Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is vital legislation, and I applaud those on the majority caucus that broke away from their leadership that was doing everything possible to stop a minimum wage increase and joined with us in the minority to reach the critical mass necessary to pass the minimum wage and get these workers at the lowest levels of earning power the raise they so desperately needed. it took guts to buck your own leadership and those of you who did that I applaud you. While we address the immediate earning needs of those at the lowest level, this legislation should also be commended for what it does to advance pension and retirement savings policy. Our Nation has a looming crisis because Americans are not saving adequately for their retirement. Three aspects of this bill advance pension retirement savings policy. The first is straightening out and clarifying how the pension administration occurring in the life insurance industry will proceed in the wake of the Harris trust ruling. Unlike previous comments made on this floor, I believe that the Harris trust language is very positive and helpful in clarifying this situation and should be in this bill. Second, pension simplification: at a point when only 24 percent of employees and employers under 100 have the opportunity to save for retirement at the workplace, this simplifies pensions. This is going to make small employers more willing to offer pension and retirement savings opportunity for their employees. It is a vital part of the bill. Third, the spousal IRA. Representing a rural area, I cannot think of a more unfair part of the Tax Code relative to retirement policy than the present provision which limits to $250 a contribution by a spouse not employed in the workplace. In a farm family where you have the husband and wife pitching in to make that farm go, it is just desperately unfair to limit to $250 the contribution of the second spouse. By allowing the full contribution in the spousal IRA we have improved this law a lot.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the conference report for the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Act. In general this conference report represents a vast improvement from the bill that passed the House earlier this year. Among the most important improvements from the point-of-view of North Dakota was the elimination of the sugar price cap included in the House passed bill. This important improvement is a validation of the 7-year commitment to sugar producers made by Congress when it passed the new farm bill this spring. The conferees also restored $2 million in funding for State Agriculture Mediation Grant program which aids farmers in settling debt disputes. Finally the conferees agreed to increase funding for the grain inspection, packer and stockyards administration so it can implement recommendations from the recent Commission on Concentration in Agriculture. These are important victories for North Dakota producers and for farm families nationwide. I am quite disappointed, however, by the conferees' decision to leave out a remedy for our Nation's barley producers which was included during Senate consideration of the bill. The Senate, during debate on the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill, included language to move $20 million from payments in the years 1999-2002--$5 million each year--to fiscal year 1998 in order to make up for this year's shortfall. This represented a step toward fulfilling the promises made to barley producers earlier this year. The conferees, however, decided to eliminate this important and needed provision from the final conference report. This fix was needed to live up to the promises made during the farm bill debate earlier this year. Barley producers 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 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 other commodities. Nationwide this decrease amounts to over $20 million in lost income to barley producers in 1997. The decision by the conferees to reject the temporary fix adopted by the Senate only reaffirms the unfair treatment of barley farmers, and should not stand. I will continue to search for a way to correct his error that will leave many barley producers shortchanged under the new farm bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the English Language Empowerment Act. I cosponsored this bill under the mistaken assumption it was for the purpose of designating English as the official language of this country. I now understand the bill goes far beyond this purpose and would attempt to impose a clearly unconstitutional proscription on the ways in which the Federal Government communicates with its taxpayers. I further object to the provision which has been added to this bill to repeal the requirement of the Voting Rights Act for bilingual ballots in certain areas. As President Ronald Reagan said, the bilingual ballot requirement, ``proves our unbending commitment to voting rights.'' Since coming to Congress, I have consistently worked to include more Americans in the electoral process. This bill discourages participation for many Americans, and I find that unacceptable. In summary, I believe this bill does not effectively promote English as the official language, but has an unacceptable punitive impact on those in the process of gaining proficiency in our common language.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise to give credit to a small brave group of House Republicans that will join House Democrats and make it possible to at least raise the minimum wage. We in the House minority think that $4.25 an hour is not enough to live on. We know that with the minimum wage at its lowest purchasing point in 40 years, the time to act is now. Unfortunately, the rigid, extreme opposition of the House majority, most of the Members and their leadership, have made it impossible to act before this point. In fact, the House majority leadership has said that they ought to eliminate the minimum wage, not raise it. Well, a few Republicans working with us in the House minority are going to create a bipartisan majority to raise the minimum wage. I admire those House Republicans that took on their leadership on this one. They have made it possible to do something very important for working Americans.