Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my strong support for repeal of the Medicare and Medicaid coverage data bank. This provision of law imposed an unfair and unreasonable burden on the businesses of North Dakota, and I believe it must be eliminated. The data bank program was created to help prevent Medicare and Medicaid from paying claims that are the responsibility of an employer- based private insurer. Despite this laudable goal of saving Government funds, there have been fundamental flaws with this planned program from the beginning. First, under the program employers would be required to report information to the Federal Government which they did not routinely collect. Second, employers would be forced to report data on 100 percent of their work force even though only a tiny percentage of workers would be individuals whose claims might have been eligible for payment by Medicare or Medicaid. This is a classic example of the treatment being worse than the disease. As can be seen, the data bank program imposes a reporting burden on employers which is far out of proportion to the Government's need for information. Such unnecessary burdens are particularly harmful to the many small businesses which dominate the North Dakota economy. This program is precisely the sort of inefficient approach which North Dakotans are demanding be eliminated from the Federal Government. The reports from North Dakota businesses as to the anticipated burdens of the data bank program were verified in a thorough study by the General Accounting Office [GAO]. In a report issued on May 6, 1994, the GAO concluded that the data bank would create burdensome and unnecessary paperwork for both employers and the Federal Government and would achieve little or no cost savings while costing millions of dollars in administrative expense. Mr. Speaker, at a time when many businesses too often labor under the burden of complex and sometimes unnecessary Federal regulation, the Federal Government should not add to this regulatory burden without a concrete benefit clearly in sight. While the data bank program was well intentioned, it has proven unworkable. The anticipated benefit is overwhelmed by the cost of compliance, and, consequently, the program should be eliminated. Elimination is also warranted by the harmful effect this program would have on the availability of health insurance to North Dakota's working families. When increasing numbers of families are finding themselves without health insurance, the Federal Government must not make it more expensive and difficult for employers to provide this insurance for their workers. The substantial administrative expense associated with the data bank program would have had precisely this counterproductive effect. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for repeal of this well intentioned but utterly unworkable program.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will put American livestock producers on an equal footing with their European counterparts when it comes to illegal trade barriers. The European Union currently blocks United States beef imports simply because U.S. producers use hormones in the production of the beef. The E.U. also continues to block U.S. pork imports under their so called Third Country Meat Directive claiming that U.S. processing plants do not meet European standards. These non-tariff trade barriers are in clear violation of the phytosanitary agreements which are part of the GATT. Scientists from around the world have determined that the use of these hormones poses no risk to human health. In 1992, through an exchange of letters, the Europeans agreed that U.S. and E.U. slaughter and processing procedures were essentially identical. The only reason for these bans is to keep U.S. meat out of European markets. Since 1989, when the hormone ban went into effect, the Europeans have sent over $2 billion worth of meat products to the United States. During the same period. U.S. exports to the E.U. totaled only $342 million. Clearly the Europeans have little incentive to expedite the negotiations to end this unreasonable trade barrier. The GATT agreement should be an effective tool to remove the hormone ban, but the Europeans have shown little commitment to working out these issues. On January 26 of this year, U.S. Trade Representative Kantor initiated formal action in the World Trade Organization against the E.U. on this issue. The European Parliament responded by voting to keep the ban in place. WTO action may take up to 18 months and the only beneficiaries of this delay are the Europeans. The USDA has estimated that the loss of these markets costs our cattle producers $100 million per year and our hog producers $60 million. Clearly at a time when U.S. cattle producers are facing rising feed costs and the lowest prices in recent memory these unfair and trade barriers cannot be tolerated. Just last week North Dakota hog farmers told me that access to the Asian markets following GATT has helped keep the price of pork stable over the last year. Clearly GATT can work to the benefit of American farmers. However, we need to send a strong message to the Europeans that further delay in opening their markets will not be tolerated. This legislation is simple. It says that as long as the Europeans keep our meat from their markets they will not have access to U.S. markets. They are taking the resolve of their Parliament to the negotiations. The United States should be taking the resolve of Congress to those same meetings. This legislation sends the message that the U.S. Congress is serious about GATT working to open European markets. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving our trade representatives a valuable tool to meet the Europeans on equal footing.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 49. I would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``nay'' on that rollcall vote.