Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his explanation. I, even more enthusiastically, oppose the gentleman at this stage of the game.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the preliminary data for 2001 show that we are exporting $5.5 billion and we are importing $39 billion. That leaves us a trade balance of $14.5 billion. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. I enthusiastically support it, and I thank him for his kind remarks.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and would like to ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) his source of the savings. The gentleman from Florida made the allegation that this is saving $1.3 billion. I am asking the gentleman as to what is his source of that number. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

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

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires USDA to review the effects that decoupled payments under the Agriculture Market Transition Act have had on the economic viability of farmers and farming infrastructure, especially in areas where conditions limit the program crops that can be grown. The review must include a case study of the effects that decoupled payments, increases in decreases payments, for example, disaster assistance, and other countercyclical decoupled payments, will have on rice producers and the rice industry in Texas. USDA has 90 days from enactment to report its findings and recommendations on ways to minimize adverse impacts on rice farmers and the rice industry to the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I would love to see that information because that certainly is contrary to anything that I have seen. Marketing certificates, which I believe this is aimed at limiting, have been around for 14 years. They have been used for a very good purpose, and that is to avoid building up CCC stocks. The effect of the gentleman's amendment would simply be to build-up stocks, because to equate the loan with a price support cash payment is totally fallacious. This is not the way that marketing certificates work. What we try to do is avoid CCC build-up of stocks. If we are going to make it ineligible, if we want to make them ineligible for loans, that is one thing, but that is not what the gentleman is attempting to do. I do not believe that that is what his intent is; but the amendment before us does not do that, which I believe the gentleman is saying that it does. Market certificates avoid market disruptions caused by payment limits. When you run up against that payment limit, then we have one choice. We put it into the loan, and then the government pays us for it or we then market it. Under the theory of the Freedom to Farm Act of which as we held the hearings last year, farmers loved the Freedom to Farm, but they do not like the results, the price. This is a fundamental change in the direction of farm programs. Fundamental. If one wants to go down that route, then vote for the gentleman's amendment. I would think though that the gentleman would be better served by his intent if he went back through the committee process, looking ahead to another year, and saying that if we want to limit the size of operations, then let us do it in a predictable way, not in a retroactive way.

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

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

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

Mr. STENHOLM. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Chairman, zero.

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, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule. As we have heard, it is essentially a fair rule; and I am grateful to my chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), for requesting such a fair rule. I hope the entire House appreciates the fairness of the action of the request of the House Committee on Agriculture. This rule restores a tradition of full and fair debate that always used to take place when farm bills came to the floor. While I feel the committee bill is a reasonable consensus product, I know that many of my colleagues believe it can be improved, and I very much look forward to the discussion before us. As a participant in its development, I believe that our debate will provide an excellent opportunity for all of our colleagues and for the American people to see the wisdom of the committee's work. The open rule has become too rare in the debates we have had in the House in recent years. In the Committee on Agriculture we never considered having this bill considered on the floor in a restrictive way. Anticipating an open rule, we knew that every decision we made, every effort designed to set budgetary priorities would be subject to the full scrutiny of every Member of the House. I fully believe that anticipation of an open floor debate helped us to build a better bill in committee. As a result, it has the support of a broad diversity of interests. And while the support of the agricultural community for our bill is gratifying, the validation of others is particularly rewarding. Mr. Speaker, I very much look forward to our debate in the days ahead and I hope my colleagues will observe the benefits from this open and fair process. Mr. Speaker, the bill reforms our foreign programs in a way that will prevent any future need for the billions of dollars of emergency spending that have been required in recent years. It greatly expands USDA's conservation programs. And I reemphasize that: an 80 percent increase in the conservation title in this bill. It reauthorizes and improves the food stamp program, and I am gratified for the support of the hunger community on this bill and in recognizing the significance of those things that we did in the nutrition component. It renews our emphasis on the importance of rural economic development, particularly water and agricultural research. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, and its 10-year score is within the limit of the funds that were included within the budget resolution. Congress anticipated the need for farm policy reform; and its passage, I believe, is the fiscally responsible thing to do. Though I strongly support this rule, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make moment of the state of affairs that has become apparent since budgetary reestimates were released in August. Although it is the case that the budget anticipated farm bill spending, the availability of the funds was made on a contingent basis. For fiscal years 2003 through 2011, funds are made available to provide for a bill from the Committee on Agriculture if the chairman of the Committee on the Budget makes an allocation subject to the condition. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are well aware, and as my friend from South Carolina has clearly shown to all Members, only in the most technical sense can it be regarded that the conditions of the money in this bill has been met. Our budget is busted. The budget resolution is irrelevant. There is no on budget surplus. We are into Social Security and Medicare spending and we are on our way to a unified budget deficit, all as a result of the economy and of September 11. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this rule and the farm bill, we must be thinking clearly about our budget responsibilities. Passage of this bill was anticipated in the budget and is crucial to forestall the need for Congress to continually provide emergency spending. However, we cannot avoid the fact that its passage and all other spending bills we have recently considered and that will remain to be considered take us deeper and deeper into Social Security revenue. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to appeal to my colleagues in a bipartisan way and to the administration to now develop a new budget. We need to unite on our budget now so that we do not make those mistakes today, with all good intentions, that will not be in the best interest of our country 10 years from today. I believe the bill that we bring before the House today from the agriculture perspective meets all of that criteria; and therefore, I urge the support of the rule and of the bill.

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

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

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. The gentleman's amendment is the one that deals with marketing certificates?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment authorizes both the Farm Service Agency, FSA, and designated marketing associations of peanut producers that are approved by the Secretary to make marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments. The amendment deletes a provision that would allow the Secretary to approve other loan servicing agents. In addition, it would make a conforming amendment to delete the provisions that would require loan servicing agents to provide storage to other loan servicing agents and marketing associations. The purpose of this amendment is clearly stated here. We are making some drastic changes in the manner in which our peanut program works for purposes of making our peanuts more competitive in the marketplace. We believe that this amendment is necessary in order that our producers are given the best option of increasing their pricing capabilities under a more market-oriented program which is what we are doing with the peanut section of this bill this year.