Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1627) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to observe this: I would like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] very much for his very kind comments. George Brown has provided more expertise on FIFRA than perhaps any other Member. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] mentioned the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Berkley Bedell. I can remember well when we passed a FIFRA reform on the House side. It did not pass the Senate. We had adjourned, and Berkley Bedell had me in tow over on the Senate side trying to find real live Senators to try to get this done. So this one is for Berkley. I would like to also thank my staff. There are no self-made men or women in public office. It is your friends and staff who make you what you are, more especially Mr. Bill O'Conner, who worked long and hard for Mr. Madigan both when he was the ranking member of the committee and the Secretary of Agriculture. I would like to mention Mr. Gary Mitchell, who is our staff director, who had the FIFRA responsibilities when I was the ranking member of the subcommittee. And, more especially, Mr. Dale Moore. Dale is a former rodeo rider, and every time we let the FIFRA horse out of the chute, we could not even saddle him, let alone ride the full 10 seconds to finally get something done. So in this particular case where it is a rodeo of achievement, if you will, I especially want to thank Dale. It is rare during an even-numbered year when we have had great controversy and strong differences of opinion in this Congress, that we have a situation where the gentleman from Virginia, Tom Bliley, the gentleman from Florida, Mike Bilirakis, and the gentleman from Kansas, Pat Roberts, stood with the gentleman from Texas, Kika de la Garza, the gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, and the gentleman from California, Henry Waxman, representing the environmental community, the agriculture community, industry, and the administration. We have done something and we are proud of it. We have 55 different organizations who have signed on with this reform. It is good reform. It is the kind of thing that we should do more of. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record report language to accompany H.R. 1627 regarding the use of registered pesticides to protect public health and safety, and a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency on the same matter; as well as report language developed to address a concern related to the Endangered Species Act: Report Language to Accompany H.R. 1627 Use of Registered Pesticides to Protect Public Health and Safety The Committee is aware of the potential for situations in which public health and safety may be compromised by efforts to protect endangered species. There are commercial facilities which are part of this nation's food production and distribution system, such as processing plants, warehouses, grocery stores, restaurants, etc., which are located in critical habitat areas where the use of pest control tools may be prohibited or severely restricted. While the Committee recognizes the importance of preventing the destruction of endangered species, it is concerned that unwarranted actions to protect a species could result in the unchecked spread of rodent-, insect-, or other pest vector- borne diseases that could pose serious threats to consumer and food safety. The Committee strongly believes that preserving the safety and wholesomeness of this nation's food supply is paramount. Managers of food processing and handling facilities, and public health officials, must be able to take the steps necessary to control pests that may pose a threat to public health. The managers of these facilities generally rely on certified commercial applicators or persons under their direct supervision who are trained to apply rodenticides and other pesticides in safe manner, which helps ensure that these products are only used when and where necessary. One of the overriding goals of H.R. 1627 is to eliminate the statutory and regulatory paradoxes that inhibit the efficient, science-based administration of FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Committee believes this goal should be considered when reforms to other statutes, such as the Endangered Species Act, are undertaken to make certain that the safety and wholesomeness of a consumer's food supply, especially for infants and children, is adequately protected. The Committee recognizes this concern can be addressed rationally in many cases through the cooperative efforts of federal and state regulatory officials, and is encouraged that federal and state agencies are examining this issue. For example, the California Environmental Protection Agency's Department of Pesticide Regulation states, ``A categorical exemption for food processing plants and other industrial and institutional use could probably be made with little, if any, impact on listed species. In particular, the use of toxicant inside of buildings or immediately adjacent to buildings does not seem to pose a hazard to listed species.'' The Committee expects the EPA to investigate this issue and any related situations where competing regulatory actions by the Agency, other federal agencies, or state agencies pose a threat to consumers or the U.S. food supply, and to act quickly to remedy these situations. In addition, if the EPA is unable to address the situation in an efficient and fair manner, the Agency should promptly notify this and any other committee of appropriate jurisdiction. If resolution is prohibited because of competing or inconsistent provisions of law, the Committee also expects the Agency to provide legislative proposals that may be needed to ensure that the Administrator has sufficient statutory authority to address these situations in a common sense, science-based manner.