Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 22, a resolution commending the USDA Agricultural Research Service for their 50 years of service to America. For half a century now, the ARS has been a leader in publicly- funded basic and applied research. Given the structure of U.S. agriculture, individual family farms are certainly not able to provide for their own technical and research needs. Publicly-funded research entities such as ARS can provide the lead for long-term projects and have been an obvious and significant success to the benefit of the American people. Over the years, ARS scientists have made hundreds of technical advances, released thousands of new plant varieties, and contributed to the abundant food supply that all our citizens enjoy. My own State and district have benefited in many tangible ways from the work of the Agricultural Research Service, and I doubt that there are any of us here today who could not say the same thing. The ARS has contributed so very much to advances in the quality and quantity of our food supply, benefiting rural and urban dwellers alike. I congratulate the Agricultural Research Service on their 50 years of service and I look forward to continue working with them to enhance both American agriculture and the well-being of all our citizens. I encourage all Members to support this well-deserved resolution of commendation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 1367, the National Veterinary Medical Services Act. I want to commend the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for their good work in advancing this legislation. Assuring an adequate supply of veterinarians in many underserved rural and urban areas is a critical issue for our Nation's animal health infrastructure. It is generally private veterinarians who are the first to identify and respond to animal disease outbreaks. In addition, there is a great need for private veterinarians to supplement the Federal response during future animal health emergencies. The assistance that this legislation will provide to encourage veterinary practice in underserved areas, along with the creation of something like a ``National Guard'' for private veterinarians who can be called up in emergencies, should wisely enhance our preparation to deal with future animal health emergencies. The bill under consideration will help to encourage both goals through a very modest public investment with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I believe H.R. 1367 is a good, cost-effective policy. I encourage Members to support passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would ask to engage the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) on behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) in a brief colloquy. During the Committee consideration of H.R. 1367, I raised some concerns about the potential that implementation of this bill, should it be passed and signed into law, might include an arbitrary graduation cutoff date for veterinarians wishing to participate. We certainly do not want to preclude participation by veterinarians that may have years of valuable experience. This has been a problem with regard to a different educational loan repayment program that folks from my district have tried to access in the past. It is my understanding that nothing in this legislation before us today would encourage the establishment of such a standard by USDA. It is my understanding that any veterinarian who meets the general standards for participation would be eligible to apply for this program no matter how long might have elapsed since her or his graduation from an accredited school of veterinary medicine. Is that the gentleman's understanding of the bill language?

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for helping to make this point clear. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 3217, legislation to convey several small parcels of National Forest System land in the Apalachicola National Forest in order to resolve boundary discrepancies involving the U.S. Forest Service and the Mt. Trial Primitive Baptist Church of Wakulla County, Florida. Briefly, H.R. 3217 would allow the Mt. Trial church to expand a cemetery that it maintains next to its church building. This legislation would correct boundary discrepancies that resulted from the church and the Forest Service claiming ownership to the same 10-acre tract of land. By way of background, the Mt. Trial Primitive Baptist Church is a historically African American church that purchased 10 acres of land in the 1930s in anticipation of expanding its cemetery. The church, however, never recorded the deed for the land purchased at the local county courthouse. In 1938, the U.S. Forest Service purchased the same 10 acres of land as part of a larger tract that was incorporated into the Apalachicola National Forest. In that instance, the Forest Service did record its deed; and while there is no dispute about the validity of the church's purchase, the Department of Agriculture's legal counsel has ruled that because the Federal Government did file its deed with the county, it is the rightful owner of the property. I would also note that two graves are already located on the Federal Government property and the church's existing cemetery is full. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3217 will solve the boundary discrepancies by giving the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to transfer the property to the Mt. Trial Primitive Baptist Church. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure. This measure has been brought to our attention by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3157 is a bipartisan piece of legislation that attempts to address the very serious issue of USDA program coordination and information dissemination during times of federally declared national disasters. Currently, there is no statutory requirement that USDA make a representative available at the Emergency Operations Center following a catastrophic disaster. As a result, if a farmer or rancher suffers a loss due to a natural disaster, there is no USDA point of contact on site to answer questions or provide information about departmental relief programs. Such information is obviously critical, and this legislation simply ensures that farmers and ranchers will have access to an on-site USDA point of contact. While expressing support for this bill, let me briefly address a bigger issue for farmers and ranchers that have been adversely affected by a disaster. The fact is there are only minimal standing disaster programs within USDA to help farmers and ranchers deal with the variety of losses that can occur as a result of a natural disaster. In effect, all that USDA on-site points of contact can do is to tell farmers and ranchers, Sorry, the United States Department of Agriculture cannot help you. In addition, farmers and ranchers do not qualify for Small Business Administration programs and, in point of fact, receive very little help from FEMA. So again, while I support H.R. 3157, the bigger question is what can be done to provide farmers and ranchers with greater certainty in terms of permanent disaster programs so that they may have some hope of recovering from such disasters.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2304, legislation to resolve boundary conflicts in the vicinity of the Mark Twain National Forest in Barry and Stone Counties, Missouri, resulting from private landowner reliance on a subsequent Federal survey. These boundary conflicts resulted from discrepancies between recent land surveys conducted by the U.S. Forest Service and its implementation of the Restoration of Original Corners Program, and decades-old surveys conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. As a result of the more recent land surveys, private property lands adjoining Federal lands were moved, and private property landowners discovered that, due to their reliance on the older land surveys, they had inadvertently trespassed on Federal land. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2304 would remedy these boundary discrepancies by authorizing and directing the Secretary of Agriculture to convey title to U.S. Forest Service land on which private landowners can demonstrate that they inadvertently trespassed because of their reliance on a previous inaccurate Federal survey, or relied on a survey based on a previous inaccurate survey. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in order to resolve these boundary discrepancies. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this motion is really very simple. It is basically intending to return this body to regular process. I know this is a novel idea around here lately, but it requires the managers of the House to meet in open session with the Senate conferees, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, as soon as practicable after the adoption of this motion. In addition, it requires the conferees to file a conference report no later than Thursday, November 13. The November 13 deadline is meant to highlight the imperative nature of the Healthy Forests legislation. However, we all recognize the time-consuming nature of conferences and the short time frame this will provide, but let me remind Members, we have been talking about this issue for years. I remember when it was chairman Bob Smith of the Committee on Agriculture, and the tremendous work he did all over this country in trying to reach out and find a compromise. It was turned down. If we are going to deal with problems as severe as what we have now witnessed in California, it means some strongly-held beliefs are going to have to be compromised in order to do things that some folks do not want to see done; but most people believe and will agree that they must be done if we are going to accomplish what is needed for our national forests. The important part of my motion is the requirement that the conferees meet and deliberate on the merits of the Senate and House proposals. We will hear that the Senate has a finely tuned deal if it breaks up, everything breaks up. I hope that is not going to be the argument. I hope that we can have a meaningful conference. The House Committee on Agriculture has a reputation, a long-held reputation, of working in a bipartisan way and that is why we accomplish as much good for our Nation as we do. No Speaker, no majority leader, would ever dare rewrite a farm bill in the Committee on Rules or in the leadership office. It has been tried, but it has never worked. I am personally very disturbed by what I have seen going on in the energy conference. I am very interested in energy legislation, and I am very disturbed when the leadership of this body suggests that they are the only ones that can write this legislation. This body does not work well when we do some of the things that we have been doing in this body over the last several years. On the Committee on Agriculture, we have a history of bipartisan cooperation. Many of my colleagues have suggested that we simply take the Senate bill, pass it and send it to the President. I am not supportive of that procedure. We need to reach a consensus on the issue surrounding the Healthy Forests legislation. I know many on the far left and many on the far right will say that is impossible, but both sides of the aisle have a responsibility to come to the table with a willingness to compromise. This is an issue that demands just that kind of process if we are going to deal with disasters like we have just seen in California, disasters like we have seen all over Colorado, and all over areas of this country that are witnessing what happens when we do what we have done over the last several decades in the handling of our national forests. The record is there. I think the House bill is a good bill. It was put together with bipartisan support, not unanimity of opinion. There were differences held, and we will never get 100 percent to agree because politically that is impossible. But I think if we do our job in this conference, as this simple motion, as I said in the beginning, a novel idea that we actually allow this House of Representatives to function as was intended by our forefathers who wrote the Constitution, gave us the responsibility to deliberate and set forth under the rules of order of this body how we should go about it. Yes, we can do it in a very short period of time if we are willing to. So I hope and fully expect, since I cannot imagine any controversy over this motion today, that it will pass. That is not what I am most interested in, though. I am very interested in seeing the process work. I think this body will be better off if at least one committee, and there are a few others that still function in a bipartisan way, but very few. The energy bill is a prime example of how not to run this House. The Medicare pharmaceutical bill is an example of how not to run this House. Maybe we need a good example. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would just say I appreciate the tenor of this discussion and debate today, because that is exactly what we intended from this motion. It is the history of the Committee on Agriculture, working with other committees, to let the process of the House of Representatives work its will and come together in compromise. Compromise has never been a four letter word to me or to anyone else in this body. It means that some have to give on some very strongly held beliefs. Sometimes it means to have to say no to some of the organizations who take a great deal of interest in this process. My friend from California mentioned a moment ago that down in my district, when we clear out the underbrush, we take two Caterpillars and a string of chain between them and drag it across it. I want to go a little further with that. We do that for a different reason; we do that to preserve moisture. In fact, we have a couple of bills pending right now, working with my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), on salt cedar. In areas of arid Texas and New Mexico and Colorado and other areas, more New Mexico and Texas in this instance, we have a need of controlling brush to preserve water so that our people will have something to drink. But here a little novel idea just popped into my mind, because when we clear brush in Texas, many times the landowners pay for all of it themselves, if they can, and many of them can and do. They expect no one to come in and help them clear out the trash on their own land. In many cases though we have cost-share. We have programs that are set up that are designed to provide cost-sharing. We have got an excellent one going in Texas, in which the State of Texas puts up a share of money, the local landowner puts up a share of money, in some cases the local county puts up a share, and the property owner is expected to put up their share of the money. The Federal Government then puts up its share. This is an idea that I think we ought to pursue as we go into a conference on this, because the gentleman from California is exactly right, we are not talking about forest lands in the area many a time that have been burning recently in California. We are talking about a different kind of problem that needs to be solved, and can be solved, if we would just put our shoulder to the wheel and solve it. Resource limitations are very real, that is true; but also doing nothing is not an option. Even though in my district we do not have any forests, I recognize the importance of the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), all of my colleagues that have spoken today. Everyone now recognizes that this debate has gone on longer than it should. We are that close. We have two bills. It is not impossible. In fact, it is more than possible that we can achieve what we are saying with this motion to instruct today. It will just take the sincere dedication that we know we have on the House Committee on Agriculture, working with the Committee on Resources. And I know it exists with the Senate. We have always had, when it comes to agriculture, an excellent working relationship to go to conference, to work it out. That is exactly what this motion does. I hope the House will accept it.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I took it exactly like the gentleman meant it. It was a compliment. I appreciate the support in this, because in many cases some of the folks do not agree with us on doing that either.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one of the requirements that I have had all along in this is do not muck around with my mesquite trees, whatever you do. But now we are talking about a very good, constructive use of mesquite trees. We have now got delineated, outlined clearly, how we can provide more of it, and we have a market for it, so I already see some benefits to this bill that are going to accrue to the 17th Congressional District of Texas in the new market for mesquite trees. But here let us get back to seriousness. I hope we can do what this motion does. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. That is correct.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have done better than that. I have had them drill on my own property. They drilled 11 dry holes which I have had discussions with them as to why they could not do a better job of finding oil under my property than just drilling dry holes. But from the standpoint of the basic in the gentleman's exchange with the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), we used to have a very bad situation in Texas, and I can show my colleagues land in my community that was literally destroyed by the oil and gas industry because of their inability and unwillingness to protect it. That was 50 years ago. Today, when the last well that was drilled on my property, again a dry hole, one cannot tell they were there today. They do an excellent job because that is the rules and regulations that Texas imposes upon the oil and gas industry, and I believe that is basically true all over the United States today. The question before us, though, it is not just oil and gas producers that are opposed to these proposed storm water regulations being imposed unilaterally across the board on every possible site. It is also my small towns and communities have got real problems with this, home developers, et cetera, because in dry West Texas, we can impose some of these regulations based on the possibility of rain and spend more money than one can possibly get out of the investment that they are going in. So it would have a very damaging effect on economic development.

Mr. STENHOLM. A couple of days. They would go in and dig the slush pit. The next thing, the drill rigs are there.

Mr. STENHOLM. And they have to dig a pit that will hold that which they are going to use on that particular site.

Mr. STENHOLM. Under current law, that is correct.