Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to begin by complimenting the work of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking minority member, as well as the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member. They have done a tremendous job. In addition to facing the obstacle of unrealistic budget restraints, they have once again had to struggle against a leadership that is bent on subverting the expressed will of this House. It is my fond hope that some day soon we will have an honest conference on an agricultural bill with input from the administration and from this side of the aisle in a true bipartisan result, but not today. As a direct result of the leadership's involvement, we have lost key opportunities to move our country forward in both its trade relations and with regard to the availability of affordable prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, the agriculture embargo on U.S. sales to Cuba has done little to change the behavior of this island nation. In fact, U.S. sanctions have given Cuba an excuse for the failed policies of a communist regime. With complete normalization of trade relations, Cuba could become a $1 billion market for U.S. agriculture producers within 5 years, making it our second largest market in Latin America after Mexico. On July 20 of this year, the House by a vote of 301-116 overwhelmingly expressed its will to end our unilateral trade embargo, and yet the provision inserted by the House leadership includes a travel ban and restrictions on finance that will continue to undercut the ability of U.S. farmers and ranchers to take full advantage of Cuba's market potential. The compromise in this bill gets us 5 percent of where we need to be. Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the implications of the provision included in the conference report regarding trade sanctions. While I am sympathetic to the goal of this provision, it should have been withheld until we had a thorough analysis of all of its trade effects and, particularly, its effect on agriculture. Mr. Speaker, despite these inadequacies, this conference report includes many good and important provisions, including funding, conservation, research, rural development. It provides much-needed assistance to agriculture producers affected by natural disasters. It addresses the drinking water emergencies in rural areas brought about by drought, and it will enact portions of the Hunger Relief Act that will be crucial to ensuring that our neediest citizens are adequately nourished. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report; and I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this conference report includes two important provisions from the bipartisan Hunger Relief Act, of which I am a proud co-sponsor. One of these would increase and then index the cap on the excess shelter deduction. This arbitrary cap can result in families with children having money they spend on their rent, mortgage, and utilities being counted as if it was available to buy food. I hope that in reauthorization, we can eliminate this cap altogether so that families with children are treated in the same manner as elderly and disabled households are now. The other provision would give states broad flexibility to increase or eliminate limits on the value of vehicles they may own and still receive food stamps. For many low-income families, having a dependable car is essential to their ability to find and keep employment. Denying food assistance to a household based on the value of a vehicle makes no sense: if the household sold the vehicle, it would become eligible for food stamps but then would have a much harder time becoming more self- sufficient. This provision allows states to adopt rules from any program that receives TANF or TANF maintenance of effort funds as long as that program provides benefits that could meet the definition of ``assistance'' in the TANF rules. This could include, for example, any child care program since child care can count as assistance under certain circumstances. States would not be required to determine whether any particular individual received assistance from the TANF- or MOE-funded program since that would impose administrative burdens and whatever standards the state adopted would apply statewide. Where a household has more than one vehicle, a state electing the option would evaluate each under whichever rules would result in the lower attribution of resources, whether the regular food stamp rules or the rules borrowed from the other state program. Of course, if the state TANF- or MOE-funded program excluded cars completely, or did not apply resources rules, those rules would prevail.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and encourage support of H.R. 2389. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time .

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2389, the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act of 2000. H.R. 2389, when signed by the President, will set in motion significant improvements in the manner that the Federal Government fulfills its financial commitment to rural counties located within the boundaries of our national forest system. The fulfillment of this commitment is even more critical today where the county payments have declined considerably as a result of major forest resource management policy changes. After 2 years of hard work, we have before us compromise legislation that maintains the core components of the Federal Government's payments system for forest counties. Mr. Speaker, the manner in which this Congress continues these payments is critical to the future well-being of national forest health and the economic stability of rural communities. This compromise legislation is a step in the right direction. I urge all of my colleagues to support final passage. 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 Florida (Mr. Boyd). (Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton.)

