Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I, too, think this is a good amendment. It could be very complementary to the activity that is already going on in the biotechnology community. Since science-based information is required, this is an excellent amendment; and I, too, join in its support.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just quickly a few comments. Earlier we had comments about the 17 sugar growers. I would refer every one of my colleagues to the current edition of the Forbes Magazine to see the 400 richest people in the world and look at how many have done very well in the sugar industry in the United States. Take a look at the CEO salaries of Coalition for Sugar Reform. I cannot believe some Members have the gall to come here and to complain about the sugar industry in the United States. We have 400,000 jobs on the line. There are 400,000 producers. If this amendment passes, they will go out of business in the United States because we cannot lower the prices anymore to producers in the United States and stay in business. That is the given fact of this amendment. We talk about the consumer, American consumers have got the best bargain in the world with the exception of Canada and Australia. Canada and Australia consumers get a better deal at the sugar counter than we do. But take a look at the advantage that Australia and Canada have in the value of the dollar. When we talk about the free market and the free enterprise system, if we are having to compete, whether it is in sugar or airplanes or whatever we are in, if we have to compete, in this case with sugar, and Canada being the largest importer of sugar into the United States, they have roughly a 50 percent advantage. That means where our growers are getting rounded off 20 cents, they are not, it is less than that, the Canadian sugar grower gets 30 cents just because the value of the dollar. We cannot compete with that. Take a look at the facts. Wholesale prices of sugar have dropped by 30 percent since 1990 to 2000. Since 1996, a 28 percent drop. But has any product that uses sugar dropped? The answer is no. The price of everything that uses sugar goes up. We have been through this argument every year, every year. We seem to have a dedicated agenda on the part of some who use agricultural products, that the only way to benefit the consumer is to drive our producers out of business. I respectfully disagree with that. Take a look at the bill we have. We recognize we have a surplus of sugar. We recognize the current program has not worked and we change it. But we do not change it in a manner in which we destroy the producers in the United States. We manage to continue to be able to have, well, not a level playing field, but at least give them a chance. If the Miller-Miller amendment passes, producers in America will have no chance. Vote against the amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her concern in this area. I join in the support of the chairman for her amendment. I thank her for her interest in this.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have been through five of these debates on farm bills now over my almost 23 years here, and at this point in time I usually come to the same conclusion. I come back and think of the words of Will Rogers when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much, it's them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.'' As I have listened to so many well-intentioned individuals who support this amendment, which I am very enthusiastically opposed to, we tend to stretch the truth for all good and valid purposes. Let me say this. As I attended all of the 10 field hearings last year and most, if not all, of every one of the full committee hearings this year, I, at some point in time, acknowledged that this was going to be the greenest farm bill in the five that I have participated in and I was going to be supporting it. To those that criticize us for not having a green enough farm bill, look at it compared to, we have heard the numbers, a 78 percent increase in conservation. Now, I wanted $5 billion. I could have stood on this floor with those of my colleagues who are for the Boehlert amendment today and argued for them. In fact, I did. Earlier this year, when I supported the Blue Dog budget, we had $5 billion a year for conservation. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) voted no. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) voted no. I can go down the list of everyone else who were original cosponsors of the bill, that when they had a chance to put the money in to do what they say today, they did not do it. Which is fine. I want to say right up front, anybody who wants to challenge me, anybody who wants to enter into a little debate, I will willing to talk to them. I will not be offended if they interrupt me. I think we need a little discussion on these points because some of our colleagues are going to get a little confused about what the facts are. I would support more. But, remember, the budget that we passed gave the Committee on Agriculture $79 billion to work with. Now, I lost, you won. I worked with my chairman to bring a bill to the floor, $79 billion, of which we spent $5.5 on emergency; and we have $73.5 left. Fine. I would love to do more for the commodities that my colleagues want to take away from. In fact, I have a difficult time convincing my farmers and other farmers in the country that having a bill that gives you 1990 price guarantees is a good bill. Now, some of my colleagues would cut from that. This amendment that is before us, you just say we are going to hold harmless 90 percent and we are going to take it from 10 percent. Now, the 90 percent that you hold harmless are landlords, retirees, hobby farmers, investors, and some producers, some producers. The 10 percent are all producers that happen to produce 85 percent of all of the food and fiber that is produced in this country. Now, would we like to do more? Absolutely. The problem the committee had was we had to balance competing interests. We had nutrition concerns. I am proud of the nutrition title and most everyone in this body on both sides of the aisle that are concerned about feeding the hungry people and doing more are also supportive of this bill. I would love to do more for rural development. I could do it, but we did not have the money. And we get criticized because we are busting the budget. The President says we are busting the budget. No, we are not. We are not. The budget passed. I would love to do more in the area of research. We can justify it. But the Committee on Agriculture, 51 of us, had to look at the competing interests and had to put together a bill that would do the best possible job we could for each of those, and that was our judgment. Now, I do not begrudge anybody for coming in here and having a different opinion. I do not. In fact, that is why we asked for an open rule. But anyone that votes for this amendment and expects us to move forward with a balanced bill, you are going to be absolutely and completely disappointed. It cannot be done. The chairman has stated it very clearly, I support him 100 percent, and to all of those who have other interests on my side of the aisle, be careful what you vote for lest you might get it. This is the best possible bill we could bring to this body to send to the other body for the President's consideration, based on the art of the possible, based on the competing interests. Now, I find it interesting that when we start talking about payments, the gentleman from Wisconsin said, 174 percent of the net farm income last year was government payments, and yet somehow the gentleman proposes to cut those and feels that he is going to be benefited.