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a bill I introduced to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA]. This bill, which is identical to legislation passed unanimously by the Senate, would cut burdensome regulations, eliminate unnecessary testing requirements, and assist communities in making sure their drinking water is clean and safe. Since I was elected to Congress, I have been working to pass legislation to reauthorize and reform the Safe Drinking Water Act. During the 103d Congress, I joined Congressman Slattery and others in introducing H.R. 3392 which passed the House and was the main bill around which negotiations centered. Unfortunately, Congress adjourned before final action could be completed. I am hopeful that with the overwhelming support this bill received in the Senate, swift action will be taken in the House in the near future. Over the past 3 years, I have visited several small water systems in North Dakota. Through my visits and conversations with system operators, I have become very familiar with the workings of this law. Many small and rural water systems simply cannot comply with these mandates--they don't have the technology and they don't have the resources. This law has driven many North Dakota communities to the edge of bankruptcy, while others have had to ignore the law in order to survive financially. I firmly believe the rules of SDWA should fit the communities it is designed to serve. The original law was based on large water systems and subscribes to a one-size-fits-all approach to the problem. I believe a more prudent approach is to take the actual threat to public health into consideration and allow communities to target scarce resources to those needs. This bill does just that. It reduces the regulatory burden imposed on States and public water systems, increase State authority and flexibility, provides financial assistance for unfunded mandates, and directs the Environmental Protection Agency to consider costs and benefits when setting new standards. Importantly, small systems are given special consideration under the legislation. The bill requires the EPA to consider system size when determining the best available technology to address a risk, permits States to issue variances, and provides for technical assistance grants. Of particular concern to me regarding the current law are the arbitrary numbers of specific contaminants that must be regulated-- without regard to the risk they present. Currently, communities must monitor for 83 contaminants and the EPA will require monitoring for 25 more contaminants every 3 years. The bill passed by the Senate and which I have introduced eliminates this requirement and establishes a process for EPA to select and list contaminants for regulatory consideration based on occurrence and health effects. I am hopeful that the House of Representatives will follow the Senate's lead and take swift action to move this bill.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to ensure the future of commercial airline service in rural America. When Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act in 1978, it was understood that rural air service would deteriorate as airlines raced to compete in high-volume markets. Therefore, to preserve an integrated national air service network, Congress created Essential Air Service, a program to support air carriers that maintain routes in smaller, rural markets. For the last 15 years, EAS has continued to achieve this objective and has received bipartisan support in Congress. A link to the national air transportation system must be maintained for rural states to foster economic development. The fact is that without reliable air service, it is difficult to retain existing businesses and industries, and even more difficult to attract new ones. As farming operations continue to mechanize and consolidate, rural America must aggressively pursue efforts to diversify its economy. Key to that diversification is access to the national network of air transportation. With the air service supported by the EAS Program, small cities from North Dakota to Texas and Maine to California can market themselves to investors around the country and indeed around the world. However, if the EAS Program were discontinued and rural air service allowed to evaporate, it would be nearly impossible for communities in rural America to attract new business opportunities. But EAS is about more than just rural economic development. Air travelers around the country, whether urban or rural, benefit from an interconnected, national air service network. In fact, the majority of passengers on EAS routes are not residents of EAS cities but people from around the country who are able to reach rural destinations thanks to this program. In recent years, the EAS Program has been under increasing assault in the appropriations process. In fact, the fiscal year 1996 Transportation Appropriations Act reduced the program by over 30 percent, forcing airlines to sharply reduce the number of round trips in small cities across the country, threatening the viability of rural air service. The legislation I am introducing today will extract EAS from the annual appropriations battle and give rural communities and air carriers a greater degree of certainty about the future of their air service. The Rural Air Service Survival Act would transform EAS, placing the program on solid fiscal grounds by creating a required expenditure within the FAA budget. Funding for the program would be provided by a user fee assessed to foreign carriers that utilize U.S. air traffic control services. As a result, the legislation will have no impact on overall Federal spending. I should also point out that almost every major U.S. competitor nation levies similar overflight fees on foreign carriers. Senator Dorgan introduced similar legislation in the Senate which was adopted by unanimous vote in the Commerce Committee as an amendment to the FAA reform legislation. I am hopeful that this proposal will be enacted as part of FAA reform when the House and Senate consider this legislation in the coming weeks. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to cosponsor and support the Rural Air Service Survival Act.