Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding this time to me. Listening to my good friend from Brooklyn give a history of agriculture export programs has got the same ring of authenticity that my analysis of the New York subway system might have. In fact, when he says in his comments, cites the song ``I Heard It Through The Grapevine,'' I think ``I Heard It Through The Grapevine'' must be the source of his information about what we are doing to this program. We have heard the gentleman's speech before; in fact, I think the same speech before, but we have gone to the Committee on Agriculture and we have reworked this program. We have cut the funding by 20 percent. We have directed the funding provided be limited to ag co-ops and associations. We focused on high-value meats, vegetables, wines, and fruits because that is where the value-added jobs that increase the benefit of this program are. Our trade competitors across the world must look at this debate in absolute amazement. United States of America, the largest trade imbalance in the world, and what do we want to do? We want to unilaterally disarm our own export enhancement efforts. Europe outspends us 5 to 1 today, and what do we want to do? The gentleman from New York wants to reduce our effort. That is crazy. We have tried to fix the program and, I believe, have made a very meaningful attempt to address any criticism that could be launched on this. But let us just look at the track record of what we have already accomplished: $5.6 billion of exports attributed to this program, $16 in exports for every $1 invested, and because we are talking about value added, we are not just talking about raw ag product, we are talking about the men and women that go to those processing plants every single day, make a living, and there is a lot more of those jobs because the opportunity out there for U.S. agriculture is fantastic if we do not just throw in the towel and walk away. Do not throw in the towel. Reject this amendment. Stand by the move to increase our ag exports.

Mr. POMEROY

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the fiscal year 1997 Agricultural Appropriations Act. I would like to commend the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Skeen, for doing a tremendous job in balancing the many demands for funds in this bill with a severe reduction in discretionary authority. I am especially pleased with the attention given to projects and programs which benefit producers in North Dakota and the upper Great Plains. The support given to all aspects of agricultural research and the funding of conservation programs certainly represent significant achievements in this bill. Finally I am relieved the committee restored funding to the market transitions payments the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee had cut. In the final analysis, however, I find that I cannot support final passage for a few reasons. The main reason is the severe and unwarranted modifications made to the sugar program. Language inserted in the appropriations bill would cap the price of raw sugar at 21 cents per pound, a cent lower than the current domestic market price. Mandating what amounts to a price control on sugar at a time when in all other industries we continually call for free and open markets makes no sense. This provision will actually increase the amount of foreign sugar imported into the United States. Why we would want to increase sugar imports at the expense of our domestic sugar producers defies comprehension. During the farm bill debate Congress passed a 7-year sugar reform program that raised import levels, removed marketing allotments, and assigned penalties for forfeiture of sugar. These reforms withstood tough votes on both the House and Senate floor. Now, less than 2 months after passage of those reforms, the Appropriations Committee has--at least in the language before us--decided to abandon the reform and make further modifications to the sugar program. If this action represents the commitment of Congress to the 7-year farm bill I truly fear for the rest of the guarantees in that law. Modification of complex and critical programs such as the sugar program in the closed rooms of the Appropriations Committee represents a dangerous precedent that should not be upheld. This attack on the sugar producers and sugar industry workers in the United States must not stand. Additionally, the elimination of $2 million in funding for the agricultural mediation program is particularly troublesome. In North Dakota the mediation program has helped hundreds of farmers work through difficult credit problems, usually allowing them to service their loans without resorting to bankruptcy. With this elimination of the mediation grants these producers will have nowhere else to turn. This highly successful program certainly deserves continuing funding. Finally, the Appropriations Committee, in report language, instructed the Secretary of Agriculture on how to conduct signups for the Conservation Reserve Program. The Secretary currently is preparing regulations for the next signup for CRP. To specify in this bill what the rule will be for the next signup could throw the process into a tailspin. For these reasons I must oppose this bill. Despite the many good things in this bill, I cannot support such a brazen attack on the hard- working sugarbeet farmers in North Dakota and the thousands of North Dakotans employed in the sugar industry, and I cannot support the elimination of the highly successful North Dakota Ag Mediation Program. I hope these problems and the CRP provisions can be corrected in the Senate and in conference so I can support the necessary funding of the Nation's No. 1 industry--agriculture.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which would bring a much needed reform to our current campaign finance system. Spending on campaigns has spiraled out of control in recent years. It has become common for candidates running for Congress to spend millions of dollars to win an election. In the 1976 election cycle, $115.5 million was spent. In the 1990 election cycle, $445 million was spent--that's an increase of 360 percent. In 1994, the average House race cost more than $516,000. You will find few who don't believe that something must be done about this. My bill offers a solution. It would limit spending to $600,000 per House race. This legislation will become effective once spending limits are deemed constitutional. This could happen once a constitutional amendment is passed or the Supreme Court reinterprets Buckley versus Valeo. In conjunction with this bill, I will cosponsor a House joint resolution to amend the Constitution to allow spending limits. In some districts this new limit may not make much difference, but in others it will drastically limit the ability of wealthy individuals to ``buy'' their seat while putting an end to the money chase. This is a desperately needed step in overhauling our current campaign finance system and helping restore the faith of the American people in their elected officials. Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have joined my colleagues in their calls for comprehensive legislation to rework our present campaign financing system. I will continue to work hard to see that we adopt meaningful reform measures during this session. My bill is a step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support my bill and by doing so send a strong message showing they support reform of the flawed system under which we currently operate.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Victims of Domestic Abuse Insurance Protection Act.'' The purpose of this legislation is to protect those individuals who are survivors of abuse from being penalized by their insurance companies for injuries that they have not brought upon themselves. Recently, it has come to light that some insurance companies routinely deny emergency room care, increase premiums, and refuse to issue insurance policies of all types to survivors of domestic violence. Denying insurance coverage and refusing to pay emergency room visits only compounds a victim's problems. Domestic violence is a national problem, and we should not allow discriminatory practices by insurance companies and their underwriters make a victim's circumstances worse. Specifically, ``the Victims of Domestic Abuse Insurance Protection Act'' would prohibit insurance companies from denying, refusing to issue or reissue, canceling, or denying the payment of a claim based on incidents of domestic violence. As the former Insurance Commissioner of North Dakota, I was taken- back when I learned of this practice, and while there is no record--to my knowledge--of denials or cancellations occurring in North Dakota-- there is insurance discrimination of this nature occurring in other states. In fact, the Pennsylvania State Insurance Commissioner surveyed company practices in Pennsylvania and found that 26% of the respondents acknowledged that they considered domestic violence a factor in issuing health, life and accident insurance. This is terribly wrong. Domestic violence is not a ``preexisting condition'' and it is not brought on by a victim's behavior. It is brought on by the batterer and he or she is the one who should be penalized, not the victim. Health care plans should not exclude or limit the ability of domestic abuse survivors to acquire health insurance--nor should insurance plans apply ``preexisting condition'' exclusions to conditions that result from domestic violence. While it is encouraging that some insurance companies are beginning to change their underwriting practice as they become educated about domestic violence, I believe that a national solution is needed. Women who have survived the violence and the brutal beatings of domestic violence need the assurance that no matter what state they reside in they and their children will not be denied coverage based on a prior domestic violence situation. A situation that was not in any way their fault. Case after case can be cited in which insurance companies denied insurance benefits to a victim of abuse. For instance, a woman in California was repeatedly turned down for health insurance coverage following a review of medical records which detailed beatings by her husband. In Minnesota, a women's shelter was told that it was considered uninsurable because its employees are almost all survivors of domestic violence. In the state of Washington, a child was twice denied health insurance because he had been sexually abused in a day care facility and a woman in the same state had her homeowner's policy cancelled. The letter of cancellation noted five claims over the last twelve years, specifically the letter pointed out the most recent one involving ``a domestic violence situation of individuals that are living with'' the insured. The angry ex-wife of the woman's boyfriend's brother damaged the door. I have introduced this legislation today because I believe that denying insurance to victims of abuse only compounds the victim's problematic circumstances. Again, domestic violence is a national problem, and we should not allow insurance companies to make matters worse for victims by excluding them from insurance coverage. I am confident that this legislation will give victims the assurance they need that their insurance policies will be there for them in their time of need.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today, May 30, I was not present to record my votes on rollcall votes No. 199 and No. 200. I was unavoidably absent due to the arrival yesterday of my adopted son, Scott Kirby Pomeroy, from Korea.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, once again, I would like to express my strong support for Representative Cramer's amendment to streamline the certification process for eliminating a National Weather Service office. When the National Weather Service began developing this comprehensive modernization program, we heard a lot about the revolutionary improvements this would bring to our weather forecasting system. I don't doubt the quality of the NEXRAD system. However, I am concerned that in the rush to revamp the system, a few areas have the potential of literally falling through the cracks. In my own communications with the National Weather Service, I heard repeated justifications and explanations for those areas which are long distances between NEXRAD facilities. An independent scientific review confirmed my fears that some areas of our country will actually suffer a loss of service under NEXRAD. Last year, the National Research Council completed its study of NEXRAD coverage and the potential for a degradation in service due to the field office consolidation. While the NRC study found NEXRAD will offer services above and beyond the current weather forecasting system, it also noted concern for areas a long distance from a proposed NEXRAD facility. One of those areas of concern is Williston, ND, whose old radar is 120 miles from the nearest NEXRAD facility. Currently, a study is being undertaken for the Williston area to determine if a degradation of service would occur under the National Weather Service's modernization plan. Data is being collected from the existing Williston radar and the NEXRAD radars for comparison. If the certification process for office closure is eliminated, the National Weather Service could ignore the results of the study and move forward with its original plans, even if a degradation of service is proven. Even though the western part of my State is sparsely populated, those living there need and deserve the same quality of weather forecasting available to the rest of the country. In rural areas where long distances are often traveled as a matter of daily life, forewarning of severe weather is crucial to public safety. I urge all my colleagues to support the Cramer amendment and make sure the National Weather Service follows a streamlined certification process for weather office closures.