Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WEINER. I can provide the gentleman with the numbers, of the number of sheep and goats being farmed in this country. 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 we lost during every one of those years. But we lost less during the years there was no subsidy, irrespective of whether it is wool and mohair 1, 2, 3 or 5.

Mr. WEINER. Unfortunately, the problem with that reasoning is that they hemorrhaged worse during the last wool and mohair subsidy program.

Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman would indulge me then in his experience with the last program. We had a subsidy that he supported. He said earlier in his statement that as a result of the victors in eliminating the program, there has been a dramatic decline. Is that borne out anywhere in the statistics?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I have questions for the gentleman because he is much more expert at this than I am. But the statistics on the production of wool bear out certain trends; and one is that during the years that the previous, using his words, the previous wool and mohair subsidy, although was identical but for all intents and purposes we are paying farmers based on how much wool and mohair they shear, a certain amount, go warehouse it or sell it, is there anything in the trend to show that the years that the subsidy was in place were good for farmers or better than anything in the period that it was out of place?

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

Mr. WEINER. That should narrow it down. No, anything after 1993 obviously did not come from that study. Anything after 1993 came from the Agricultural Statistical Service, sir.

Mr. WEINER. I have been quoting numbers out the yingyang today, but which one is the gentleman referring to?

Mr. WEINER. I will be glad, reclaiming my time, to give the gentleman the source for that. That was the 1993 National Performance Review performed by the office of Vice President Gore, which was the rationale for a bill that came to this floor providing for greater efficiency in government that ended this program.

Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. If I can just address the remarks of the previous speaker who was not here earlier, that is exactly my point, that the program that we had since 1938 has evolved so many times; yet we continue to find another justification for it. We say, well, it was because we needed the uniforms; well, now we need an emergency in the 1990s; well, now it is to compete with foreign competitors; well, now it is to make up for the loss in the strength of the dollar. The fact remains that that is the definition of a program that ain't working. If you have a program since 1938, if you keep changing the name and changing the justification and still the facts remain the same, that the decline in the industry domestically has been unfettered by these programs. In fact, I earlier read a statistic that I will repeat for the gentleman, that the year that the program went out of effect for 2 years, the industry did better. It did better. The losses were smaller in 1997 than they were in 1996 in both wool and mohair. If you want to find a program that works, you say, here is what the subsidy did. I defy anyone in this Chamber to point to me a success story from this program. Tell me one year that this program has been in effect that there is a single farmer that got $44 on the average, a single farmer that said, oh, I got my 44 bucks.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a great deal to add on the importance of preserving what I believe will turn out to be on the final vote on this bill a continuation of the very strong urban-rural coalition that exists in this House. I and many of my colleagues are going to be supporting the agriculture bill with enthusiasm. We recognize the matrix that exists between farm programs that are miles away from our communities and the importance that they play to our economies and our communities. All of that being said, it should never be a substitute for us making wise decisions about what programs work and what programs do not work. In 1993, this body took several steps to reduce the size of government to make thing more efficient. In 1993, after years of being hammered on television shows which were frequently unfair about a fleecing of America, we finally decided to see what we could do about ending this program. The program ended; and, unfortunately, there continued to be a decline in the production of wool and mohair in this country. That decline slowed, and since then we have had an increase in mohair prices. There has been an 88 percent increase since 1995, yet we continue the subsidy. The subsidy for mohair is 40 cents, as opposed to a 20-cent subsidy for wool, despite the fact that we say we are trying to help the family farmer. Many more people are producing wool. They are in a much more dire situation, yet they get half the subsidy of those who produce mohair. We still have the terrible imbalance that exists in this program between the average farmer who gets $44 and the top 1 percent that get over $100,000 each. Mr. Chairman, I stand shoulder to shoulder with the chairman, who has done a terrific job on this bill, in saying that there are many areas that we have to step in and provide assistance to. But if we are standing here in 38 years, God willing, or 50 years, God willing, and we are debating the apple program, the tobacco program or the corn program, or any of the programs that may or may not be in this bill, and if we are still having the same problems as we had from 50 years ago, believe me, I would be the first to say we should eliminate that program. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to eliminate the wool and mohair subsidy, save our constituents 10 to 15 to $20 million; and even more important, end a program that has long since proven itself to be ineffective. More importantly than that, show that we understand and have the ability to separate a program that truly does work from those that do not. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, let me address some of the points that have come up by the very distinguished chairman about the inconsistency in his mind of my supporting a program that is in New York. Well, I also support programs that are in Mississippi, Montana and North Carolina and all across this country because I support the bill. I think it is a good bill. Mr. Chairman, I would ask both the chairman and members of the committee and all of my colleagues, if we had a program that was in place under various guises since 1938, and still we were seeing that the marketplace was not responding to the subsidy, that we were still hemorrhaging market share, and still losing the jobs and had fewer and fewer heads of sheep that were being lost, why would you deem it to be a successful program? Can anyone argue by any measure that it is a successful program? Is it successful for the average farmer that will get $44? The gentleman from Montana said we need to keep it in place because of the strength of the dollar or because of trade disputes. We will add those to the list of justifications and reasons that have been growing since 1938. Let me reiterate the statistics of this. 1993 we had a subsidy. There was a 5.2 percent reduction in wool production. 1994 we had a subsidy, 11 percent loss. 1995 we had a subsidy, 8 percent loss. 1996 we had a subsidy, 11 percent loss. 1997 we did not have a subsidy, we only had a 3 percent loss. Perhaps there was something about the marketplace in 1997, perhaps it was the Democratic Presidency, but the fact of the matter is there seems to be no correlation between the subsidy and the success of the program. Mr. Chairman, I think it is reasonable for Members of Congress who support ag programs to say this one is a bust. It is not working. I think we have to make those distinctions both in agriculture programs, and I would say this to my most fervent colleague in the urban areas, we have to make those determinations with urban areas as well. If a colleague from an urban area said we need to continue the subsidy for mass transit for all of those coal-powered subways, I would say there are no coal-powered subways. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I guess the concern that some of us have that are concerned about this program, and to use the apple example, if we were to stand here in 1950 or 1945 and say, you know what, we need to defend the apple producers because the apple seeds are a vital resource, and then it turned out apple seeds were not that important; and then we come back and said it is the apple core that is very important; and then a few years later we killed the program because it is no longer worthy, I think the point I am trying to make is this is a program that has been tried, it has been offered several different justifications, it has failed by most economic sources I can look to, it has not been successful, and Congress did the right thing in pulling the plug on it. I guess I would agree with the gentleman that the same standard should be used for the apple program or any other program, sir.

Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if the apple program is, in the judgment of the chairman, a worthy program to help, I would imagine it is a program that is designed, and it is one that I am not nearly as expert on as the gentleman is, but I imagine it is designed to deal with this temporary circumstance and not to exist into perpetuity; is that correct?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would be happy to answer that question. When we offer in this body emergency programs to deal with exigent circumstances, we expect that that is not going to be in perpetuity. That is why if I were in this body, I would not have opposed the first time this emerged as an emergency subsidy. So I would say I support the judgment of the chairman. If there is an emergency situation existing in the apple industry, I would clearly support it. If the gentleman came to me for 10 years in a row and said it is an emergency because now we are getting competition from applesauce manufacturers, that is why we need to keep it going, I would probably have reservations regardless of the State.

Mr. WEINER. I would have to answer no, but that is true of most of the food products I eat every day. I have not visited where they were farmed either.

