Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. To my thinking, this bill addresses a crisis and also addresses over 1 year an inequality which needs to be addressed. The crisis is the Federal Government's loan consolidation program offered as part of the Department of Education's Direct Lending effort. With a backlog of over 80,000 loan consolidation requests, that part of the system clearly is in crisis. This is simply not fair to the students, and the bill helps address that. I am confident that the private lenders of the Guaranteed Student Loan Program will meet the challenge we give them in this bill. Rather than delays, backlogs, and shutdowns, students will have the service they have a right to expect. As to the fairness issue, I am glad that the private sector will be allowed a loan consolidation role like the Government's loan program for the next year. I hope this becomes permanent in future legislation. If we are to have two student loan programs, one run by the Government yet one made available through the private sector, let us give them equal range. Let us give permanently to the private sector this loan consolidation opportunity.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. This Chamber at its best moments represents their work on a bipartisan basis of Members coming together to address problems, problems that really mean something to the people who are struggling with them. In representing the State of North Dakota, I would wager to say that the population I represent per capita has more, and verified, water problems than any other State in the entire country. I rise to express particular personal gratitude to the chairman, to the chairman's staff, to the ranking member, and the ranking member's staff for all of the patience and time they have spent with me in understanding our problems and in crafting a bill that responds in a meaningful way to those problems. Mr. Speaker, we did not get everything we wanted. Certainly some of the funding limits and some of the limiting language we would have liked to have had something different. But in balance, I mean it, this really is a responsive and meaningful effort to help the people of North Dakota with the problems that presently plague them. I am very, very grateful for this effort and have enjoyed working with my colleagues in this regard. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the House Appropriations Committee for its support of overseas programs by U.S. cooperatives and credit unions. I have supported the work of cooperatives and credit unions in my state. These people-to-people assistance programs are the types of foreign aid that the American people fully support. In its report (105-176), the Committee stated that: The Committee continues to support development efforts carried out by United States cooperatives and credit unions. These programs promote free markets, create business linkages with the United States, export American technology, and build local economies, and help create a friendly climate for new and expanding United States markets. They enable people to achieve dignity and lasting economic benefits through member- owned businesses. Overseas cooperative development is a unique type of self-help assistance, carried out in America's tradition of humanitarian assistance and in America's national interest. Critical support for these efforts comes from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Cooperatives provide private sector approach to international development that combines a humanitarian concern with a business discipline. Cooperatives give people a stake in the system by bringing them into the marketplace. They introduce democratic business practices in many countries with little experience in democracy. In the U.S., they have enhanced and promoted the economic well-being of farmers and spread the benefits of free markets through credit unions and community-based businesses. Cooperatives have used their domestic experiences to share their business know-how abroad. In turn, these overseas programs directly benefit America by enhancing stability in developing countries, building long-term business partners and increasing international sales and investments by U.S. businesses. The following are a few examples of overseas U.S. cooperative development efforts: In El Salvador, illegal immigration is slowed as cooperatives develop two-way trade in non-traditional and non-competitive products. In Bolivia, United States agricultural and electric cooperatives support alternative crops to coca production, and thus are combating illegal drug trafficking. In Africa, cooperatives and credit unions are carrying out micro- enterprise programs that reverse the flow of capital and bring it back to rural communities. In Indonesia, cooperatives are helping micro- entrepreneurs in the production of specialty export crops, integrated livestock and fishery production and rural enterprise development including joint ventures with United States companies. In Romania, United States housing and other cooperatives are playing a crucial role in strengthening civil society to address decaying social problems by providing training and technical assistance in management, accounting, fundraising, marketing and financial analysis to new and struggling non-governmental organizations. In Georgia, United States agricultural cooperatives have built a network of growers with a seed production cooperative and are building a supply association for inputs to private farmers. The new cooperative is a private sector alternative to the defunct government wheat seed and multiplication and supply system. Through programs like these, cooperatives provide hope for economic prosperity through grassroots businesses that provide jobs, income, basic education and democratic experience. By providing private sector to private sector assistance, rather than government to government assistance, U.S. cooperatives are better able to link American communities and cooperative businesses with overseas partners that, in turn, serve U.S. economic interests.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to engage the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman of the subcommittee, in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the Pentagon's plan to retire 23 B-52 bombers, roughly 25 percent of the B-52 fleet. In light of the uncertain prospects for Russian ratification of START II and the continuing need for long-range conventional airpower, I believe it would be unwise to make unilateral reductions in the only battle- tested, dual-capable bomber in the U.S. inventory. I would ask the subcommittee chairman if he shares my concerns about the proposed reduction in the B-52 fleet.