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in favor of the Roth amendment that would reauthorize the Public Law 480 Food for Peace Program and set an agenda for the Secretary of Agriculture to increase our agricultural exports over the next 7 years. One of the most important aspects of this amendment to North Dakota producers in the reauthorization of the Public Law 480 program. The committee bill would only reauthorize the program for 1 year while the amendment would extend the program until 2002 is essential that this program continue. The Food for Peace Program delivers humanitarian aid to nations in need and at the same time develops future markets for United States agricultural products. North Dakota bean growers rely heavily on Public Law 480 to encourage the export of their commodity. Last year U.S. producers exported more than $75 million of dry edible beans through the Public Law 480 program. The amendment also will set export goals of $60 billion for agricultural commodities. To achieve that goal, the Secretary is required to implement our GATT-legal export programs to the maximum extent allowable. We must take advantage of every opportunity the GATT agreement allows us in the global marketplace. In addition, the Secretary is required to increase high-value and value-added agricultural exports over the next 7 years. North Dakota producers have begun to reap the benefits of value-added agricultural products through the development of cooperative enterprises such as the Pasta Growers and Bison Cooperatives. We must do everything we can to encourage these innovative farmers and assists them in their efforts to develop agricultural products for the global market. Agriculture already represents one of the few trade sectors in which our exports exceed our imports. We are now, however, entering a new era for agriculture, one in which the world market is every bit as important as the domestic market. The GATT trade agreement was designed to reduce global trade barriers and increase our total agricultural exports. Under this agreement our exports have increased to more than $50 billion per year. GATT legal export programs such as Public Law 480, the Foreign Market Development Program, EEP and others are critical to the future of American agriculture. We must take every advantage of our international agreements to continue that trend. This amendment requires the Secretary of Agriculture to do just that and I encourage its adoption.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, in the farm bill debate there is a character to this debate different than other farm bill debates. In the past, rural Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, stood together fighting for rural America. That has not been the case. I am astounded to come to the well following a colleague on the Committee on Agriculture, a gentleman for whom I respect, and he is talking about farm spending creating a budget problem for this country. My colleagues, farm spending has been reduced more than any other function of Government, bar none. If further functions of Government had the cuts agriculture had had, we would not even have a budget deficit today. And they tout a farm bill that over the next 7 years spends 46 percent less on rural America than was spent over the last 5, and they say what they are doing for rural America. I will tell my colleagues what they are doing for rural America. They are sticking it right in the neck with a very ill-advised bill that we are trying to make a little better with this amendment. Take, for example, oilseeds. There is nothing in the so-called freedom to farm bill that addresses oilseeds. They are not going to get the payments that are the most widely touted feature of this bill. They have not been getting deficiency payments in the past; they will not get payments in the future. Yet we know that under the GATT agreement support for the export of U.S. oilseeds has been reduced 79 percent, more than any other agriculture commodity. So you have got a feature where the world export situation looks dramatically worse, and right on the heels of a farm bill that does nothing for oilseeds. Why is this important? It is important because we have got oilseed production at 63 million acres right now in this country, and if we cannot grow oilseeds and make a dollar anymore, people will not grow oilseeds. They will grow wheat, they will grow corn. As we kill oilseed commodities, we will be shifting production into other commodities, resulting in overproduction and price collapse. Now that is an event we all ought to avoid especially in light of the fact, especially in light of the fact, that this bill eliminates the safety net providing farmers assistance when market prices collapse. Two other features of this amendment deserve note; the rural development feature: Rural development funding is down $1.5 billion over the last 2 years. Rural housing loans are at their lowest level in 20 years. Water, wastewater, and economic development funding, down 25 to 50 percent below earlier levels. Now, the ag economists tell us that the net farm income under this farm bill, if it would be enacted, would drop 50 percent in North Dakota, 50 percent. We have got to use whatever we can to try and grow economic alternatives for our farmers, value-added opportunities. We cannot do that if we are reducing the funding for rural development. So part and parcel of a reforming of our farm program ought to be making a commitment to rural development. The final point involves permanent law. We need a permanent law. We need permanent status to the farm program. The bill eliminates it. The amendment puts it back in, and it is another reason for its enactment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. I rise in opposition to the amendment before us. The amendment squarely attacks a safety net for family farming agriculture. Why is there a compelling need to have a safety net for family farming agriculture? It gets down to the fundamental economics of agriculture production. At the beginning of a crop year, a family farmer will have literally hundreds of thousands of dollars exposed, seed, feed, fertilizer, equipment, land costs. There are two risks threatening this massive investment, which for many family farmers is literally everything they own: the risk of lost production or the risk of market price collapse. The only farmers that can sustain the risk of market price collapse over the long haul are farmers with huge capital reserves. Those are not family farmers like family farmers where I come from. Those are huge corporate farms dramatically changing the face of agriculture production in this country and ultimately eliminating family farming as we have known it. May we say family farming, it is an idea whose time has come and gone. We have got to move forward. Wait a minute. Food production in this country has given our consumers the highest quality, the greatest abundance and the lowest price of any country in the western world. Our approach at farm policy works and it has worked very, very well. I oppose the approach of the amendment, which would eliminate the safety net and eliminate family farms. I have the very same reservations about the bill, which ultimately eliminates the safety net and will eliminate family farms, but just because I have serious reservations about the bill does not mean the amendment is any better. In fact, the amendment is even worse. I urge its opposition today.