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by offering my sincere thanks to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and his staff for all the assistance they provided, as well as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and her staff. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who are also joining me in offering this amendment. I stand as an urban member, someone who represents Brooklyn and Queens, the garden spot of the five boroughs perhaps, but not exactly a bastion of agriculture. But I am someone who strongly supports farm bills when they are offered. I have never voted against one and plan to vote for this one with enthusiasm. But just as during the 1980s and a period thereafter, as we have sought to make government programs more efficient and many social and urban programs were made more efficient by the actions of this body, we have an opportunity today to end what is quite literally a fleecing of America. The wool and mohair program, which will cost in the area of some $20 million to the United States taxpayer next year, is a program that has been ended by this body and now revived by the President with the assistance of this bill. My amendment seeks to eliminate the subsidy. First of all, let me explain that this is a program that has, I guess, the agriculture version of mission creep. It was started out in the 1930s and 1940s as an effort to protect the strategically needed resource, that is wool; to make sure that wool was available to be used in our military uniforms. Well, those of my colleagues who serve on the Committee on Armed Services recognize that since the 1950s or so it has been removed as a strategically necessary resource because we do not make uniforms out of wool any more. In fact, I have a uniform here that is made out of 100 percent cotton. And all of the uniforms are made out of either cotton or nylon. So once that rationale was removed, then it became an emergency subsidy intended to get the industry over a hump that it faced in the early 1990s. When it was clear that the program was not as effective and perhaps a little more wasteful than some would want, this body ended the program in 1993. Now there is an effort to revive it again under the rubric that we need to be able to deal with foreign competition and the only way to do it is with this subsidy. The second thing about this subsidy is that it is not cheap. We have throughout the 1990s provided more than a billion dollars to this industry. Just last year it was in the neighborhood of $10 million. It is not really clear where next year's number will end up, but it is somewhere in the range of $10 million, $15 million, or $20 million. It is also very clear from our history with this program that it is not helping the family farmer. According to a study done in 1993, the average payment is some $44, though there are many who get much more than that. The top 1 percent who benefit from this program, including Mr. Sam Donaldson, gets in the neighborhood of $100,000 or more. So the idea this is something that is helping to augment the family farm is simply not borne out by the facts. Fourth, as a matter of pure economics, this program is a failure. Wool has seen a price drop since the reinstitution of this programming from some 63 percent. Why are we seeing that? It is because most likely, in combining with the subsidy, we are doing nothing to control supply. So we are continuing to sheer more and more animals, more and more stockpiles are building up, the supply keeps on growing and growing and growing, and the price remains depressed. There is nothing in this program that does anything to change that behavior. But perhaps the most damning economic line in this whole issue is that the price of mohair, which is about 20 percent of this program, has increased about 88 percent since 1995. If there was any better evidence that it is market forces and not this subsidy that is having an impact on the price and, therefore, the success of the farmers, it is that fact; that wool and mohair are bunched together in this program. And one is seeing a dramatic drop in price and one is seeing a dramatic increase in price. The program simply does not make sense from that perspective. If anything, if we are trying to drive up the price on some level, then at least mohair should be dropped from the program. The final irony is that there is a greater subsidy for mohair in this bill than there is for wool. I would make one final point. There was a period of time between the time this program died and then like Frankenstein that it resurrected itself, and that was the year 1997 and 1998. And if we look at the statistics as to how the industry did in the last year we had the subsidy and the first year that it returned, the industry got worse, not better. There was a reduction in wool, in wool production, of about 11 percent. There was an 11 percent reduction in the profits to wool farmers in 1996. And when the subsidy ended, they actually had smaller losses of only about 3 percent. The same is true in the mohair industry. Mohair prices and mohair jobs actually reduced when we had the subsidy and then came back slightly when we got rid of the subsidy. I would ask my colleagues to consider very frankly why it is that we have these programs in general. All of us want to be able to support farm programs. I believe the farm bill, as I said from the outset, is a worthy document we should support. Very often I am calling upon my colleagues to support purely urban things. But if someone comes to me and says, you know, this program that operates in the urban centers, like many of the housing programs of the 1980s, it simply is not working, I believe it is incumbent on Members that have those interests at heart to try to weed out the waste. This is, the wool and mohair subsidy program, is simply a waste of taxpayer money. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, tonight as we lay our heads down to sleep, all across this country and in New York City, we will be tucking in our children, telling them good-night stories, knowing that they will be safe until morning. Well, that is not true for the eight children who lost their fathers in the blaze on June 17. Frankly, as all of us sleep at night, we do so sanguine in the knowledge that all across this country, and particularly in New York City, we have brave men and women who spend that night watching over us, literally. There is probably no other profession in the world where a group of men and women sits by the phone waiting for the worst and most horrific things to happen so they can jump into duty. Well, today while we take the opportunity to commemorate the lives of Brian Fahey, Harry Ford and John Downing, we recognize, of course, that every day here after and every day so far we have been protected by the men and women of New York's bravest and all those fire officials all around the Nation. Tonight and every other night we might think in our prayers to say thank you for the firemen and women who protect us, but perhaps this is an opportunity for us to be reminded that we ought to. Very rarely do we wake up in the morning and say I want to thank God there was no fire in my house last night. But we should always remember that, if there ever is, there is going to be a group of very heroic people who are requesting to run to that problem. We do not know the three men very closely that we memorialize today, but all throughout our country there are others like them. Perhaps this is an opportunity for us the next time we walk by our local firehouse to stick our head in and say thank you. To those eight children who lost their fathers on Father's Day, there are no words that can comfort you, except that you should know that your fathers were true American heroes and we in the United States House of Representatives pay tribute to them today.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my district on Monday, June 25, 2001 and the morning of Tuesday, June 26, 2001, and I would like the record to indicate how I would have voted had I been present. For rollcall vote No. 186, the resolution calling on the Government of China to Release Li Shaomin and all other American scholars being held in detention, I would have voted ``aye.'' For rollcall vote No. 187, the resolution expressing the sense of the House that Lebanon, Syria and Iran should call upon Hezbollah to allow the Red Cross to visit four abducted Israelis held by Hezbollah forces in Israel, I would have voted ``aye.'' For rollcall vote No. 188, the resolution honoring the 19 U.S. servicemen who died in the terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996, I would have voted ``aye.'' For rollcall vote No. 189, on approving the Journal, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to send a simple message: employer interference with workers' choices is unacceptable. When working people join together to form unions with the hope of improving their standard of living, their community and their jobs, harassment, coercion, firings and other attempts by employers to block the efforts of workers will not be tolerated. This message is at the heart of the AFL-CIO's ``7 Days in June'' campaign. ``7 Days in June'' is a week long series of activities around the country sponsored by the AFL-CIO to shine the spotlight on how hard it is for people to form legal unions in the United States. I am pleased to participate in today's special order and to be a part of this campaign. And I thank my Colleague, Mr. Bonior for organizing this event today. Whenever I hear the term union-busting, I think back to my high school history book, with black and white pictures of men with fedoras and billy clubs hopping out of old trucks and rushing picket lines to break up strikes in the 1920s and 30s. But the sad reality is that union busting is not relegated to the history books. It is a practice that is alive and well. Today, the men in fedoras have been replaced with lawyers in Armani suits. The billy clubs have been replaced with lawsuits, company- sponsored sham-unions, and other tactics intended to harass or intimidate employees. These new tactics may not be as brazen as they once were, but they are just as effective in squelching the rights of workers to organize. I had the unfortunate opportunity to see these new tactics first hand earlier this year. On March 5, 2001, I was joined by 63 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives in sending a letter to the Chairman and CEO of Delta Airlines, Leo Mullen, a copy of which I will submit to the record. In this letter we simply asked him to allow the flight attendants at Delta to decide for themselves whether to support union representation. The genesis of this letter was a meeting I had with constituents from Kew Gardens, New York, who are flight attendants at Delta. They told me of the difficulties that they were having in organizing at Delta due to interference by supervisors and other employees