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman from Florida and I thank the gentleman from Washington. I look forward to working with them as this bill moves into conference. Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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

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

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the issue of funds for administrative expenses for crop insurance agents. The Agriculture appropriations bill presents difficult choices for members from rural America for support for production agriculture-- including crop insurance--competes directly against vital nutrition programs such as the Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] program. In a budget climate where discretionary funds are stretched between vital resources such as research, school lunch programs, rural utilities, and food safety, it is easy to forget about production agriculture. It seems we already have in some aspects. The amendment in full committee to increase funding for crop insurance was not off-set by cuts in nutrition but within production agriculture, namely, the Export Enhancement Program. The choice was difficult but necessary. The Obey amendment, however, would leave farmers with both fewer resources to compete against European subsidies and a less viable crop insurance program to compensate for the loss of the farm program safety net. Putting ``urban'' agriculture against ``rural'' agriculture is not the way to debate this fight. WIC is a stable program, and funded by the bill with $118 million more than last year. Further, this amendment would fund the WIC program's ``carryover'' money, not funds directly for the program. More than likely, the program will not even use this funding. The federal crop insurance program is still on feeble legs, as are producers as they look to alternatives for risk management. Congress modified farm programs just last year, creating the ``freedom to farm'' and taking away the safety net for price volatility. Along with changes to the farm programs, producers were assured that certain safeguards would remain in place, like the effectiveness of adequate crop insurance. Crop insurance is just about the only risk management assurance producers have, and these producers depend on the time and effort of thousands of insurance agents to provide adequate coverage and information. We often forget that it is ``rural'' agriculture that provides the affordable and safe food and fiber for ``urban'' agriculture programs and cities. To address a few other points I have heard during this debate, I urge you to keep some things in perspective: Crop insurance agents are not typical insurance agents. Crop insurance agents are working to provide information and coverage for twice the number of acres insured than in 1994. Thus efforts to reduce their administrative expense reimbursements come at a time when they are performing more tasks than ever. Crop insurance agents don't just sign up farmers once-a-year and then wait until the next year to follow up; they often visit with producers 10 times per year. The level of funding we put in this bill for administrative expenses, whether it is 24.5 percent, 27 percent, or 28 percent, is not pure commission for agents. Not even close. The percentage figure goes to account for the Department of Agriculture's mandatory requirements on agents to administer the program: like training, compliance, paper work, processing, adjusting, and other overhead. After all that, the real ``commission'' is closer to 12 percent. Some of the flaws in the GAO report include: The report only examined three crop years, two of which were some of the best in history. Of course insurance companies do better in some years than others, especially when there are fewer weather catastrophes. The GAO report rhetoric makes for nice 2 minute ``Fleecing of America'' TV clips, but in reality the report only acknowledges ``excessive expenses'' as the exception, not the norm. Furthermore, the expenses noted by the report as ``excessive'' were clearly legal. In this time of transition for production agriculture, shifting from disaster payments and price supports of the old farm programs to reformed crop insurance and the ``freedom to farm,'' farmers are depending more than ever on promises made by the last Congress. During recent reforms of our government's role in agriculture, Congress promised certain foundational assistance for farmers would remain: farmers understood that agriculture research, risk management tools, and technical assistance would be maintained. If we reduce the administrative expenses for crop insurance agents, we are taking away our promise to farmers and production agriculture that they would receive effective service in managing risk from unpredictable weather and market prices. I urge you to maintain the current level of funding for crop insurance.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the family farmers that work in their fields in the Red River Valley that I represent must be watching this debate with utter amazement. After all, U.S. sugar prices are 32 percent below developed countries. U.S. retail prices are the third lowest in the developed world. U.S. spending on sugar is the lowest in the world per capita. Last year we reformed the sugar program, addressing many of the concerns raised by the opponents. We gave them a straight up-or-down vote on whether this program should be continued. Now all North Dakota farmers, like farmers everywhere, ask for is that this body maintain the commitment made in last year's farm bill that there will be some price safety net on this product as they deal with the vagaries of weather and other external circumstances that make farming such a high-risk, low-profit business. Do not pull the rug out on America's farmers. This country has a good deal with the sugar program. It should be continued.