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed at the rule under consideration for the farm bill debate. The rule has allowed 16 amendments but none of them address the central flaw in this bill: the elimination of the safety-net for family farms. The choice we are left with is either accept freedom to farm and the phaseout of farm program as is, or eliminate individual components of the farm program. Amendments to phase out the program entirely and eliminate the sugar and peanut and dairy support programs individually were allowed, but we cannot offer amendments to the basic freedom-to- farm concept. How can we adequately debate the merits of this bill when we are not allowed to amend the central policy problem? Farmers in North Dakota need a farm bill. Now that market prices are high enough to make a decent living, they want to know what the new rules will be so they can take maximum advantage of the favorable market conditions in making their planting decisions. This Congress has delayed action on the farm bill longer than any in history. The continual delays are irresponsible and incomprehensible to farmers across the country. North Dakota producers have also suffered through several years of disastrous crops and low prices. The generous checks that freedom to farm promises over the next few years will help farmers in the short term, but in the long run, the safety net for producers is eliminated. Marketing loans are capped at 1995 levels and permanent authority for farm programs is repealed. If prices were to collapse in the future as they have in the past, family farmers would be left with no support and will likely go out of business. The loss of those farmers would send a devastating ripple effect through the small towns and communities across North Dakota and the Nation. In the Rules Committee, I spoke on behalf of an amendment that would have guaranteed payments to farmers for 2 years to help them with the difficulties of the last few years. After those initial 2 years the contract payments are reduced to half and a 90-percent marketing loan is in place to protect family farms from price collapse. This amendment would have addressed the fundamental flaw of this bill while providing producers financial relief. Unfortunately this reasonable alternative to freedom to farm will not be allowed for consideration before the full House. It is an amendment that would have preserved the best aspects of the chairman's bill and still protected producers into the future. The people of this Nation, both urban and rural, deserve to have the best agricultural policy possible, and we cannot give it to them without a free and open debate.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, the fate of hundreds of sugar beet farmers that I represent and hundreds of millions of workers that I represent turn on this debate. But it is not their interests I want to talk to Members about. I want to talk to Members about our balance of trade problem as the United States of America. We import more than we export to the tune of $32 billion in 1992, $73 billion in 1993, $110 billion in 1994, and $114 billion last year. Sugar is one ag commodity where domestic consumption is greater than our production. Why in the world would we want to blow up a domestic program, which this amendment would do, which would destroy domestic production and make us import more sugar than is presently the case? The only thing favorable in our balance of trade is essentially agriculture and airplanes. Foreign countries must look at us like we are crazy. We look at something that contributes so positively to our balance of trade and we want to threaten it in the way this amendment does tonight. I urge Members to vote no.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to take issue with a couple of things the preceding speaker, a gentleman for whom I have great respect, just said. First of all, he indicated this bill is essentially like the Senate bill. In fact, I have major problems with the Senate bill, but it is a huge improvement over the bill before us. Such an improvement, in fact, that some of us sought to have it offered as an amendment today so we could vote for the Senate version instead of the House version. I am surprised that the rule just passed does not allow us to even vote on the Senate version, but I think it underscores the fact that this is not the Senate version of the farm bill before us. The gentleman observed the process has been terrific, wonderful, fair. I do not know what Committee on Agriculture he has been on, but it has not been the House Committee on Agriculture I have been serving on. In fact, there has not been one hearing, not one hearing, of the freedom to farm bill that is before us today. Can you imagine, the most significant overhaul of agriculture policy in decades, and on the actual bill the chairman does not schedule a hearing? That is what we have had to endure. Amendments, the gentleman said if they had problems with the bill they could just offer an amendment. Well, I should tell the gentleman, he is absolutely incorrect. I had a problem with this bill, a huge problem. I will explain it to you in a moment. but I tried to offer an amendment, and the Committee on Rules did not make it in order. Unlike prior farm bills that offered much less a radical overhaul of farm programs and were considered under open rules allowing free flowing debate and give and take, this is under a closed rule. The amendments offered make the bill worse. But if you have an amendment that made it better, they did not allow it. Here is where the bill falls apart. Its fatal flaw is that it fails to recognize the fundamental economics of family farming. Family farmers invest and expose hundreds of thousands of dollars every crop year. I do not care how good you are, there are two risks you cannot do much about: Production loss or market price collapse. Those are exposures that you just have to deal with. It has been the role of past farm programs to help family farmers deal with those risks. This bill does not help family farmers deal with those risks. This bill eliminates the protections formerly offered, protections which I and others call a safety net for family farmers. They have eliminated the safety net, but offered instead some up front payments, payments that look pretty good in 1996 and 1997, but ultimately eliminate the protections family farmers need to stay in business. That is where this bill is absolutely wrong and absolutely against the interests of every farmer, every community dependent upon farming, right across the country. I urge the Members of this body to reject this bill. It has been deeply flawed in process, but it is even more fatally flawed in substance.