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have no further request for time on this side. (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute and for real welfare reform, and I want to take time to thank the gentlewoman for the splendid and fair job that she is doing in presiding over a controversial issue, but a very important issue. There have been many speeches over the past 2 days, 2 years, for that matter, and there has been quite a bit of talk about what is compassionate, what is caring, what is humane, what is inhumane about welfare reform. Well, let us apply these markers to the Food Stamp Program. Now, that is the provision of the part of welfare reform that comes under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Agriculture and to a great extent has been ignored in this debate. Does it help the poor to run a program that has no work requirements? What is compassionate about running a program so rife with abuse and mismanagement that the public has lost faith in food stamps? How does it benefit the needy to run a program that the Department of Agriculture's own inspector general says is overrun with instances of trafficking food stamps for guns and drugs? Evidence of those abuses, by the way, became national news on television as a result of the first hearing held by the Committee on Agriculture at the beginning of this Congress. That is not compassion. That is not caring. Those are failures and they are failures of the current system that we address and reform in the committee bill. Now, let me address another recurring part of this debate, and that is the gridlock or the inability of the Congress and the President to reach a compromise. We have worked with the Department of Agriculture, we have worked with the administration and we have reached accord on many items, 72 percent, in regards to this bill. I respect the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. They are two fine Members, with unimpeachable integrity, and I respect their views. But there are significant differences. The substitute does not structurally reform the Food Stamp Program. It achieves much of its savings by cutting food stamp benefits, and then in later years reintroduces something called indexing. That is not real reform. Now, we have also heard much debate, especially from the administration, in reference to strong work requirements. My colleagues should know the substitute's work program actually costs $25 million more than current law. Current law. This substitute's work requirement is hollow, hollow because it does not apply, does not apply if a State does not provide every covered individual a position in a work training program. That is not a real work requirement, that is government make- work. Our bill requires that able-bodied persons between the ages of 18 and 50, who have no dependents, may receive food stamps now for up to 3 months, and then the person is disqualified from food stamps unless they work for 20 hours a week or participate in a work program. Who are we talking about? Two percent of the people that receive food stamps. Two-tenths of 1 percent of the population, able-bodied. Now, let us talk about something that should be talked about regarding this debate, and that is the spending that has been out of control. This program has been on automatic pilot. It went from $10 billion to $27 billion in 10 years. If the economy improved, it went up. If the economy went bad, we would expect it to go up. Our bill actually cuts the standard deduction provided to all applications below current levels to achieve savings. But then it goes back to indexing, the very cause of past runaway spending. Our bill takes the Food Stamp Program off of automatic pilot by keeping the deductions at current rates, but allowing the food stamp benefits to be adjusted to reflect the changes in the cost of food. Food stamps. We adjust the cost of food. That is simply basic. Let us talk about unique and innovative work programs. True compassion. The substitute does not allow States to operate work support programs, our bill does, programs in which public assistance is provided to employers who hire recipients and then are used to pay part of the wages. Hiring, employers, wages: Real work. That allows food stamp recipients to gain the experience of working in real jobs to earn a paycheck. Our bill allows certain States to pay cash in lieu of food stamp benefits to a household if a member of the household works in a nonsubsidized job for 90 days, earns at least $350 a month, and is eligible to receive welfare. My colleagues, that is incentive. That is not disincentive, that is incentive to work. Now, let us talk about the real difference in these bills, and that is how our savings are achieved. Our bill is focused on making fundamental structural reforms, at the same time a careful and conscious decision was made to preserve the food assistance levels that are currently available. The substitute, which relies on the proposals of the Clinton administration, preserves the failed structure of the old Food Stamp Program. Castle-Tanner achieves their savings by significantly cutting the benefit levels for the poor. Sixty percent of the savings in this substitute are derived from cuts in the current food assistance program. In other words, saving the old failed system is so important that they would rather take food from the mouths of food stamp recipients today than make the needed changes to the structure of the program. We preserve the existing benefit levels. We make the needed reforms in the structure of the program. If we are going to be compassionate and caring and humane, defeat the substitute and adopt the committee bill. Truly reform the Food Stamp Program.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], chairman of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler]. (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, it is a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], a gentleman whose testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means helped shape the reform bill that is now on the House floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], a former member of the sometimes powerful House Committee on Agriculture, a current valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] and take the House's time to thank him for his contributions in increasing the trafficking penalties and bringing integrity to the food stamp reforms that we have passed in the Committee on Agriculture and hope to pass on the House floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I think it is obvious that we all know that welfare reform is a front-burner topic, not only on this floor in this town, but certainly all throughout the Nation, and the American people want change. I think the House of Representatives has responded to the American public. I believe that real welfare reform is represented in the bill that is being considered today. This bill represents real change. I want to congratulate the members on the Committee on Agriculture and all Members who have worked so diligently on reforming the Food Stamp Program. That is the part of welfare reform for which the Committee on Agriculture is responsible. The very first hearing held by me and my Republican majority in the committee was on enforcement in the Food Stamp Program, and following that hearing, the chairman of the subcommittee, our late and beloved colleague, Mr. Bill Emerson, held four hearings on the Food Stamp Program. Bill was an expert in regard to the Food Stamp Program. From the testimony received in these hearings, the committee formulated the principles that really guided our reform. The bill being debated today simply reflects those principles. First, keep the Food Stamp Program, that was a tough fight, as a safety sunset so that food can be provided as a basic need while