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Market Access Program [MAP] and oppose any attempt to further weaken the program's ability to assist in the promotional activities for U.S. agricultural products. The Market Access Program is good for agriculture, international trade, and promotes small business and American-made products. MAP simply 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. Additionally, funds allocated under the MAP are limited to U.S. entities. In a time when America's farmers and agricultural sector are just beginning to adjust to Freedom to Farm, a way of operating Government farm programs without the assurance of price supports or safety-nets, it makes no sense 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 things 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 certain target prices, they should be able to rely on certain supplemental programs run by the Department of Agriculture that keep producers' heads above an already narrow margin. In my State of North Dakota, the MAP contributes to the promotion of $1.7 billion in exports, and 29,300 jobs. I might add that in Ohio, the home State of the proponent of this amendment, agricultural interests receive support for $1.6 billion worth of exports related to 27,400 jobs. Source: USDA, Bureau of Census--1996. 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 to help American agricultural interests compete with international markets-- during a time when farm income is now more dependent than ever on exports and maintaining access to foreign markets. The elimination of MAP would represent unilateral disarm- ament--shooting oneself in the foot actually--in the face of continued subsidized foreign competition. Don't take away a great tool from our agricultural sector that has the potential to help even the playing field with foreign market interests.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, while in concept adding budget safeguards that ensure we stay on track to balance the budget makes all the sense in the world, the measure before us fails to advance that goal in an acceptable fashion. Now, we all know that the devil is in the details, and the shortcomings in the details before us are very significant. They are much too significant to overlook or to brush aside because we like the notion of budget enforcement. I want to focus on three of the most glaring deficiencies. Looking at the budget deal presently being negotiated, this historic effort to balance the budget, I believe that the most significant threats are exploding tax cuts, specifically indexing capital gains, or backloaded IRA's, these that have very dynamic revenue losses in the outyears but not in the early years. Those tax cuts would not in any way be touched by this measure. This measure is a toothless tiger relative to addressing exploding tax cuts. Second, it places an exceptionally convoluted process in place that totally tips on its head the standing jurisdictions of this House. Between November and December 15 the Committee on the Budget is given sole discretion over reconciling the accounts. That means jurisdiction over all standing authorizing committees, over the Committee on Appropriations, and over the Committee on Ways and Means. It is as though those committees have no expertise whatsoever. The Committee on the Budget is the where-all and the end-all of the decision-making if this bill would kick in. Finally, if Congress would not act, it would just be the automatic sequester blade coming down and cutting, and that would include cuts on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, military retirement. My goodness, these programs are much too vital to put on automatic pilot heading on down the slicing machine. We can do better than that. We must do better than that. Budget enforcement, yes, but not this budget enforcement. Vote ``no.''

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I take the well to protest the unfair rule before us. Legislation is a work in progress. We all know that. No one gets it perfect the first time. And so there is give and take as we listen to concerns and move to change the bill to address those concerns. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what has been taking place with this enforcement act. Now I do not think the act is there yet. I think there are still some changes that need to be made, and I am going to oppose it. But for this rule to bar from consideration the improvements that have been negotiated over the last several days I just think is unconscionable. Why in the world would they give this House only the flawed first version to consider? It is, I think, really a diabolical, empty gesture to say, ``Okay, you've got your vote, now leave us alone,'' when indeed they owed them much more than that. They owed them a straight-up vote on the best budget enforcement package that the sponsors care to offer, and it is a pity the rule did not allow that.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the appointment of David Strauss, a fellow Valley City, ND, native and close friend, as Executive Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC]. I couldn't be more pleased to see such a good friend named to such an important Government post. Throughout his career, David has been an outstanding public servant deeply devoted to advancing the interests of working families. In this exciting new position, David will continue that work as the Government's top official responsible for protecting the pension security of 42 million American workers and retirees participating in about 50,000 private-sector pension plans. David comes to the PBGC with extensive management and policy experience as deputy chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore since 1994. In that position, he played a major management role, developed policy options and advised the Vice President on a broad range of economic and domestic policy issues including wage and workplace protection, retirement security, health care, welfare, and trade. Ensuring that Americans can look forward to a financially secure retirement has emerged as one of the most important public policy issues of the day. As head of the PBGC, David will be a leader in crafting our Nation's response to this retirement security challenge. And with his unique background as a top-notch manager and policymaker, it's hard to imagine someone better suited to this role. Prior to his position with the Vice President, David served as chief of staff for the late Senator Quentin Burdick of North Dakota and then as staff director of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which Senator Burdick chaired. Previously, as North Dakota State Executive Director for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Stabilization and Conservation Service--now the Farm Service Agency--he directed an agency with 53 county offices and 1,200 employees, which administered $1.3 billion in loans and direct payments to the farmers