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, today again, I wish to express my strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] to eliminate authorization for the space station. In 1984, the Reagan administration proposed to construct a manned space station that would be in service by 1994 at a cost of $8 billion. Today, after several redesigns, we have spent $11 billion and unfortunately have very little to show for it. Current cost projections now estimate that the total cost to build and operate the space station will be at least $70.8 billion. While I do not believe we can afford the space station at this time, I do believe we can, and must, afford to wisely invest Government resources in research and technology development. Unfortunately, the space station has taken funds away from many worthy projects such as the Earth Observing System, the National Aerospace Plane, as well as the unmanned space program. In this time of tight budgets, I believe we must invest Federal funds in cost-effective science and technology programs that produce real results--expanding our scientific understanding and increasing our commercial competitiveness in international markets. I would like to emphasize that a ``yes'' vote on the bipartisan Roemer-Ganske amendment is not a vote against NASA. Quite the opposite, to support this amendment is to support valuable, cost-effective NASA space and science programs that have been starved by the space station. A vote for the Roemer-Ganske amendment is a vote against the space station--a project that is rapidly losing its scientific missions even as it continues to add billions to our deficit.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today, May 29, I was not present to record my votes on the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 [H.R. 3322]. I was absent due to the arrival of my adopted son, Scott Kirby Pomeroy, from Korea. I would like to emphasize that, had I been present, I would have strongly supported two important amendments: The Zimmer amendment to eliminate funding for the space station, and the Cramer amendment to reinstate the certification requirement for closing a National Weather Service office. I have submitted statements in support of these amendments that will appear at the appropriate point in the Record.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, minutes ago I voted in favor of the coalition budget, a plan to balance the budget in 6 years with $137 billion more in deficit reduction than the Republican proposal. Given that the coalition budget was not approved, the House is now faced with a choice between the President's budget plan and the Republican plan. I rise in support of the President's proposal and in opposition to the majority budget resolution. In several critical repects--from its support for the Federal health care programs that protect our Nation's seniors, poor children, and the disabled, to the agriculture programs that support the productivity of our farmers, to the investment it provides in the education of our children--the President's plan is vastly superior to the Republican budget. However, in the area of veterans programs, the President's plan is seriously deficient. The President should modify his budget to provide a funding commitment more like that contained in the coalition budget. The coalition budget provides $112 billion--$5 billion more than the Republican plan and $10 billion more than the President's plan--for discretionary veterans programs. These programs support the medical care, education, training, and rehabilitation services for those who served our Nation in times of war. I believe the coalition budget provides the appropriate level of funding for our veterans, and I urge both sides to adopt the coalition budget's funding commitment to the programs that serve our veterans.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 178, the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution. I have numerous reservations with the funding priorities and assumptions contained in this resolution. However, I will take this opportunity to highlight three important issues--the deep cuts proposed in discretionary agriculture spending, the ill-advised Medicaid proposal, and the proposed elimination of Federal involvement in fossil energy research. The budget resolution for fiscal year 1997 again makes a deep cut in agriculture spending. This Congress passed, earlier this year, an extreme overhaul of farm programs, setting them on the road to eventual elimination. Now in this budget resolution, this committee has decided to make an extreme reduction in the amount of discretionary spending for agriculture. The resolution makes the recommendation to cut total agricultural discretionary spending from $3.9 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $2.1 billion in 2002, a staggering reduction in budget authority. This discretionary cut mostly takes the form of unspecified reductions in U.S. Department of Agriculture overhead costs. The members of the committee and rural America are left to wonder if these cuts will be in the delivery of farm programs, the delivery of conservation programs, or the quality of nutrition and food safety programs. Clearly each and every function of the Department of Agriculture will be impacted by these assumptions. This committee should question if this is the appropriate time to be making these cuts when commodity stocks are at their lowest point in a generation, the livestock industry remains in extreme distress and new plant diseases continue to spread across the nation's heartland. The budget resolution does specify some specific cuts. These cuts are mainly in USDA research programs. With commodity support already cut by the new farm bill, our producers need quality agricultural research more than ever to protect themselves against diseases, insects and changing environmental conditions. The new farm bill addresses many of the concerns related to competitive research projects and facilities buildings projects. The Agriculture Committee currently is undertaking a comprehensive review of agriculture research programs and will be writing specific legislation to address the needs of agricultural research in the future. The Agriculture Committee should be allowed to do its work without being locked into an extremely restrictive budget scenario before it is finished. Finally the budget resolution phases out both title I and title III of the Public Law 480 Food for Peace Program. Again, the new farm bill promised American farmers that their future profitability would be derived from the world market. Now we are witnessing the elimination of one of the most successful export enhancement programs ever. In this budget resolution we see the broken promises of the freedom to farm bill. As the freedom to farm bill was being passed, sponsors hailed a new era in farm policy, promised strengthened research programs and dangled the riches of the world market in front of American farmers. Now we can see that those promises are broken barely 2 months after the bill was signed. We are willing to do our share to balance the budget, but rural Americans cannot continue to take these extreme and unfair budgetary hits. With regard to Medicaid, I have deep concern about the provisions of the majority's proposed budget for Medicaid. I do recognize that, at least with respect to the commitment of Federal Medicaid funding, this budget makes significant progress over the majority's effort last year--from the proposed reduction of $182 billion over 7 years last year to $72 billion over 7 years this year. It thus appears that after a year of rigorous analysis and intense debate, the members of the majority have been persuaded that the Federal Government simply cannot make cuts on the order of those proposed last year without jeopardizing the health of some of our Nation's most vulnerable populations. Despite the progress this budget represents, however, I remain deeply concerned that it will undermine the central mission of the Medicaid Program, which is to provide a minimum level of health care to the children, the elderly, and the disabled of this Nation. During committee markup, I offered a sense-of-the-House amendment to preserve the basic program elements critical to the performance of Medicaid's mission. The committee rejected this amendment, indicating that the level of progress represented by this budget is not as substantial as the reduced Federal cuts suggest. Unfortunately, the improved Federal funding level in this budget masks a series of policy proposals that will jeopardize the health of children, seniors, and the disabled. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear that my concerns about this budget stem not from any hesitation about whether to reform Medicaid. Medicaid must be reformed through such measures as utilization of managed care, enhanced State flexibility, and the streamlining of regulations. Yet the goal of reform is to improve the program's effectiveness, not to undermine it. Perhaps the greatest threat to Medicaid's mission contained in this budget is the dramatic reduction in State contributions it allows. In addition to limiting Federal contributions, the budget caps State contributions to Medicaid at 40 percent, allowing the many States with match rates between 41 and 50 percent to lower their required contributions. Thus, although the Federal cut has been reduced to $72 billion, the total potential reduction in Medicaid spending after accounting for reduced State contributions is $265 billion. It is simply not possible to withdraw these vast sums from the system without endangering the health safety net that Medicaid has historically provided to North Dakotans and others around this Nation. This budget would also permit States to use discredited--and currently illegal--funding mechanisms to further limit State contributions to Medicaid. Once again, States could establish schemes to tax providers or collect intergovernmental transfers from State entities, later rebating these funds to the payors, labeling the rebates as Medicaid expenditures, and claiming Federal matching funds for them. Given that the payment of such rebates involves no genuine State outlays for health services, legalizing these sham financing systems make State matching requirements meaningless. The majority points with pride to the list of groups and services covered under the Medicaid proposal contained in this budget. Upon review, however, several important groups have been excluded and the list of covered services is revealed as a largely empty promise. With respect to covered services, this budget merely requires states to offer some of the various health services listed, while repealing all of the Federal standards that speak to the amount, duration, and scope of these services. Thus, a State could cover only a few days of hospital care even in the event of a serious illness such as a heart attack. Without the minimal Federal standards, people guaranteed coverage under the majority's plan may find the guarantee to be a hollow one. One of the groups excluded by this budget is poor children. This budget repeals the guarantee of health care coverage for children over the age of 12 living in low-income families, more than half of whom have parents who work. For low-income parents in North Dakota, knowing that the basic health care of their children will still be covered if they leave the welfare rolls has been an important element in encouraging the transition from government dependence to productive employment. Thus, not only will this repeal endanger the health of these vulnerable children, it will provide a strong disincentive for parents to move from welfare to work. With respect to the disabled, this budget repeals the federal definition of disability, allowing states to narrow this definition as they see fit and thereby exclude many disabled Americans from coverage. Mr. Chairman, this budget also threatens senior citizens. While under the majority's plan States are supposed to abide by federal nursing home quality standards, Federal monitoring of quality is terminated and States will have nearly unfettered discretion with regard to monitoring and enforcement. We must not forget that it was precisely because many States proved incapable of ensuring quality nursing home care that Congress was prompted to enact basic quality standards in 1987. In another strike against seniors, one that will have particular impact in North Dakota, this budget substantially reduces payment by Medicaid of copayments, premiums, and deductibles for those Medicare beneficiaries whose income is below the poverty line. Given that many low-income seniors already devote large portions of their monthly budgets to health care costs, this cutback will force seniors into a cruel choice between staying health and meeting life's other basic expenses. Mr. Chairman, I will work diligently to address the flaws outlined above and I am hopeful that the majority will join in this effort. As we move forward to balance the Federal budget, we must not abandon the long-standing Federal commitment to the basic health of the children, seniors and disabled of our Nation. Finally, I have serious concerns about the provisions in this resolution which would eliminate the Federal Government's involvement in fossil energy research and development. This is very short-sighted policy. Research may not immediately improve profitability, but the long-term benefits are immeasurable. With respect to fossil energy, development of new energy processes to the point of commercially acceptable financial and technical risk is a long road that regulated industries have not been willing to go alone. Those joint private- federal ventures which have been undertaken, like the numerous projects underway at the Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks, ND, have brought a wealth of information to the energy industry. The Federal Government has a stake in research and development of fossil fuels. For example, utilities are not going to initiate their own research on emission controls. If they did, it would be an open invitation to regulators to impose new or stricter standards and bigger costs under the doctrine of best available control technology. What's more, energy markets are specialized and highly competitive and would be unlikely to consider complementary solutions. Without the Federal Government's involvement in fossil energy research and development, it is unlikely this important work would be done. In fact, many companies have eliminated their alternative fuels programs, leaving only a tiny contingent of researcher. It is in the national interest to preserve this infrastructure with limited Federal funding. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget resolution.

