Mike McIntyre

Mr. McINTYRE

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, if the idea today is to do away with the tobacco industry and smoking, this amendment will not work. All it will do is take some hard-working families from their farms. The only victims of this scheme are the small farmers. No one will stop smoking because of this amendment. The only thing it will do is take away the already endangered family farm. If we take away crop insurance from our tobacco farmers, we punish them for making an honest living from the soil of the earth. We punish them by keeping them from getting bank loans. Nobody asked for the two hurricanes that hit my district and destroyed crops in all eight counties last year. Are we going to punish the farmers for something they cannot help. This is what this amendment would do. It is a loser. Families first? No. Families last under this amendment. Mr. Chairman, we need to oppose this amendment and preserve the family farm. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Lowey-DeGette amendment that would eliminate Federal crop insurance and Federal disaster compensation for tobacco farmers. Mr. Chairman, proponents of this amendment would have you believe that it will curb smoking levels across the country. They would have you believe that removing Federal crop insurance for tobacco would somehow injure the tobacco industry which they hold responsible for youth smoking. The results of this amendment, however, will not be felt by the tobacco industry. That is the big deception. The true fall-out, Mr. Chairman, will be felt by tobacco farmers and their families. The truth of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that the Lowey-DeGette amendment would do absolutely nothing to deter or stop the production of tobacco or punish cigarette companies. Can anyone honestly say that removing Federal crop insurance for tobacco farmers would promote a single smoker to give up the habit, or deter a single nonsmoker from initiating one? No. Mr. Chairman, let's look at exactly who this amendment will affect. The Lowey-DeGette amendment will take away the ability of small farmers to keep their families above the poverty line. Let me repeat that. The Lowey-DeGette amendment will prevent small farmers from growing a legal crop that often means the difference in their efforts to provide food, clothing, and shelter for their families. As an editorial in today's Fayetteville Observer-Times stated, If the plan is to do in the tobacco industry, it won't work. What it will do is separate some hard-working people from their family farms. Picture this (because this is all that the proposed legislation would accomplish). The people who provide the growers with the many things they need to get a crop started wouldn't be affected. Neither would the warehousemen, the corporate buyers, the manufacturers or the retailers. Only growers would fall under its provisions. Moreover, the victims, if this scheme were to become law * * * would be small farmers. Whatever the outcome, tobacco will still be produced, sold, processed, re-sold, and smoked. The only thing that will come close to disappearing is the already endangered family farm. To paraphrase Shakespeare--and I can say this as a lawyer--the proponents of this awful, unfair, ugly amendment ought to say, ``The first thing let's do is to kill all the farmers,'' for economically speaking, that is exactly what supporters of this amendment will be doing. Go ahead. Make the farm killers' day. Just blow `em away. Let a hurricane or tornado or hail storm ruin their lives and the lives of their families. If we take away crop insurance from our tobacco farmers, we punish them for making an honest living from the soil of the Earth, we punish them by keeping them from getting bank loans, and we punish them again if disaster strikes. Do not do it. Do not take away their chance to make an honest living an be able to provide for their families. The U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies small farmers whose income total $20,000 or less for 2 consecutive years as limited resource farmers. The States with the largest numbers of limited resource farmers are Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. It is no coincidence that these States also make up a majority of the leading tobacco producing States in the Nation. Mr. Chairman, the limited resource farmers that grow tobacco are by no means wealthy people. They sweat and toil on small plots of land where oftentimes the only crop that can be grown in such small quantities and still bring a financial return sufficient to maintain their operation from year to year is tobacco. The argument put forth by proponents of the Lowey- DeGette amendment that tobacco farmers could replace tobacco with another commodity is simply not true. The average size farm in tobacco country is 169 acres, of which tobacco is usually grown on 50 to 100 acres. In order to replace the gross income from just 50 acres of tobacco, a farmer would have to produce 235 acres of peanuts, 372 acres of cotton, 1,442 acres of wheat, 1,161 acres of soybeans, or 747 acres of corn. The small amounts of land that are typically available to limited resource farmers makes any of these options mathematically impossible. My friends in the House, limited resource farmers do not grow tobacco to get rich. They do not grow tobacco so that cigarette companies can get rich. Limited resource farmers grow the legal crop tobacco in order to put a roof over their families' heads. They grow tobacco to put food on their families' tables. They grow tobacco so that they can someday send their children to school; so that they can provide the opportunity of a better life for their children. Mr. Chairman, proponents of the Lowey-DeGette amendment would have us believe that not a single farmer will lose his or her job as a result of their language. This, my colleagues in the House, is absolutely false. My friends, tobacco is an extremely difficult crop to grow. It is vulnerable to a variety of diseases, infestations, and is especially sensitive to weather variations. In addition, due to its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, our tobacco farmers are also at the mercy of competely unpredictable natural disasters like hurricanes, two of which hit my district last year and wiped out entire tobacco fields across the region in all eight of the counties which I represent. The delicate nature of tobacco requires that farmers secure insurance in order to receive operating loans that many farmers rely on for the funding necessary to initiate planting each year. Without that insurance, farmers will not even be considered for the loans that enable them to begin planting each year. Without insurance, tobacco farmers will not have a means to make a living. USDA Secretary Dan Glickman recognized this and has made the availability of Federal crop insurance a top department priority. In a statement he made this past May, Secretary Glickman said, ``I am determined that everyone will have access to crop insurance--large farmers and small farmers alike, especially those with limited resources, minorities, and producers in all areas of the country.'' In addition, Secretary Glickman announced last week the formation of a National Commission on Small Farms to find new ways to support small farms and limited resource farmers. It would appear, then, that eliminating Federal crop insurance which is relied upon so heavily by small, limited resource farmers is not at all in line with the USDA. It is simply advancing someone's political agenda at the expense and heartache of farmer families. It is stealing bread off of the table. It is discrimination in its ugliest form. It is taking advantage of someone else who falls victim to a natural disaster. Mr. Chairman, limited resource farmers depend on Federal crop insurance and the protection it provides simply because they cannot afford the high cost of private insurance which proponents of the Lowey-DeGette amendment like to point to as an alternative. Let's take a closer look at that alternative. Limited resource farmers are simply unable to afford current premiums on private insurance. If they could afford it, they would certainly look in that direction for protection, for private insurance offers much more comprehensive coverage than its Federal counterpart. I have spoken with several private insurers in my district about the ramifications of losing Federal coverage. Without hesitation, they provided me with figures that indicate their premiums would increase nearly threefold, making private insurance even further out of reach financially for limited resource farmers. In addition, private insurers are in no way compelled to offer insurance to everyone who applies for it. The harsh truth is that even if limited resource farmers were to attempt to pull together enough capital to apply for private insurance, they would likely be denied. So don't listen to the falsehoods you are being told. Many tobacco farmers simply cannot go out and buy private insurance. No insurance means no loans. No loans means no tobacco crop. No crop means no income, no food, no future for their kids, no retirement. It means moving people from work to welfare--something I thought we were trying to get away from. This is reality, not the big deception that proponents of the Lowey- DeGette amendment are trying to sell. The Lowey-DeGette amendment will put farmers out of work, period. Mr. Chairman, this body has made great strides in recent years to reform out national welfare system. This body has passed legislation that thins the welfare roles by putting long-time recipients to work. My colleagues in the House, does it make sense, then, for this body to pass language that will reverse all of that excellent work? Does it make sense to pass language that will take people from work to welfare? My friends, I urge a no vote on the Lowey-DeGette amendment. Similar language was rejected by the House of Representatives last year, and this very same amendment was defeated by the Appropriations Committee last week. It is a loser. And under it, farm families would lose as well. Families first? Not under this amendment. Families last and political agendas first--that is what this amendment is all about. Do the right thing for families, reject it again.

