raised by the Committee on Commerce regarding the applicability of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, known as CERCLA, or Superfund, to the exchange involved in this legislation. Section 120(h) imposes certain requirements on the Federal agencies concerning hazardous substances whenever the agencies dispose of real property, particularly when any hazardous substance was stored for 1 year or more, known to have been released, or disposed of there, and when the Federal Government plans to terminate the Federal Government operations there. CERCLA does not define ``real property''. This legislation involves the exchange of only private and Federal undeveloped oil and gas rights, all of which will remain under federally-owned surface in the National Grasslands. We understand no hazardous substance was stored for 1 year or more, known to have been released, or disposed of on this Federal surface. Furthermore, the United States does not plan to terminate the Federal Government operations on this Federal surface. For all these reasons, we believe that section 120(h) of CERCLA is not applicable to the transaction authorized by this legislation. It is, therefore, not the sponsor's intention nor the committee's intention that the legislation affect in any way the responsibilities and obligations of the parties to the transaction directed by the legislation under any applicable provisions of CERCLA. That said for the Record, Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank really very sincerely the leadership of the Committee on Natural Resources and the ranking minority member for their assistance. This is important to us in North Dakota. I thank the Members for their help.

Mr. POMEROY

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, this is just for purposes of clarifying our earlier exchange. I would point to page 4 of the bill, lines 22 through 25, as addressing the violation or violations of Internal Revenue law or laws asserting the assessment or collection of any tax debt, revenue or receipt, and the provision of ERISA to which I was referring was the requirement that an employer alert the employee of the retirement benefits in the plan. That is something that I believe we want to encourage, and I am afraid a blanket exemption as contained in the bill, unlike the proportional language dealt with in the amendment, would be an overreach, would be too much of a correction in that respect.

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

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, that is precisely my point. This is not an IRS ``you owe the money'' deal. This is a requirement on the employer that they notify the employee of what their retirement benefits are. It is my belief that that would be dealt with under the act, that part of ERISA is not exempted.

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

Mr. POMEROY. Can the gentleman clarify that?

Mr. POMEROY. I have another issue that I will raise in that respect, but I would love the clarification, that ERISA in total is not subject to the act. That is not my understanding.

Mr. POMEROY. I would be happy to respond. The regulatory requirement to which I was speaking is originally based in the ERISA legislation, but based in the Department of Labor. And so it is certainly my impression that the legislation before us does not waive that one, that it would be applicable as a Department of Labor requirement on small business.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me begin my remarks by commending the bill's sponsor as well as the amendment's sponsor for the thoughtful discussions that has unfolded on the House floor. I think that the tone and the depth of the debate has been extremely interesting. I want to also commend the bill's sponsor and the amendment's sponsor for advancing a very important public purpose of providing meaningful paperwork reduction to the small employers across the country. I have spent probably the last 2 or 3 years in this Chamber focusing on how we expand employer-based retirement savings opportunities for the Nation's workforce. I have concluded that providing paperwork reduction is an important part of expanding the opportunity for employers to offer work-based retirement savings. We have simply made it too complex, too confusing, too cumbersome and we have actually discouraged employers from doing just what we want to encourage them to do, provide a retirement benefit for their workers. I have joined this effort at paperwork reduction. We have passed some on defined contribution plans, we have got some that is proposed and under consideration for defined benefit plans. One of the things that I have learned as we have worked in this area of paperwork reduction for retirement benefits is that it is vitally important to get it right. Therefore, the amendment before us deserves very careful consideration. I would urge its adoption. I think that the bill overreaches relative to retirement benefits. Let me give my colleagues a couple of examples of where it would. One of the requirements, one of the regulatory requirements of an employer offering retirement benefits to their employees is that they provide a summary plan description to the employee alerting the employee as to the benefit they are receiving. This can be very important. In a defined contribution plan, for example, it is quite often structured so the employer will match the employee's contribution into the retirement savings account. The employee, for example, for every dollar up to 3 percent of salary for example, the employer will match dollar for dollar. Imagine the situation, if you will, where the employer forgets to notify the employee that that program is available, that that match is available into the retirement account. The employee does not know of this retirement benefit, the employee does not exercise their opportunity to gain retirement savings, and there is nothing, virtually nothing the Department of Labor can do under the bill to respond to that situation. We need to have our workforce have retirement benefits at work and we need to have them alerted to what those benefits are. I think the amendment would be much more appropriate than the bill itself relative to that issue.