Mr. POMEROY. I am going to vote for the President's budget. I will oppose the GOP budget, for the reasons that I am saying. Mr. Chairman, another area of important contrast involves the Medicaid Program. The Medicaid Program is a major source of reimbursement, as members know, for those senior citizens in nursing homes without resources. They will, combined with the reductions in State funding, devastate reimbursement in the Medicaid Program, and the President's budget compares very favorably in this area as well.

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

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Arizona is going to take exception to quotes, let us talk facts. In fact, the Republican budget proposes the deepest cuts in Medicare, future Medicare spending; once again, $161 billion over 6 years, compared to $117 billion in the President's budget before us. Let us look behind these numbers, however, so we understand exactly where those cuts fall. One hundred and twenty three billion dollars comes from part A, the reimbursements to hospitals and home nursing care. There is no way we can take these cuts out of future spending and hospitals without devastating the network of essential care provided by hospitals all across this country. This cut is deeper than their cut last year. As regards hospital reimbursement, home health care services so vital to seniors, they cut more than they cut last year. I think the American people know full well that their budget last year on Medicare cuts was reckless, was dangerous, and threatened the care of our elderly. As regards the part B premium, for those who might elect the managed care option under their Medicare revisions, the GOP budget would leave unlimited exposure to physician charges. Medicare would cover a portion of the physician charges, but whatever the physician wanted to bill in addition to that, the senior would be responsible for. The bottom line on their budget: Closed hospitals in many parts of the country, and higher doctor bills payable out of the pockets of the senior citizens of this country.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this week has been designated National Police Week. In conjunction with this, I would like to take a moment today to honor a North Dakota peace officer recently killed in the line of duty. Watford City police officer Keith Braddock died March 20 of this year after he was shot while responding to an incident at the American Legion Club. Mr. Speaker, Keith Braddock was a family man. He was married and had three children. While his family must now try to move on from this horrible nightmare, I hope it provides them some comfort to know that every North Dakotan is grateful for his service to the people of our State. Cities and small towns all across America are more secure because of dedicated peace officers like Keith. The tragedy that unfolded late that afternoon on Main Street has awakened the 1,800 residents of Watford City that they are not immune to the all-too-prevalent acts of violence occurring in our Nation's cities. Protecting citizens from harms way is a dangerous task--both in our urban centers and in rural America. Although peace officers in many small communities may know most of the folks in town, they can't be too cautious. For the most part, these officers are out there on their own--backup can be miles away. This unfortunate situation has underscored the fact that senseless acts of violence can happen anywhere. We owe a debt of gratitude to those like Keith Braddock who put their own lives at risk to make us a little safer.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest errors made by the majority in their budget of last year were the devastating reductions they proposed in the future funding of the Medicaid Program. Unfortunately, they have done it again. What is Medicaid? Medicaid is the joint venture of the Federal Government and State governments to meet the health care needs of children from homes falling below the poverty line, of disabled individuals unable to work and otherwise cover their health care expenses, and the long-term care costs of destitute elderly citizens. There are no more vulnerable people in this country than kids raised in poverty, disabled, and seniors who require long-term care but lack the funds to pay for it. I am convinced much of the public reaction against last year's GOP budget was because the American people would not walk away from these kids and these seniors as they struggled to meet their health care needs. A central problem with the GOP budget before us is that once again it clobbers kids and destitute seniors with Medicaid reductions that will dramatically reduce the quality of the health care these Americans can access. Now, on the surface, the differences in Federal spending between the proposals may not look like much. The administration proposes a $54 billion reduction; the coalition $70 billion; the GOP budget $72 billion. The dirty little secret, however, behind the GOP proposal is that it would allow State funding toward the Medicaid program to fall off dramatically. The ultimate comparison is revealed on this chart and shows just how devastating their hits would be. The administration combined hit of $105 billion, coalition $125 billion, but the GOP budget, $257 billion in future expenditures, nearly at the reckless levels of their last year's budget. The difference between the proposals means this: Under the GOP plan, fewer kids in impoverished homes will be able to get health care. The services currently available to disabled Americans will be reduced and in some cases eliminated. And the long-term care for our seniors, people like our parents and our grandparents but they do not have ability to pay for it themselves, will fall and it will fall in terms of accessibility and in terms of quality of care. If we are to negotiate toward a historic balanced budget agreement, Mr. Chairman, we will not be able to bridge differences as great as those contained in their Medicaid proposal. I urge the majority to change their Medicaid plan, preserve the State-Federal partnership in meeting the health needs of impoverished kids and destitute elderly. Until changes are made in this regard, however, I urge my colleagues to reject these devastating reductions in future Medicaid spending. Our kids and our seniors deserve better.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, Medicare is joint, State and Federal. If you look at the combined reductions in spending in the Medicaid Program, their proposal is recklessly, dangerously different than either the President or the coalition proposal.