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation. I believe this bill is clearly an improvement over the current system. I voted against the previous GOP bills because I believed they inadequately protected children and were weak on work. Unlike those bills, this conference report does not deprive kids on Medicaid of their health care coverage. The conference report allows States to provide vouchers for children's necessities when their parents reach the time limit on benefits. The conference report removes the optional food stamp block grant and provides families with high rent or utility bills an adjustment for more grocery money than the earlier House versions allowed. I remain concerned that funding for job training may not be adequate yet, and that may need to be addressed in the future. A lot of us have worked hard to improve the various welfare reform proposals we have considered. Real welfare reform has meaningful protections for children, has a tough work requirement and demands personal responsibility. While this bill is not perfect, it fits those parameters and begins a process of reforming welfare.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As we have heard throughout this debate, this is an important bill. It accomplishes a lot of good for many parts of the country. Unfortunately, this bill contains a poison pill relative to my part of the country, and that is the provision in this legislation that would direct the Corps of Engineers to extend navigation on the Missouri River by 1 month. The management of our Nation's rivers is a complex thing. The more expertise we get on this issue, the more we begin to understand just how complex it is. The Corps of Engineers, in fact, are looking at the management issues attendant to the management of the Missouri River and will end up investing nearly 10 years in a revision manual effort, an effort that will cost up to $24.5 million. By exhaustive hearings and research, they will weigh and come out with a product that ultimately directs the management of this river. Now, we are all frustrated that this process has taken so long. Upstream is frustrated, downstream is frustrated. But the way the downstream interests are reacting to their frustration is just to direct with legislative language a management priority for navigation and extend it 1 month while we are at it. It is not that simple. That directive would shortchange and injure a variety of upstream interests, including irrigation, hydropower, municipal water supply, and flood control. The economic interests in comparison do not even compare, $1 billion of economic activity from the collection of upstream interests compared to the $10 million directly related to downstream navigation. It is not simply an upstream-downstream deal. In fact, downstream interests are injured as well by this provision. The fact is when we extend navigation on the Missouri through the month of December, we get freeze-up, and freeze-up causes ice jams, and ice jams cause flooding ironically to the areas of the very proponents of this measure. Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, all would be hit with floods as a result of this provision. We need to work collectively and collaboratively in developing a plan for the Missouri River, and that effort is underway locally right now. I have a clipping quoting the Governor of Iowa opposing extending the navigation season, even though he is a downstream interest, saying, ``I hate to see this become a legislative football. I think there is enough other important issues for Congress to address.'' They are working and trying to resolve locally these competing interests. We should not be preempting the upstream interests with a show of legislative clout from downstream interests. That is simply not the way to manage our Nation's precious water issues. Finally, and of great concern, is the fact that this poison pill does more than cause me heartburn. This poison pill threatens enactment of this legislation. We have assurances from the Senate that this provision will never pass and, if it is insisted in the bill, the bill will never pass. Let us pull this provision out in conference committee and enact this comprehensive very important water bill.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to a provision in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 which could potentially cause grave harm to the upper Missouri River basin and at the same time set a dangerous and far-reaching precedent for water management in this Nation. I am speaking of section 545 in the bill before us today. This section proposes to extend the navigation season on the Missouri River by 1 month from the current 8-month season. While seemingly insignificant, extension of the navigation season would impact irrigation, drinking water supplies, hydropower generation, flood control efforts, recreational activities, and native fisheries. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the most severe impacts of extending the navigation season would be on water supply upstream and flood control downstream. Extension of navigation service by 1 month would require draining almost 1 million acre feet of drought reserve storage from each of the upper basin reservoirs, including Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota. Under this provision the corps would be required to release that water regardless of upstream weather conditions. During a series of drought years, farmers in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota could be caught without needed irrigation water, cities and towns could be left with insufficient clean drinking water supplies, hydropower plants could lose generating capacity, and recreation areas may be left high and dry literally miles from the water. These upstream uses of the river, which result in over $1 billion in economic activity annually, would be sacrificed in a short- sighted attempt to support navigation, a minor use of the river, generating only $10 million each year. The corps has also indicated that this reckless provision may actually lead to increased flooding risks throughout the Missouri basin. Under section 545 the corps would be required to continue navigation releases throughout December, even after the river freezes at Bismarck, ND, and Pierre, SD, increasing the risk of ice jam floods in those cities. The effects downstream, however, could be even worse. The corps has identified the stretches of the river between northwest Iowa and central Missouri as areas most heavily prone to ice jam formation. With the increased water releases expected from extending the navigation season, floods behind ice jams would be more severe than under normal flows. The ice chunks would also be larger, damaging riverbanks, dikes, and possibly even major structures like the Gavins Point Dam. Clearly, extending the navigation season makes little sense from a flood control standpoint. Diverse interests have expressed their extreme dismay over inclusion of this provision in WRDA. The administration has asked for its removal from the bill. Eight leading environmental advocacy organizations have sent a letter to Congress opposing this attempt to hijack Missouri River management. American Rivers, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, and Bass Anglers Sportsman Society all agree that lengthening the navigation season will negatively impact