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to speak against the Miller-Schumer amendment to eliminate the sugar program. This amendment will ensure the death of the sugar industry in the United States for no apparent gain. Consumers will not benefit, hard- working people will lose their jobs, and family farmers will go out of business. In North Dakota and virtually all of the sugar industry is made up of hard-working family farmers. In my State these farmers have banded together to grow, process, refine, and market a product that can compete with any in the world. They cannot, however, compete with the governments of the European Union which spend over $2 billion annually subsidizing their sugar industry. The sugar program has provided stability to domestic consumers. In fact, American consumers have seen sugar prices drop 7 percent in the last 5 years. American consumers currently pay 28 percent less on average than consumers in other developed countries. By comparison the United States retail price for sugar is 39 cents a pound compared to 68 cents in France. The American sugar industry is also a huge employer. Over 420,000 people per year work in the sugar industry, resulting in $26.2 billion in economic activity. The fact of the matter is that the sugar program is good for consumers and good for jobs. The sugar program contained in the House bill is the simplest, most market-oriented program in history. The new reforms contained in the bill open the United States market to 20 percent more foreign sugar than currently allowed. Marketing allotments are abolished, releasing the U.S. sugar market from Government control. Finally, the marketing assessments in this bill will actually generate revenues of at least $40 million per year for deficit reduction. This is responsible reform that still protects both the American consumer and the American farmer. The sponsors of this amendment want to ignore the reforms that have already been made and instead seek to cripple the domestic sugar industry, throw hard-working, innovative farmers out of business and flood the U.S. market with foreign sugar, increasing our trade deficit. They suggest that consumers will benefit from this action. The fact is that the consumer will not benefit unless the price of candy, pop, and cereal decreases as a result of the elimination of this program. This is pure pie in the sky given the small cost of the sugar contained in those products. More likely, sugar users will continue to exploit instability in the sugar markets to raise prices on sweetened goods even higher. If you care about American jobs. If you care about American sugar producers, processors, users, and consumers vote no on this amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by responding directly to the comments of the preceding speaker. He talks about the sweeping reforms contained in this farm bill. He is right, there are sweeping reforms. All the more important that we fully debate, that we consider alternatives. This new majority has taken another tack. They say ``No, we have to do it our way, or you have to do it no way.'' That is no way to develop policy regarding a very fundamentally important policy for agriculture in this country. Second, he suggests that here we are at the end of February 1996, without a farm bill, and that is because the minority somehow prevented this body from developing a new farm bill. What bull that is. Come on. They failed to meet the demand of getting a new farm bill in place in 1995, they failed to bring it up in a timely manner in January 1996; they took February off, for gosh sakes, against the opposition of virtually every Member on this side of the aisle. And to have the temerity to suggest that somehow this debacle is the fault of the minority is a bit much. Mr. Speaker, there is a real problem with this rule. It does not allow alternatives to be considered, and the fatal flaw of the freedom to farm legislation is that it eliminates the safety net for farmers. Farmers have two risks they cannot control, Mr. Speaker. They cannot control falling prices and they cannot control production losses. The Freedom-To-Farm Act addresses neither of those risks. In fact, it phases out the protections that have kept family farmers in the business of farming for decades. I had an amendment which would have allowed the freedom-to-farm payments in the first 2 years, but moved in a strong marketing loan program providing some protection against falling prices for farmers over the second 5 years of the program. I am bitterly disappointed that that was not made in order. I think it was an extraordinarily important alternative to be considered. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the chairman of the Committee on Rules on preceding comments he has made about closed rules. He says: ``Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is hard to convey to the average citizen what the fuss about restricted rules is all about, but when you are telling them they are being robbed of their full right to representation in the House of Representatives because a committee says their Congressman cannot offer amendments, they begin to see things in a different light;'' the gentleman from New York, Jerry Solomon, April 28, 1993. Then in closing he says, in a debate in March 1993, Jerry Solomon, chairman of the Committee on Rules, he says: ``To paraphrase the real One Book, by your gag rules, you shall be known and reviled.'' That applies to the new majority in this instance with crystal clarity.