of North Dakota. During this period, he was recognized with a Special Achievement Award from the Secretary of Agriculture for his managerial skill and for reducing administrative costs despite a workload increase. David Strauss is a superb choice to head the PBGC and I look forward to working with him on a broad range of retirement security issues. Mr. Speaker, I also submit for the Record an article from the Fargo Forum on David's appointment. [From the Fargo Forum, July 3, 1997] Strauss in Line for Pension Position (By Mikkel Pates) David Strauss, a North Dakota native and deputy chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore, has been picked to be executive director of the government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Pensions & Investments, the Washington trade paper which broke the story, said the announcement will come any day. Strauss, 47, was a chief of staff for the late Sen. Quentin Burdick, D-N.D., through most of the 1980's and later for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for which Burdick was chairman. He also served briefly as chief of staff for Sens. Jocelyn Burdick, D-N.D., and John Breaux, D-La., before going to his current job in 1994. Through an aide, Strauss declined to be interviewed about the new post because no official announcement has been made. Sources say the announcement could come later this week or next week. The PBGC is a non-profit corporation wholly owned by the federal government. The corporation regulates and monitors pension plan insurance programs. Among other things, it steps in if a pension plan fails and can't pay benefits. It makes up the difference in assets, administers the fund, and distributes the basic benefits. The agency covers all single-employer and private defined pension plans and some plans between unions and employers. It is administered by a board, of which the Secretary of Labor is chairman, and includes the secretaries of commerce and treasury. Sources at Pensions & Investments called Strauss a good choice for the job, despite his lack of hands-on experiences in pensions. The post does not require Senate confirmation. The story quoted Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., also from Valley City, who said the appointment of a top political aide showed the Clinton administration's commitment to retirement income security. Officials from the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO, and business lobbyists all sang his praises. ``David Strauss' appointment will provide the PBGC with the kind of political leadership it has never had,'' said Mark J. Ugoretz, president of the ERISA Industry Committee, a Washington trade group representing the nation's biggest companies. ERISA is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. As Gore's aide, Strauss helped develop White House policy options on a range of economic and domestic policies. He was involved in working on the Retirement Protection Act, signed by Clinton in December 1994. In a 1994 interview with The Forum Strauss said that his career hinged to some degree on Gore's future. `If Al Gore is re-elected vice president and then runs for president in the year 2000, I very much would want to be a part of all of that,'' he said at the time. Strauss grew up in Harvey and Valley City, and in the 1970's became one of the state's most successful political strategists. Among other things, he was executive director of the Democratic-NPL party from 1975 to 1977. In 1977, he was named North Dakota executive director of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (now the Farm Service Agency). At the time he was criticized for a lack of farming background for the job. He later took great pride in winning achievement awards in the agency.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is not a balanced bill. A look at what it does to help folks save for retirement tells the whole story. First, the bill will actually force the retirement benefits of many retired college professors to be reduced, cut benefits 3 to 5 percent. Then the bill does absolutely nothing to help middle income Americans save for retirement by expanding individual retirement accounts to make it a little easier for them to put money away. No, it does not do anything there at all. Rather, it creates a brand new tax break that benefits the most affluent seniors. The great majority of this new tax break, called backloaded IRA's, goes to the wealthiest 5 percent in this country. And so as it is with retirement savings, it is throughout this bill. Most of us get nothing. And the wealthiest get the most. With retirement savings, it is so unfortunate this decision has been made. Folks need help putting money away for retirement. But rather than extend help to those who need it the most, middle income and working income families, the bill does nothing. Rather, it creates all of the benefit for those who already have the money saved for retirement, the country's most affluent. Mr. Chairman, reject this bill. We can make it much better.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, Republicans and Democrats have agreed on a bipartisan budget plan that includes $85 billion in net tax relief over the next 5 years and $250 billion over the next 10 years. There is no disagreement between the parties over the amount of tax cuts to be provided. However, there is a sharp difference of opinion over how those resources should be allocated. I believe there are two important principles that Congress should follow in delivering tax relief for American families: First tax cuts should not explode the deficit in future years which would increase the debt and tax burden on our children, and second, the majority of the tax cut benefits should flow to those who need it most, working and middle-income families. In my view, the Democratic alternative to the Ways and Means tax bill far better upholds these principles. Mr. Chairman, the Ways and Means bill loses sight of the most important objective of the bipartisan budget agreement--a sustainable balanced budget. Although the revenue loss in this bill is nearly within the 10-year limits established by the budget agreement, it contains several provisions that will trigger exploding revenue loss in future years and throw the budget out of balance. For instance, the revenue loss from the back-loaded IRA provision that allows wealthy individuals to shelter their income from taxation grows at 73 percent per year. The