Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 10, 1997, I was absent from this Chamber to be home in North Dakota attending to the flooding crisis plaguing large areas of my district. On the 10th, I accompanied Mr. James Lee Witt, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, on a visit to North Dakota to coordinate the Federal response to the disaster declared in the State in the wake of recent blizzards and flooding. Unfortunately, attending to the flooding crisis back home caused me to miss the vote on H.R. 1003, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. I strongly support this legislation, and had I been in the House on Thursday, would have voted for its passage. The debate over assisted suicide implicates some of the most troubling moral and ethical questions in today's society. Issues such as whether vulnerable populations might be targeted for assisted suicide and whether patients grappling with depression and severe illness can make sound choices on this matter demonstrate the troubling consequences of an embrace of assisted suicide. In addition, many Americans' strong religious convictions lead them to abhor suicide in any situation. These factors--and the resulting extreme controversy of the practice--make it abundantly clear that the Federal Government should not be in the business of using taxpayer dollars to fund assisted suicide. H.R. 1003 ensures that this will not occur and consequently has my strong support.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was in North Dakota participating in the emergency relief efforts that are underway to help the victims of the latest winter storm to hit the Upper Great Plains. As a result, I was absent for rollcall votes No. 72 and 73. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both measures.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my opposition to the so- called Working Families Flexibility Act, H.R. 1. While skillfully titled, this legislation will not, in fact, help today's working families cope with the struggles they face. Instead, this legislation will make life harder for those who toil each week to provide for their families. Perhaps it is unintentional, but unfortunately this bill represents yet another proposal put forth by the majority which will increase the strain on working families and jeopardize our Nation's basic workplace protections. The Democratic substitute that I support, on the other hand, offers employees the work schedule flexibility they desire while ensuring that the choice for compensatory time off rather than overtime pay is truly voluntary. H.R. I attempts to offer workers a choice between overtime pay and compensatory time off when they work more than 40 hours per week, a goal which many of us would agree is reasonable. However, the bill does not assure that the employer-employee agreements on this subject will be truly voluntary. Under the bill, employers who wish to offer compensatory time rather than overtime retain authority to impose this choice on their employees. Today's workers, who face a climate of reduced job security and corporate downsizing, will find it difficult to reject their employers stated preference for time off rather than overtime pay. For example, employers could screen job applicants or assign overtime to employees according to their willingness to accept comptime. Another flaw with H.R. 1 is that it gives employers too much authority over when an employee could take the comptime he or she has earned. Employers would have the power to deny an employee's request for comptime on the grounds that it unduly disrupts their business operations, or they could deny the request for the day requested and instead offer another day which suits the employer's schedule. With employees thus having insufficient say over when their earned comptime can be used, the goal of providing flexibility for workers to attend to family matters has not been achieved. By reducing opportunities for overtime pay, H.R. 1 is particularly damaging to the many workers in today's economy who depend on overtime to maintain a decent standard of living for themselves and their families. Fully two-thirds of the workers who earned overtime in 1994 had a total family income of less than $40,000. For these many workers at the low end of the wage scale, the extra dollars earned from overtime can mean the difference between family self-sufficiency and government dependence. At a time when we are rightly demanding that people move from welfare to work, we must not remove a basic safeguard--overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week--that has allowed low-wage workers to stand on their own. Unlike the majority's bill, the Democratic substitute ensures that the choice for comptime will be exclusively the employee's so that those who depend on overtime pay to make ends meet will not be forced to abandon this important source of income. In addition to requiring that it be the employee who requests comptime, the Democratic substitute also requires employers to offer comptime to all employees who are similarly situated. The majority's bill, on the other hand, would allow employers to pick and choose which employees will be offered comptime. The Democratic substitute also exempts from the comptime provisions certain segments of the work force that are particularly dependent on overtime wages, including part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers, and those in the garment, construction, and agriculture trades. Mr. Chairman, the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act have served this Nation well. They protect workers from demands for excessive work, reward--in a financially meaningful way--those who put in extra time for their employer, and--by requiring premium pay for overtime--provide an incentive for businesses to create additional jobs. Thus, we must proceed carefully when enacting legislation which makes changes to our overtime laws, even for the laudable goal of giving employees greater flexibility with respect to their work schedules. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 does not demonstrate the requisite legislative caution. It weakens the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime provisions while giving employers additional authority over the work schedules of their employees. This is not the way to help today's working families. Instead, we should pursue the course laid out in the Democratic substitute--offer flexibility to employees while protecting absolutely their ability to choose overtime rather than comptime.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1122, a bill to ban the late-term abortion practice known as partial birth abortion. While I will vote in favor of this legislation, as I did last year, I regret that the bill is being considered under a closed rule that will not allow the House to debate and vote on amendments proposed by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. That is why I voted against the rule, and why I will vote in favor of motions that provide Members the opportunity to offer amendments to this legislation. In my view, the House ought to uphold a standard of democratic and open debate that allows alternative proposals to receive a fair hearing. Second, as my colleagues know, the legislation before us is identical to the bill that was passed last year and vetoed by the President. In the interests of enacting legislation that will bring an end to this abhorrent procedure, I believe it advisable to support amendments that address the concerns stated by the President. Therefore, if the motion to recommit H.R. 1122 contains instructions to include an exception where the physical health of the mother is severely at risk, I will support the motion. Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, it is my position that the partial birth abortion is an inhumane and unnecessary procedure that should be outlawed. I believe that Congress ought to pass legislation that will gain the President's signature and achieve that end.