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to address the disastrous situation that livestock producers across this Nation are currently facing. At this time, livestock producers are suffering the double-whammy of the lowest prices since the Great Depression and the highest feed prices in a generation. Many producers in my State are facing no choice but to sell out this year as they face losses of several hundred dollars on every head they sell. Ranchers from across my State have told me that concentration in the meat packing industry has limited competition in the livestock markets. The three largest meat packing firms now control over 80 percent of the cattle slaughter in this country. Independent producers have been squeezed to the point where they are at the mercy of whatever price the giant meat packing firms are willing to offer. Congress must act to restore free and open competition in our Nation's livestock markets. The legislation I am introducing today will accomplish that goal in the following manner: First, it directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop rules to prohibit noncompetitive captive supply arrangements. These captive supply arrangements include formula pricing, forward contracting and packer-owned cattle feeding. The bill does not prohibit all captive supply arrangements between a producer and a packer, only those determined to be detrimental to competition in the livestock markets. This provision will force the livestock trade to occur in a free and open market. Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to implement mandatory reporting of the prices and terms of sale for slaughter livestock purchased by packers who have greater than a 5-percent share of the slaughter market. This information would be public knowledge and reported immediately. There would be no more secret deals between packers and large feedlots. All producers should have access to information on the terms of sale for slaughter livestock in order to take maximum advantage of free market forces. Finally, the bill would require the reporting of export sales of meat on a weekly basis. Access to this information will help all livestock producers gain a more realistic picture of supply and demand relationships. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a crisis of epic proportions among livestock producers in this Nation. From Texas to North Dakota independent family ranchers are facing financial ruin. We must take steps immediately to address what is wrong in this industry. With this bill, we are saying that the large meat packers can no longer control the cattle markets through secret deals and privileged information. We must restore the free markets that the United States is known for around the world. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a statement regarding the passage of H.R. 3238, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act. Specifically, I will address my remarks to title III of the bill which amends the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Indian Child Welfare Act was designed to protect the rights of Indian tribes to make decisions on the placement of their children. However, over the years, we have seen certain cases in which this law has not served the interests of children waiting for adoption nor has it treated some adoptive parents fairly. This causes me great concern. Adoptive parents and children have been faced with the threat that their children may be removed from the only home they have known. On the other hand, legitimate concerns have been raised by the native American community which must be taken in consideration. As the debate continues in the Senate and ultimately in conference committee, I will work with Congresswoman Pryce, the native American community and others in resolving the question raised in regards to this language and any further considerations of amending the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill with a very unique association with the subject matter. On February 3, 1993, after a frantic day as a Member of Congress representing the State of North Dakota, I went to National Airport, met my wife who also had gone to the airport, and we eagerly, anxiously awaited the arrival of our soon- to-be daughter, an infant born in Korea, flown over and placed with us and now an adopted part of our family. To tell my colleagues that this has so profoundly, fundamentally changed and improved our lives is a hopeless understatement of the glory we have experienced as adoptive parents, and I am very pleased to tell the House tonight that we are within two weeks or three weeks of going back to National Airport and coming home with a son, also born in Korea. As I looked at what the legislation before us is trying to accomplish in terms of breaking down barriers of interracial adoption, as the parent of a daughter who is a member of another race, I cannot speak passionately enough in terms of the importance of breaking these barriers down. Children need families. Families need children. Some notion of political correctness that would leave people languishing in foster homes rather than reach across racial barriers for parents who will love them, love them as their very own, has got to be ended and I am so pleased with this facet of the legislation that puts an end to it. Second, the financial burdens of adoption can keep many beautiful families from enjoying this experience. I have had people in my home State tell me that looking at foreign adoption costs now running between $10,000 and $20,000, they just cannot manage. I know they would be beautiful homes and that the children would be immeasurably enriched by being placed with them, and they would in turn be immeasurably enriched by the children. We have to help with the affordability of adoptions. I am very pleased with the facet of the bill that addresses that. I have some difficulty with the way the Indian Child Welfare Act has disrupted certain prospective placements. On the other hand, I must acknowledge difficulty with the provisions of the bill that would amend this act in a way so offensive to the four reservations that I represent. I will support the motion to strike, but I will continue to work for evaluating where this law has failed children who need families and moving forward the changes in the law necessary to make certain that Native American children needing families do not have that, their precious right, frustrated by application of this statute. In summary, this is very, very positive legislation. This is the kind of legislation where the two parties so often at loggerheads in this Chamber can arm-in-arm step forward and do something positive for the people of this country, and I am very proud to support the legislation, commend Deborah Pryce for her leadership on the bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize an impressive young North Dakotan. Jon Thomas of Bismarck has won a scholarship from the Veterans of Foreign Wars' Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. Mr. Thomas placed fifth in the Nation for the theme ``Answering America's Call.'' I am very excited to see such worthwhile ideas and refreshing optimism coming from North Dakota's youth. It is my pleasure to submit Mr. Thomas' essay for inclusion in the Congressional Record: Last summer, I