revenue loss from the repeal of the alternative minimum tax [AMT] that ensures that America's large corporations pay their fair share of taxes grows at 49 percent per year. As a result of these provisions and others, the cost of this bill over the second 10 years skyrockets to $650-$750 billion and endangers the future fiscal health of our Nation. Second, given the limited resources that are available to cut taxes while still balancing the budget, I believe it is critical that those resources be targeted to those who need it most--working and middle- income families. The Democratic alternative is far superior to the Ways and Means bill in this regard. The committee bill provides two-thirds of the tax benefits to the top 20 percent of income earners whereas the alternative give two-thirds of the tax benefit to families on the bottom 80 percent of the income scale. Mr. Chairman, the alternative tax bill is also superior to the committee bill in delivering estate and capital gains tax relief to family farmers and small business. The committee bill slowly increases the estate tax exemption from the current $600,000 to $1 million over the next 10 years. The alternative, on the other hand, raises the exemption to $1 million on January 1 next year for family-owned farms and businesses. The committee bill would reduce the capital gains tax from 28 to 20 percent whereas the alternative reduces the tax rate to 18 percent without exploding the deficit by limiting the rate reduction to farm, business, and real estate assets. In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Democratic tax alternative delivers tax relief to those who need it while better protecting the prospects for a sustainable balanced budget over the long-term. I sincerely hope the tax bill that emerges from the House-Senate conference committee will fulfill these objective so that it can be enacted with strong bipartisan support.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I believe that there are three important principles that Congress and the President should follow in delivering tax relief for American families: First, tax cuts should not explode the deficit in future years, increasing the tax burden on our children; second, the majority of the tax cut benefits should flow to those who need it most, working and middle-income families; and third, tax cuts should enhance the economic and retirement security of average Americans. Unfortunately, in my view, the Ways and Means tax bill fails to adhere to these principles. I am especially concerned about the bill's shortcoming with regard to retirement security. First, the bill makes the wrong choices when it comes to expanding individual retirement accounts [IRA's]. And second, it targets educators for pension reductions. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong proponent of expanding IRA's for working and middle-income families and have introduced legislation to do so. Yet, there is a right way to go about IRA expansion and a wrong way. The right way is to create new savers by providing extra tax incentives for low-wage workers and making more middle-income families eligible for IRA tax deductions. Working income Americans have tremendous difficulty saving today amid the press of monthly expenses and it is toward this group that we should direct IRA tax savings. Unfortunately, the bill before goes about IRA expansion in precisely the wrong way. It establishes so-called backloaded IRA's which almost exclusively benefit the wealthy and which absolutely explode in cost outside the budget window. With backloaded IRA's, wealthy individuals can place substantial amounts of their investment income in an account where earnings and distributions will never be taxed. While the well- to-do can shelter their income in this way, backloaded IRA's do nothing to provide tax relief to the low- and moderate-income families who have such a difficult time saving for retirement. In fact, while taxpayers with incomes in the top 5 percent would save thousands per year with backloaded IRA's, families in the bottom 40 percent would realize no tax savings whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, if there was one group whose retirement security we should all want to protect it is the dedicated individuals who educate our children. Yet, this bill singles out for pension reductions the educators who work to impart knowledge and values to our young people, the researchers who achieve the scientific and medical breakthroughs so critical to our quality of life, and the office and service workers who help make our universities the pride of the world. These are the people who have been served for 80 years by the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College Retirement Equities Fund [TIAA-CREF]. This tax bill would revoke the longstanding tax-exempt status of TIAA-CREF's pension operations, a change which could reduce the incomes of retired university personnel by as much as 3 to 5 percent. And we're not talking about a group of wealthy professors here. The average TIAA- CREF beneficiary earns less than $12,000 per year in pension income. Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are rightly trying to attract the very best talent to help educate our Nation's children, we should not single out educators and jeopardize their retirement security. Mr. Chairman, I urge may colleagues to oppose this tax bill. The Senate has taken a more balanced approach and I sincerely hope that the tax bill will come back from the conference in a form that we can all support. However, this bill represents the wrong tax relief priorities and undermines rather than advances our Nation's retirement security.