Mr. McINTYRE

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, today we will consider an issue of fairness to farmers who have invested for generations in their crops, and who for generations have fed their families, paid their bills, and put their kids through college when possible; farmers who, by the sweat of their brow on hot and humid days like today, are out there toiling in the sun; who suddenly might suffer a natural disaster at no fault of their own, as happened last year, when all eight counties in my district in southeastern North Carolina found that their crops were destroyed by hurricanes; small family farmers who should not bear the brunt of someone else's political agenda. If we take away crop insurance from our tobacco farmers, we punish them for making an honest living from the soil of the Earth, we punish them by keeping them from getting bank loans, and we punish them again if disaster strikes. Do not do it. Do not take away their chance to make an honest living and be able to provide for their families.

Mr. McINTYRE

Mr. McINTYRE. Reclaiming my time, furthermore, is it the committee's expectation that this authority should remain exclusively with the U.S. Department of Agriculture?

Mr. McINTYRE. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, if he would engage me in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the sum of approximately $24 million has been appropriated to the Food and Drug Administration for the purpose of implementing new regulations concerning tobacco sales to minors. In light of the fact this funding represents a $20 million increase over similar funding in the prior fiscal year budget, I would ask the chairman if it is his understanding and the understanding of those on the committee that none of this funding is to be used to monitor or regulate the growing, cultivating, or use of raw tobacco?