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess this is what is troubling. Personally, I oppose cockfighting. I mean that is our State law, and that is my personal feeling. But I am troubled, as so often is the case, when we pass amendments that do that which we all want to do, there are unintended consequences. It seems to me that if we have a State in which an activity is legal, whether I agree with it or not is immaterial, so long as it is constitutional. I am troubled by this wording and unintended consequences that might then be interpreted in other areas in which none of us can even think about right now. But if the gentleman is going to say to a State that has made the determination as yet that it is still legal and then we are going to begin prosecuting legal activities within a State that ship to another country, we are getting into interstate commerce; and I am not sure all of this is what the gentleman intends to do. I raise this question. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification of his intent, but I think it points out that there can be some very, very serious unintended consequences. As I say, in Texas we outlawed it a long time ago; you cannot do it legally in Texas, and I agree with that. I agree with our law enforcement that are having a difficult time doing what the gentleman is trying to prohibit, but I also worry about the unintended consequences.

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

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for that answer. Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) if he might know, what would be the administration's position on this amendment, were it not out of order because of budget reasons?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his clarification. I am not an attorney, but there is something that just raised its head regarding constitutionality and individual rights, whether we agree with them or not. How many times do we stand on this floor and have individuals say, I do not agree with this, but the Constitution of the United States provides that it happens. Until we change laws, I am troubled by the fact that we here are about to supersede our wisdom on another State's interpretation of what is legal and illegal. As I said, in Texas, we made the decision. But I think we are trying to make a decision for a few other States in which I question whether that is something we want to do.

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

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that so many of my colleagues are overlooking or misreading is that if we are going to have conservation on farms, the farmer has to have some money in which to put up his 25 to 50 percent of the matching funds. If we take away the farm income, there will be no conservation on the ground, other than those who happen to be buying the land that are not farmers. Those of the more upper-incomed among us, who have the money through other occupations, that buy the land are the ones that will use these conservation funds if we take away the ability of the American farmer to make a profit on his farm. That is what this amendment does today. We take away that ability, and somehow we have allowed ourselves to be convinced by some other folks who have an entirely different agenda from what agriculture ought to be, we have allowed them to convince us that we are going to be helping farmers. Could not be farther from the truth. It was fascinating, listening to the dairy argument earlier today in which we were concerned about dairy farmers and developers. Developers will love this amendment. Farmers will hurt badly if this amendment should pass. Mr. Chairman, I most sincerely ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, oppose this amendment, stick with the committee regarding this bill. It is the best possible compromise that we can have that meets all of the competing interests, not just a few.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to make a few observations for our colleagues. The Animal Welfare Act already contains provisions that forbid needless intentional abuse of livestock anywhere. Also I want to make my colleagues aware of the concern of the American Veterinary Medical Association regarding the prohibition on holding downer animals could prevent diagnose and treatment of downer animals. Just because an animal is down does not mean necessarily that it cannot get up, provided you give it medication. Also our veterinarians tell us and USDA tells us that examination of downer livestock at markets and slaughter plants is an important part of our system to monitor for animal diseases such as BSE and tuberculosis. In other words, if we do not give our veterinarians time at livestock markets to examine what is truly wrong with that animal, if you immediately euthanize them, we perhaps may be setting back that which the authors of this amendment intend to happen. Now, I will not oppose the amendment tonight because, again, we all agree that animals should not be abused. That is already against the law. But I would hope as we pursue this through the conference and we work with the gentleman from New York to make sure that this accomplishes everything that he and those who support the amendment intend, but I would point these possible unintended consequences of this amendment that might need further work as we pursue it through the conference.