States are undergoing the transition to State-designated welfare programs. Second, second principle, to harmonize welfare and the Food Stamp Program for families receiving benefits from both programs, not on a separate track. We streamlined that. Third, take the Food Stamp Program off of automatic pilot. Started out 12 years ago at about $12 billion, went up to $27 billion and was ever increasing. Fourth, able-bodied participants, able-bodied participants without dependents must work in private sector jobs. Lastly, tighten controls on waste and abuse. Out of the $27 billion in the Food Stamp Program, estimated by the new Inspector General at the Department of Agriculture, anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion is now going to fraud and abuse. So we are tightening those controls, and we curb the trafficking with increased penalties. Now that is real reform. It is essentially the same bill that was approved by the House on December 21, last year, by a vote of 245 to 178. One significant exception, the food stamp funding cap is eliminated. Now, that cap was eliminated as a concession to and at the request of the National Governors' Association, the Clinton administration, and the Secretary of Agriculture. We sat down and we worked with all of these folks. Food stamp reforms still include measures to control the cost of the Food Stamp Program, however. The bill represents sound policy. The program is retained as a Federal safety net. States are allowed to harmonize their AFDC and Food Stamp programs. As I indicated, the food stamps are taken off of automatic pilot, except for the annual food benefit increases; able- bodied persons without dependents must work; and there are increased penalties for trafficking and fraud. It is a good package. Through the reforms in this bill, the committee will meet its target under the 1997 budget resolution. But, first and foremost, we reform the program. Last April, the Clinton administration submitted its welfare reform bill. There are many similarities between the two bills, since we adopted many of the USDA proposals and they in turn adopted many of ours. A review indicates that 55 percent of the provisions are identical; 72 percent are either identical or very similar--72 percent in agreement with the USDA and the Clinton administration. We worked hard to do that. There are some differences. We take the Food Stamp Program off of automatic pilot for all but annual food increases. If needed, we can come back in; we can appropriate the funds, and the administration bill does not. We have a strong work requirement. We expect able-bodies persons, no dependents, between the ages of 18 and 50 to work or be in a training program after 4 months of food stamp benefits. The administration's work requirement, as far as I am concerned, is very weak. We allow States to operate work supplementation programs and the administration does not. This program now provides benefits to an average of 27 million people each month at an annual cost of more than $26 billion. Everybody should agree that for the most part these benefits go to families in need of help and are used to buy food. There is no question in my mind that the Food Stamp Program helps poor people and those who have temporary fallen on hard times. However, there is also no question in my mind that the program is in need of real reform. As I have indicated, this bill reflects the principle that the Food Stamp Program should remain a Federal program. States will be undergoing a transition to State-designed welfare programs. During this period, this Food Stamp Program will remain as a safety net and be able to provide food as a basic need. The program will remain at the Federal level and equal access to food for every American in need is still ensured. Now, I mentioned we had taken the program off of automatic pilot except for the annual increases. The food stamp deductions are kept at the current levels instead of being adjusted automatically. Food stamp benefits will increase to reflect the increases in the cost of food. Food stamp spending will no longer grow out of control. Out of control: 1984, $12.4 billion, 232.4 million people participating; 1996, $26.4 billion, 27.5. Under this bill, 1997, $26 billion; by the year 2002, $30.4 billion. It increases, does not decrease. It is a transition, but we stop that annual growth increase. If the economy goes down, food stamps went up. If the economy went up, food stamp spending went up and the participants went up. The food stamp deductions, as I have indicated, are kept at the current levels, and as I have indicated, the spending will certainly no longer grow out of control. Oversight from the Committee on Agriculture is essential so that when reforms are needed, why, the committee will act. I want to talk about the strong work program. Again, able-bodied persons between the ages of 18 and 50 years, no dependents, will be able to receive food stamps for 4 months. Eligibility will cease at the end of this period if they are not working at least 20 hours per week in a regular job. The rule will not apply to those who are in training programs such as approved by a Governor of a State. A State may request a waiver of these rules if the unemployment rates are high or there is a lack of jobs in the area. Please remember that. We are not heartless. We just expect able-bodied people between 18 and 50 who have no one relying upon them to work at least half the time if they want to continue to receive the food stamps. It is essential to begin to restore integrity to the program. Incidences of fraud and abuse and losses are steadily increasing. The public has lost confidence in the program. There are frequent reports in the press and on national television in regard to abuse. We held the hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture. The Inspector General of the Department, the new Inspector General, Roger Viadero, came down from the Department, showed on television the massive fraud in many food centers that were not food centers, they were trafficking centers for organized crime. Abuse of the program usually occurs in three ways: Fraudulent receipt of benefits by recipients; street trafficking in food stamps by recipients; and trafficking offenses made by retail and wholesale grocers. We double the disqualification periods for food stamp participants who intentionally defraud the program. First offense, the period is changed to 1 year. Second offense, the disqualification period is changed to 2 years. And then if you are convicted of trafficking food stamps with a value over $500, adios, you are permanently disqualified. As I have indicated, the trafficking by unethical wholesale and retail food stores is a serious problem, had it on tape, national television, sickened the American public, not fair to the recipient, not fair to the taxpayer. Also, benefits Congress