Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

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 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 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) to speak in opposition to my position.

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, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Members always need to remember to be careful what we ask for lest we might get it. In 1973, we had a problem with imported Mexican wheat coming into the United States, and we came up with an idea that Mexican wheat had karnal bunt; and, therefore, we put a zero tolerance on karnal bunt. It was a terrible mistake because there is nothing wrong with wheat that contains an small amount of karnal bunt, but we now have a major trade problem. Country of origin labeling voluntarily imposed is excellent business. Most countries are already doing it. But when a label is put on and there is a suggestion that there is something about that label that suggests a safer food supply, be careful when we ask for that, particularly since in America we are now exporting $53 billion worth of agricultural products. We are importing $39 billion. Just a few months ago, a delegation from Mexico was here; and they were quickly moving toward mandatory country of origin labeling regarding biotechnology. The argument I make tonight, they took it; and, fortunately, we are not having to fight that battle of not being able to sell our commodities, which we are selling more to Mexico than we are buying from them in total today. I oppose this amendment. The cost as we have heard, it sounds good. It looks good, but in practicality it does not accomplish anything other than muddy the water considerably in our ability to continue to sell more into the world market. The consumers are no safer.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

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 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 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 yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for his utilization.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on this side. I would just use a portion of the remaining part of my time to emphasize a few points. To say I am rather disappointed in the statement of administration policy today would be the understatement of the day. I believe I am correct that we have had 47 subcommittee hearings, I know we have had 10 full committee hearings in which at each time we were considering the various parts of what always ends up being a very controversial bill, the agricultural bill, I asked what the administration's position was. We wanted to consider that. I remember 1995 and 1996 when the committee and the House leadership refused to allow the administration witnesses in the room when we were conferencing. We made some mistakes when we did that. We usually do better legislative work when we have due and proper consideration by the legislative body with administrative input. I suspect and I hope and I really believe that we will get that when we get to a conference on the bill. But to come in the day before, actually a few minutes after we had passed the rule, by stating your position is not helpful, especially when you make some specific allegations that this bill encourages overproduction when prices are low. You have not read the bill, whoever wrote this. I am sure it was OMB. You have not read our bill. We deliberately made changes in the loan rates in order that we might accomplish some of the criticisms of the current bill. It fails to help farmers most in need. Where were you when we were asking for recommendations of how we do a better job of that? As we asked over and over as to farm witnesses and farm groups, how do we attack this particular problem? Where were you when we asked? Jeopardizes critical markets abroad. I have been around here now for almost 23 years. I have seen trade negotiators and trade negotiations begin and I have listened to administrations in which they have always emphasized the importance of agriculture when we go into the negotiations. But I have also noted when they complete that work, that somewhere over the Atlantic, agriculture is dumped out with a parachute. This time around, I said, and it was one of my prevailing judgments into our bill that we present to you today, I wanted to be sure that our government was standing shoulder to shoulder with our producers in these upcoming negotiations, and in the manager's amendment, we specifically say that if there is anything in this bill that makes us illegal under WTO agreements, we give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to make those changes so that it reconforms, because no one on the House Committee on Agriculture wants to be part of any law that causes us to break a law or an agreement that we have agreed to in the good faith of the United States of America. Boosts Federal spending at a time of uncertainty. They have got us there. But let me point out we are boosting it by $2 billion next year. That is the total. $2 billion. Of which a portion of that, as we heard the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) speak a moment ago, is designed to do some of the things that both sides of the aisle have already agreed we need to do, and, that is, to recognize unemployed people, people who have lost their jobs and need some additional help in the transition into a new job. That is in this bill. Is it enough? You can probably say no, it is not. In fact, I predict when we get to the stimulus package, that you are going to have the administration agreeing to many more billions of dollars than 2. Why pick on the 2 at this stage of the game? We are going to hear a little bit about the sugar program and prices. Here again, we have the lowest prices for our producers since the Great Depression, in the last 30 years. I am going to be asking the question over and over to those that seem to believe that the only thing we can do to stay competitive is lower our prices, this bill that we bring forward that is being criticized by those that believe we are doing too much for the commodities is guaranteeing our farmers 1990 prices. Now, I ask anyone in this Chamber, anyone listening, anyone downtown, anyone at any of the newspaper editorials that have criticized us, if you and your employees are going to be guaranteed 1990 wage levels, how happy would you be and how exorbitant would your company be? That is what we do in this bill. Would we like to do more? Absolutely. But we operated under the good faith restraint of a budget that was passed by this House. I did not agree with it, but it became the law of the land and, therefore, I do as I try to do quite often, and, that is, work together. On the Committee on Agriculture, we do a darn good job at that. I commend again the chairman, the subcommittee chairmen, all of the folks on that side of the aisle and my own colleagues for the spirit in which we bring this bill to the House today.

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

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

Mr. STENHOLM. There is a CBO estimate?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).