who opposed the union's efforts. When I heard their stories, I offered to send a letter to Delta's CEO, asking him to sign the Association of Flight Attendants' ``Appeal for Fairness,'' a six-point pact aimed at creating an atmosphere that will allow for a free and positive discussion, void of intimidation, threats and harassment. When word got out that I was sending this letter, I was overwhelmed by the amount of letters, e-mails, phone calls and faxes that my office received. From all over the country, flight attendants at Delta were contacting me to let me know of their own personal stories of intimidation, harassment and interference by supervisors and other employees at Delta Airlines who were opposed to the union's organizing efforts. The stories I heard were textbook cases of modern union-busting activities. Flight attendants in Boston who told me of a supervisor's effort to deny them meeting space in the airport. The supervisor even attempted to get them thrown out of the food court when he saw AFA literature on a table where three activists happened to be sitting. I also heard from flight attendants in Orlando whose supervisors were keeping lists of union supporters. And I hear from flight attendants in New York who were told that they weren't allowed in their own crew lounge if they were going to distribute AFA literature. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the experiences of the flight attendants at Delta are not isolated incidents. All over the country there are companies that foster such an anti-union corporate culture that encourages these familiar union busting activities. I believe that it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to stand-up and lend our voices in criticizing this behavior, which is why I am participating in this ``7 Days in June'' special order tonight. Working men and women who undertake union organizing drives do so for many different reasons. But at the heart of every organizing drive is a desire to improve their lives and the lives of their co-workers. Employer tactics that block the freedom to choose a voice at work are wrong. We should begin to change the way employers behave by passing laws that provide for stiff punishments for such acts and allow these workers the chance to express their views without the fear of company reprisals. In closing I want to commend the work of the flight attendants at Delta Airlines and the Association of Flight Attendants who are trying to improve their standard of living, their community and their jobs and wish them luck in their continuing efforts. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter to the chairman and CEO of Delta Air Lines by me and several of my colleagues. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, March 5, 2001. Leo F. Mullin, Chairman and CEO, Delta Air Lines, Atlanta, GA. Dear Mr. Mullin: It has come to our attention that the Delta Air Lines flight attendants are attempting to form a union. We write to urge you to allow the flight attendants at Delta Air Lines to decide for themselves whether to support union representation. For nearly 75 years the policy of this country, as expressed in our national labor laws, has been to encourage employees to choose whether to join a union without interference or coercion by their employer. Collective bargaining is the time-honored method for resolving issues between management and employees in the American workplace. Workers have a right to a voice on the issues that affect their careers and their working conditions. The Association of Flight Attendants' six-point pack, ``Appeal for Fairness,'' is well-designed to ensure that both the union and management conduct themselves fairly. It not only calls on both management and the union to refrain from coercive tactics but also provides for balanced meetings in which both points of view can be expressed openly. And, in the end, it calls for both management and the union to respect the employees' final choice. We urge you to approach this, and every union organizing drive, in a fair and balanced manner. We encourage you to sign the ``Appeal for Fairness'' on behalf of Delta management, to demonstrate to the Delta flight attendants that the company is committed to respecting their rights under the law and will honor their decision regarding whether to join a union. Sincerely, Anthony Weiner, William O. Lipinski, John E. Sweeney, David E. Bonior, Jerry F. Costello, Robert A. Borski, Jerrold Nadler, Corrine Brown, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Juanita Millender-McDonald, Nick J. Rahall II, Peter A. DeFazio, Robert Menendez, Bob Filner, Frank Mascara, Earl Blumenauer. Bill Pascrell Jr., Tim Holden, Steve Israel, Jose E. Serrano, Carolyn McCarthy, Gregory W. Meeks, James P. McGovern, Shelley Berkley, Nita M. Lowey, Nydia M. Velazquez, Maurice D. Hinchey, Joe Baca, Jay Inslee, Carolyn B. Maloney, Robert Wexler, Cynthia A. McKinney, Carrie P. Meek, Rush D. Holt, Earl F. Hilliard, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Martin Frost, Sam Farr, William J. Coyne, Ron Kind. Patsy T. Mink, Fortney Pete Stark, Mike Thompson, Tom Sawyer, Mike Ross, Dennis Moore, John J. LaFalce, Barney Frank, Dennis J. Kucinich, Ed Pastor, David Wu, Steven R. Rothman, Nancy Pelosi, William Lacy Clay, Melvin L. Watt, John B. Larson, Neil Abercrombie, Julia Carson, Hilda L. Solis, Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, Michael E. Capuano, Rod R. Blagojevich, Jim Matheson, Karen L. Thurman.