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of H.R. 4788, which reauthorizes the U.S. Grain Standards Act and also updates the U.S. Warehouse Act. Given today's world market, it is important that our farmers and commodity merchants have the best technical support possible to help them compete in the marketplace. This legislation helps continue that tradition by reauthorizing the inspection and weighing activities of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration as well as updating the U.S. Warehouse Act and providing for the use of electronic documentation under that act. Due to the technical nature of many of the provisions included in this legislation, I would have much preferred to report this bill from the Committee on Agriculture. However, it is imperative that we provide the grain inspection service with the authority to collect fees to provide official weighing and inspection services for grain bound for export since their authority expired on September 30. Unfortunately, we simply cannot wait any longer at this point and take the time to go through the committee process. I urge my colleagues to support this routine update of these two statutes and ask for their support of H.R. 4788. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker I have no further requests for time. I encourage Members to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me, and I appreciate very much his taking this time today to talk about the lack of a national energy policy. Perhaps the best known price in America today is that of gasoline. Americans see it posted along the road a dozen or two times a day. They pull in to fill up every week to 10 days, if not more often. It is also a price that perhaps because of that visibility can generate a lot of heat, especially when it is going up, as it has this year. This is in fact a price that tells the complex story of global supply and demand, of technological change and of environmental consciousness, and of shifting consumer taste and social change. Despite the long-term trend, prices move up and down a great deal. These fluctuations can be caused, among other things, by political events, shift in supply and demand of fuel, weather, the level of inventories, disruptions in refinery operations, and the introduction of new environmental standards. Over the last year or so, retail gasoline prices in the United States have bounced down and then up from very low levels and then back up to very high levels. In February of 1999, the national average retail price fell to 95 cents per gallon, the lowest since 1989 in nominal dollars and one of the lowest levels ever seen in inflated dollars, and 30 percent lower than the price 2 years earlier. Not much more than a year later, they had risen to the recent highs of over $1.50 per gallon nationwide. These price swings were detrimental to the producer and the consumer. The trucking industry, for example, in my district and all over the United States had a hard time maintaining operations as usual under the economic strain experienced by their businesses as a result of these price increases. Agriculture also has borne the brunt. Today, high oil prices reflect in part the U.S. economic boom and recovering economies elsewhere. According to the study done by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, gas price conditions felt this summer were attributed to four primary forces acting on the market: number one, the price of crude oil, where for every $1 per barrel, gasoline prices increased 2 to 3 cents; two, inventories are low based on production constraints; three, new environmental regulations have created numerous variations, RFG, ethanol, MTBE, in gasoline contents making it difficult to transport or mix gas from one area into the next during times of crisis; four, the booming economy has created a 2 percent higher demand for gasoline over last summer. This coupled with the fact that Americans are driving more per person per year, 13,000 miles per person per year, has increased demand. The last President or last administration to attempt to create a new energy policy was President Carter. I cannot remember a time when the Congress, particularly in the last 6 years, in which we have had a serious debate in this Congress regarding energy policy. A national energy policy is a must for the United States and this policy must decrease America's dependence on foreign oil. Our Nation gets almost 60 percent of our oil from foreign sources, and this is absolutely unacceptable as it puts our economic and national security at risk. The rejuvenation of the domestic oil and gas industry will benefit all Americans and ensure an energy security for this Nation far into the future. Wide swings in price are not good for consumers or for producers. I happen to represent the oil patch. Less than 2 years ago when oil prices were at critically low levels, we had $8 per barrel prices, domestic oil and gas producers in my district, the 17th District of Texas, were struggling to keep their operations open and many did not. In my district, claims for unemployment from the oil and gas industry quadrupled from 1,171 to 4,730 between December of 1997 and December of 1998. During this time, the lost wellhead value dropped $5.79 million and the value of oil to the Texas economy dropped by almost $1 billion. The number of producing wells declined by 2,855 during this time as well. In my home county of Jones, oil production in December of 1997 was 83,706 barrels; in December of 1998 it had dropped to 69,000 barrels; and in December of 1999 it had declined to 58,000 barrels. That is a decline of 25,000 barrels per month from December of 1997 to December of 1999, or a decline of 30 percent. Total domestic crude oil production has declined from 8.7 million barrels per day in the United States in 1986, the first oil price collapse, to 5.9 billion barrels per day. When prices are below the cost of exploring and producing crude, these small independent producers cannot stay in business, and it has a ripple effect throughout local communities as schools and hospitals in Texas rely on a healthy oil and gas industry for revenues. At the time, we warned that critically low prices have the potential to turn into a price shock. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that we should have learned many times over the last 2 decades. I would like to find any evidence anywhere in which this Congress, the 106th, attempted to do anything about the low prices. If there was a time of dramatic demonstration, the compacted experience of the last 3 years with its highs and lows illustrates the need for our Nation to take responsibility for its energy future. We do need a free market for the production of energy, but it cannot be a free market dominated by foreign producing countries that do not have our best interests at heart. Congress needs, in fact must consider measures to help restore market stability with domestic crude oil and natural gas prices, maintaining a level where domestic producers can compete in a global market. However, our national energy policy must recognize both producer and consumer issues. Last week, the House considered the energy and water appropriations conference agreement which deleted language added in by the House earlier this session to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and to create a Northeast home heating oil reserve. I find it reckless that in the midst of home heating oil shortages in the Northeastern States, this Congress is on the verge of allowing the President's authority to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lapse. Authorization of the SPR expired on March 31 of this year, 6 months ago. The House supported a measure that would reauthorize the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and ensure that it would be filled with domestic crude oil to capacity with specific options leading to the expansion of the SPR capacity. Many of us stood on this floor and through letters and Dear Colleagues encouraged the Congress 2 years ago when we had the opportunity to buy oil from domestic producers at $8 a barrel and put it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which would have been a good investment for this country, a good investment for taxpayer dollars, to buy it at $8, to support the domestic industry when we had a chance to. But because of overt concerns about unrealistic budgets, the majority on this body refused to even consider it. It is irresponsible, I believe, to refuse that the SPR be reauthorized, giving this and future Presidents all means available to respond to any possible energy supply emergency. It is in our national security interest. The Department of Energy cannot establish a regional home heating oil reserve until Congress either reauthorizes the SPR or separately passes legislation authorizing the creation of such a reserve with a responsible trigger. Are we trying to send a message from Congress to many vulnerable consumers that they will have to sacrifice other needs just to heat their homes this winter? Additionally, shortages in natural gas will be the next energy issue before us when brownouts start occurring in cities short on natural gas used to create electricity, a direct result of the collapse of the independent oil and gas producing industry in the United States because when you stop drilling for oil, you also stop drilling for gas. Gas is often found in the process of discovering oil. That is something that we have been very, very shortsighted on with our, again, lack of a national energy policy. Let me just quickly outline some of the things that this Congress should have done this year, or last year. Congress needs to consider measures to help restore market stability with domestic crude and natural gas prices maintaining a level where domestic producers can compete in a global market. However, our national energy policy must recognize both producer and consumer issues. We need to enact legislation that provides tax relief for marginal well production, providing a safety net for producers when prices are critically low. We need to enact legislation that provides tax incentives for inactive well recovery aimed at bringing plugged or abandoned wells back on line. We need to pass the Watkins-Stenholm proposal that would correct the inequity facing American oil producers who must meet regulatory costs avoided by producers in other countries by imposing an environmental equalization fee on imported crude oil and refined products at the level of cost domestic producers currently spend on compliance with Federal environmental regulations. We need to encourage production of unconventional fuels. I have recently cosponsored the Energy Security for American Consumers Act that aims to stimulate production of unconventional gas in the hope that our Nation will be better equipped to meet our future energy needs. This bill would extend the section 29 tax credit for unconventional gas production and will provide the energy sector with a necessary incentive to produce gas that is both difficult and costly to obtain. We need to enact legislation expensing geological and geophysical costs, delaying rental payments and extending the suspension of net income limitation of percentage depletion for marginal wells. We need to enact a low-cost emergency lending program for the benefit of domestic oil and gas producers. We need to enact legislation that would enhance recovery and wildcat exploration. We must open our Federal lands, both onshore and