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution to overturn the President's decision to certify Mexico as a country that is fully cooperating in the fight against drug smuggling. This resolution was reported out of the International Relations Committee on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. The committee resolution would decertify Mexico as a fully cooperative partner in the war on drugs. The resolution would send a clear signal to Mexico that their drug fighting efforts are inadequate, and that they must improve their interdiction, prosecution and anti-corruption activities to be considered a fully cooperating ally in the drug war. Unfortunately, rather than allowing the House to vote on the bipartisan committee resolution, the majority leadership has crafted a substitute proposal that, if adopted, will preclude consideration of the committee resolution. Regrettably, the leadership amendment, offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert, undermines the bipartisan committee product by injecting purely partisan language into the text of the resolution. Rather than focusing on the question of certification, the Hastert amendment seeks to gain partisan advantage by taking rhetorical pot-shots at what it views as the administration's shortcomings in its conduct of the war on drugs. As a result, the leadership has managed to take an issue where there is widespread bipartisan agreement--that Mexico is not a fully cooperating partner in the war on drugs--and make it partisan. I support the committee resolution, but I will oppose the leadership amendment. I remain hopeful that the Senate will craft a bipartisan measure that I will be able to support when this issue is resolved in conference. I urge my colleague to oppose the Hastert amendment and support House Resolution 58.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the people I represent in North Dakota are tired of the debate in this House where one side points to the other side and says they are terrible and get a ``they are terrible'' back, and more of the fracas just continues. Unfortunately, a lot of the debate this afternoon sounds much like that tired old partisan dialogue. We can do better than that. We stand at a great point of opportunity. The deficit is down 63 percent from where it was 4 years ago. We have made real headway. There is just that final push to get us to a balanced budget. What is more, we stand at this point in time in agreement that there ought to be a balanced budget. We stand at this point in time that we ought to have that balanced budget achieved by 2002. So with so much agreement, it seems to me we ought to be working hard at negotiating our way to a balanced budget rather than having a spurious debate of the kind before us. No budget plan is perfect. There will always be a great deal of give and take in crafting the final product. Now, the budget process is structured in a formalized way. The President advances his budget, and at that point in time all eyes turn to the majority party for their budget plan. When they have their budget plan on the table, the sides get together and negotiations begin in great earnestness in terms of how the differences can be resolved. So the President has advanced his budget. All eyes turn to the majority caucus. They do not have a plan. They, in fact, want to waste our time this afternoon asking the President to submit another budget. They know very well the process. The process is it is their turn. Bring a budget forward. It takes two to tango. It takes two budget plans to get negotiated. For the freshmen that for the first time are directing, I think impressively, a floor debate, I would just say they are in Congress now. There is something wonderful that comes with that. If they do not like the President's budget, they should write their own. The Blue Dog Democrats have already done precisely that. Other Democrat plans, I expect, will emerge. Rather than carp and gripe about the shortcomings of the President's plan, just put pen to paper and come up with one. That would advance the process very significantly. That would get us to the table with the differences clearly etched so that they might be negotiated. One final comment. We do not have much time. We want to get this done by 2002. We need 5 years to get it done. If we fritter away this year in partisan finger-pointing nonsense instead of earnest negotiation to a settlement, it will be only much harder to do in the future.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to take a few moments to express my sadness at the passing of a truly dedicated public servant. His name was Martin Slate, Since 1993, Mr. Slate had served as executive director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC]. In this capacity, he was charged with safeguarding the hard-earned pension benefits of millions of working Americans. It was a job he did brilliantly. He arrived at the PBGC at a time when the agency was in danger of failing in its mission to guarantee the pension benefits of American workers. He developed a plan to set things right and went about doing so. Director Slate led the effort to make needed reforms in the pension laws, he restored the PBGC to a level of solvency it had not seen in decades, and he spearheaded a new initiative to track down missing pension participants and provide them with the benefits they had earned but not received. While at PBGC, Director Slate worked closely with leaders from Capitol Hill, particularly with former Congressman J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle. Writing to Director Slate's spouse last week, Congressman Pickle remarked: We should give eternal thanks for Marty's leadership in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Program. For years neither the Administration nor Congress could remove road blocks that kept badly-needed pension reform from enactment. Marty Slate knew the problem, and knew how to chart a course of action. As Chairman of the Congressional Subcommittee that had jurisdiction over pension reform, I can vouch that Marty, more than anyone, led the fight that resulted in the passage of the Retirement Protection Act of 1994. Countless millions of American workers, now and in the future, owe a deep debt of gratitude to this great man. Having worked closely with Director Slate on pension policy over the past several years, I share Congressman Pickle's enormous gratitude for the leadership and vision he provided in advancing the retirement security of the American people. Our Nation has lost a valuable ally in the critical struggle to achieve economic security for our Nation's retirees. Fortunately for our Nation, however, Director Slate's 4 years of success at the PBGC were not a temporary foray into government service but the capstone of a lifelong career of service to the public. Prior to coming to the PBGC, Mr. Slate oversaw employee benefit plans for the Internal Revenue Service and served in a variety of capacities at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Marty's lifelong dedication to ensuring equal opportunity and preserving workplace benefit security brought tangible results to millions of working Americans. His life stands as a testament to the fact that one can achieve great good in service to one's country. Mr. Speaker, this past Thursday I attended a memorial service for Director Slate. While this required me to miss several recorded votes here in the House, I was proud to count myself among the hundreds of colleagues and friends who gathered to pay tribute to this exceptional man. Speaker after speaker rose to celebrate the life and mourn the passing of this quintessential public servant and vibrant friend. For those of us who had known him only professionally, we learned in moving terms that Marty's dedication to his country was matched by dedication to his friends and family. Country, colleagues, family, friends--all will miss him terribly. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in this Chamber to join me in sending heartfelt condolences to Marty's wife, Dr. Caroline Poplin, and to the other members of Marty's family. At this difficult time, I know that we all join in expressing our sincere gratitude for Marty's many years of dedicated service to this Nation and his fellow citizens.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to the service of Warren Christopher as Secretary of State. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member, for bringing this resolution to the floor today. Not all my colleagues may be aware that Secretary Christopher hails from my State, the great State of North Dakota. He was born in Scranton, ND, a town of less than 300 people in southwestern North Dakota. Although his family moved to California when Secretary Christopher was still a young man, we in North Dakota like to think that we had a part in instilling in him the values he displayed so consistently throughout his public career: honesty, humility, loyalty, and hard work. He is without question one of our State's most distinguished sons, and it gives me great pride to join with my colleagues in recognizing Secretary Christopher's public service. Secretary Christopher's service to our Nation began during World War II as an ensign in the Naval Reserve assigned to the Pacific theater. Following the war, Secretary Christopher attended law school at Stanford University, after which he served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Warren Christopher later established a very successful private law career in Los Angeles from which he took leave to serve as Deputy Attorney General under President Johnson, then Deputy Secretary of State under President Carter. In the role of Deputy Secretary, Warren Christopher negotiated the release of 52 hostages from Iran. For his work, President Carter awarded Secretary Christopher with the Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award. As the 63d Secretary of State, Warren Christopher provided calm and capable leadership during one of the most significant transition periods in American foreign policy. Among the Secretary's many accomplishments, I believe two deserve special recognition. First, Secretary Christopher helped bring an end to the brutal war in Bosnia. In the fall of 1995 when the parties to the Dayton talks were ready to call it quits and break off negotiations, Secretary Christopher's steely determination kept the sides together through an all-night session until an eventual agreement was reached. Only time will tell if lasting reconciliation and Democratic institutions will take hold in Bosnia, but the fact is that Bosnian children are not dying today under mortar fire and sniper fire, in large part due to Secretary Christopher's tireless efforts. History may prove that the Secretary's most enduring legacy will be his efforts on behalf of peace in the Middle East. During his 4 years in office, Secretary Christopher made at least 24 trips to the Middle East. He was personally very well suited to the terribly difficult task of brokering a peace accord. He deliberately minimized his personal profile while persisting with a determined, intelligent, and evenhanded approach at facilitating the region's leaders' courageous path to peace. While implementation of the peace process is not yet complete, Secretary Christopher deserves substantial credit for the extraordinary progress that was made during his years as our Secretary of State. Beneath Secretary Christopher's ever composed demeanor was an intense commitment to advancing peace and U.S. interests around the world. His tireless efforts are evidenced by the travel record he set in office: 758,152 miles. That is equivalent to more than 30 trips around the world. This selfless public servant has done his native State of North Dakota and his country proud. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution commending the good work of Warren Christopher during his years as our Secretary of State.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker I rise today to introduce a desperately needed piece of legislation, the Crop Insurance Improvement Act. This bill will restore fairness to the crop insurance system and make crop insurance a reasonable risk management tool for producers in North Dakota. In my State farmers have suffered through three successive seasons of disastrous crop production and the fourth is already on its way. Abnormally high rainfall and wet conditions have prevented farmers from planting crops and have ruined crops that were planted. Through no fault of their own, these farmers have seen their crops destroyed and livelihood threatened year after year. Now producers are being told that they will have to pay higher premiums for lower coverage as a result of these losses. Many producers are now faced with unaffordable insurance bills that provide little coverage. Nothing could be more unfair to the farmers of my State or any farmers who have suffered crop losses due to natural disasters. Last year 172 producers in North Dakota were placed on the nonstandard classification list following 3 years of successive losses. Nonstandard classification results in higher premiums and lower coverage. This year, hundreds more producers face a similar situation because of the continued disaster. Even if the flooding and wet conditions were to stop today, many farmers would not be able to afford the crop insurance they need because of losses in previous disaster years. My bill would ease this situation and restore some fairness and sanity to the crop insurance program. The Crop Insurance Improvement Act would provide exceptions for producers farming in areas declared a disaster by the President or the Secretary of Agriculture. It would prevent the listing of producers on the nonstandard classification list if they had losses related to a major declared disaster. This bill would also prevent FCIC from counting losses in disaster years in the calculation of insurable yields. Poor yields in years of natural disaster should not affect a producer's future insurance. Disasters represent abnormal, uncontrollable forces of nature and should not cripple a farmer for years to come with higher insurance premiums and inadequate coverage. The ultimate goal of the bill is to keep crop insurance as a viable risk management tool for our Nation's farmers. If producers cannot afford crop insurance, or if the insurance will not cover a reasonable yield, then we have left them without a safety net. Participation in crop insurance has increased since Congress reformed the program in 1994. Farmers have taken more responsibility for their risk management and will have to take even more now that the price safety net has been removed by the 1996 farm bill. Now it is time to improve the program so that we are not slamming the door on a valuable tool responsible producers use to manage their risk. I encourage my colleagues to support this necessary and commonsense improvement in the crop insurance program.