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

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the chairman for yielding. He is a man I respect, and I think he has made excellent points while he was a minority Member about opening up this place.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the Congressional Record of the consideration of the rules from the preceding farm bills back to 1965. By my reading, none has been considered under a rule as restrictive as the one considered today. Second, your statistics about whatever number of rules are open versus closed is of no consequences to North Dakota, when the farm bill is up under a closed rule. Agriculture in North Dakota is better than half of our economy. This is the big kahuna. This is the most important legislation that this body will consider relative to my State, and you have not allowed me to offer an important alternative to the freedom to farm bill. We deserve better, Mr. Speaker. I hope my colleagues vote down this rule.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a very troubling ruling regarding our Nation's only commercial-size synthetic natural gas plant, the Great Plains Coal Gasification Plant. This project's importance to North Dakota and the Nation demand the attention of this body and the commissioners at FERC. Make no mistake, if this decision is approved by FERC, Great Plains will close and the impact will be far reaching. The plant directly employs 640 people and is associated with nearly 7,000 other jobs. Twenty percent less lignite would be mined in North Dakota and Federal and State governments would lose $17.5 million in tax revenue. The total impact of this project on North Dakota is $490 million annually. In late December, an administrative law judge struck down the settlements reached by Great Plains, three pipeline companies, and the Department of Energy. By doing so, this judge has single-handedly put the future of the Great Plains Synfuels Plant in jeopardy. The importance of this project to North Dakota cannot be overstated, but Great Plains also has relevance to each Member of this body and their constituents. For starters, the Department of energy shares profits derived from the plant. What's more, the eight-state region served by the Plant would be hit by rate increases totalling nearly $30 million annually, or 10 percent above current costs. In addition, there are new technologies benefiting all Americans developed at Great Plains on a regular basis. Among the most recent are the production of the rare gases krypton and xenon, and using synthetic gas to produce anhydrous ammonia and ammonium sulfate, two commercial fertilizers. I am hopeful that the commissioners at FERC will see this ruling for what it is--an administrative law judge run amok, believing he knows more than the agency, industry, and consumers working with this project on a daily basis. If this ruling were to stand, Great Plains would likely have to shut its doors forever. This is simply not right. It is time the absurdity of this decision was brought to full attention of this body and the American people. What we have here is sophisticated parties entering into contracts and making investments based upon those contracts. Then along comes an administrative law judge who retroactively nullifies the express agreements and imposes his judgement. In the process, he single- handedly destroys the viability of the entire project. I would like to outline the most disturbing aspects of this ruling, if it were accepted by FERC. It requires the plant to sell the product to the pipelines at well- below the cost of producing the gas. The judge's ruling would set the purchase price at almost $1 per dekatherm below the cost of production and resulting in a loss of $55 million in 1995. This is totally unacceptable. The ruling would also require the pipeline companies to retroactively refund customers to the tune of $280 million. This cost would no doubt be passed on to the plant itself, further jeopardizing Great Plains' ability to meet its bottom line. Amazingly, the judge provided more relief than was even sought by the consumers. The judge strayed far from the matters at hand into issues of production capacity at the plant. He ruled that the pipeline companies would no longer have to receive what is produced at the plant--around 160 million barrels per day. Rather, they would only have to receive what was expected to be produced at the plant--131 million barrels per day. If FERC were to approve the ruling, it would completely set-aside FERC's own Opinion 119 agreement between Great Plains and the four pipeline purchasers which allowed the project to go forward in the first place. Opinion 119 was the basis for further negotiations enabling Great Plains to be sold to the Dakota Gasification Co., a subsidiary of Basin Electric, with a profit-sharing arrangement with the Department of Energy. To abandon Opinion 119 at this time would be a disservice to all parties involved--especially when you consider that it was the consumer representatives themselves that drafted the pricing formula of these gas purchase agreements. This issue will be decided by FERC in the near future. I urge each Member of that body to give this matter their most careful attention. Their decision will have ramifications on the Department of Energy, my State of North Dakota, and the energy future of this Nation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to compliment both the chairman and the gentleman from Kansas for their efforts to support a long-range bomber force that meets our mission requirements, and for this very important opportunity to clarify congressional intent relative to B-52's. It is the directive of this authorization bill that the full fleet of 94 B-52's will be retagged. This is vital because it is our most versatile, cost-effective and only battle-tested bomber.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the continuing resolution before us is a classic example of attempting to be too cute by half. You know, as a general guiding principle, doing the right thing is the right thing to do, and Senator Dole, in calling for reopening Government, clearly struck the right note. That was the right thing to do. Trying to do it piecemeal is a half-baked way of accomplishing with some grace, apparently, the same result that Senator Dole called for, but to have one continuing resolution listing several items of Government pass this House, only a few hours later back passing more functions of Government, to apparently alleviate the embarrassment from having those items shut down has left this House, I think, facing a complete debacle in this procedure. The American people deserve more than too cute by half. They deserve to have the Government reopened while we continue the talks leading to a balanced budget.