appropriates for needy families are going to others who are making money from the program. Therefore, the bill limits the authorization period for stores and provides the Secretary of Agriculture with other means to ensure that only those stores abiding by the rules are authorized to accept food stamps. It is amazing that that was not changed before. Finally, the bill includes a provision that all property used to traffic in food stamps and the proceeds traceable to any property used to traffic in food stamps will be subject to criminal forfeiture. They have to give it up. This bill and the Committee on Agriculture's contribution to the bill, I think, represents good policy. We have kept the Food Stamp Program as a safety net for families in need of food. We have taken the program off of automatic pilot. We save $23 billion. Congress is back in control of spending on food stamps. States are provided with an option to harmonize food stamps with their new AFDC programs. We take steps to restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program by giving law enforcement and the Department additional means to curtail fraud and abuse. We encourage and facilitate the EBT programs. We begin a strong work program, again, so that able-bodied people, no dependents, between the ages of 18 and 50 years can receive food stamps for a limited amount of time without working. This represents good food stamp policy and reform. I hope all Members will agree with me and support this bill. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Small Business, the original author of welfare reform, and I ask unanimous consent that she be authorized to yield additional time to other Members.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has indicated, we are striving to do just that in regard to authorizing language. We have a rural health care bill that is supported in a bipartisan effort on behalf of the Rural Health Care Coalition; 146 Members now support this effort, so we can get the authorizing language. What I want to demonstrate to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee is this. Last year, 309 hospitals all throughout our rural areas have applied for these grants. Sixty-five new grants were awarded. With the funding we have for these programs now, that is going to end. When we have Medicare reimbursement problems, when we have miles to go in regards to servicing our area, when we have major health care reform and managed care reform, this is the way we are going to transition. These are good programs. We need the funding if we possibly can. We simply ask for $20 million, when it was cut by $26 million. It is very evident to me that with 309 hospitals applying for these grants almost on an emergency basis, I have small communities in my district who have no primary health care, a community of 8,000, which, with a grant, then had the primary care for 3,000 of these residents. We will simply have no health care in many, many areas. So I would plead with the chairman that once we do our job in regard to the Rural Health Care Coalition, we can have at least adequate funding under the severe budget restrictions that we have. I thank the chairman for listening.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. The distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin is the cochairman of the Rural Health Care Coalition. I had the privilege only a session ago, and I was going to rise in support of his amendment; I do, and it simply has been described by the gentleman very well. The problem is this bill includes only $4 billion for the rural health outreach grants. This is $27.3 million below the level of last year. As the gentleman has indicated, in the committee report we were supposed to get the full funding. This funding will provide support only for the continuation of grants that were funded before this year. As to the transition grants, and as the gentleman has indicated, both of these programs are vital to the rural health care delivery system, this bill simply zeros out all of the transition grant funding. Now, what the gentleman was trying to do and what I certainly was going to support him doing is that we are increasing the social services block grant $99 million. We were simply going to ask for an additional $20 million of restoring that funding that would be under last year's level. And so I guess I would ask the distinguished chairman of the full committee whether or not it is his intent when we go to conference, since I think, obviously, he is going to object when we offer this amendment, but could I have the assurance of the distinguished gentleman and the chairman, who I know has worked very hard, so that at least in conference we could restore these funds and we could restore a vital part of the rural health care delivery system?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. In the recent past I was the ranking Republican member serving on the House-Senate Joint Committee on Printing. That is the congressional entity with oversight of the GPO's operation. I have been over there many times and talked with many employees and many of the administrative folks down there as well. I think the basic problem here is the financial loss. In 1991, as has been stated in the debate, when the GPO lost $1.2 million, 1992 losses began to increase to $5.2 million; in 1994, losses topped out at $21.8 million. Even during this fiscal year, the GPO has already lost $13 million. Only the Federal Government, it seems to me, would continue to run an agency at a total loss to the taxpayer. There is a lot of red ink down there, we have to fix it. The first question that comes to mind is, where does all the money go in regard to the GPO? Every study that we have had in regard to this operation says about 80 percent of all the GPO costs are dedicated to personnel costs. Now, the second question that comes to mind is this: Why is so much money being lost? Well, I do not think we can blame the employees. That is not the intent. They are doing their jobs and they are doing them well, for that matter. Rather, it is the advanced technology that has been discussed on the floor in this regard and the move toward something called electronic printing that has changed the way that the GPO does business. The entire Government is using less paper and shifting to on-line services to gather and disperse information. The traditional customers of the GPO are simply turning to these alternatives to get their information much more quickly and in a cost-efficient manner. This amendment simply reflects the future of government as dictated by technology and as demanded by taxpayers. That is what the amendment is about. With this trend continuing toward less paper and more reliance on web sites and CD-ROM's, we will need fewer people to produce the government documents. I have said many times in the last few years, at many hearings, the world is changing and the GPO must change as well. While I recognize and appreciate the efforts of the GPO, I believe we must continue to guide the GPO down the path to a smaller, more efficient Government. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to reduce costs, just as all of the printing businesses on America's Main Streets do in the same situation. I would point out that last year this amendment or a very similar amendment received bipartisan support and the vote was 293-129. It reduced the FTE's by 350. That was down from 3,900 to 3,550. Then 250 FTE's were restored in conference. I believe the final conference version simply brought the FTE count to 3,800. So, first we achieved the reform, and then it is taken away in conference. First we make the cuts, which are reasonable cuts, by a vote of 293 to 129. Then 250 are restored in conference. So we really did not even do what the House voted for in the last session of Congress. This has nothing to do about employees, nothing to do about the good work at the GPO. It is advanced technology and the way the Government does its job in regard to that technology. So I am very happy to cosponsor the amendment on behalf of the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] and also my colleague from Wisconsin. I urge its support.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, in this case would it not be appropriate for the Chair to rule to invoke paragraph 365, or in similar instances of Jefferson's Manual, in which it is stated: Nevertheless if a Member finds that it is not the inclination of the House to hear him and that by conversation or any other noise they endeavor to drown his voice, it is his most prudent way to submit to the pleasure of the House and sit down, for it scarcely ever happens that they are guilty of this piece of ill manners without sufficient reason or inattention to a Member who says anything worth their hearing. Would that not apply in this particular instance?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, today, in the Cape Girardeau First Presbtyerian Church, in very emotional but appropriate services, the loving family, friends, colleagues, and constituents of Bill Emerson bade farewell and paid tribute to our dear friend and colleague. Mr. Speaker, just 2 days ago, Member after Member of this body rose in an outpouring of personal tribute to our late colleague; the comments diverse in content but uniform in affection, appreciation, and sense of personal loss. A veteran member of this House observed the tribute to Bill was the most far reaching in terms of both time and members that has been witnessed in recent times. Mr. Speaker, the American Heritage Dictionary defines `'eulogy'' as a public speech or tribute extolling the virtues or achievements of a person and honoring one recently deceased. The eulogy for Bill was given by his longtime friend and trusted assistant, Lloyd Smith, and in his remarks, Lloyd provided all of us a life portrait of Bill so fitting to our celebration of his life. In behalf of the Speaker and all of those present, we thank Lloyd for his most fitting, appropriate and comforting tribute. I commend to my colleagues and to the citizens of his beloved Eighth Congressional District and this country that he served so well, the eulogy in behalf of our friend, the Honorable Bill Emerson, Congressman from the Eighth Congressional District of Missouri. The eulogy referred to is as follows: Marie, Jo Ann, Liz, Abby, Tori, Kathryn, Mr Speaker, Colleagues and the many friends of Bill Emerson, both here in this beautiful sanctuary and around the area, today I have the distinct honor and pleasure to share a few words about the life journey of our friend Bill Emerson. This extraordinary journey makes this day a day of celebration. Even in his passing Bill had the last word. Now, why should that be different? Because in my 15 years of working for him, he always had the last word. You know, I'm doing this today because Bill dictated it in a memo, and I always did what Bill told me to do-- (particularly if it was in writing). Bill's biography is known to most, and although it is well know, in rereading it I found a grievous error. The Committee assignments were correct, both Agriculture and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure--but the first line in the second paragraph reads--``Bill's political career began at the age of 15 when he was appointed a Page in the U.S. House of Representatives.'' Now folks, that is simply not the fact. Bill's career began on the knee of a sage politician in Jefferson County. Bill's political career and life's journey began when he listened to Associate County Judge Bill (Fritz) Reinemer tell stories about political battles. Mr. Reinemer, Marie's father (and Bill's grandfather), was the strongest political influence in Bill's life. He urged young William (along with Marie's teaching guidance) to read newspapers, 2 or 3 a day, ``because you never know which one is distorting the facts.'' As a Mayor and county school board member, Grandpa Reinemer taught little Billy to listen to people--to listen to people. So, the beginning of Bill Emerson's political journey was on his Grandpa's knee. Most people think that his Page experience was his first trip to Washington, DC. It wasn't. He had previously traveled there with his Mom and Margaret Kelly, our State Auditor, and her mom. He may have caught the national political fever on that trip. Because his next journey to DC was in January 1953, to see Ike (the beloved General) inaugurated as the 34th President of the United States. He traveled by train alone at 15 years of age, and with only one brown suit. While there Congressman Tom Curtis tracked Bill down and offered him a Page position in the House of Representatives. The problem was the job started in two days and Billy didn't have a blue suit. He bought one and some black shoes and called his Mom and told her the news. Marie had sent her 15- year old son to Washington, DC alone on a train, and now her only child had been appointed a Page in the U.S. House. Marie cried, and old Judge Reinemer went straight to a Republican Township meeting and celebrated and told them Billy wasn't with him because he had gone to help Ike run the country--and even better, the Republicans were in the majority in Congress. The journey continued. While in Page school, Bill met Paul Kanjorski, who is here today and they were not only roommates and Pages in the Congress, they also served together as Members. Bill and Mr. Kanjorski were there when the Puerto Rican Nationals shot up the House of Representatives from the gallery. They helped carry Members from the chamber. Following this incident, the journey would continue and would lead to graduation from the House Page School, Westminster College, and the University of Baltimore. The next part of his life's journey