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3130. I want to tell Members a bit about the research that I did prior to the vote on this measure. I went to the State of North Dakota and evaluated their efforts to bring the new system of child support collection on line. I was terribly concerned that passage of this measure might somehow signal that quickly bringing more rigorous child enforced collection procedures on line would be set back by this legislation. I became convinced of the contrary. North Dakota is making great strides toward meeting the new standards. However, we are not going to meet the deadline. Collections are increasing. We are on track to have an optimal system on line by this summer. If we do not pass this bill, North Dakota will be substantially financially penalized. The resources put into bringing us on line and upgrading our systems will be diverted into dealing with the consequences of the existing penalty. In other words, existing law is not serving a constructive purpose. This law will serve the constructive purpose of encouraging States, like the one I represent, to step up child support collection and to bring these new systems on line as quickly as possible. I commend the State employees in North Dakota that are working so hard to get us there and appreciate very much the Committee on Ways and Means bringing this bill forward.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, it is very, very rare to sit as a Member of this body and to feel so strongly about the good of the legislation before us. I just want to go ``yes.'' But that is what I feel on this legislation. And for all we get up and gasp, one Member to another, about how we have been working together and all that, this time I mean it, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], I will forever appreciate and never forget how good their work has been. It is just fabulous. It is an emotional topic to me because I have adopted two children out of foster care. We got Katherine at 3\1/2\ months and Scott at 4\1/ 2\ months. They were babies. We could get on with the business of being a family. And we know that from that comes not just emotional dimensions of stability and security and self-esteem, but actually neurological development issues that are so critical to the ultimate opportunity and fate and lives that these little beings will have. We face the reality today that there are tens of thousands of precious lives out there in a state of limbo, unable to know where they are going to end up, unable to attach to the loving care-givers that they are spending their days with because they do not know whether they are not going to be with that care-giver anymore. In some instances, abused children live daily with the fear that they may be sent back by some people in some process they do not begin to understand into a home where the abuse occurred in the first place. They do not even go to bed at night with the sense of personal safety and security. This legislation offers an opportunity to change that. We have on the books a bill that requires reasonable efforts to achieve family reunification, and that has sent a mixed signal from this body to those on the front lines trying to make this excruciatingly difficult system work. It is time we help clarify the primary objective. And the primary objective comes down to something terribly, terribly simple: Children need families. And that needs to be the overriding goal. Now, as a parent, I can tell my colleagues that families need children as an also urgent part of this process. But it is the children's interest that is clearly before us and advanced by this legislation. It does so significantly. First of all, it addresses that safety issue. If they are from an abusive home or where there is a question in terms of their safety, they will never be sent back there again, they will never be subject to that threat again. Second, it brings resolution to the process. For those that are on their fourth or fifth or sixth foster home, while some social worker works to try and make an adult out of a parent whose immaturity has made parenting skills impossible, we bring resolution to that process; we put this child on track toward a permanent home so they can get on with their development within 1 year. And finally, we provide the resources to help the States in this regard: $10 million annually over the next 3 years for technical assistance, $208 million over the next 5 years to fund the incentives for States so they might take the steps to get this done. I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. As they leave this chamber at the end of this Congress, they will have many, many works of legislative achievement to look back upon. For my money, this one will be the hallmark. They have made a lasting contribution to the well- beings of the children of this country and foster care this morning. And again, I thank them. And on behalf of the people of this country, I thank them for this good work.