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this morning's front page of the Washington Post quotes the Senate majority leader with a very succinct comment, one which finds broad agreement all across the State of North Dakota. It says, ``People should work for their money.'' Yet the House of Representatives, the majority specifically in the House of Representatives, has created a situation today where thousands and thousands of Federal workers are prohibited from coming to their place of employment and discharging their services to the American people. Yet they have been assured by the same majority that shuts them out from their desks that they will now be compensated for this time. Now, what could be more ridiculous than that? Not letting them come to work but paying them for staying at home, what is the point? The point is an awful lot of people are being hurt, the taxpayers' resources are being shamelessly squandered. The Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats alike have voted to put this Government back to work, and it is time the House go along.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, while I always appreciate the opportunity to participate in House debate, the format for this afternoon's participation comes not in the context of legislative activity geared at actually addressing the crisis that faces this Government today with the ongoing shutdown, day 20. No, regrettably, the only occasion for my ability to participate in debate this afternoon comes in the form of special orders, open format time for speeches, because no legislative business is presently occurring on the floor of the House. How can this possibly be that no legislative business is occurring while the Government is shut down, and none other than the Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, has led an effort and passed it unanimously through the Senate to reopen the Government? Senator Dole said some very interesting things as that effort succeeded in the Senate. I am going to point to this chart, ``Enough is enough. I do not see any sense in what we have been doing. I would hope that we would have quick action in the House. People have been gone from their jobs long enough.'' In this morning's Washington Post, his quotes contain further elaboration, and again this is the Republican leader in the Senate talking about the shutdown, ``It is not as through Clinton is wincing every day because the Government is shut down. It is not having any impact. If we had a point to make, we made it.'' He goes on to say, again, Senator Dole goes on to say, ``I know it is sort of macho and all that stuff regarding the shutdown and the standoff and the crisis, but there are human beings out there who are suffering. There are not many rich people working for the Federal Government. They have mortgages to pay, they have vacation plans, they have all kinds of plans. They have illnesses.'' Well, Senator Dole is precisely correct, and this has raised holy hell with Federal workers all over the country. But I do not want to just leave the impression that this is about the problems this irresponsible shutdown has caused Federal employees, because it has gone much, much further than that. The House Republican leaders, who have caused this shutdown, have told furloughed workers, ``do not worry, you will be paid.'' Now, we know they have a cash flow crisis right now in the meantime, but they have been assured they will be paid for the days they are not working presently. Now, there are a lot of other people who are not working today as a result of the shutdown who will not be paid. Every employee of a private contractor who is out of business because of this shutdown will expect no retroactive paycheck. We all know stories. I will tell you about being in Bismarck just a couple of days ago, Bismarck, ND, and there in the coffee shop was a person absolutely in a quiet room, no one there, no one there, because there were very few employees in the building. Now, that person works for a private contractor. They were there, but others have been laid off, as many, many employees of private contractors have been laid off all over the country. There is no provision for addressing these people. They are simply out of luck. Then we get to another very important category, veterans' health care. Imagine if you were lying in a hospital bed critically needing medical care, but also acutely aware that those providing the care were not being paid. Now, my office checked with the Director of the VA center in Fargo, ND, and he told us that the sick count is going up; fewer and fewer employees actually coming in under these circumstances. He said they are calling in sick, and he is worrying about filling his rotations. Imagine the concern for the veteran, the hospitalized veterans in our VA system watching this inactivity in the House today and wondering what kind of health care they will get tomorrow, whether the person providing the medical services they so desperately require, doing it without pay, will even show up tomorrow to give the care that is critically needed. Another major area is housing. You know, many, many housing loans are supported by an FHA guarantee or a VA guarantee. These programs process every single day 2,500 mortgages for FHA and an additional 1,000 for the VA system all over the country. You have got people who have counted on moving, counted on closing real estate deals and getting into their new locations, maybe some of them have even abandoned or made plans to abandon the apartments in which they are presently residing, contemplating timely loan closure, and guess what, the Federal Government is shut down because House Republicans do not agree with Bob Dole that we need to reopen this Government, and they are out of luck. Another dimension, there are people struggling with bills, veterans qualifying for these low-interest veterans' loans they want to refinance. There has been a favorable turn in interest rates. They want to refinance. They are up against the wall in terms of monthly cash flow, but guess what, Government shutdown, applications stacking up, nothing being processed, no refinancing, stick with that high interest rate. The passport dimension of this has raised heck all over the country; unemployment applications; SBA loans. The list goes on and on and on, and that is why Senator Dole told his colleagues in the Senate, ``Enough is enough.'' I say to my colleagues in the House, enough is enough. Let us reopen this Government.