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a trio of targeted tax cut bills designed to help working families meet their most pressing financial challenges. The centerpiece of an agenda to advance the economic security of North Dakota's middle and working income families, these measures will make it easier for workers to afford health care and education and to set money aside for retirement. The first measure I introduce today, The Self-Employed Health Affordability Act of 1997, continues my long dedication to providing full deductibility of health insurance costs for self-employed individuals. On the first day of the last Congress, I introduced a bill to give the self-employed a full 100 percent deduction for these costs. Eighty-two of my House colleagues became co-sponsors of my bill, and this bipartisan coalition fought successfully to include an increased self-employed deduction as part of the health insurance legislation passed by Congress last summer. Under this so-called Kennedy-Kassebaum law, the self-employed deduction will slowly increase to 80 percent by the year 2006. While this was progress, it does not bring sufficient relief to the hard-working farm and small business families which must pay their own health insurance premiums. The bill I introduced today will immediately increase the self-employed deduction to a full 100 percent, making the increasing cost of health insurance more affordable and keeping these families healthy. Mr. Speaker, the second of the targeted tax cut bills I introduce today is The Education and Training Affordability Act of 1997. This legislation will allow a tax deduction of up to $5,000 a year for higher education and job training expenses for middle-income families. The deduction will be fully available to individuals earning less than $60,000 and households earning less than $80,000, and will phase out for individuals at $75,000 and for households at $95,000. Unfortunately, college costs are moving beyond middle-class reach. Many families are forced to incur greater and greater debt to finance their children's higher education and some must forego higher education altogether. The Education and Training Affordability Act will help combat these trends, providing a needed tax savings and helping parents afford the cost of a college education for their children. Under this bill, a family of five earning $60,000 with three children in North Dakota's state universities will save $1,400 per year. The Education and Training Affordability Act will also make job training more affordable. It's clear that the best-paying jobs will increasingly go to those workers with advanced training beyond high school. Employees willing to continually update their skills are the ones who will be able to take full advantage of the opportunities in today's rapidly changing economy. The Education and Training Affordability Act will help workers seize these new opportunities by making vocational, technical and other job training programs more affordable. For example, a worker earning $28,000 and enrolled full- time at Interstate Business College in Fargo would save $1,400 on his or her tax bill. Mr. Speaker, the final bill in my trio of targeted tax cuts is the IRA Savings Opportunity Act of 1997. This legislation will help working families overcome what can be the extreme difficulty of setting aside money for retirement given all the other expenses families face. In doing so, it will help us take a step forward in meeting our emerging retirement savings crisis. As a nation, we are simply not saving enough to ensure a financially secure retirement. The personal savings rate has fallen from a level of more than 7 percent during much of this century to barely more than 3 percent today. Indeed, only one in three baby-boomers is saving enough to guarantee an adequate income in retirement. The IRA Savings Opportunity Act gives working families expanded new opportunities to start and contribute to an individual retirement account (IRA). THe bill has three provisions, each designed to expand savings opportunities in a different way. First, for those at modest income levels who often find it most difficult to save, the bill provides a tax credit equal to 20 percent of the amount contributed to an IRA. This credit will reduce tax liability for individuals earning less than $35,000 and households earning less than $50,000 while providing a meaningful incentive to save for retirement. Second, the IRA Savings Opportunity Act will allow those without access to a workplace retirement plan to contribute additional dollars to their IRA. Retirement security in our economy is premised on a three-legged stool of (1) employer pension, (2) Social Security, and (3) personal savings. Yet many workers--farmers, those who work for small businesses--do not have access to a retirement plan in the workplace. And many large employers are discontinuing their pension plans, leaving workers without a retirement vehicle at their place at work. These employees thus lack the important employer pension leg of the retirement security stool. THe IRA Savings Opportunity Act addresses this problem by strengthening the personal savings leg. The bill will allow middle-income workers without workplace plans to contribute an additional $2,000 to their IRA, bringing the total annual amount that can be contributed to $4,000. While the additional $2,000 contribution is not tax deductible, these funds will accumulate tax- free, providing a significant advantage over other savings vehicles such as mutual funds. Finally, the IRA Savings Opportunity Act will help to strengthen the personal savings leg of the stool for those who are fortunate enough to have access to a retirement plan at the workplace. By doubling the income ceilings below which workers can deduct their IRA contributions, the IRA Savings Opportunity Act once again makes the tax advantages of IRAs available to all middle-class Americans. Remedying the vast reduction in IRA participation caused by the 1986 tax reform law, the IRA Savings Opportunity Act will allow individuals earning up to $70,000 and households earning up to $100,000 to deduct their IRA contributions from their taxes, up to a maximum of $2,000. This restored deduction will provide meaningful tax relief for middle-income families, and will encourage the personal savings which must be a critical part of everyone's retirement savings strategy. Mr. Speaker, one strength of the tax relief measures I introduce today is that they target the relief at families' most pressing economic challenges--the high cost of health care and education and the difficulty of saving for retirement. They also target the tax relief at middle and working income families in order to limit the cost and not require unsustainable cuts in programs on which our seniors, children and working families rely. This doubly targeted approach means that the revenue loss to the federal treasury from my proposals is modest, on the order of $40-50 billion. As with the proposals others will make for tax relief, my targeted tax cuts can only be enacted as part of a budget agreement that includes the necessary spending cuts to reach balance by 2002. From my position on the Budget Committee, I will be working to ensure that targeted tax relief in the context of a balanced budget is accomplished. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working hard in the coming weeks and months to advance these three targeted tax cut bills. With passage of these measures, Congress can provide needed tax relief to middle and working income families and can help them secure the foundations of economic security--health care, education and training, and a secure retirement.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the 119th Fighter Group of the Air National Guard based in Fargo, ND. The 119th, more commonly known as the ``Happy Hooligans,'' was featured in today's edition of the USA Today as they prepare to defend their title as champion of the William Tell air-to-air combat competition. I have submitted a copy of the article that will appear in the Record following my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to take the time to read this story about the truly remarkable people of the 119th. Two years ago, the Hooligans sent a team to Tyndall AFB, FL, to compete in the most prestigious air-to-air event in the entire Air Force--the William Tell competition. The Hooligans were pitted against the cream of the crop, the ``top guns'' from the Active Duty Air Force. What's more, the Hooligans were flying relatively aged F-16's but competed against units flying the more advanced F-15. Much to the surprise and considerable dismay of the Air Force's young fighter jocks, the Hooligans outperformed the entire field and took home the William Tell trophy. In 2 weeks, the Hooligans will return to Florida to defend their title. I am confident that they will once again distinguish themselves and make North Dakota proud. Last year, I had the opportunity to fly with the Happy Hooligans in an F-16 piloted by Lt. Colonel Maury Borud, so I can personally attest to their top-shelf performance. I would also note that today Colonel Borud will make the last flight of his distinguished 28-year career. Mr. Speaker, on an issue of special interest to Congress, I ask my colleagues to remember the championship quality of the Happy Hooligans if the Pentagon once again advances plans to reduce the fighter force structure in the Air National Guard. Such plans are short-sighted and ill-advised, especially given the unparalleled performance of the Hooligans and other ANG fighter units. Cutting the Hooligans would be like benching Michael Jordan, a foolish mistake by any measure. Congratulatios to the Happy Hooligans. You never cease to make North Dakota proud. [From the USA Today, Oct. 3, 1996] Old-Time Pilots Show `Top Guns' Who's Hot Fargo, N.D.