the entire Missouri River basin. The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies oppose inclusion of this language in the WRDA bill. Even the Governor of Iowa, a downstream State, recently spoke out against extension of navigation through legislation. If the resounding opposition to this provision and the potential damages from enactment of this provision do not provide enough evidence for its removal its precedent-setting nature should. Section 545 was slipped into the manager's amendment of the WRDA bill at the full committee markup and only subsequently made public. No hearings were conducted to determine its effect on the Missouri basin and not 1 minute of debate was conducted about the advisability of implementing such a scheme. Now this bill is brought up under suspension with no opportunity to have a stand-alone vote on this special-interest perk. Never before has Congress spelled out specific water management policy in statute, and it should not be doing so today. Compare, if you will, that process to the one the corps is currently completing to review and update the Missouri River master manual. The corps has spent 6 years and $23 million to conduct a thorough revision of water management on the Missouri River. Many of us are frustrated by the continual delays in the release of the master manual but that does not mean that Congress should circumvent the process. For decades, the professional engineers of the Army Corps have done their best to manage the waters of the United States to the benefit of all uses. To turn water management over to the whim of special interests and political deal-making should make all members with rivers in their districts shudder. We cannot allow the corps to be placed in a statutory straightjacket when it comes to making sound decision about water management. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind Members that final consideration of the 1994 WRDA stalled over upstream-downstream struggles over flood control and navigation. Many Members have necessary and valuable projects in this bill. We must not allow this provision on the Missouri River to hold up the passage of this bill through conference. I urge the chairman and ranking members of the House and Senate committees to strike this language so this necessary water bill can be enacted without delay. Upstream and downstream interests can work together to solve the vexing differences between our regions over Missouri River management. Local representatives have already begun to discuss these issues on the local level. I fervently believe that we should do everything we can to encourage those efforts and stop trying to direct water policy through congressional fiat. American Rivers, Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund July 25, 1996. Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned conservation groups are deeply concerned that a provision in H.R. 3592, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, would lead to the extinction of several fish and wildlife species that inhabit the Missouri River and reduce opportunities for recreation. Representatives Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Tim Johnson (D-SD), and Pat Williams (D-MT) will offer an amendment to strip H.R. 3592 of this provision, and we urge you to support this amendment. Section 541 of H.R. 3592 would require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to release water from the Missouri's six mainstem dams to support navigation from April 1 to December 15, regardless of the amount of water available to support other river uses. Dam releases designed solely to support navigation would not only have devastating environmental consequence but would also reduce economic benefits from hydropower, recreation and water supply. These industries-- which generate more than $1 billion in economic benefits annually--would be sacrificed to support an industry that generates a mere $10 million each year. Despite the economic and environmental impacts of the provision, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee added Sec. 541 during full committee mark-up without hearing from a single witness. The two-page provision was included in a 70-page manager's amendment that was released to conservation groups after the Committee had already acted. The Missouri River has been dramatically altered to support navigation. The river's six dams impound the world's largest reservoir system, blocking fish passage and altering the movement of sediment. The river between Sioux City and St. Louis, channelized to one-third of its original width, has lost more than 90 percent of its wetlands, islands, chutes and sandbars. Three federally endangered species are already jeopardized by current water management, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Many others species, including popular sportfish like blue catfish, have fallen to less than 10 percent of their historic populations. This provision would prevent the Corps of Engineers from taking steps necessary to reverse their decline and prevent their extinction. This amendment will prevent the Corps of Engineers from reducing flood losses. Landowners farming converted side channels and backwaters are among the most flood-prone in the nation. In the wake of flooding in 1993 and 1995, federal programs rebuilt many levees twice, often spending more federal funds on repairs than the protected land was worth. Section 541 would prohibit the Corps from using the conveyance capacity of floodplain lands acquired from willing sellers to protect other floodplain land owners. This amendment will also have high economic costs. Originally forecast to carry 12 to 20 million tons annually, commercial navigation on the Missouri River peaked at 3.3 million tons in 1977 and has fallen to just 1.5 million tons, generating $10 million in economic benefits. By contrast, Missouri River recreation generates $75 million in economic benefits, water supply generates $450 million, and hydropower generates $625 million. Missouri River navigation accounts for just 1 percent of the economic benefits produced by the river, and is the means of transportation for only one-tenth of 1 percent of the corn produced in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska. Just 2 percent of the wheat produced in those states is shipped by Missouri River barge. Despite the economic insignificance of Missouri River navigation, Section 541 would direct the Corps of Engineers to extend the navigation season at enormous expense to other river industries. The provision would prevent the Corps from managing the Missouri's dams to support Mississippi River navigation during periods of low water. Section 541 would also require dam releases to support Missouri River navigation regardless of the amount of water in the system, potentially exacerbating downstream flooding or wasting precious water during droughts. We urge you to support the amendment offered by Representatives Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Tim Johnson (D-SD), and Pat Williams (D-MT) to strip H.r. 3592 of this provision. Sincerely, Scott Faber, American Rivers. Bruce Shupp, Bass Anglers Sportsman Society. Tim Searchinger, Environmental Defense Fund. Galwain Kripke, Friends of the Earth. John Echeverria, National Audubon Society. David Conrad, National Wildlife Federation. Jonathan Ela, Sierra Club. Amy Mathews-Amos, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Working Families Flexibility Act, H.R. 2391. 