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the bill before us, although I find it to be a disappointingly close call. We are early in the legislative process on actually carrying through this historic balanced budget agreement reached earlier between congressional leaders and the President, and affirmed earlier by this Chamber in the budget resolution. Now that we get down to the actual business of the legislating language, I find that the package before us substantially carries forward the agreement and the resolution, getting us on a balanced budget footing. Unfortunately, it falls short of the guarantees explicitly that are part of the agreement, like the commitment to extend coverage to children. In other areas, totally nonbudget items are jammed onto this bill, much like the nondisaster aid items that bedeviled us so in trying to get relief to the flood-stricken areas for weeks. An area here that I find most disturbing is the expansion of portability and health insurance coverage Act, known as EPHIC. It is the old multiple employer welfare arrangement rejected in the last Congress, that has again been jammed into this bill. This provision, if ultimately enacted, would deprive ultimately millions of people in the workplace from their State-provided consumer protections in dealing with health insurance. Do we think that is a good idea? I certainly do not. But it is an important concept that, at least, would warrant debate. When I went to the Committee on Rules to seek, along with a Republican colleague, a stand-alone debate on this nonbudget item, in the context of this act, we were not allowed it. It is a classic case of taking a policy nugget unrelated to the budget and jamming it into the bill. As far as I am concerned, this is a deal-breaker, and I will vote against the bill coming out of conference committee if it looks like the bill before us. But we are not at that point in time. It is important to keep the process moving, and therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 79, a resolution to revoke most-favored-nation [MFN] for the People's Republic of China. First, it is important to be clear about the terms of this debate so it is well understood what is proposed by this resolution. Most- favored-nation is not preferential treatment, rather, it is the normal trade status that the United States extends to all but eight nations in the world. Revocation of MFN, on the other hand, is not the withdrawal of special trade concessions but the imposition of economic sanctions that would potentially sever our ties with the world's most populous nation. With that understanding, we can have an honest debate about whether employing unilateral sanctions and ending our trade relationship with China will bring about the changes in Chinese behavior that we all wish to see--greater respect for human rights, adherence to trade agreements, and support for nonproliferation controls. In my view, revoking MFN in an attempt to isolate China is highly unlikely to induce positive change in China and is certain to harm United States economic and strategic interests. Since China's opening to the West in the late 1970's, the political and economic conditions of the Chinese people have improved significantly. Through trade and contact with American business partners, individuals and communities in China, especially in the coastal regions, have gained substantial freedom from central government planners in Beijing. Severing those contacts would reverse that progress and have the effect of increasing Beijing's authority over the lives of the Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, not only would revoking MFN fail to advance human rights in China, it would seriously injure United States economic interests. I am especially concerned about the effect revoking MFN would have American agriculture. China is expected to account for 37 percent of future growth in United States agriculture exports, making it the most important growth market for United States commodities. In last year's farm bill, Congress eliminated the safety net and told family farmers they would have to earn their income solely from the marketplace. It would be unfair to the farmers in my State and around the country to now close down perhaps their most important export market. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in advancing the interest of both the people of the United States and the people of China by opposing the resolution and continuing normal trade relations with China.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my appreciation to the people who have helped the disaster-stricken communities of North Dakota. Whenever a community suffers from a disaster, people often look to their local leadership to help them get through trying times and help them get back on their feet. With the blizzards and floods of 1997, local leaders in North Dakota have not only risen to the task, they've become heroes to the people they serve. Few can forget the images of Grand Forks Mayor Pat Owens working around the clock as her community suffered the worst disaster in North Dakota history. And between working endless hours helping her city through this time and numerous trips to Washington to make a case for Federal support, she was always available to also lend a shoulder to the Grand Forks resident who needed comfort. Many other mayors across North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota showed their unshakeable commitment to the people they serve. Mayor Lynn Stauss of East Grand Forks, Mayor Bruce Furness of Fargo, Mayor Hetty Walker of Pembina, Mayor Dan Rood of Wahpeton, and so many other community leaders deserve our thanks and our praise. When our communities needed their leadership the most, they were there for us--providing strength, courage, and leadership that has truly made a difference to the lives of the people they represent. The flood of 1997 on the Upper Great Plains brought out the best in people as neighbors helped neighbors get through some very difficult times. People from around the country stepped forward to lend a hand and show the residents of Grand Forks that they weren't alone. I would also like to recognize the incredible help provided by the men and women of the Grand Forks Air Force Base. From acting as the mass care shelter to hosting the senior prom, the assistance from the air base to the community continues. The response activities, and now the ongoing recovery efforts, could not happen without those extraordinary efforts. Other groups that contributed to the disaster far above the normal call-of-duty include the men and women who worked to restore power after the blizzard. Linemen who in some cases were wearing snowmobile helmets as they worked to restore power lines during the height of the ice storms deserve our thanks for a job well done. The thousands of volunteers who fought the flood, in some cases even while their own homes were being inundated, should be remembered for their selfless acts and hard work. Donations poured in from every corner of the United States as the magnitude of this disaster and suffering became known. Other acts of kindness from individuals and corporations were commonplace, their generosity at times truly defying description. At the same time, other agencies stepped forward to do their usual jobs of helping people recover. Unfortunately, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army all too often are taken for granted for the support they provide. Let me tell you that in North Dakota, and especially in Grand Forks, they are not taken for granted. They set new standards for caring and commitment. To all those who stepped forward to help those in need I say thank you.