--The scene around the air base of the 119th Fighter Wing of the Air National Guard here would never be confused with the set of Top Gun. It is no hotbed of 20- something fighter jocks tooling around on motorcycles and doing shooters at the local bar after work. Here you see balding middle-agers with chiseled faces. People whose ``other jobs'' are at the insurance office, on the farm or flying for FedEx. They are members of local churches, officers in local civic organizations, habitues of the nearby public golf courses. Yet, when you strap one of these senior fliers into the cockpit of an F-16 Fighting Faclon, the younger boys get out of the way because these are the best air-to-air combat fighters in the world. They are the Godfathers of air superiority--and right now, they are in the final ``spin up'' to defend that title. Two years ago, in October 1994, Fargo's ``Happy Hooligans'' as they are called, flew down to Tyndall Air Force base in Florida to duke it out in the Super Bowl of dogfights--the biennial William Tell competition. What they accomplished there may rank as one of the greatest upset victories since Joe Namath took his Jets to Florida in 1969. The Fargo team had the oldest pilots and the oldest aircraft in the competition. Their F-16s were slower and their radar range shorter than that of the F-15s flown by the Air Force regulars from around the world. The Air Force had a vast pool of planes, maintenance crews and sharp young pilots on their teams. The Fargo group was so sparse, they had Guard part-timers, classic ``weekend warriors,'' flying some of their jets. And, as if to emphasize their underdog status, Fargo's lead pilot was a diminutive lieutenant colonel nicknamed ``Pee Wee.'' a family affair The William Tell is a grueling weeklong competition conducted by the Air Force that combines air-to-air combat games, weapons loading drills and target shooting. Imagine a typical scenario. You are strapped in the cockpit of an F-16 racing at nearly twice the speed of sound, defending a chunk of air space that extends from 0 to 50,000 feet high, 50 miles deep, 30 miles wide. Five jets come screaming into that space--four ``hostiles,'' one ``friendly.'' Your radar is jammed, you are being fed conflicting and erroneous communications, the horizon is lurching skyward to your right. Your mission: destroy the hostiles and let the friendly pass. You have five minutes. ``Your concentration level is so high,'' says Maj. Bob Becklund, who will lead Fargo's team as they defend their title Oct. 21. ``Everything is happening so quickly that it just starts feeling like slow motion.'' When a pilot jerks his plane skyward, as he may do several times in a competition like this one, the blood actually drains from the head and concentration can be affected. Still, the pilot must react instantaneously. At that point, says Robert ``Pee Wee'' Edlund, ``you are not really flying the plane, it is just something strapped to your back'' as you go through the maneuvers. In situations like this, the Fargo pilots use the F-16 to their advantage. ``You can visually spot an F-15 maybe 10 miles out,'' says Becklund. ``In the F-16, if I've got the nose pointed at you, and I'm jamming your radar, you aren't going to pick me up visually until I'm maybe 3 miles out.'' At Mach 1.6, three miles out is as good as in your back pocket. If both planes are moving at about the same speed, the F-16 is on you in less than 7 seconds. ``It is physically and emotionally very demanding,'' says Edlund. ``When it's over you are emotionally drained, but euphoric.'' In 1994, when the Fargo team won, ``people were surprised and upset--shocked,'' says Edlund, who is prevented by the rules from competing again but is serving as a kind of coach for the team. ``Believe me, there are some big egos out there. I know those F-15 crews went home embarrassed.'' Particularly because Air Force crews flying F-15s had won the previous two competitions. The Fargo team also won the Hughes Trophy that year, an award given to the best air combat unit in the Air Force. They were the only F-16 unit ever to win it. How did a group of such precision fighters spring up in the unlikely location of North Dakota? ``It is a family kind of thing,'' says Maj. Marshall Kjelvik, one of the pilots who will fly in the William Tell. We are a family-oriented organization, with deep roots in the community.'' Indeed, Kjelvik's father worked in maintenance at the Fargo air base and introduced him to jet fighters as a child. ``After that, I always wanted to fly,'' he says. ``It means a lot to represent your hometown, where my family and my father are from,'' says Kjelvik. Familial connections run through the base like electrical wiring, Kjelvik's sister works in the maintenance division. Becklund's father, retired Brig. Gen. Thornton Becklund, was a former base commander. First Lt. Brad Derrig is an alternate pilot who will travel to Tyndall. His father also flew for the guard and his brother, Tom, is the flight surgeon. ``That's one of the unique things,'' he says about Fargo. ``There are a lot of brothers, sister and family members working together.'' pride in safety record But surely, there must be some Tom Cruse wannabes in the bunch. ``There is a fine line between being a cocky fighter pilot, and being a good pilot. If you are really good, you realize you don't have to be cocky,'' says base commander Col. Mike Haugen, who at 50 still flies the F-16. ``When you are 23, you tjhink there is no end to life and you are always going to be here. But this is a serious business.'' First Lt. Jon Wutzke, 31, is on the Tell team. He joined the Air Force straight out of high school and joined the Fargo Air National Guard when he has going to college at North Dakota State University. ``The age difference was a shock for me,'' he recalls. ``Back then we were flying F-4s and I worked in the shop. Some of those guys have been working on those same engines since the 1950s! So the corporate memory here goes way back.'' And continues. The Fargo team would not be as good in the air without the skills of the crews on the ground. ``As proud as I am of our performance at William Tell,'' says Haugen, ``it is our safety record and our ground crews that make it possible. We haven't lost an aircraft in over 100,000 hours of flight time, over 25 years of flying'' he says. ``Frankly, we should have lost three of those aircraft by now,'' says Haugen of the F-16s on the runway. ``That's what the statistics say.'' Those statistics do not trouble the men who fly these F- 16s, however. ``It's like I tell my wife,'' says Edlund, ``the only dangerous part about being a jet fighter pilot is driving to the air base. We have some of the oldest jets in the world, F-16 wise, but the way they are maintained by our crews, they are like brand new.'' experience counts When it came William Tell contest time, the Hooligans had rebuilt, retuned and customized their F-16s like hotrods in the shop. As a result, when those old planes went to Tyndall, they