offshore, except in the most treasured environments, to responsible exploration. From 1997 to 1999, oil well completions for drilling for new reserve declined 54 percent. But by providing financial incentives to increase domestic oil production and exploration, we can encourage the discovery of new domestic oil reserves. We need to ensure that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is filled with domestic crude oil to capacity and to the extent that the filled capacity does not meet a 90-day supply of foreign imported petroleum, expand the SPR capacity. We need to ensure that the Northeastern States are not in the position where they are facing home heating oil shortages that will harm consumers by establishing a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast. Despite the fact that the President acted administratively in July to create it, the Congress still needs to authorize the use of this new reserve. We need to enact legislation to promote new developments in the access, production and use of natural gas. We need to enact legislation to promote research in exploring other avenues of energy, including solar, wind, hydroelectric and other renewable energy resources. We need to enact legislation to provide tax incentives encouraging consumers to make energy-efficient improvements to their homes and purchase energy-efficient automobiles, as well as further promote and fund LIHEAP. It is imperative that Congress work together setting aside partisan differences to ensure price stability, prices that are not so low that producers are put out of business and prices that are not so high that they hurt consumers and threaten our economy. America needs a balanced, forward-looking energy policy based on the proposals that have been put before this Congress. We need a responsible approach that will infuse our energy sector with both efficiency and competition seeking to protect America against emergencies in the energy market. Mr. Speaker, these are the things that we should have done. I would challenge very many individuals on either side of the aisle to show anything that we have done other than not avoid the temptation of pointing the finger. There are many, many solutions. I am very happy today, and I again thank the gentleman from New Jersey for taking this 1 hour. I thank him for allowing me to show at least in this one Member's mind some of the things that we should have been doing in this Congress, and some of the proposals that are being advocated now of where we need to go in the next administration and in the next Congress.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the CR today and take no quarrel with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his handling of this bill and any other bill that he has been handling. I am somewhat disappointed by, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been talking about, the process to the extent that we have taken action on appropriation bills. We have been increasing spending appropriations in bills above the amounts requested by the President, without any indication how all the increased spending we have passed will fit within a fiscally responsible budget. Mr. Speaker, I think people need to understand how this game is being played today, because the majority, the leadership I might say, has said that we are going to put our priorities and we are going to take out the President's priorities, and then any increase that is going to be on increased spending we are going to blame on him. That is not the way it ought to work. This place ought to work if we are interested in keeping a fiscally responsible budget. If there is a plan on how we can continue to pass appropriation bills which spend more than the President has requested, plus all the tax cut items and other spending items and fit them into the new budgetary framework, I wish someone would explain it to me, and I think I speak for the majority on both sides of the aisle. According to recent press accounts, the congressional leadership intends to quietly raise the discretionary spending limits for 2001 in the first omnibus appropriation bill. I do not object to raising the caps for 2001. Everybody realizes the spending caps set in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 were unrealistic. But if we are going to raise the spending cap for 2001, we should be looking at setting new, realistic discretionary spending caps for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. The existing caps for fiscal year 2002 are even more unrealistic than they are for next year. Unless we set new, realistic caps, we will face the same problem next year with discretionary caps that are ignored and no discipline on discretionary spending, and the finger of blame being pointed on both sides of the aisle. More importantly, the discretionary spending caps expire after 2002, leaving no discipline on discretionary spending at all. If the Republican leadership is truly interested in controlling spending, I would encourage them to again consider the Blue Dog proposal to set new discretionary caps for the next 5 years now, while we have an opportunity. We are suddenly hearing a lot of rhetoric from the other side regarding the 90/10 plan and the majority's commitment to debt reduction. I would have preferred that the leadership had been as enthusiastic about that position 6 months ago when we offered the same budget, which would have made debt reduction the top priority for the surplus, instead of pursuing tax cuts that would consume all the surplus. But I am glad we have come around to our way of thinking. Unfortunately, the substance of the 90/10 plan falls short of the recent rhetoric coming from the other side about debt reduction. If we have a moral obligation to pay off the debt as soon as possible, as the leadership has said, then why does the