included working with Congressman Bob Ellsworth of Kansas and Congressman Senator Mac Mathias of Maryland, and many corporate jobs. Along this early way, Bill married and had two wonderful children, Liz and Abby--and then the journey really got exciting for Southeast Missouri. In 1979 Bill came home a 6th generation Missourian and threw caution and his corporate career to the wind. He ran for and won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives by defeating a 6-term incumbent (no one could believe it--since the seat had not been held by a republican in years). His journey mates in 1980 were his wife Jo Ann, and his new daughter Tori, as well as Liz and Abby. Jo Ann, a politician in her own right, pounded the streets and campaigned with Bill side-by-side. The journey which had begun at his granddad's knee now had come again to the U.S. House of Representatives, but now Bill was a Member of the institution he loved. His campaign manager in 1980 was Peter Kinder, now a MO State Senator. His political consultant was Al Sikes--who is with us today. Bill won with a coalition of conservative democrats and republicans, and he continued to win because he never forgot his grandfather's admonition to listen to the people. With Bill, there were no democrats or republicians--only constituents. (Newspaper editorial--Emercrats) He said yes to his constituents with expanded services and answering the mail (he loved signing those letters and catching those mistakes). On numerous occasions he would ask if every ``t'' had been crossed and every ``I'' dotted. He personally wanted to make sure the right envelope was with the right letter--even after we started using window envelopes. Bill was, in the words of our junior U.S. Senator, John Ascroft, ``of the people.'' To quote the old saying he ``danced with those what brung him.'' His journey of service to the 8th district included touring farms, the National Forest, the clear running Ozark streams, and his beloved Mississippi River all across our 26 country district. Bill would often comment that our Congressional District is 5000 square miles larger than the country of Switzerland. He loved the people and we loved him. His staff, whom he loved and encouraged, is a legacy to Bill. Numerous of the staff and volunteers have gone on to elective offices and stellar careers. Although he trusted his staff, in certain cases when the final decision was made--it was always his decision. As he reminded us many times--``you know I am the Congressman.'' The journey included a deep love of family. He could name his first, second and third cousins, and all his aunts, uncles and great aunts and uncles by name. His love and deepest pride was for his daughters. He cherished his time with them and would brag about Tori's grades and softball finesse; Kathryn's soccer success and her outstanding oboe playing abilities. He rejoiced with each new career advancement of Liz and Abby. He loved them all and only regretted he had not spent more time with them. And, that's why today the family should know that the journey included them in a very important way. Marie, Jo Ann, Liz, Abby, Tori, and Kathryn, shared Bill with this District. His accomplishments are their accomplishments as well. Whether it's new bridge here at Cape, a new Highway 60, providing food for the starving in Somalia or the hungry here at home, or helping the disabled person, you were a part of the journey. You shared with half a million people, the most precious resource--your son's, your husband's and your father's time. You allowed Bill's journey to include all of us and we consider you family--just as he considered us family. Probably the pinnacle of his Congressional career was chairing the House of Representatives on opening day of the 104th Congress, the institution he loved. A man ``of the people,'' the journey had bridged the Republican 83rd Congress of 1953, and the Republican Congress of 1995. We all rejoiced with him. There was another part of the life journey of Bill Emerson--the spiritual side. He loved his Lord, and in recent years and months, had been heavily involved in the Thursday Morning Prayer Breakfast and also a small chapel group that met each Tuesday. It seems to me that after chairing the National Prayer Breakfast in 1993, his spiritual journey became his mainstay--whether it was helping those that had substance abuse problems or spreading the gospel to places such as the former Soviet Union--he, indeed, felt ``a calling to spiritually reach out to his fellowman.'' He loved uplifting music and sometimes driving down the highway we would strike up a gospel favorite. An ongoing joke was that we needed to keep the windows rolled up because we could be charged with noise pollution. One of our favorite scriptures was Isaiah 40:30-31-- ``Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall: but those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.'' Last Saturday the journey on this earth for Bill ended, but I know, and the family knows, that Bill soared on wings like eagles, and he now runs and is not faint. In your program is Bill's favorite Theodore Roosevelt quote: ``It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is not effort without error and shortcoming, but who does actually strive to do the deeds, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.'' Bill's journey into the arena of life touched many of us. One staff member, in a note to Bill on Saturday, wrote ``I am honored to have been a part of your team on earth and one day we will be on the same team again.'' Today, Bill's journey on this earth will end at the place it began--in the small community of Hillsboro, at his grandfather's side. But his eternal journey has already started, and the hymns he's singing now in glory, exceed his beloved Mormon Tabernacle Choir. To his family and friends he would state the Prince of Wales quote as he sent the troops into battle--``Be strong to endure and resolute to overcome.'' Another Emerson handwritten note to a departing staff member read: ``I'm sorry I missed you, but I'm not good at saying goodbye, and besides it's not goodbye--just altered circumstances.'' Thank you Bill Emerson for taking us on this journey with you. Remember, it is not ``goodbye--just altered circumstances.'' God Bless the family and all of you.