were ready to do things that were not even possible when they were brand new. There also is a distinction among the fliers. ``They are young,'' says Edlund of the regular Air Force units. ``We are experienced. The younger guys might pull more Gs (maximum speed maneuvers) and have quicker reactions, but we've got more flight time. There is no substitute for having been there.'' Edlund, 39, has been there. He spent 11 years in the Air Force, then joined the Guard full-time six years ago. It is not an easy way to make a living. An F-16 can fly at Mach 2, twice the speed of sound. It is capable of making a 9G turn or climb. In a 9G turn, the gravitational pull on the body is 9 times that of gravity. The force of such a turn is so great that if you happen to be looking over your left shoulder at an approaching plane or missile, and you throw your jet into a steep 9G turn to the right, the force can break your neck. Even if you do everything right, you can return from a routine flight bruised up and exhausted. In a 9G turn all the organs of the body will be pulled two inches out of their normal alignments. The liver shifts, the heart moves, connective tissue strains. Pilots training for William Tell will often fly twice daily. ``I pulled a neck muscle once in a 9G turn and it was bad. I couldn't fly for a month,'' says Edlund. ``Finally I went to the flight surgeon and he cleared me. He said, `Pee Wee, you're good to go. You can Fly, no problem.' But then he took me aside and said he wanted to show me something. He pulled out my X-rays and there were these white spots, calcium deposits and stuff, all up and down my neck and back. ``He said, `Pee Wee, this is what a 60-year-old man's back looks like. Nobody knows what the long-term affects of flying a jet aircraft like the F-16 will be, but the body was just not designed to take all these Gs.' ``I said, `That's great, doc, but can I get that in writing?' '' He laughs. ``I mean, this the best job there is. Where else can you get to fly a multi-million dollar aircraft that is the best in the world? I wouldn't trade it for all of Bill Gate's money or Michael Jordan's fame,'' he says. Edlund is nearing the end of his career as a jet pilot. His hair is gray, he's working in an industry that is constantly downsizing. He has a wife, two kids, a dog and a cat, a house in the suburbs and a Little League team he has taken to the state championships. He is no longer much of a Hooligan, but still good to go. ``I'll probably have to hang it up in five years or so, maybe when I have 5,000 hours. That would be a pretty good career for a fighter pilot. Then, I'll just push paper. Be a ground-pounder for the team.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4264, a bill which marks an important step forward in our national effort to combat diabetes. The provisions of H.R. 4264 are identical to the provisions of two separate diabetes bills I have cosponsored this session, H.R. 1073 and H.R. 1074. These bills will for the first time provide Medicare reimbursement for outpatient self-management training for individuals with diabetes. They will also for the first time provide Medicare coverage for the blood-testing strips that diabetics use to monitor their blood sugar levels. The Congressional Caucus on Diabetes--of which I am a member, led by Representative Elizabeth Furse (D-OR), has worked hard throughout this session to get these bills passed, and I am glad that H.R. 4264 provides us with the vehicle to achieve this goal. Diabetes is a particular problem for older Americans. Over 16 percent of Americans over the age of 65 have the disease, and over one quarter of the entire Medicare budget is spent caring for diabetic seniors. With coverage of self-management training and blood-testing strips under Medicare, Congress has recognized that efforts to combat diabetes must not focus solely on treatment of serious illness but also on education and self-management which can prevent serious illness. This preventive emphasis is not only cost-effective, but will result in greatly reduced human suffering. Medical research has shown us that many of the most serious complications stemming from diabetes can be controlled through proper management by those who have the condition. According to Practical Diabetology, 90 percent of diabetes-related blindness is preventable, and 50 percent of diabetes-related amputations and hospitalizations are preventable. With coverage of self-management training and blood- testing strips, many more diabetic seniors will be able to head off these serious, and sometimes life-threatening, complications which can result from unbalanced blood sugar levels. Mr. Speaker, I hope consideration and passage of H.R. 4264 indicates a renewed sense of urgency in Congress about combating diabetes. An area to which we must direct this sense of urgency in the coming months is the epidemic of diabetes among native Americans. Whether by granting the Indian Health Service [IHS] third-party reimbursement authority or by preserving IHS diabetes-control efforts as the agency downsizes and restructures, we must elevate our commitment to reducing the tragic incidence of diabetes among our native American population. Mr. Speaker, I urge by colleagues to support H.R. 4264 as the first important step in a renewed national effort to combat diabetes.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the conference report on the FAA Authorization Act (H.R. 3539). The legislation before the House contains many vitally important provisions to enhance the efficiency and safety of air travel in this country. I supported the bill when it passed the House, and I fully expected to be able to support the conference report. However, regrettably, in the 11th hour, a positively poison pill was added to the bill that was not part of either the House or the Senate bill, has not been the subject of a single congressional hearing, and represents a serious setback for the interests of working people. This provision is textbook special-interest legislation added in conference to aid a single, powerful company--Federal Express. The effect of the provision, which would reinstate an outdated classification under the Railway Labor Act, would be to make it much more difficult for Federal Express employees to unionize. This is precisely the wrong step to take in this time of corporate downsizing and financial insecurity. Instead, we must work to safeguard worker protections. Mr. Speaker, because of this provision, I am forced to oppose an otherwise outstanding bill. However, I am confident that this objectionable provision will ultimately be deleted and the FAA legislation passed before the 104th Congress adjourns.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is vital that we establish as a Congress our commitment to publish that report and to release those documents so the country can judge whether or not the man second in line to be President, the Speaker of the House, should be in that position. Mr. Speaker, I was not called on that last sentence because those were not my words, those were the words of Newt Gingrich when he called for the release of the report against Speaker Wright. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Release the report.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the only thing clear at this point in the Ethics Committee's handling of the charges against Speaker Gingrich are that serious questions exist, and the Ethics Committee does not have the ability to resolve questions involving Speaker Gingrich. A couple of commonsense principles commonly expressed where I come from maybe will provide some guidance in terms of how to proceed. The best is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Here the Ethics Committee has in its possession a report prepared by an outside special counsel, funded by taxpayer expense. There is no quicker, simple---- point of order

Mr. POMEROY. I have a further question along the lines of the gentleman's ruling.