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], the subcommittee Chair, for her assistance in this matter. She has superbly described S. 1079. I would add, I would have preferred the consideration of this in an unamended form, but I am really pleased that it is before us on the suspension calendar. I do support the legislation. It is strongly supported by the tribal government at issue. At a time when we are encouraging economic self- sufficiency, the tribal government is eager to explore oil and gas development on tribal lands. Because this reservation wholly lies within the Williston Basin, an area where there has been a lot of successful oil development, their prospects are very good that they will receive leasing activity and the economic development that flows from that; that they will subsequently see oil development and also create a substantial number of jobs in the development of their oil resources. How cruel our existing policy has been relative to the development of leasing activity within Indian lands. By requiring, as we have done since the 1909 act, virtually every interest owner, no matter how minute, to have to be identified and have them sign off on the proposal, we have essentially shut Indian oil development down cold. I think that this legislation, which will be 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 tonight, 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 for helping us bring this matter forward.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997. My colleagues, Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan, are introducing a companion bill in the Senate today. This bill represents an unprecedented agreement among North Dakota's congressional delegation, the States' elected leaders and a variety of State organizations. After years of negotiations, this legislation embodies a bipartisan effort to meet the comprehensive water needs of North Dakota, including the State's four Indian reservations. Without a dependable source of quality water the State's potential for economic development will be crippled. The Dakota Water Resources Act amends the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986 and would refocus the project from large- scale irrigation to the delivery of safe water. Throughout North Dakota, people realize that the project as outlined under the 1986 Act will not happen, and they support the more affordable, realistic provisions that would meet the State's water needs. Right now, much of the State lacks a supply of quality water. Many communities have unresolved Safe Drinking Water Act compliance problems. Rural water systems and regional water supply systems have been formed to meet the water needs, but much more needs to be done to complete those systems. To meet cities and towns' needs for safe water, the act authorizes $300 million for municipal, rural and industrial water systems (MR&I) projects. It allows the State to provide grants or loans to MR&I systems. This means the State could establish a revolving loan fund and continue to use funds from repaid loans for MR&I systems. In conjunction with the State's need for MR&I, it is important to note the additional authorization of $200 million which would provide for MR&I on the four Indian reservations. Additionally, authorization for irrigation on the reservations is included in this legislation, along with a provision which gives tribes the flexibility to determine which sites to irrigate within the reservation. The Standing Rock, Fort Berthold, Turtle Mountain and Fort Totten Indian Reservations would finally be able to meet their long overdue water needs with these provisions. Another major feature of this legislation which has not been realized under the 1986 Act is the ability to meet the water needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota. This would provide $200 million for the State to choose the method of delivering Missouri River water to the Red River Valley. The communities of Fargo, and Grand Forks, as well as other towns up and down the valley would have a reliable source of water for continued growth in population and commercial activity. Any project that would be completed under the Act must comply with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. We fully intend, and are required, to comply with the 1909 treaty between the United States and Canada when considering completion of any component of the project. In addition to meeting the State and the Indian reservation's comprehensive and future water needs, this Act involves significant environmental achievements. A Natural Resources Trust would receive $25 million to preserve, enhance, restore, and manage wetlands and associated wildlife habitat, grassland conservation and riparian areas in the State. Other sections of the Act include authorization for the State to develop water conservation programs using MR&I funding. A bank stabilization study along the Missouri River below the Garrison Dam would be authorized. Also, the current Lonetree Reservoir would be designated as a wildlife conservation area. All of these provisions and the entire Dakota Water Resources Act have been worked out with painstaking detail among numerous groups. I would like to personally thank the Senators from North Dakota, Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Dorgan and their very capable staff, as well as North Dakota's State engineer and counsel, for their tireless work on the extraordinary agreement. I would also like to specifically note the support of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Their input and support has been crucial to the development of this legislation. Many other groups have given their attention, time, and support to this