Mr. McINTYRE

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member from North Carolina, it is a high honor to serve the people in the House. Yet an even more important role in my life is that of being a father. As I approach my 14th year of being called ``Dad,'' we must all realize that fathers do make a difference in the home. The statistics speak for themselves and are staggering. Four out of ten children in America will go home tonight without a father. The time a father spends with a child averages, one on one, only 10 minutes a day. Violent criminals too often are males who have grown in a home without a father. As leaders of our country, we must do better. I urge my colleagues to join the Congressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force. We will explore ways to challenge fathers to that type of commitment, not just another law or another government program, but encouraging fathers to fulfill the calling that they have in their lives. The future of our country lies in the hands of our children. Through this task force, we will ensure that those hands are properly prepared with persistence and purpose and ready to lead. Please join us in this important mission that we not fail.

Mr. McINTYRE

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, just as each of us expect to balance the budget of our own personal checkbooks or our family's checkbooks or our small business's checkbooks, we should never expect any less from the Federal Government. When I ran for this office, it was because of that very concern for our working families and our small business owners. We realize that in States like mine, in North Carolina, we are required to balance the budget and we meet that mandate every year. We should expect no less of our own national government. This is a chance for us to give working families an opportunity to see that we are stewards of their trust, that our government is accountable for every penny it takes in and every penny it puts out. An old proverb once says that the longest journey begins with the single step. Although this is not perfect, it is a way to take that first step to make our government move towards the balanced budget responsibility that it should have.

Mr. McINTYRE

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to announce my support for H.R. 1469, the supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. Included in this bill are several components, which, if enacted, would greatly assist the residents of southeastern North Carolina in their further recovery from last year's hurricane. The night of September 6, 1996, the district that I represent, North Carolina's Seventh, was battered by hurricane Fran. Less than 2 days later, my entire district was declared a disaster area by the President. Yet, we were ready to rebuild our lives and repair our environment. That is why the $150,700,000 appropriated in this bill for the Emergency Watershed Program [EWP] is so important to the fine people who live, work, and vacation in North Carolina. This money will be available nationwide to all qualified applicants. The EWP provides for the restoration of creeks and rivers that were clogged by downed trees and other storm debris. I have had many constituents contact me by phone, letter, and in person about the need to clear our rivers now in order to prevent flooding later. The greater the potential for flooding, the more likely the Federal Government will be called upon to assist those whose homes, businesses, and crops are damaged or destroyed by flood waters. The Seventh District faces another threat H.R. 1469 seeks to address: economic disaster. North Carolina's economy continues to suffer after Hurricanes Fran and Bertha. Fran damaged 891 nonagricultural businesses with $50 million in repairs still needed. Our agricultural and timber industries were nearly overwhelmed by $2 billion in damages. It makes good sense that one of the highest priorities of North Carolina's economic recovery plan is support for the Economic Development Administration's efforts to assist our communities. Finally, I thank the entire North Carolina congressional delegation for working together to make sure that this bill addresses many of the unmet high-priority needs in my State. In the House, Congressmen, Hefner, Price, and Taylor along with my other colleagues worked to ensure that North Carolina's unmet needs were addressed in this legislation. I also want to thank our State's Senators, who have been instrumental in coordinating our efforts to support these important components. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1469.

Mr. McINTYRE

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 93, that any adjustment in the Consumer Price Index should be determined only by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A reduction to the CPI would have a dramatic effect on everyone receiving cost of living adjustments, including military retirees and Social Security beneficiaries and would be a financial burden on our senior citizens. The cost of living for the elderly has increased by a whopping 69.2 percent over the past 15 years. Increased medical costs have also played an important cost factor for older Americans that they face. It is absolutely critical that older Americans have a Social Security benefit that accurately represents their true cost of living. Any adjustment in the CPI has the potential to threaten their very livelihood, and therefore it is imperative that such a decision be made by those who are eminently qualified to handle it: the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. I am pleased to support House Resolution 93 as a way to guarantee the integrity of the steadfast commitment that we have to our senior citizens.

Mr. McINTYRE

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago tonight the President underscored the importance of education. Education must be paramount and we must do whatever we can to help our children which is the wisest investment that we can make for tomorrow. This investment has three callings for us: concern, commitment, and character. First, we should show our concern by contacting our local schools now and finding out how we can best help our teachers. Second, we should be committed. For the last 16 years I have gone into the classroom to volunteer and to work with our kids. Are we as business leaders willing to take the time to go and be role models for our children? And third, we should be building character. Next week in our district we will have an electronic classroom that will go throughout the whole district to address children and to help bring them together with technology to talk about respect and responsibility, important ingredients for the citizens of tomorrow. These are the three callings that we must answer. We must be ready with concern, commitment, and character and do what we can do now to help education on the local level.