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. This legislation attempts to offer workers a choice between overtime pay and compensatory time off when they work greater than 40 hours per week. However, the bill does not assure that the employer-employee agreements on this subject will be truly voluntary. Employers who wish to offer compensatory time rather than overtime will find a way 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 comp time. Reducing opportunities for overtime pay in this way is particularly damaging for 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. 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. Weakening these overtime provisions and giving employers additional authority over the work schedules of their employees is not the way to help today's working families. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the preceding speaker who has worked so hard to make certain that a bipartisan welfare reform package is possible. The issue before us is not whether we should reform welfare. It is how we reform welfare in the correct way. I think the Senate took a major step forward in showing that true bipartisan reform is possible. Sbustantial changes were made in the Medicaid and in the food stamp areas, resulting in a much more bipartisan vote than was achieved in the House. What other changes can be made in conference to get a stronger bipartisan House vote? The motion before us lays them out. Do not shift costs to localities, do not harm children, particularly as parents make that critical transition into the work force, preserve Medicaid coverage so that people without health care access does not increase, and, finally, if there are savings, let us apply them on the deficit. We can do better than the bill that came out of the House in reaching bipartisan agreement. If the conferees adhere to these points, we will have a bipartisan welfare reform proposal.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendment offered by my friend Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska. We share many similar concerns about the management of the Missouri River and the revision of the Army Corps Master Manual currently underway. While I do not have any specific objection to his intent to prevent the corps from instituting a ``spring rise'' a part of the management of the river, I do object to legislating changes in the Master Manual through an appropriations bill. The Army Corps of Engineers currently is undertaking an exhaustive 6 year $23 million study to revise the Missouri River Master Manual. This tremendous undertaking seeks to resolve contentious issues between all interests on the river, those upstream, in North Dakota and likewise those downstream in Missouri. This is no small endeavor. The corps has received exhaustive testimony and input on this revision and although the recently announced delay in the release of the revisions was disappointing, I am confident the process is steadily moving forward. This amendment is especially troubling given another attempt to circumvent the Master Manual process that will soon be before this body. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 contains language, inserted in the full committee, without hearing or input, that will have a devastating impact throughout the Missouri River basin. This language proposes to extend the navigation season on the river by 1 month. While seemingly straightforward, the effect of this provision would be to lower upper basin water storage levels, threaten water supply and quality throughout the basin, increase flood risks from ice jams along the entire river, and wreak havoc with fisheries and endangered species populations. As my colleagues can see, this type of amendment sets a dangerous precedent. Instead of leaving water management up to the professional engineers at the Army Corps, amendments of this type transfer control of water management to the whims of Congress, regardless of impact. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, the plan of the majority to reform the welfare system is weak on work and tough on kids. In my comments, I will talk about the work requirement. We must reform the welfare system. This reform is in fact overdue. The heart of the reform has to be time-limiting benefits and instilling a tough work requirement. There is broad agreement in the Chamber on that point. But the key distinction between the proposals before us this afternoon is that the bipartisan plan has a work requirement which will succeed and the majority's plan cannot. This is a very complex issue. There is nothing all that tough about understanding what it takes to make a work requirement succeed. Individuals presently receiving welfare benefits and not in a workplace must have the training required to achieve vocational skills before they will be employable and can stand on their own as constructive members in the workplace. Folks without jobs just will not be able to get jobs if they do not have job skills and employers. We cannot expect employers to hire folks that offer nothing in terms of what they need in the workplace. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has assessed the two plans on this critical point. They say the work requirement in the bipartisan plan can succeed but the work requirement in the majority's proposal falls $9 to $12 billion short of what it takes to make a work requirement succeed. That is the choice. The bipartisan plan, which time-limits benefits and gets today's recipients off welfare into the workplace as constructive members of our society, versus the majority's proposal which, while it claims to have a work requirement, by the Congressional Budget Office's own evaluation it falls short of what it takes to create a work requirement which has any chance of getting people off of the welfare rolls and into the workplace. Vote ``yes'' on Castle-Tanner and no on the majority proposal.