comprehensive plan. It is rare that a bipartisan agreement such as this could be reached among an all-Democratic congressional delegation, and a Republican governor, as well as the majority and minority leaders of the State Senate and House of Representatives. But not only did these people agree that this legislation is important for the State's economic development, but a wide variety of groups concurred. For the Record, I submit letters of support from the following: North Dakota Wildlife Society; North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperative; North Dakota Water Users Association; North Dakota Water Resource Districts Association; Souris River Joint Water Resource Board; West River Joint Water Resources Board; Devils Lake Basin Joint Water Resource Board; Southwest Water Authority; Garrison Diversion Conservancy District; North Dakota Education Association; the cities of Fargo, Grand Forks, Minot, Williston, and Dickinson; Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe; Three Affiliated Tribes; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa; the Industrial Development Association; the Fargo Chamber of Commerce; and the Greater North Dakota Association. North Dakota, November 7, 1997. Senator Frank Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Senator Dale Bumpers, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Representative Dan Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Representative George Miller, Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Gentlemen: Today marks a significant milestone for the State of North Dakota. We, the elected political leaders of the state, have agreed to support the introduction and to urge the passage of the ``Dakota Water Resources Act.'' The attached legislation, if enacted, will play an integral part in the economic future of our state. We are proud that this legislation is the product of extensive and full consultation with people who represent nearly all aspects of the life of our state. It represents a cooperative effort which has not only reached across partisan political lines, but also has constructively engage all affected interests of the state. It reflects the views of Republicans and Democrats, Tribal leaders, the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, The North Dakota Water Users Association, and the Rural Electric Cooperatives. Accordingly, we urge you to give this legislation your early review and full support. Sincerely, Kent Conrad U.S. Senator. Byron Dorgan U.S. Senator. Earl Pomeroy U.S. Representative. Edward Schafer Governor. Gary Nelson Majority Leader, State Senate. Timothy Mathern Minority Leader, State Senate. John Dorso Majority Leader, State House. Merle Boucher Minority Leader, State House. Attachment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we screw up, and when we do, we need to take steps to fix it. When we passed the illegal immigration reform bill, that put on to the INS the requirement to develop a system for documenting every alien entering and leaving this country by October of 1998. We put in place a system that could not work, that will not work, and that threatens commerce on both borders. This is about delaying the effective date of that one year, and I believe we will even have to take additional steps, as outlined by the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] and others. Let me just show you North Dakota. I represent this State. It is a State that shares one of the longest borders with Canada in the entire country. It is absolutely vital to our commerce, more than $50 million of commerce to North Dakota coming back and forth every year, 2 million border crossings in North Dakota alone. This has not been a problem. What the people back home cannot understand is, when Congress makes a mistake, we all make mistakes, but why can we not fix the mistake before people get hurt? I have got letters here from small businesses all across the State of North Dakota. Now, they are not involved in any of the high stakes and the high rhetoric about the immigration reform. All they know is, they need the daily flow of commerce like they have had it. Please, please, do not hurt North Dakota's economy on a mistake that we did last year. Let us fix this mistake, or at least delay the implementation 1 year. Please pass this bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], the chairman, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne], ranking member, for their work on this legislation. I am proud to be its cosponsor, and I think that as we enact this bill, we will be making a very positive contribution to what truly is one of our growing national matters of urgency: Retirement savings. We are embarking, as we know, on an important debate on Social Security, but regardless of wherever that debate may take us, one thing is crystal clear. We have to save more. We have got to save more. Our savings rate is one-half of what it was in the post-World War II through 1980 period of time. If we think about the worker to retiree ratio, 42 workers per Social Security retiree in the 1940s, heading to 3 workers per retiree in 20 years, 2 workers per retiree in 30 years. It is just so clear, we have to save more. Add in longevity. Unlike the 1930s, when Social Security came on line, now workers live, on average, 17 years longer in retirement than they did at that time. We have to save more. We will not be able to publicly fund our way out of this one. It is going to require a significant measure of personal responsibility for us all, and that is why this bill is so important. A critical part of helping people achieve their goal of economic security