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his effort and leadership. As has been indicated many times, there is a picture of Bill Emerson when he was a page in the Republican cloakroom leading the way in regards to assisting the wounded Members that were shot back in 1955, and he has been leading the way ever since. We have had a virtual outpouring of affection and love for Bill here on the floor, as was the case a week ago Wednesday when the Jefferson Island Club, made up of many Members on both sides, named Bill their man of the year. I think the word that really applies to Bill more than anything else is courage. I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] and myself were there when he took that very courageous step to go to the Betty Ford Center, and he has been such a leader and has exhibited even more courage in such a manner to those, as expressed by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad]. Bill was a back rail troop, as has been indicated by the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Volkmer, and the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Talent, and others. He would be back there as of today probably saying this is going on a little too much. In that regard, we had many discussions about Eisenhower and Taft and Lincoln and politics and Kansas and Missouri and family and everything else. We are family in the House Committee on Agriculture, and we said this as of last Monday, ``We suffered a deep loss both professionally and personally at the passing of our dear friend and colleague, Bill Emerson.'' From a personal standpoint, we came to Congress together back in 1981. We have served side-by-side on the Committee on Agriculture ever since. Four farm bills, countless legislative battles, he has been a unique champion for farmers and ranchers. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] the distinguished chairman emeritus of the Committee on Agriculture, has a statement as well, but I think it is interesting that at 1:30 in the morning when we finally finished the farm bill, Bill did not comment on some of the amendments, he did not comment on the farm bill, but when it came time to pay tribute to Mr. de la Garza, the longest serving chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Bill got up, and even though he was sick and had lost his voice, he paid tribute to Kika It was at that time that I turned and said, Bill Emerson, we love you. Something has already been said about his motto for living. It was only a week ago Thursday he was sitting right over there looking very much like Winston Churchill, and he was in the process of making all those votes, and he got this quorum call card and he gave it to me, and as has been said before, he wrote on it, ``Roberts, I want you to be strong to endure and resolute to overcome.'' How many Members did he say that to? It is what the Prince of Wales said to the troops prior to World War I, and I have kept it. I have kept it ever since and I will keep it. My colleagues, Helen Steiner Rice said this on such occasions. When I must leave you for a little while, please go on bravely with a gallant smile. And for my sake and in my name, live on and do all things the same. Spend not your life in empty days, but fill each waking hour in useful ways. Reach out your hand in comfort and in cheer, and I in turn will comfort you and hold you near. That is Bill Emerson. God bless you, Bill, and we miss you.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation concerning the Food Stamp Program and the electronic benefit transfer [EBT] system, on behalf of myself and Bill Emerson, the chairman of the Department Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee, who is an expert in the food stamp and EBT programs. We are introducing this bill, along with other members of the Committee on Agriculture, because we believe that EBT systems, in which food stamp benefits are provided through a debit card system instead of coupons, are the preferred choice of delivering food benefits. The inspector general of USDA, in his testimony of February 1, 1995, before the committee, made it clear that EBT systems, while not eliminating trafficking in food stamps, were superior to coupons and a tool that can be used in tracking down persons abusing the Food Stamp Program. It is vital that States be allowed to proceed with implementation of EBT systems for the Food Stamp Program. An element that is standing in the way of implementation of EBT is a Federal Reserve Board rule known as regulation E. This rule, among other provisions, would create a new entitlement to the replacement of food stamps for persons receiving their benefits under an EBT system. The bill we are introducing provides that regulation E will not apply to the Food Stamp Program. The National Governors' Association supports exemption of State and local EBT programs from the regulation E provisions and have stated their opposition to unfunded mandates that are created by the liability provisions of regulation E. The National Governors' Association also stated that without this exemption, States will not be able to move forward with EBT. For more than 10 years the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], at the direction of Congress, has been investigating the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and general impact of using an electronic benefit transfer [EBT] system to issue food stamp benefits. Paper coupons are replaced and recipients use a debit-like card at the grocery store checkout. Counties in several States, including Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Mexico, and New Jersey have implemented EBT and Maryland, Texas, Utah, and South Carolina have EBT systems statewide. USDA has found that EBT administrative costs are lower than coupon issuance costs; that food stamp benefit loss and trafficking are reduced; grocery store costs are reduced; food stamp participants prefer EBT; and financial institutions also prefer EBT and their costs are reduced. Law enforcement officials have spoken in favor of EBT because it provides an electronic trail of abuses in the program. While trafficking is not eliminated under an EBT system, incidental street trafficking is reduced considerably. States want to move ahead with EBT. Regulation E rules stand in their way. Until recently, USDA viewed regulation E as inappropriate for the Food Stamp Program. USDA, in May 1993, stated its opposition to the applicability of regulation E to its programs because those programs do not fall under the jurisdiction of that regulation; legislation and regulations for the USDA programs already have provisions for benefit recipient rights and protection; and regulation E may reduce benefit recipient's services. However, in June 1995, the Federal Electronic Benefits Transfer Task Force, represented by officials from the Office of Management and Budget, the USDA, and the Department of Health and Human Services, stated its opposition to removing regulation E applicability for the food stamp and other assistance programs. This is very unfortunate and this position is contrary to the positions of the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, and the American Public Welfare Association. According to a 1993 Department of the Treasury study, application of regulation E for State EBT systems would cost States over $800 million per year for Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC], food stamp and general assistance programs. This represents an unfunded mandate to the States and many States have said they could cease EBT program planning and operations if regulation E is applied to them. For these reasons we are introducing this bill today and urge our colleagues to support it.