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank those who helped the victims of the flood that hit the upper Great Plains this spring. I would especially like to point out the public service announcement filmed by Chicago Bulls coach and former North Dakotan Phil Jackson and distributed by the National Association of Broadcasters. In the midst of the Chicago Bulls run for a fifth NBA title in 7 years. Coach Jackson took the time to film a public service announcement asking Americans to help the flood victims of his former State. Teaming up with the National Association Broadcasters, we got the work out about this PSA, and about how broadcasters could join the flood relief effort. While the PSA was playing in cities across the United States asking individuals to give what they could to help the flood victims, broadcasters were also becoming involved in the campaign. In Fargo, ND, a TV station's telethon raised $1.2 million. In Minneapolis, 21 radio morning shows raised $500,000. In Omaha, a DJ got listeners to fill a 53-foot truck with donations. While in Grand Forks, KCNN Radio continued its round the clock effort to answer any and all questions for flood victims and provide the community with the latest in local and national news affecting its listeners. To Phil Jackson of the Chicago Bulls and to the broadcasting community I extend my thanks.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, strolling over from Committee on Agriculture markup, which is what we are in right now, I could not help but notice, unlike just a short while earlier when it was overcast and kind of drizzling a little, the sky had cleared. The sun was shining. And I thought this is some signal just to what is occurring on the floor of the House and the Senate right now. We have a disaster bill urgently needed, and I believe within a few minutes there will be a strong bipartisan vote to do what Congress needs to do and get help directly on the way to those so damaged by these floods. The sky is beginning to clear over this Chamber. The light of good legislation at last is beginning to shine again. It should not have been this hard. It should not have been this rancorous. But what counts is getting the job done, and what will matter so much to the people I represent in the flood-afflicted area in the next month, the month after that, next year, perhaps the year after that, is that this body finally did act, and acted in a way that provided very meaningful assistance at a time when our need was so substantial. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge all my colleagues to put the past weeks of debate behind us, then stroll to the voting machines and pass a very large, very strong vote in favor of this disaster relief. The construction of the bill was the mark of a solid bipartisan effort. We have so appreciated the support of the majority and the minority as we built the package. We will enjoy and deeply appreciate the support of the majority and the minority as we pass the package. And I personally want to extend my appreciation to each Member who has helped us along the way.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today many inside the Washington Beltway are gleefully calculating who is winning and who is losing in the disastrous supplemental debate. Is it Congress that has lost because they failed to timely pass a bill? Is it the President who has lost because he vetoed the bill with the extraneous riders? I will tell my colleagues who has lost. The people of Grand Forks, ND, without homes that have been devastated by the flood; they are the real victims. But I actually think it goes beyond that. When the American people see a disaster that Congress cannot respond to, I think they feel less confidence in their Government, and everyone loses. We had a wonderful bipartisan effort in building a responsive relief bill. I hope today represents the day when this bipartisanship will again reemerge in this body and will actually get the bill enacted. Legislation does nothing to help people without enactment. It is time to put partisan differences aside, pull together, and get the job done. People are hurting very, very badly and they desperately need the flood relief. Let us enact it today.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that each and every one of us is here as a Member of the House of Representatives because the bottom line is we care about people. We believe differently as to how we best help people, but we are here to help people. Let us remember that this bill is about helping people. Six and a half weeks ago the levees broke on the Red River, inundating Grand Forks and East Grand Forks. This is a photograph that appeared in the newspaper, of a woman being told in the dead of night that she has to get out of her home, leave all her possessions, because the water is about to take everything she knows and holds dear. The trauma of such an event in such a middle America place like Grand Forks, ND, is beyond my ability to describe to my colleagues, but I was there and, believe me, it was God awful. Now the people are being traumatized by another occurrence, this one not a natural disaster but a Congress-made one. We need help. It is very clear. It is very clear to any American that has watched the news footage about what we have gone through just how badly we need help. People from around the country have responded in wonderful ways, small ways, like the 7-year-old that dropped off some canned goods so I could send them back to the people I represent; and, large ways, like the woman who gave $15 million in individual grants of assistance. But they expect fundamentally their government to respond, and we have been unable to respond, unable to respond because we have played to our worst instincts in this body, putting shallow, crass partisan politics in the middle of an effort to get help to people who need it. This clipping says it all. It says what so many are saying to me as I