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if we look at the facts as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) mentioned, his dairymen, my dairymen are doing quite well today. In fact, the September Federal price in the compact area is $18.81. The compact price is $16.94. Some regions of the country, my district, for example, my State, a few months ago were in favor of the compact but began to see some of the problems associated with it and began to look at what they can do to help themselves. Lo and behold, they are finding that they can do a lot to avoid a collapse of milk prices by working together with the manufacturers, with the retail stores. It would seem to me the Northeast has a wonderful opportunity now to do just that. To do it with this legislation of which I too, I join in saying I know what the gentleman is trying to do. But we cannot put together dairy policy for the Nation in a matter of a few hours to overcome a problem regarding legislation on compacts. No matter how much we say we would like to do it, it cannot be done. The main thing for dairymen right now is to understand if they want to keep getting price, they have to manage their inventory and they are the only ones that can do that. If they set the price too high, they will get more production. It is just going to happen. There are ways we can do it. I will join with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and all to continue to look at how we do it. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) a moment ago said it best when he said, and I will paraphrase him, any State that wishes to go their own way can go their own way. If that is what we really want to do is start going individual State compacts, then let us do it. Let us eliminate the Federal market order system and let us go it our own. I happen to believe that maybe dairymen would be better off with that; but the dairy industry is not ready to go there yet because just as the chairman, the ranking member said in all the hearings that they sat through again and all the years in which I was chairman of the Dairy Committee, we never were able quite to get there. Let us conclude by saying this, if there is one thing that has been effusive throughout the debate today is the recognition of the necessity of getting a higher price to our producers for what they produce, whether it is milk, whether it is sugar, whether it is cotton, whether it is wheat, whether it is soybeans, whether it is corn, whatever it is we are growing, we cannot grow it cheaper than what we have been doing. The question is how do we get the price? I submit that we need to use this opportunity today in all areas of the country to do what is happening in some, recognizing that through true cooperative effort among dairymen within regions, within States is the best way to do it. Therefore, I again, as I have done all night, reluctantly, in this case not so reluctantly, because in all honesty, we cannot legislate dairy policy in a manner in which has been described tonight and do justice. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, I would just say to her, as we said to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) yesterday on a similar amendment, this is an idea whose time has not yet quite come, but I do not have any doubt that we will be considering this if not in an agriculture bill, in a national energy policy bill. I appreciate the gentlewoman withdrawing it today, because it would have had the same problems of funding that the conservation bill, et cetera, had, so I appreciate her cooperation and I assure her that we will continue to work with her as we have throughout the year in continuing to build on this concept.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I again reluctantly rise in opposition. The speech of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), I happen to totally agree with everything that he said, with the one exception. We did not provide for the resources. We keep talking about the commodities and that element of the bill. I would like to remind our colleagues again, the guaranteed price level that we are talking about for the commodities for the farmers proposed in those commodities is 1990 levels. I will submit tonight, yes, we are not doing nearly what we should for drinking water, but we are doing considerably more than what we are doing under baseline. Value added and strategic planning, I am excited about that one, but I still believe that we ought to start slow because we are limited under the budget implications for this bill, in spite of what some would like to say about it. So I again ask for a no vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is the third good amendment that we have had tonight, each of which said if we just take a little bit from the base bill, we can do many more good things. All of them have been good: $20 billion for conservation, $1 billion for research, and now $1 billion for rural development. I feel compelled again, though, to observe to the body, especially when I hear it referred to as the administration position, there is still no administration position on anything regarding this bill, other than asking us to defer action; no specific recommendations, nothing that we can do, other than suggest that we agree with them. But no one has ever, including the Secretary of State today, said specifically what they are for or against. I wish it was not that way, because we perhaps could have had a much, much better bill, but we do not. To those who talk about the lack of money today, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) have every right to stand up and say ``additional money'' because they voted for the Blue Dog budget. They provided in the vote for the budget the amount of money they are asking for tonight. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) did not vote for it, and therefore I do not see how he can ask for additional money in the same way. I understand how the gentleman can, because I would like to support the gentleman. I happen to agree on water. I do not agree on the strategic planning. That was my idea. I think we ought to be slow on new programs. We put $15 million into this as a pilot project because this is a new program. I think we ought to be a little conservative and cautious before we head out on a new program and we ought to try it and that is what we do. We put $15 million. They suggest an additional $45 million. On the water we put 30. They suggest an additional 45. On the value added, this was the chairman's proposal, he put 50. They add an additional 10. All of which are good and valid requests. But the problem we have again is as we have said over and over, we struck a very delicate balance between all competing interests, between our commodities, between conservation, between research, between rural development, between trade, between all of those competing interests in putting together the bill that comes from the committee. So again, I must add my reluctant opposition to what no one can say is not worthwhile. But we had to live under a budget that was imposed on us by this body, $73.5 billion, and that means we have to make some very tough allocation decisions. I feel compelled to stay with that decision we made and ask the body to reluctantly but firmly join in rejecting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.