Mr. POMEROY. The report presently prepared and before the committee is itself a component of the committee's deliberations but I was not talking about the committee's deliberations. I was talking about release of the report. That to me would seem to fall outside the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I will remove the button, but I have a point of parliamentary inquiry regarding the first ruling made by the Chair.

Mr. POMEROY. Is it the Chair's position that I may make no statement regarding the outside special counsel's report, commissioned and paid for by taxpayer funds regarding the charges against Speaker Gingrich which is presently held at the Ethics Committee?

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. There are many things with which I agree with the majority. In other areas I disagree. But I was absolutely shocked that on this pension raid issue, threatening the retirement security of millions of working men and women, all but one of the majority voted right along to allow the pension raid.

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate very much this retrospective look at the 104th Congress. I do think that, as Congress rushes to complete its work, it is an appropriate time to evaluate the true record of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I would speak about, in particular, three shortcomings of this Congress. The first is the shutdown, the second is student loans, and the bulk of my time is going to be spent talking about a near miss, a raid on workers' pension security. On the shutdown, this new crowd, the 104th Congress, the Republican majority, said they wanted to run government like a business. Yet, when they got in a fight with the President, they felt shutting down the government was the appropriate response; leaving the workers home, only to be paid for every day they stayed at home, with the subsequent enactment of the appropriations bills. It occurred to me, as I evaluated that ridiculous stunt, that there is not a single business in North Dakota that gets so mad at itself that it sends its workers home on salary, but that is precisely what this crowd did to the Federal Government, disrupting service, costing taxpayers millions, and what is more, making a total debacle of the legislative appropriations process. To have a quote published in a major Texas magazine where the majority whip, Mr. DeLay, to this day, believes that their greatest single error was reopening the Federal Government shows just how reckless and irresponsible the leadership has been on the other side and what we might expect more of should they return after the next election. The second point I would address was student loans which as I sat on the Budget Committee fighting the proposals that would take $18 billion from the funding of loans, student loans, I evaluated the consequences for those who would pay the tab, the students of this country. They proposed to wring $18 billion out of student loan funding, having students accrue interest on their loans from the moment they took them out. The 18-year-olds sitting in college in freshman English class today just as it has been for many, many years, including certainly when I was in college and way before that, they do not have interest accruing while they are still in class. What would be the point? They cannot pay the loan back. They are in school. That is why they took the loan out. And so they have that interest deferred. That is just how student loans have worked. Well, they wanted to change that. They wanted to have interest accruing from day one so the freshman student is not just sitting there trying to learn, he is also worrying about interest accruing and this growing student loan debt. You mentioned the rising cost of college and the resulting impact on student loans. In fact, student loan borrowing is up greater than 50 percent. Student loan borrowing in this country has more than doubled since 1990. We are having an explosion in student loans because the costs are beyond the reach of families to pay, or beyond the reach of students to make it with working while they are not in class. This would have impacted the costs on payback to the students of this country in the following ways: Eliminating that interest deferral would have hit an undergraduate coming out with a 4-year degree 25 percent. It would have hit a graduate student something in the range of 30 percent upon completing their graduate degree. And someone obtaining either a medical doctor or perhaps a Ph.D. in history would look at a full 50 percent greater student loan obligation than they would come out with today. As if that was not bad enough, I will tell you that student loan obligations today are shocking. My student loan payment was $90 a month, I paid it faithfully for 10 years and remember and will always remember walking that last payment to the mailbox. It was a happy day in my life. Well, now they are paying several hundred dollars a month. In fact, whereas that student loan payment used to fall somewhere after your rent payment and after your car payment in terms of your monthly outflow, it now rivals or exceeds mortgage payments these people are making, so great is the indebtedness. And this Republican budget would have increased it at least 25 percent for the graduating undergraduate, because they wanted to take the money from student loans to pay for that tax cut primarily benefiting the wealthy. That was a very, very low point in this session. And thank goodness that budget plan was vetoed. There was another, and the final low point that I would mention involves the attempted raid on workers' pensions. In this country this year, the first wave of baby boomers turned 50 years old. One in three baby boomers is saving enough for retirement, but the first wave of baby boomers turned 50 years old. We have a national growing, serious problem with people not saving enough for their retirement. One in 4 workers in an employer of under 100 has an opportunity to save, 3 in 4 do not, to save for their retirement. Now in the larger employers, it is better. Seventy-eight percent employed in employers over 1,000 have retirement savings programs. So this is the one part of the whole country where workers are actually on track and saving for their retirement. And what did the Republican budget do? It pointed a gun right at that one area where retirement saving is on track and wanted to blow it apart. In the 1980's, we saw savage abuse of workers' pension funds as corporations raided the paid-up workers' pension funds to fund such things as leveraged buyouts or just even for an easy access to a line of credit for those corporations. In the 1980's, when it was finally brought to a stop by congressional action, $20 billion was withdrawn from workers' pension funds. Many of those funds that had the pension funds ripped out of them ultimately went bankrupt, leaving workers with greatly reduced retirement benefits paid by the taxpayer through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Fund. Well, the proposal that was slipped into the Republican budget would have allowed, by their estimates, $40 billion to be withdrawn from workers' pension funds. How does this happen, you say? The safeguards that were put in place preventing companies from raiding their pension funds for their workers were eliminated, wiped out, for a windfall window where corporations could withdraw those funds without excise tax penalty through July 1 of this year and after July 1, they would have a very small tax penalty on the withdrawal. Today the tax stands at 50 percent to discourage raiding those retirement funds. That barrier was put in place with bipartisan votes during 3 congressional sessions. The Republicans wanted to wipe out that 50 percent, give them a windfall when they are to pull that money out. Why in the world, do you ask, would they want to do that, expose our workers to the loss of their pension dollars? One reason. They had a budget hole. In order to finance that tax cut disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest Americans, they needed to come up with funds. And if corporations withdrew the $40 billion pension