go back to Grand Forks every weekend: ``You are playing with our lives.'' My colleagues have to understand that there are people that are not in homes tonight, there are families that are not together, and they cannot make a fundamental decision about even where they are going to live until we pass this bill. FEMA does not fund the initial buy-out program that Grand Forks is going to launch. That is funded by the community development block grant funds in this bill. There is not money in the pipeline to help these people on these home buy-out decisions. We have to pass the bill first. And so until we pass the bill, these people are stuck. They are in limbo. Again and again and again, when one goes back to our districts, we hear about how we are in limbo. I would invite any Member of this body to come with me to Grand Forks. If my colleagues do not believe it, come with me to Grand Forks. We will go tomorrow. If Members do not want to miss votes to do that, we will get on the phone. Come with me to my office. We will call Democrats in Grand Forks, we will call Republicans in Grand Forks, we will call anyone my colleagues want to in Grand Forks to hear from the people themselves. Sometimes maybe in our partisan warfare we forget what this is all about, but it is about helping people. And the people in our area are in a state of tremendous need tonight. Do not play with the lives of those we represent. These are Americans, they need our help. This is our Government, they deserve no less. Let us act now and, for that reason, take precisely the action the gentleman from Wisconsin is suggesting. Do not go to committee. We have had enough of committees. Let us, as a body tonight, strip off the extra provisions and get the aid out of the House.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, how many times have each of us heard from the people we represent, ``Why can't you guys just get together in Washington and balance the budget?'' I have heard it scores of times. Of course, there is nothing easy about getting together to balance the budget. That budget reflects innumerable spending priorities. There is wide difference of opinion between the parties in terms of some of those priorities. That budget contemplates the entire Tax Code of this country. Of course there is broad disagreement within this Chamber among Members in terms of how the Tax Code ought to be structured. So there is nothing easy about getting together to balance the budget. But on the other hand, the facts surrounding our tackling this task this year have made it, if not now, never. Four years ago, nearly $300 billion deficit; this year looking at a deficit in the range of $68 billion. We are almost there, just that final push required. And so I salute the budget chairman in the House, budget chairman in the Senate, commitment of majority leadership in the Congress working with the President to reach this balanced budget reflecting agreements worked out between the parties, between the philosophies, on how to bridge the gap and finally get the job done. As has been mentioned before, no agreement is perfect. I certainly would have written this differently. But on the other hand, I do think it is a reasonable balancing of interests, reasonable compromising of perspectives, and it leads us to a balanced budget. Today is only, in a way, the ratification of the agreement, the committing of the promise for a balanced budget plan. The actual doing of the plan rests before the respective committees of jurisdiction, most particularly the Committee on Ways and Means, as this goes forward. It is in this respect the final tale of this bill will be told. Will it work, will it hold, or will it fall apart as the committees of jurisdiction simply refuse to live within the bounds of this agreement? We are all going to have to swallow hard, both sides, members of every committee of jurisdiction, in abiding by the terms of this agreement, but failure to do so would be deeply disappointing to the people of this country. For too long they have asked us to work together to balance the budget, and we have told them no, we have not gotten the job done. Now we can get it done, and I am very pleased to urge a yes vote on this agreement.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I speak as the representative of the citizens of this country that have perhaps been hit the hardest by all of the natural disasters addressed in this bill. The bill before us represents some of the very best and some of the very worst inclinations of this body. Six days after the dikes broke in Grand Forks and the city was inundated, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was kind enough to add relief in the markup on this bill to respond to our situation. The very next day, the Speaker of the House gave up personal family time over the weekend to come and view the area. Two days after that the majority leader led a bipartisan delegation also to view the area and assess the damages. The very next week meaningful relief was added to the bill on the House floor, thanks to the work of the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], another bipartisan effort. Then, just when it looked to the people of the country that Congress perhaps could act in a bipartisan way to meaningfully respond to a disaster, the games started and brought the whole effort to a screeching halt, leading up to the disgraceful exit of this body at Memorial Day recess without addressing the flood disaster. The bill before us still contains the political games that have slowed this effort and delayed relief to the people that need it, but I ask that it be enacted and sent to the White House. I have become convinced that we need to move this relief measure forward and that playing this silly game out, sending the bill up with the veto bait attached, ensuring the veto which will come, ensuring the sustaining of the veto which we know will then come, will then get us to a position where the bill can be passed, as it should have been all along, with just the relief component, so that at last, at long last, the families that I represent and others throughout the area that I am from, families that in some instances do not have homes to go to tonight, families that will not have seen their children for 6 weeks, a city that does not know which way to turn until this bill is passed, only then can we begin the process of moving forward. Despite the reservations, I urge a ``yes'' vote.