decided to leave the country and travel the world. One month into my trip I was feeling quite homesick. So I decided I'd better call home. I quickly ran to a pay phone and dialed 1-800-Collect. I knew that if I ever needed anything, calling collect would not be a problem. I then dialed America and listened for an operator to pick up. ``Hello. You have reached the United States of America, the land of opportunity, freedom, individual rights and expression * * * I'm sorry but we can't answer the phone right now, because no one here knows how to answer America's call.'' I couldn't believe it!! Here I was in a foreign country, trying to get through to my home, and it wasn't possible! Why? Because a bunch of USA operators didn't know what it was to answer America's call. Hey!! That's easy! No Problem! Even I could do that! Couldn't I? Maybe I could see America differently now because I was away from it. Maybe the people who are in America are taking it for granted. Standing here in a third world country, I could see the difference that being an American had made in my life. I did not have to live in a shack made of tin or corn stalks. I had shoes and many changes of clothing. I had the right to speak out against anything. I had a family. I had an education. I had rights guaranteed to me by my country's government. And I had a say in that government. Maybe the problem is that people in America are focusing on what's wrong. They're looking so hard at what is wrong in our country that they can't see what is right. We blame different groups for our problems, saying ``These people are like this, or these people do this.'' We focus only on the negative. That perspective is not totally true. What about the good these people do, or the good that they could do? What about the people who aren't in that group, but also helped cause the problem? Can't we change our focus? It's time that we remember that Americans are individuals. Americans are each entitled to their own opinion. Their opinions shouldn't be taken away from them, or ridiculed. It's time to look at the last four letters in American, ``I can.'' The phrase ``I can'' means that you have faith in yourself and in your abilities, that you can take responsibility for your own life. It is knowing that: I can achieve my dream. Now is the time for us to answer America's call. It's time to stand up and say ``What good have we done? What good can we do?'' The answer to America's call is to be as proud, as respectful, as positive, as caring, as grateful, as understanding, and as loving, as we can be * * * to ourselves, our families, our country, and our fellow man. We need to stand up and say I can help myself. I can make a difference. It is time for all of us, as Americans, to stand up and say I can answer America's call. How? Instead of complaining or blaming others for our problems, we need to look at ourselves. No matter how different we are as individual Americans, we all have one thing in common. We are all free. We need to encourage everyone to use their freedoms. We must answer America's call by being true to ourselves. We need to answer it in our own way and let others answer it in their own way. If I could figure out America's call so easily, I knew at least one of my fellow Americans must have figured it out too. I ran to the phone again, this time hoping I would get through and that someone, in America, would answer the call. The phone rang and rang. Finally, the operator picked up. ``I'm sorry,'' he said. ``All our lines are busy right now. Could you please hold?'' ``Sure,'' I answered. Then I thought, ``That was a good sign. At least I wasn't getting another machine.'' America the Beautiful played softly in my ear. I listened closely to the words. The song made me feel homesick and proud at the same time. Before the song was over, the operator returned: ``Hello, This is the United States of America, the country where people say ``I can.'' What can I do to help you?

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would observe I have never heard my colleagues more eloquent. I want to tell you at the outset that I feel badly all of you have to remain tonight for the debate preceding the vote. We asked the chairman to roll the vote. We are going to be here tomorrow. We might have had an extended debate, not inconveniencing you, but a full debate before the vote tomorrow. The chairman refused the request to roll the vote, and that is why you will participate in the debate. We will not be rushed in our effort to get on the record our reservations about this bill. And I do not care what tactics they use to put us in an awkward situation debating the bill at 11:30 at night. You are going to hear tonight a lot of thumping of the chests, a lot of patting on the back. We are passing a farm bill. You know, it is as though they did not realize the last farm bill expired at the end of 1995. We have had farmers all across the country considering very difficult decisions in terms of what to plant, what financing to get in place, not just the farmers but lenders, agribusiness men, all wondering about the actions of this Congress. As far as I am concerned, the House Ag Committee had one thing and one thing only to do in 1995, and that is get a farm bill passed. And the House Committee on Agriculture failed to do it. Come 1996 January came and went, come February, against a vote that all of us opposed on this side of the aisle. The House voted to adjourn and went home, leaving several opportune weeks to get a farm bill in place wasted, as Members went back to their districts. Come March, the weeks start to toll, and now here, on March 28, and the chairman says we have to remain in session until sometime near midnight so we get a farm program in place for farmers. I think it has been an absolutely shameful debacle of a process that has brought this bill that left the last farm bill expiring before we had a new program in place for our farmers, and that is just the start of my reservations about this particular farm bill before us. I do not deny for a minute that the guaranteed payments, especially in the early going under the so-called freedom to farm bill we will be passing tonight, will be helpful to the farmers of North Dakota and across the country. It is what the farmers have been asked to give up for these early upfront payments that give me the most heartburn about this bill. For decades we have preserved the safety net for family farmers, recognizing that they expose enormous amounts of capital, but have their fate turning largely upon market prices over which they have no control whatsoever. We have provided a backstop when prices collapsed. We have given farmers a floor so that we do not drive them off their land, and this bill eliminates that hallmark of traditional family farm programs maintained by past Congresses. What makes this bill even more troubling is that American farmers were assured in exchange for giving up this long-term safety net they would have regulatory