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. This question has been posed to the body in the debate as an issue between banks and insurance. I see it quite differently, and I think there are two driving issues at stake, legislative versus executive branch, Federal Government versus State government. First, legislative versus executive. We actually had a speaker on the other side of the aisle saying that in light of the inability of this body to resolve this question, what the heck, let a Federal bureaucrat do it, let the Office of Comptroller of the Currency singly decide what this body has been unable to resolve. That is not the way for us to walk away from the critical policy issues before this country. This is a very consequential policy issue. It must be decided in the legislative branch. Second, State versus Federal regulation. If the OCC would decide it, it would do so in a fashion preemptive of State laws. I used to administer State law in this area as the insurance Commissioner from North Dakota and the president of the National Association of State Insurance commissioners. They deserve better than to be singly wiped out and preempted by the unchecked action of the Office of Comptroller of the Currency. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has made it clear that his intention is to go in this area. That is why this amendment is so important.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing a vital piece of legislation designed to restore competition and fairness to our Nation's livestock producers. The Cattle Industry Improvement Act of 1996 represents the results of suggestions from farmers and ranchers from across the country and especially North Dakota. This bill consolidates the efforts that have been underway to address the livestock market conditions that have cattle producers receiving the lowest price for their livestock since the Great Depression. In North Dakota, farm income levels have dropped over 20 percent over the past year, mostly due to drops in livestock prices. Congress must act now to preserve a way of life that has been a backbone of this Nation since its beginning. First and foremost, this bill seeks to lift the cloak of darkness that surrounds so much of the beef industry today by limiting noncompetitive captive supply arrangements and mandating price reporting for cattle sold in the United States. Supply and demand in the free market cannot work if the prices for the majority of cattle slaughtered in this country are never reported. Information is power and our ranchers should have access to the same price information as the giant packers. This bill would give the Secretary of Agriculture explicit authority to require price reporting on all cattle transactions. Another provision of this bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a labeling program to let consumers know the origin of the beef they purchase at the meat counter. This bill would require beef of American origin to be labeled as such. Consumers can go to the store and know where their shoes, shirts, and toys come from but not their beef. American consumers want to help their rancher neighbors but right now consumers have no idea if their meat comes from Dickinson, Canada or Mexico. This bill also directs the Secretary to make funds available from the fund for rural America to new value-added cooperatives designed to help producers access new markets. These cooperatives are examples of a new pioneer spirit taking root across the Nation to produce high-quality beef products and carve out high-value niche markets. This bill would give them a financial boost to make these ventures a reality. The most important aspect of this bill is that it represents a bipartisan effort to help out the Nations struggling livestock producers. The bill enjoys support from across the political spectrum. This is the right thing to do and the time to do it is now before one more rancher is forced to liquidate his or her herd. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I participated in hearings on the concept of dynamic scoring and acknowledge to the amendment's sponsor that, as a hypothetical matter, the dynamic impact of public policy decisions made by Congress in the spending and tax areas certainly has legitimacy. In fact, presently the CBO does contemplate changes in resulting behavior. If my colleagues look at, for example, the varying CBO estimates on health policy expenditures, they see that there is a small element of dynamic scoring presently at play in CBO assumptions. The larger question though is, Does the methodology exist that allows dynamic scoring to proceed with a degree of legitimacy that would play in public policy debate? On this exact question I put to Mr. Greenspan when he was before us, my question from the transcript: Reading your testimony, it seems to me to indicate, while there may be a conceptual legitimacy to concepts of a more dynamic approach in scoring, we simply do not have the tools, the ability at the present time to reasonably quantify in a way that would give anyone the certainty required under this deficit picture that we should move toward a more dynamic process; is that correct? Mr. Greenspan's response: On the broader question of can we effectively create an economic model which fully captures all the effects of a specific policy action, I would say to you, not in our lifetime. Now, what is so important here is that, literally, these dynamic assumptions, we would be asking Congress literally to bet the ranch on their legitimacy. Both parties have members that say, we cut taxes, we are going to make more money, or we increase spending and we will actually reduce government outlays. Of course, those very concepts are antithetical. Yet, on the other hand, using a dynamic scoring model, we may have some very erroneous partisan-driven assumptions placed on a dynamic model, and it would, I think, jeopardize seriously the budget debates of this Congress.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 461, a measure to revoke most-favored-nation [MFN] trade status for the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, I could not more strongly agree with the objectives of the sponsors of this resolution, but I disagree with the means they propose to achieve them. The vital United States interests at stake in our relationship with China are clear: to curb weapons proliferation, increase respect for human rights, protect our allies on Taiwan, promote fair trade practices, advance political reform, and reduce the United States trade deficit. However, revoking MFN, effectively terminating our economic relationship with China, advances none of these objectives and, in fact, seriously damages United States economic and security interests. If the United States were to revoke MFN, the average tariff on Chinese imports would increase from 5 to 40 percent. The Chinese, of course, would respond in kind by erecting prohibitive tariffs on United States goods. The result would be not only a screeching, grinding halt to United States-China trade but also a deep freeze in Sino-American relations. The choice facing the House