Republican leadership's debt reduction plan only apply to next year? Why can we not take action now to extend the plan to set aside surpluses for debt reduction until we have eliminated the entire national debt? The 90/10 plan being touted by my Republican colleagues would leave Congress free to abandon our moral obligation to debt reduction and return to fiscally irresponsible proposals to use the entire surplus for tax cuts and increased spending next year. Instead of continuing an ad hoc process without any real plan, we need to reach agreement between Congress and the President on an overall budget framework that ensures that we have enough resources to meet our various tax cut and spending priorities and pay down the debt, and then extend the discipline by setting new discretionary caps and agreeing on a plan to eliminate the national debt. There are some on this side of the aisle that would like very much to join in that endeavor.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the 4th District of Mississippi (Mr. Shows).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, we will be taking this hour, I will be joined by many of my fellow Democrats, Blue Dogs, and perhaps several others today, to talk about the budget, to talk about debt reduction, and, as Paul Harvey says quite often, to talk about ``the rest of the story,'' that which we are not hearing in much of the rhetoric that is going on today. The first point I want to make is that through August 31, 2000, there has been no surplus, other than trust fund surpluses. You would not believe that with the carried-away rhetoric that all of us have been guilty of using of late. The $4.6 trillion projected surplus over the next 10 years, remember, that is projected. But, more important, remember that as of August 31 of this year, there still has been no surplus, other than trust funds, and, therefore, that is why many of us on this side of the aisle have been arguing that before we spend these projected surpluses, that we ought to fix Social Security and Medicare first, that we ought to be doing the Nation's business today. Instead of adjourning at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, or completing business at 2:15, we ought to be dealing in the respective committees with how do we fix Medicare and the tremendous needs of rural health care. Why have we been on the floor for the last several weeks talking about tax cuts of $1.3 trillion, when you add them all up, again spending projected surpluses, before we fix Social Security and Medicare? Again, let us calm ourselves and acknowledge the fact that as of August 31, there is no surplus, other than trust fund surpluses. That is why today the Blue Dog Democrats reiterated the plan that we were talking about at the beginning of this session of Congress, the same plan that we brought to the floor of the House that got, if memory serves me correct, 177 votes, 144 Democrats and I believe 37 Republicans joined with us. That would be 181. Not quite a majority, but there was a significant bipartisan group that recognized that you needed a plan if you were going to accomplish all of the rhetoric that both sides take part in from time to time. Today we come to the floor to discuss in quite some detail the plan that the Blue Dogs put forward months ago that we reiterate today. The Blue Dog outline demonstrates that it is still possible to reach an agreement on a fiscally responsible budget plan that pays off the debt, maintains fiscal discipline and provides substantial tax relief, including estate tax relief and marriage penalty repeal. The Blue Dogs have been advocating debt reduction since surplus projections first materialized 2 years ago. The Republican leadership has adopted Blue Dog rhetoric in the last few days on debt reduction, but only for 1 year, and the question we ask today of the leadership of this House is why only 1 year? If debt reduction is truly something that we all agree on in a bipartisan way, why not do it over a 10-year period? The Blue Dogs believe that to be meaningful, a commitment to debt reduction must be long-term. That is why we are calling on the leadership of this House to extend the principles of their debt reduction lockbox for 10 years. Under the Blue Dog framework, $3.65 trillion, 80 percent of the unified surplus, would be devoted to debt reduction over 10 years. This would put us on the path to eliminate the publicly held debt by 2010. That is what we say we are for. Why do we not have policies on this floor that do that which we say? Why do we continue on having political rallies talking about debt reduction when we really do not mean it except for 1 year? That is a question we ask, and hopefully someone will come to the floor and answer that question. It would be nice to have some simple discussions of these points, instead of just one side talking to the other in the absence of the other. We will be here. By contrast, the debt reduction lockbox passed last week would only reserve 60 percent of the unified surplus for debt reduction over the next 10 years. Blue Dogs say 80, Republican leadership says 60, and still says we are doing a better job. We do not understand that. The Blue Dog framework would result in the budget being balanced without counting any trust funds beginning in 2001. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has been the one that continues to bring the record from Treasury, source monthly statement of the public debt that anyone can pick up, which is what I was talking about when I started my comments today. There is no surplus except trust fund surpluses. If we are conservative in our approach, we can begin paying off the debt without using any of the trust fund surpluses beginning in 2001. If we can only reach an agreement on a 10-year debt reduction plan, it will establish a foundation that will make it much easier to reach an agreement on significant tax cuts, including estate tax relief and repeal of the marriage penalty, without jeopardizing fiscal discipline. The Blue Dogs are prepared to work within the 90/10 framework for fiscal year 2001 to balance competing priorities. Ironically, where we have been talking about 50/25/25, for 10 years, 90/10 fits almost exactly with where we believe we ought to be in the year 2001. The Blue Dogs believe that it is important that Congress and the President look beyond the short-term cost of legislation and keep in mind the long-term impact of budget decisions we make today. Before agreeing on any tax cuts or new spending programs, we need to know how all of these proposals add up over the next 5 to 10 years, even if they fit within the 90/10 framework for next year. It is important that this Congress consider the 10-year costs of any tax cuts and new spending initiatives, not just the cost in fiscal 2001. Likewise, once Congress and the President agree on the level of discretionary spending for next year, and this is what is being fought out. It bothered me considerably when I see on the front page of the Washington Post this morning that members of the other body in the other party are talking about ``spending is going to go out of the window.'' It should not. All we have to do is agree on a framework of what spending should be this year, in a bipartisan way, working with the White House. I believe that is achievable. That is the Blue Dog plan. Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the President's proposals. We have looked at the Republican budget, and we have said somewhere in between is where we need to be, close to the middle. I think if all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would look at this proposal, we hope they would find the same degree of enthusiasm for it that we bring to the floor today. Once we get through the 90/10 for 2001, let us talk about the 10 percent. How do we propose spending that 10 percent of the projected surplus? Remember, there is no surplus as yet. It is projected. But we do believe if we stay fiscally conservative with our spending and our tax-cutting euphoria, that what I am saying today can be achieved. We have a projected surplus of $268 billion for fiscal year 2001. Ten percent of that is $26.8 billion, and that is to be divided between tax cuts and spending, divided equally between Medicare provider restorations and discretionary spending and tax cuts. The Blue Dog framework would allow a tax cut of $8.5 billion in 2001 and $377 billion over the next 10 years. This will allow for estate tax and marriage tax penalty relief with room for other tax cuts of $4.4 billion in 2001 and approximately $200 billion over the next 10 years. Why should we be considering today going home without dealing responsibly with the marriage tax penalty? Why should we be going home in a few weeks or days without dealing responsibly with the death tax, when everyone in this body knows there is a good, sound, conservative middle ground that would be very appealing to every single small businessman and woman in the United States and give significant relief to everyone above $4 million in estates? Why would we go home without completing our work? Devoting an additional $8.5 billion for discretionary spending will provide room to increase spending in the appropriation bills to fund agricultural disaster relief, increase funding levels for education, health care, veterans and military retiree health care, all of which have bipartisan agreement that we do need to make some increases in those areas. We also provide for $8.5 billion in 2001 to address problems facing health care providers as a result of the reductions of the 1997 balanced budget agreement, the kind that our rural hospitals are clamoring, praying for the relief so that they do not have to close. All of this can be achieved within the framework of debt reduction, sincere debt reduction, recognizing also that the surpluses that everybody talks about are projected. One of the fundamental questions this body should be concerned a little bit about is when we look at this debt that we are talking about, one-third of it is owned by foreign interests and the question that we all want to answer, I think, sooner than later, how much longer can our economy continue to grow at the unprecedented rate that it has for the last 8 years? How much longer can we go in the longest sustained peacetime economic expansion in the history of our country? Can we go another 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years? No one knows the answer to that question. But the Blue Dogs believe that the most conservative thing we can do right now is spend our time discussing how we fix Social Security and Medicare for the future. And until we do that, let us pay down the debt and let us be very fiscally prudent with the expenditure of our taxpayer dollars. That is our message. Mr. Speaker, at this point I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his contribution today and, again, for the last several months as he has been, again, one of our Blue Dog bulldogs. When my colleagues sit here and they listen to what we are saying today and they listen to what our colleagues from the other side of the aisle are saying, I get confused sometimes as to what are we fussing about. What is it that divides us so much? What is it that causes colleague after colleague on the other side of the aisle to come over and point the finger at this side of the aisle and blame us for the impasse in the Congress? We Democrats are in the minority. We got there the old fashioned way in 1994. We earned it. We are no longer in the majority. It is my understanding the majority leader will be coming over to take his hour after we finish. I would be glad to yield the