relief. Well, there is a good deal in there about planting flexibility, and I think those are positive components of this bill. But if falls far short of regulatory relief. In conference committee the conference adopted an amendment proposed by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson] and myself to reform the swampbuster legislation. I think more reform was needed here. And yet, without question, farmers will find the increased flexibility somewhat helpful. More should have been done. The promise of regulatory relief really, I think falls short in delivery than what was promised. In many other ways, this bill is still superior to the freedom to the farm package that was before the House at the end of February. It contains an oilseed marketing loan and a fund for rural America, both provisions that we offered in the House agriculture committee, but they were defeated by the Republican majority Members. Now they are in the final report. It makes it a better bill. It does not make it a bill worthy of passage. The debate on this bill has been long and contentious. It is unfortunate we did not have more of an opportunity for honest give-and- take in the terms of trying to resolve our differences. I think once the farmers of our Nation get a good look at this program, they will see that at the end of 7 years, they are left without a safety net, they are left without the freedom to farm payments, and they will realize that this deal has been a bad deal for rural America. My sincere hope is that the Congress will have the chance to review and correct the grievous mistakes it is making in passing this legislation before the last family farmers in America are finally run out of business.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, for 8 years I had the privilege of representing North Dakota as its State insurance commissioner. During that time I evaluated the health insurance crises experienced by families all across the State. While undoubtedly there were many facets to the problems I encountered, far and away the largest problem was affordability. I am astounded that the previous speaker could talk about affordability as a health issue addressed by the majority plan and deride the substitute, when in fact, deductibility of health insurance premium geared specifically at enhancing the affordability of coverage is the feature best exemplified in the substitute, as opposed to the majority plan. Look at the facts: Fifty percent deductibility immediately under the substitute, and only 30 percent under the majority plan, phasing up to 80 percent deductibility under the substitute plan, and only 50 percent in the majority plan. The difference between 80 percent and 50 percent deductibility is the difference between affordability and unaffordability of health insurance for farm families, for self-employed families in North Dakota and all across the country. The No. 1 problem for so many families with health insurance tonight, Mr. Speaker, is affordability. Let us make it more affordable by increasing the deductibility. Only the substitute, in my opinion, goes the limits it needs to increasing the deductibility for purposes of making this coverage more affordable.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the bill reported out under this rule preempts and therefore eliminates consumer protections existing in State law for employers and employees insuring through associations or multiple employer arrangements known as MEWAs. This preemption of State law is a horrible idea, and deserves separate consideration and debate while the bill is before the House. The consequence of allowing insuring entities to operate without effective State oversight creates a situation where small businesses will be ripped off. Folks who believe they are insured by their company's plan will find out they are not, often after they have racked up ruinous health bills. Mr. Speaker, I am the only Member of this Chamber to have served as a State insurance commissioner. I know full well people will be hit with fraudulent insurance practices if this bill is enacted. I have seen it happen. In the home State of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a fraudulent entity collected nearly $35 million in premiums from 7,000 employers. It collapsed, leaving 40,000 employees without coverage, and $29 million in unpaid claims. Why in the world would the majority want to wipe out the State laws developed to keep this from happening again? Why in the world would the Committee on Rules not allow separate consideration on this issue? Time and time again we have heard the new majority hail the role of State government, yet today's bill wipes out the efforts of States to protect small businesses and the workers they ensure. Vote ``no'' on this bad bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. The statistic just quoted shows exactly what this bill is about. This bill is not about desperately needed workers to fulfill jobs. This is about having a cheap supply of labor to hold wages down. The have been some in favor of immigration reform that want to have it both ways: Crack down on immigration, triple fence the border, but by golly, do not disrupt our ability to get that cheap supply of unskilled labor up from south of the border. They want to have it both ways, but you cannot have it both ways. Mr. Chairman, I am reminded a bit of how the French chose to construct their defense in anticipation of World War II. They constructed an invincible line called the Maginot Line, and it was to withhold any German attack. The Germans flanked the Maginot Line and of course rendered the defense useless. We build triple fences, our Maginot Line against immigration, and we are going to provide the transport. We ourselves are going to allow the transport of unskilled workers up from Mexico around the fences and on to farms where they can wander off and become a continuing part of the illegal immigration problem this country has had an experience with. Make no bones about it, the Pombo amendment blows a hole in everything we are trying to do to crack down on illegal immigration and that will even more be the case when the other immigration reforms take effect under the law. Already we see under the guest worker program overstays represent 12 percent of the program, meaning 12 percent of the workers stay longer than they are authorized to under the program. That will only increase if this amendment should be incorporated into this law. Mr. Chairman, in addition, we have a revenue estimate today from the Congressional Budget Office that shows a loss in revenue of $23 million and an increase in direct spending of $67 million if the Pombo amendment is enacted. This amendment would cost us at a minimum $90 million a year while compounding the illegal immigration, unskilled worker problem in our country. Please join me in voting down this amendment. Amendment Offered by Mr. Condit to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Pombo