in retirement is getting them on track with a savings plan to get them there, and let us face it. We can all use some help in that regard. Education is a critical part of helping people understand the steps they must take now so that they have a secure retirement tomorrow. We know that in the workplace where there are work-based retirement savings plans and educational programs occurring in that place of employment, people attend, they respond, and it improves their savings program significantly. The problem is, less than half of all workers have work-based retirement savings plan, a goal we must work on. But in addition, we must, like this bill accomplishes, get the savings programs out to those not necessarily learning about savings at their workplace. This is going to advance retirement savings for everyone. Charge the Labor Department to continue their good work. It will help us reach those that are not learning about retirement savings in their place of employment; it will charge the Labor Department to continue the work they are already advancing in education relative to retirement savings; it will convene the White House summits which will focus national attention on this critical issue. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I again want to thank the ranking member and the chairman. The chairman has indicated he will not be seeking reelection. His contributions, as those of us who know, who have served with him, will continue long after his presence is in this Chamber, and I would like to think that passing his legislation tonight will put on track an important course of education, leaving the chairman's imprint on our very positive step forward in the goal of retirement savings.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2513, which will provide farmer cooperatives with a tool to help them compete in the industrializing world of agriculture. Cooperatives play a vital role in helping farmers market and process their crops and livestock and in securing farm supplies and other services at reasonable costs. The cooperative way of doing business in rural America simply makes sense. North Dakota has a long history with cooperatives, reaching back to the early part of this century. In the past 5 years, farmers and communities have worked together to create 20 new farmer cooperatives in North Dakota. Last year, Congress decided to eliminate the farm program which will leave fathers without a mechanism to recoup losses when the growing season is poor. One of the self-help mechanisms available to assist farmers in maintaining and increasing their incomes in farming is through the development and success of farmer cooperatives. The success of agriculture ebbs and flows according to many circumstances outside the control of farmers. For instance, weather, disease, global market prices, and the economy all influence a producer's decisions. However, even with these influences on agriculture, the quality of the producer's goods increase and prices for consumers generally stay the same. Cooperatives benefit the farming community by allowing members to amass capital and maximize economic returns by enhancing the value of what farmers produce. Farmers need bargaining tools in order to regain some influence over the prices they receive. With market concentration increasing, agricultural producers are finding fewer and fewer buyers for their products. Many farmers can only sell their product to a single processing company, and are forced to accept the price the company offers them. With empowered bargaining or vertical integration, farmers would have a greater opportunity to prosper and to share in the end-use profits their goods sometimes bring to others. H.R. 2513 will provide for the nonrecognition of gain on the sale of stock in agricultural processors to eligible farmers' cooperatives. This provision will have the effect of encouraging agricultural processing facilities to work cooperatively with farmer cooperatives to maximize the work and profits of producers. The price paid to farmers for farm commodities represents less than 25 percent of the cost of the final product purchased by the consumer. It is imperative for the American farmer to increase his ownership stake in processing and refining in order to survive in an increasingly competitive market. Allowing farmers to become vertically integrated in their products will enable them to better adjust to fluctuations in commodity prices.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1839, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act of 1997. The bill would remedy a situation where salvage vehicles that have been rebuilt are sold as undamaged used cars. This fraud occurs at the expense of $4 billion to consumers and business people each year. Currently, there is no uniformity in how States define and report whether a vehicle has been damaged and if the level of damage warrants the vehicle to be deemed salvage. Some States require that this information appear on vehicle titles. However, even the States that require this disclosure record the information differently on vehicle titles. These discrepancies leave the door open for consumers to be defrauded. With each State having different guidelines, a car may be considered junked in one State and yet could cross State lines and obtain a clear title in another State. This problem becomes an issue of consumer rights. Car owners and the auto dealers who sell the cars have the right to know the history of their cars, and the rest of the public has the right to know that cars on the road are safe. Under H.R. 1839, States involved in uniform titling and registering of