funds, at the time of withdrawal, that was taxable to the Treasury, and the Treasury would have gained a $9 billion windfall. So they were prepared to sell out workers' pension security in order to plug a budget hole in their budget, in order to finance that tax cut disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest Americans. That was a shocking proposal. It did not receive so much as a congressional hearing. No hearing on this proposal. And in the Committee on Ways and Means at the time it was brought forward, one member said, ``Well, look, if you're going to do something that so threatens the workers without so much as a hearing, let's at least have the requirement that when corporations draw workers' pension funds out for their own purposes, for the company's own purposes, against the workers' interests, that the workers would be notified.'' Notification to the workers when you take their pension money away. That amendment was defeated. Finally, I went to the Rules Committee and I implored the Rules Committee to at least allow an independent vote on this matter so critical to workers' retirement security. I felt of the many, many issues in this budget which ran hundreds of pages, this one deserved a stand-alone vote. The Rules Committee refused to allow the vote. They wanted the pension raid wrapped into their proposal to pay for their tax cut to the wealthy. So in retrospect, I think when you look at what might have happened in the 104th Congress, there were some very near misses. Nearly catastrophic hits to Medicare, a nearly catastrophic impact to student loans, and nearly a catastrophic raid on workers' pension funds, all to make their budget plan work, and again the jewel in the crown of their budget plan, that tax cut disproportionately going to the wealthiest people in this country. There simply were no limits to which this new majority would not go to try and fund that tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. I will tell you, senior citizens, the students and the working people of this country deserved much better, and I believe they will get much better after this next election.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I missed the vote on the rule covering debate on the Immigration Act conference agreement. At the time of the vote, I was presenting testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on a matter of utmost importance to the people of the State of North Dakota. Resolution of the matter currently before the Commission will likely determine the continued viability of the Great Plains Synfuels Plant in Beulah, ND, a unique facility which converts lignite coal to synthetic natural gas and which brings tremedous economic benefit to our State. It was critical that I be present before the Commission--along with North Dakota's two distinguished Senators--to advocate on behalf of this facility. Mr. Speaker, I regret having to miss any vote in this Chamber and I regret my unavoidable conflict today.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the preceding legislation to come to this floor because I believe it is appropriate to toughen the Nation's response to illegal immigration. But as to the matter that this rule would present before the House, I take a very serious exception. I think it is time that we just step back a minute, take a deep breath and think about what we are doing here. Do any of us possibly think that the illegal activity of a parent ought to be taken out on the kid? I think if any of us were asked that question, we would say, of course not. You cannot hold the kid, the little kid responsible for the illegal acts of the parent. That is precisely, however, what the bill this rule would bring to the floor would allow. In fact, the scenes that I would create are horrible to contemplate. I envision education officials, maybe even INS officials, going down the rows of first grade classes trying to single out whether Johnny stays, this one leaves and I just think it is, it would be awful. Imagine the scene, imagine those of us who have children in grade school, what they would think of a little boy or a little girl pulled out of their chair, hauled out of class crying because they are being sent out of school. That is not something that ought to occur in any classroom in any public school in the United States of America. We think about the family friendly Congress. What kind of family friendly Congress would send a 6-year-old home to a house that maybe there is no one there because both parents are working, but there is nowhere for that 6-year-old to go because they are holding that 6-year- old responsible for the illegal acts of its parents. We worry about gangs and juvenile crime, yet this would take those young people that want to learn and put a bar in front of the schoolroom door, leaving nothing but gangs and street corners and idle time that would in all likelihood be the result of barring these people from the opportunity to pursue an education. Then finally I worry about the implementation of this strategy because how in the world are you going to sort out legals from the illegals when you are looking at first graders. The thing that comes to my mind is those that look a little different. I am the adoptive parents of two children of different races, a different race from me. I love these children as much as I love anything, as much as any father could love his kids. The fear that my children might be pulled out of a classroom because of an inane act of Congress that this rule would bring before the House, allowing school officials to toss little kids out into the street rather than educate them in their schools, is too horrible to contemplate. I do not love my kids any more than any other parents love their kids. The fear of parents across this country that putting their children, any children that do not look, that might look like they are somehow at risk of being illegal in the face of being interrogated and research as to their background, this is just a bad, bad idea and we ought to reject it. We should reject the rule and not even bring it to the floor.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 404, I was unavoidably detained at a meeting off the Hill. I regret that I was absent for this vote.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce necessary legislation to correct a grave error in the 1996 farm bill. The bill I am introducing today will make good on the promises made to barley producers during the farm bill debate earlier this year. North Dakota barley growers were promised a transition payment of 46 cents per bushel under the production flexibility contracts. From November until April this estimate stood as the payment barley producers expected from participation in the new program. Many made financial and planting plans based on this figure. Once the new farm bill was signed into law, however, barley producers discovered an error had been made in estimating the payments. Barley producers found they would now be eligible for a 32-cent payment, over a 30-percent decrease from the promised amount, and a much steeper decrease from the estimates promised to producers of other commodities. In my State of North Dakota, the Nation's leading barley producing State, this error will cost farmers $13 million. Nationwide, this error amounts to over $30 million in lost income to barley producers. The bill I am introducing today along with Representatives Johnson of South Dakota and Williams of Montana will increase the amount allotted for barley contract payments by $35 million. This is the amount necessary to fulfill the promises made and restore equity to barley producers. We do not reduce the amounts available to other commodities through this action. We only increase the amount available to our Nation's barley putting them on even footing with their counterparts who grow other commodities. The new farm bill promised 7 years of payments in exchange for the elimination of the historical safetynet. We are beginning to find out now what those promises were worth. I urge my colleagues to support this measure which forces Congress to make good on its promises to the American barley grower.