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3562, a bill to authorize the State of Wisconsin to implement the demonstration project known as Wisconsin Works. Gov. Tommy Thompson is a recognized leader in the area of welfare reform. He, and other Governors across the United States, have worked diligently to improve the manner in which public assistance benefits are provided to our neediest citizens. However, they cannot do this without reducing the mandates of the Federal Government. Governor Thompson and other Governors need our help in getting relief from the heavy hand of Washington bureaucrats. The Federal waiver process is time consuming and States are pressured to drop certain waiver requests, thereby changing the design of State reforms. That is why we are here today. The bill before the House of Representatives today provides that relief to Wisconsin. The Federal waivers that are necessary to implement the Wisconsin Works Program are granted through this bill. The bill ensures that no additional cost will accrue to the Federal Government. The Wisconsin Works Program offers its participants the opportunity to earn wages and to learn how to increase their value to employers. Wisconsin has been testing various methods of reforming the welfare system for several years. Its other demonstration projects include, Work Not Welfare, Work First, Children First, and Pay for Performance. The consistent theme throughout all of these projects, and incorporated in the Wisconsin Works Program, is the expectation of personal responsibility and the goal of independence and a promising future for welfare participants. Governor Thompson's proposal for Wisconsin Works includes waivers applicable to the Food Stamp Program. As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, which has responsibility for the Food Stamp Program, I certainly appreciate the need for reform of this program. The first hearing held when I became chairman of the Committee on Agriculture was on the Food Stamp Program. Our committee has developed a comprehensive reform of the program and it is incorporated in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. This reform emphasizes work for able-bodied persons, promotes real jobs with incentives, allows States to harmonize welfare programs with the Food Stamp Program, and curbs trafficking and fraud with increased penalties. The waivers to the Food Stamp Program incorporated in this bill provide Wisconsin the ability to match its program with the Food Stamp Program in the areas of certification, employment, and training programs and work requirements. Additionally, for those persons in the Wisconsin Works Program who also receive food stamps, food benefits will be provided in cash. The Wisconsin program includes a mandatory nutrition education program. Wisconsin believes that for its participants to become self-sufficient, they need to know how to budget for food purchases, without the parameters specified by the use of food coupons. Wisconsin estimates that approximately half of the families receiving food stamps will be provided cash instead of food stamps. I am not generally in favor of substituting cash for food stamp benefits. One of the important tenets of our welfare reform proposal was that food stamps would remain as the safety net program during the transition of reforming welfare. Food is a basic need and must be available to low-income families. I am encouraged the Wisconsin Works Program includes a mandatory nutrition education component so that families will receive education on how to budget funds to ensure good diets. In addition, the cash-out of food stamps is linked to a program with strong work requirements. USDA, over the years, has approved several demonstration programs that issue cash instead of food stamps and almost half of the States operate some form of a cash-out program. As with those other programs, I intend to watch the Wisconsin program so that we will know that Federal dollars provided for food are indeed spent on food. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 3562 and the Wisconsin Works Program. The President has expressed support for the Wisconsin Works Program and Congressman Kleczka's substitute amendment, provided for in the rule, urges the administration to approve waivers necessary to allow Wisconsin to carry out its program.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, on July 15, 1995, the Secretary of Agriculture wrote to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget indicating that ``since many short- and long-term agricultural planning activities are weather dependent, there exists a need for timely meteorological information to support efficient and cost- effective management decisions.'' On April 1, 1996, against the interests of the agricultural community, the Department of Commerce's National Weather Service terminated the Agricultural Weather Service. As it is currently drafted, I believe H.R. 3322 limits our ability to maintain the accuracy and reliability of weather information which is essential for American farmers. The collection, quality, and reporting of agricultural weather data should remain a Federal responsibility. Without Federal responsibility to collect and distribute weather data, the specialized forecasts and private sector agricultural weather services may not remain viable. Furthermore, I believe that the private sector has not yet properly demonstrated it is ready to assume responsibility for agricultural weather data collection and dissemination. The Department of Agriculture is familiar with farming and the collection and dissemination of agricultural weather data. Therefore, I believe that the Department of Agriculture is the most suitable agency for this service. The Department of Agriculture has ongoing relationships with the land-grant colleges and universities, and via the Extension Service can ensure that this information is made available to all producers. Therefore, I would encourage the National Weather Service to work cooperatively with the Department of Agriculture to explore ways to continue to provide agricultural weather data and ultimately transfer this responsibility to the Department of Agriculture. It is my hope that as Congress continues its work on H.R. 3322, and until such time that action can be taken to transfer the Agricultural Weather Service to the Department of Agriculture, that this important and essential service will be continued through the Department of Commerce. Additionally, funding for this service should continue through Commerce, State, Justice appropriations.