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support welfare reform--but we must not implement policies that hurt children. I am deeply disappointed that the final conference report did not incorporate more of the provisions that were included in the House substitute bill sponsored by Representative Deal. Kids do not have the life choices that parents and other adults do. Kids are not responsibile for our flawed welfare system and kids should not bear the brunt of the impact of this welfare reform package. The welfare reform bill on the floor today fails in two areas I believe are critical in welfare reform: work and protecting children. Welfare must become focused on work. Everyone needs to understand that public assistance is a temporary arrangement while steps are taken to obtain employment and independence. I favor a work requirement which places upon welfare recipients the expectation that they find work or begin the training necessary to allow them to work. Those who are not willing to make this commitment should not be eligible for benefits. While H.R. 4 does require recipients to work, the bill does not provide adequate funding for job training and child care. Job training is crucial in placing parents into jobs that will lift them out of poverty and keep them out of poverty. The bill lacks adequate child care that must be available to parents and the bill does not meet the needs of those who must work. It simple does not provide the necessary resources to move from welfare to work. The second clear principle of welfare reform is a cautionary one: Changes must not hurt the young children. Not even the most irate constituent has suggested that the kids of welfare recipients deserve to be punished or can simply be forgotten. It's not the kids' fault. Unfortunately, the proposals in this bill will hurt millions of children. To begin, H.R. 4 significantly reduces funding for food stamps and other child nutrition programs. These reductions will have a profound consequences for the nutrition, health, and well-being of children. The optional food stamp block grant in the bill would weaken the national nutrition safety net and eliminate the program's ability to expand in times of recessions and guarantee displaced workers and their families a minimum level of nutrition. These changes will jeopardize the long- term health of America's children. Second, the child protections programs are lumped into block grants, and abused and neglected children lose their entitlement to protection. Instead, basic emergency services would be forced to compete for limited dollars with other less critical programs. When we all can recite story after story of how the system has failed abused and neglected children, now is not the time to weaken these programs. Protecting children from abuse has nothing to do with welfare reform and the minuscule savings as a result of block granting these programs does not warrant the inherent risk that thousands of kids will be facing. While these block grants significantly limit funding for child protections, they would also limit funding for adoptions services. The result would be a significant reduction in adoptions throughout this country, denying thousands of children safe, permanent and loving families. In particular, special needs and medically fragile children will disproportionately suffer. As an adoptive parent, I believe I can speak to the importance of encouraging our communities to find permanent loving homes for all children in need--especially those who might languish in the foster care system. While the bill would maintain the adoption subsidy as an open ended entitlement, this is not enough. The subsidy which helps place special needs and medically fragile children will not be worth much if adoption staff is not available and well-trained to place children in appropriate homes. As more children enter the child protection system and are in need of adoptive homes, a block grant will prevent many of them from getting what they need and deserve--a family of their own. Most children affected have special needs: they suffered abuse and neglect, they are older, they are prenatally drug exposed or suffer from severe medical needs like cerebral palsy or are in need of a respirator. The churches throughout our Nation help find adoptive homes for these children through an innovative program called One Church-One Child and as Rev. Wayne Thompson, the national president explained to me yesterday, their work will be severely impeded if there are not sufficient adoption staff to assist in this crusade. Let us not penalize our children. They deserve what we all hope for our own children--a safe and loving home, full of support to allow them to become independent and productive citizens. Because of the drastic cuts and changes made in these programs, I can not support the final version of H.R. 4.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, these are difficult days for the House of Representatives. Portions of the Federal Government are shut down because the appropriations required have not even been enacted. Budget talks that could bring us to a balanced budget plan have not even really meaningfully begun; the parties are trapped in a meaningless standoff. But something is afoot that is more serious, even more serious to this institution than either of these unfortunate developments. The House Committee on Ethics, in a unanimous bipartisan vote has recommended closing a loophole that allows Members of this institution to cash in through lucrative book deals. Efforts are now underway to prevent the Committee on Ethics recommendation from coming to the floor of this House for a vote. These efforts, apparently done with the blessing of the Speaker himself, pose a very serious threat to this Committee on Ethics. If the committee on Ethics, operating in a bipartisan fashion, can no longer speak and govern on issues relating to the integrity of this House, we will have forever damaged this institution. I urge members to uphold the Committee on Ethics recommendation.

Mr. POMEROY

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

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the only plan that causes part B premiums to double is the GOP budget plan. The things that the gentleman does not consider Medicare cuts in fact to a senior citizen that suddenly has to pay a lot more out of pocket because Medicare does not pay it anyone, I am telling the gentleman, they think their benefits have been cut. They think it in a very real and personal way. I yielded happily to my friend from South Carolina, and we had an interesting exchange. In fact I wish we had a lot more of that going on right now in constructive circumstances, most particularly at a negotiating table. I have been in public life a long time. It has been my opportunity, I have not been in Congress long, but I have got the opportunity to work for public issues on behalf of North Dakotans in the State legislature and for the insurance commissioner. In addition to that, I was in the private sector practicing law in my hometown. I have been involved in lots of negotiations, lots and lots of negotiations. What I learned is, you come to the table with the position. You care deeply about it. The other side comes to the table with a position. They care deeply about that. And then you start to deal. I do not mean callously, just cutting deals willy-nilly. But you begin to negotiate, engaging the other side, talking about the things that really matter to you, trying to find common grounds. I think it is a tragedy that this afternoon, with the Federal Government, portions of it shut down, with budget talks at an impasse, we do not have this kind of negotiation under way. I urge all of my colleagues to insist we get negotiations underway and let us fund Government while these important talks proceed.