salvage, rebuilt salvage and nonrepairable vehicles would have access to a Federal computer system that would assist in locating information about vehicle documents issued by other States. In an age when we attempt to track vehicles on Mars, why wouldn't we track our vehicles from one State to the next under a uniform system of titling procedures and definitions? It makes sense to use technology to guard consumers against theft and fraud of automobiles. This legislation would set a definition of salvage vehicle to mean any damage that exceeds 80 percent of the retail value on a car up to 7 years old or newer. Once a car is designated as such, the car owner must get a salvage title. This sets the wheels in motion to ensure that a salvaged vehicle in North Dakota is a salvaged vehicle in New Mexico. You may hear the argument that States aren't able to set their own guidelines under this bill. As a former State insurance commissioner, I firmly believe in States rights and the need for States to tailor laws for their respective residents. But this is a case where uniformity across State lines improves the overall safety of people in communities across the country. The Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee, known simply as the Salvage Committee, that was formed as a result of the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 recommended many of the provisions of H.R. 1839. These provisions result in better information for consumers and dealers, and increased safety for the general public. With that in mind, I urge the Members to support the bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, rare, but from time to time we will meet someone whose decency, intellect, and integrity leave upon us a permanent impression. Such was the case with Walter Capps for me. The House of Representatives, on any given day, can be a very tough, rough and tumble place, and yet during the visits I would have with Walter at the back of the Chamber, somewhere across the face of this Capitol campus, I would always come away feeling better, feeling a little calmer, a little more upbeat because of his person. He was so good that he just left you feeling better for having talked to him. Some try in this place to lead by angry bombast. With Walter, it was the case of leading by quiet, dignified example. To spend any time with him, you would just simply gather a sense that Walter had a great sense of personal balance. Watching the beautiful friendship, the loving friendship he had with his wife, Lois, his inseparable companion during his time here, left that impression ever so clearly. Walter, you were not here long but by virtue of the man you were, you have touched our lives and in the process you have uplifted the people's House of Representatives. God bless you, Walter.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by congratulating the gentleman for the leadership he has brought to this task. As a first-year Member of this body, I think that Representative Delahunt has shown remarkable tenacity as well as ability in bringing this bipartisan accord to the floor of the House today. I also want to thank the Members of the majority, particularly the committee chairmen of jurisdiction, for their assistance in bringing this bill up. I have got a personal perspective; I would like to tell my colleagues a little bit about it. I was a Member of the 103d Congress when, as a Member on the Hill on a busy day, I got a note that said, ``Time to go to National Airport.'' Our daughter, Kathryn, had arrived that day from Korea, my wife and I anxiously awaited her departure from the airplane to begin our life together as a family. It was a moment that I will never ever forget. Within 24 hours, we had Kathryn to her first visit to the physician. While it was painful watching her being poked and prodded that day, there was no way in the world that we as new parents were going to accept as adequate the uncertain medical records of a foreign country. We began the whole business right here in this country. We did that as parents but, in addition, the agency through which we adopted Kathryn had immediate U.S. medical evaluation as the basic requirement. I think that is pretty much the universal experience of adoptive parents of children from another country. We try to get them here as fast as possible; get them to the doctor immediately and start the childhood vaccination and inoculations. Existing law needs correcting because we have now a requirement that the inoculations take place in the foreign country prior to their arrival here. There are many uncertainties in terms of basic things like sanitary needles, strength of the vaccine, in addition, the untenable delay that can be caused by this requirement. Delay is really the enemy of getting families together. As we learn about the biological developments of adoption of any infants, we know that delay is something to be avoided. We need to get children as soon as possible into families and start the development in their new homes. I routinely speak on behalf of all of the citizens of North Dakota when I take to the well, but today I want to cite two in particular, Dan and Laurel, as I speak to my colleagues this afternoon. They are in Fargo, ND, eagerly awaiting a little girl who happens to be across the world in China. They cannot wait to get their little girl into their home. They, and all similarly situated soon-to-be adoptive parents, need this legislation so that this delay can be avoided. Again, this is a great moment for bipartisan cooperation to fix something that needs fixing. I thank everyone for participating and getting this done today and conclude my remarks.