today is whether to pursue United States interests in China through a policy of engagement or a policy of isolation. Our recent experience with Chinese behavior during a period of isolation from the world community should be instructive. Before the economic and diplomatic opening of the late 1970's, most of the current problems in the Sino-United States relationship were worse than they are today: the regime was more abusive of human rights, even less tolerant of dissent, more aggressive toward Taiwan and other neighbors, and more determined to oppose United States interests at every opportunity. The spotlight of international engagement has advanced, albeit haltingly, United States interests in China. What are the consequences of revoking MFN? Without question, revoking MFN would damage the Chinese economy, but what effect would it have on our own economy? With regard to agriculture, I can tell you that this resolution of disapproval is one of the most important pieces of farm legislation that Congress will consider this year. We must promote American agriculture through increasing world food demand and exports. China represents a perfect example of a growing market hungry for quality American food products. As the Chinese diet continues to improve they will demand high-value agricultural products like meats, fruits, and vegetables--commodities American producers are eager to export. United States agricultural exports to China reached record levels again last year with nearly $2.6 billion in total sales. The USDA projects 1996 exports to reach $2.9 billion. Included in the 1995 export total is over $500 million in wheat, a 200-percent increase over 1994. Agriculture exports not only benefit farmers but also support the schools, hospitals, and small businesses that are the backbone of rural communities in North Dakota and across the country. The Congressional Research Service has estimated that without MFN and the ability to export wheat to China, wheat prices will fall by 23 cents per bushel by 1998. That price drop translates into a $10,000 hit to the average North Dakota wheat farm. Once that market is lost American producers may never have the opportunity to reclaim it as other suppliers would certainly move in to fill the void. Why would we now want to shut off our farmers from the world's largest market? Disapproving MFN strikes at the heart of rural America and the American farmer. Extending MFN to China serves the economic and security interests of the United States. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, there are times when we are in our office working away and we hear one of the speeches on the floor coming over that C-SPAN channel and we are compelled to set the record straight. It is indeed this feeling of being compelled to set the record straight that brings me forward to address the rule before us. While my preceding speaker, my colleagues and friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], acknowledged that it may be unusual to have all the appropriations bills done by this point in time, I would make the point that we have never, ever seen such a debacle with the handling of appropriations bills that we saw in the first year of this 104th Congress. This House of Representatives has never, ever shut the Federal Government of this country down because it could not, would not get work done. That is the sorry legacy of the 104th Congress, and I do not think it is too much to expect that they would therefore try to get it done by the time the law says it has to be done, not have to come to the floor, ever chomping at the bit to climb on some airplane and fly home and waive the law, waive the completion requirement for getting the appropriations business done. In light of the record of this Congress, we have got to wonder, I think the American taxpayers have to wonder, just what is coming, what can they expect. Another shutdown when at the end of the fiscal year the work has yet to be completed? There are some fact issues that have been egregiously misrepresented. Those include funding for education and training. In fact, I heard a preceding speaker allege that any suggestions that reductions in education funding simply are false statements. Well, let me tell my colleagues, those statements are the false statements. In fact, overall education and training budget authority is $60 billion below the President's plan for 1996 through 2002. The Republican funding cut for fiscal year 1996 through 2002 is $58 billion in real terms, or 19 percent below the 1995 enacted level. Nineteen percent below the 1995 enacted level. Nineteen percent below the 1995 enacted level, and we have a suggestion that there has been no reduction in education funding. Hogwash. There is a record here, and a record some of our colleagues might want to deny, but the fact of the matter is a record very firmly established, and the record is there have been cuts to education. Medicare, oh, we are going to hear a lot in the next few months about people's concern about Medicare, but the fact of the matter is there was a resolution that passed this Congress that cut Medicare $270 billion. Our colleagues say it had to do with fixing the trust fund. Well, we know what it had to do with. It had to do with funding a $245 billion tax cut, disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest people in this country. It is a record, a record of the 104th Congress and, if I was in the majority, not a record to be very proud of. There are a number of other examples. The reduction in earned income tax credit, the proposed $17 billion tax increase to working families. All of these have constituted the record of this Congress.

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman's point is well taken. As we know, they barely passed that budget resolution, and now we read in the Washington Post today the Speaker has convened a team of Pentagon officers on loan to do an after-action review, military jargon for ``how come it was such a close call?'' I could tell the Speaker if he would just call me. It was a close call because it did not drop the deficit toward a balanced budget, it raised the deficit. The Speaker is going to send home Members of his own caucus; the only record they will have in advancing toward a balanced budget is the deficit going up on their watch. That is why the Speaker barely passed his budget.

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I came down here with a text on one of the many issues before this country. I am putting that text away, because I too want to reflect upon Bill Emerson and publicly express my deep sympathy to his family. I served on the Agriculture Committee with Bill Emerson for the last two sessions. He was without question a tough Republican and we banged heads. Sometimes we banged heads hard. But Bill Emerson was a man with a very big heart. He has left me with three impressions that I will particularly remember: The first, he was a man of strong faith. I remember vividly when he presided over the National Prayer Breakfast in 1993, my first year in Congress. Second, he was a man that approached the duties of a legislator with professionalism. When we would bang heads, we would walk out of committee, and that would be the end of it. We were each trying to do the best we could, we understood that about each other, and our policy differences never came between our friendship. We have too little of that in this Chamber. I hope we remember the example of Bill Emerson and do a better job, each of us, going forward in the tough debates that are ahead. Third, he was a man of incredible courage. We all watched as he maintained his perfect voting record this year in a state of obviously disintegrating health. It was terrible to watch someone we love like Bill grow sick and obviously failing right in front of us. But he hung in there and there was never any talk of retreat or surrender from Bill Emerson. He was going to beat this cancer and he was going to be reelected. He was not done serving the people of Missouri. That courage and never, ever stopping, looking forward, and doing his best is something that I will never forget from my friend Bill. Rest in peace, old buddy.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I grew up 3 miles out of a small town in North Dakota, and our water was not fit to drink. We literally carried water to our town. This is the state of thousands and thousands of homes today. The happy news is that literally thousands and thousands of homes that did not have drinkable water now do have because of the reach of rural water systems and improvements in small town water systems that afford them drinkable water where they did not have drinkable water before. Mr. Speaker, the present law needs to be changed because it is threatening the viability of some of these rural water systems imposing too many one-size-fits-all requirements out of Washington, most notoriously the requirement that 25 new contaminants be identified to be tested for every single year, which is ludicrous, and not even having a requirement that that be related to the public health concerns of the area. This is a bad law and needs to be changed. The bill before us makes positive changes. Specifically, the new revolving loan fund will help small communities fund improvements, huge improvements. There is greater flexibility to allow localities to address local concerns and special treatment recognizing the difficulties small systems have in maintaining absolutely sound water, but dealing with the high costs of treatment. One the other hand, I must note two great disappointments about this bill. The bill coming out of committee by unanimous vote was one I think we all could have been proud to vote for. To have the revolving loan fund earmarked by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the fashion that has unfolded in the legislation before us is a bitter disappointment. I think all systems ought to compete for that money fair and square, not have some public works earmarks grafted in by report language, and I think that that amendment has indeed been highly regrettable. The Senate passed their safe drinking water bill unanimously. We could have on the House side. It is unfortunate that this change was made. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation but also to express my disappointment about the recent controversy surrounding this bill. It is unfortunate that once again the normal committee process has been circumvented and in the process, passage of this bill--which enjoyed broad bipartisan support--is in jeopardy. In the interest of providing desperately needed relief to rural water systems throughout the country, I will be supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, since my election to Congress, I have visited with mayors and community leaders who consider reform of the Safe Drinking Water Act to be one of their top priorities. It is no wonder. The Safe Drinking Water Act is one of the most expensive unfunded mandates facing North Dakota communities. Water systems throughout the country are forced to test for an arbitrary number of contaminants regardless of the threat to public health. Many small and rural water systems simply cannot comply with these madates--they don't have the technology and they don't have the resources. This law has driven the water systems of some communities to the edge of viability, while others have had to ignore the law in order to survive financially. A National Rural Water Association report found that rural communities will spend over $639 million for redundant monitoring between 1994 and 1996. In order to comply with these regulations, 80 percent of small communities surveyed will be forced to forego plans to hookup more families, improve water treatment, operate wells, and other critical functions. In order to help move this issue forward, I introduced the unanimously passed Senate version in March. Many of the provisions contained in that bill are also contained in this legislation. It reduces the regulatory burden imposed on States and public water systems, increases State flexibility, provides financial assistance for unfunded mandates, and requires that the EPA consider costs and benefits when setting new standards. The fundamental flaw of the current law is its one-size-fits-all approach. What makes more sense is allowing water systems to focus their scarce resources on the real risks to human health in their communities. With passage of this bill, what is affordable will no longer be governed by what Chicago or New York can afford--system size will be taken into consideration when determining affordability. In this case, less regulation can actually mean safer drinking water. This legislation will not undermine the importance of the current drinking water laws. Rather, it will ensure safe drinking water without bankrupting our communities. I am concerned about the expansion of EPA autority into operator certification programs. I believe the North Dakota Department of Health should retain primacy over this program, because they are better suited to understand the certification needs of North Dakota system operators. As this legislation goes to conference, I will continue to work to see that this and other issues impacting small and rural water systems are addressed. I remain hopeful that we can enact a reform bill still this session.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment of Representative Sanders which would increase the payment in lieu of taxes [PILT] for local governments. Unfortunately, this amendment is structured to provide a $10 million increase to PILT and $15 million return to the Treasury--all funded out of a reduction in fossil energy research and development. Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that the $114 million PILT appropriation provided in this bill does not adequately address the needs of our counties. PILT is vitally important to help fund schools, roads, and firefighters in counties with large tracts of Federal lands. In fiscal year 1995, North Dakota received $822,952 for its PILT payments. This amendment would likely increase that amount by about $80,000. However, the minimal increase in PILT does not come close to offsetting the economic impact of the lignite industry in our State. Federal support for fossil energy research is critical to the economy of North Dakota. The funding this amendment targets--fossil fuel research and development--leads to more efficient use of fossil fuels and benefits all of North Dakota's economy. What's more this funding is pivotal in finding solutions to environmental problems arising out of the use of these fuels. The Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks, ND, provides practical solutions to these critical barrier issues. Some of the innovative projects underway at EERC include the control of air toxins, cleanup of mercury-contaminated gas industry sites, cleanup of hydrocarbon contaminated soil and water, emissions control technologies for nearly everything that enters the atmosphere, development of cost- effective analytical techniques for waste site cleanup, and the development of cost-effective small electric generating units for Native villages in Alaska. The United States, and North Dakota, have an abundance of fossil fuels and will continue to utilize these fuels for our energy needs. The question facing Congress is whether we make the necessary investments to improve our use of these critical fuels. I firmly believe it is incumbent upon this Congress to provide adequate funding for local governments who are adversely affected by the presence of Federal land. Unfortunately, this amendment's funding offset left me no choice but to oppose it.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly rise in opposition to this bill in its final form. I am pleased that the committee increased funding above the President's request for fossil energy research and development. It is in the national economic interest to fund this research to ensure use of these resources is both more efficient and environmentally friendly. One project funded in my State, the Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks, ND, is a model for providing practical solutions to critical barrier issues. I believe many areas of this bill have been improved since the House considered the bill for fiscal year 1996. However, the cuts in this bill to the Bureau of Indian Affairs left me with no choice but to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I opposed both the House bill and the conference report of the versions of the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations. The deep cuts contained in those bills for Native American programs were unjustified and were an abandonment of the Federal Government's trust responsibility to the tribes. The Omnibus Appropriations bill signed into law in April was an improvement, but it still cut funding for the operation of Indian programs by 8 percent from 1995 levels. This bill compounds that hit by cutting funding for these critical programs by another 3 percent. Mr. Chairman, representing four reservations in my State, I know first hand about the unmet needs of these tribes. Funding in fiscal year 1995 was inadequate to meet the health, education, and training needs of these individuals. To make deep cuts in these programs will leave many tribes with no option but to suspend programs, cut services, and shut their tribal office doors. This is absolutely unacceptable. I am hopeful that deliberations with the Senate will provide a more acceptable level of funding to our Nation's first Americans.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense appropriations bill. The bill before contains many valuable provisions that will enhance the readiness of our Armed Forces and improve the quality of life for the men and women who serve in our Nation's military. The 3 percent pay raise for military personnel, the additional funding for medical care for active duty members and military retirees, and the resources dedicated to repair and upgrade substandard military barracks are three important provisions that will strengthen troop morale and in turn improve the combat readiness of our military. I also take this opportunity to highlight two items in this bill that are critically important to the Nation's defense and to my State of North Dakota. First, this bill fully funds the Minuteman III life extension/modernization program to preserve the viability and reliability of our ICBM force well into the next century as recommended by the Nuclear Posture Review. Second, the legislation maintains the number of fighters assigned to the Nation's general purpose Air National Guard fighter units at 15 Primary Assigned Aircraft. Given the increasing reliance on the National Guard to defend our national interest, it makes good sense to maintain current fighter force levels. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that this bill does not include a provision similar to Section 1302 of the fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization bill to strictly prohibit the retirement of B-52 bombers. The B-52 remains our Nation's most combat capable bomber and should not be prematurely retired as proposed by the administration. While I understand that the Appropriation bill provision may suffice in blocking the retirement of B-52s, I am hopeful and confident that the final Defense Appropriations will include a similar provision. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do have concern regarding the $10.2 billion increase this bill provides over and above the Pentagon's request. I voted in favor of both the Schroeder and the Shays amendments to reduce bill's funding and make it more consistent with our effort to balance the Federal budget. Although I am disappointed that these amendments failed, I will support passage of the bill because, in the final analysis, it fulfills an important commitment to our troops and the Nation's defense. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just also ask the chairman to address this in conference committee. This is an extraordinarily consequential policy change to try and be moved forward in report language. That just is not right. It ought to come back to the authorization committee if this is going to be tackled head-on. I trust that, therefore, this record will establish that there is not clear legislative intent following the report language. I hope we finally get it worked out in a more appropriate way in the conference report.