remainder of my time for an honest discussion with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) regarding the plan that we are talking about and what is wrong with it. Perhaps we can change it. The Blue Dogs have suggested all along that bipartisanship is what it is going to take for us to do the Nation's work. A lot of times, we will hear we are spending too much. Well, perhaps we are. But let us work that out. The Committee on Appropriations gets blamed for doing a lot of things. But if we give them the numbers of what they have to spend, they usually stay within that. But it is the majority of this body that determines what we are going to spend, and the majority is now in the other side of the aisle's hands. If we do not want to spend any more money on Medicare, say so. Let us tell our hospitals we are not going to spend any additional money. The solution for our Nation is to close the hospitals that cannot cut it with the balance-the-budget agreement, the plan that was put into effect in 1997 that was supposed to be the salvation of health care. Well, it has not worked out that way. Come to the floor and say we are not going to spend on Medicare. Come to the floor and say we are not going to deal with veterans and military retirees; that we are not going to deliver on the promise that we have made; that we have been shortchanging. Come to the floor and say we are not going to recognize the disasters that have occurred, weather related, fire, drought. Come to the floor and say we do not give a rip whether communities will not have drinking water because we do not wish to spend any more than the budget we submitted 6 months ago. That is an honest debate. It is an honest discussion to have. I think we will find that we will have bipartisan agreement, that we can find something close to what the Blue Dogs are suggesting. Do not take our marbles and go home because we did not get the tax cuts we were for. Respect some of us on this side of the aisle that say we are for dealing with the estate tax, the death tax. We just believe it ought to be done from a fiscally responsible way; that we ought not to leave the problems of Social Security 10 years from today to some future Congress because we want to deal with the repeal of the death tax in 2010. Some of us believe we ought to deal with it in 2001, but deal with it in a fiscally responsible way, an honest discussion, an honest debate. I feel very strongly that we could come to a bipartisan agreement. Understand the process around this place. The process is, if we have got 218 votes and 51 votes and a presidential signature, it becomes law. If we do not have 218 votes, 51 votes, and a presidential signature, it does not become law. That means we have to sit down and, in a good-faith effort, with folks on the other side of the aisle, if one is in the majority, to find that middle ground. That is the way our Founding Fathers intended that this place should work. Where have we lost that? Why is there no sincere effort ever to reach out to this side of the aisle from the current leadership when we are here extending the hand of saying we are prepared to work with you, and we offer a plan to start with? Did we say it is perfect? No. Can it be improved? Absolutely. Spending. We proposed today that we should not have abandoned caps on discretionary spending that worked pretty darn good for 3 years before we began to run into the unrealistic level of the caps. Because even those in the majority party refuse to live up to what they said we were going to do because it could not have been done. We would have gutted Defense had we done that. We are suggesting now, let us agree on the spending levels for this year within the 90/10 philosophy that we have heard espoused. Then let us set a new set of caps for the next 5 years at this year's level with inflation and demographic adjustment. We believe that that is a very fiscally prudent way for us to handle the prospects of future spending. If my colleagues disagree, come to the floor and disagree with us. October 6 is going to be here before we know it. What is the plan for getting out? Remember, we have to get a presidential signature or we do not go home, nor should we. But what is the plan? What is the plan that can get the kind of bipartisan support that is going to be required? This is what the Blue Dogs are saying today, and we say it not in a confrontational way. We remind our friends on the other side of the aisle, we were here in February, in March, in April, in May, in June and July and August. Now here we are in September saying the same thing that we have been saying all year. Here is a plan that can get support including presidential support. But somehow, some way, and I do not point this finger in an accusing way, because I was reminded a long time ago, when you point the finger, Mr. Speaker, there is always three pointing back at you. I accept the three pointing back at me. But I do not sincerely understand why the leadership of this House has chosen not to come forward and to have a serious discussion regarding how do we get out of this place and complete the 106th Congress.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) for his contribution today and for his contribution to the 106th Congress and to the Blue Dogs. He has been one of our real bulldogs, as we heard him saying, in sticking with the plan. Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), my fellow colleague, let me kind of refocus why we are here. We are supposed to complete our work in this body by September 30, that is what the Constitution requires. We do not always do that. When Democrats were in control, we quite often did not accomplish that goal, but usually we ended up with a plan of how we were going to complete our work. We now have only two appropriation bills that have been completed. It seems to those of us on the outside of the appropriation process that the leadership of the House and the Senate are having a difficult time coming up with a plan to get us out of here. We are submitting the Blue Dogs' perspective that this is a plan that can get bipartisan support. We believe that it not only can get bipartisan support here, but that it can get Presidential support, that is what it is going to take for us to complete our work. And when we complete our work, it is something that we all want to go home and take a little credit for and take credit for it in an honest way. Mr. Speaker, so often around here, most of us tell the truth most of the time, if not all of the time, but many of us do not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and what the Blue Dogs are trying to say today is the rest of the story, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is no surplus yet through August the 31st. When we hear $4.6 trillion in projected surpluses, the word that should be emphasized is projected. We readily acknowledge that this is your money and we are just trying to give some of it back to you. And in the rhetoric prior to last week, certainly Congress has no money, other than what we take from the American people in the way of taxes, it is your money. But the Blue Dogs also remind you it is your debt, the $5 trillion 678 billion debt as of August 31, 2000, which is $21 billion more debt than we had 1 year ago. It is your debt, and that is why we have suggested the 50-25-25, and that is why we come back to the floor today and reiterate debt reduction, program priorities, tax cuts targeted carefully towards meeting a real human need. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. In closing, I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that we have taken this hour in good faith, in the spirit of which we have spoken. We believe that we have some ideas worthy of consideration, Mr. Speaker, and we hope that our colleagues will give them their just due.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and will now yield to the gentleman from the 19th District of Illinois (Mr. Phelps), one of our Blue Puppies, that has now achieved the full rank of Blue Dog in this year.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this good bill developed under a less-than-perfect process for a much, much-needed solution. Much-needed relief to individuals, families, and small businesses that have been unfairly trapped in the litigation nightmare of the Superfund program for the crime of sending ordinary garbage to their local landfill. It is needless business pressures like this that cause undue pain and hardship for small business. Furthermore, victimizing small business is not going to speed the cleanup of Superfund sites. This bill will put an end to the current Superfund philosophy that treats small business owners as ``guilty until they prove themselves innocent.'' H.R. 5175 ensures that small business owners are considered innocent until it can be proven they are liable. Furthermore, this legislation limits frivolous lawsuits. A small business' legal fees can be recovered if a small business is wrongly accused of contributing to a Superfund site. In the end, H.R. 5175 fairly shifts the burden of proof, discourages abusive litigation, and finally focuses resources on the actual cleanup of toxic sites. Granted, broader Superfund reform is sorely needed. But small business liability relief simply cannot wait any longer. The Environmental Protection Agency has said on a number of occasions that it supports efforts that will fix the Superfund law so it targets real polluters and not innocent small businesses. The delicate fabric compromise between the industry and environmentalists have helped advance the bipartisan Small Business Liability Relief Act, further paving the way to common ground. All of this being said, with the methods that we have gotten here today, I support this consensus legislation that has been enthusiastically endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business in order to help rescue innocent small businesses from the Superfund liability trap. With so many points of consensus covered under H.R. 5175 and strong bipartisan support, I am hopeful that my fellow colleagues will join me in passing this measure, marking an end to this unfair system and freeing small business owners from unnecessary liability.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for yielding me the time. I, too, commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the International Food Relief Partnership Act because it fundamentally addresses the long-term and long-standing desire among farmers and ranchers in our country to provide food directly to those overseas that need it most. For years now, many farmers and ranchers have wanted to donate agricultural products to feed the hungry, both here and abroad. Yet, there is currently no mechanism in place in our food aid programs to accommodate a farmer who wants to donate a truckload of produce and no means to get that produce overseas to those in need. That was true until a nonprofit organization named Breedlove began testing the concept of accepting donated vegetables from local farmers for dehydration and shipment overseas. These dehydrated vegetable packages are lightweight enough to be efficiently shipped and provide a nutritious and cost-efficient meal. The Breedlove product has been used successfully for private voluntary organizations in seven countries around the world. This bill will provide incentives to further test the use of prepackaged shelf-stable food and will also provide limited authority to test the concept of prepositioning commodities overseas for use in emergencies. With this authority, we hope to provide the Agency for International Development with incentives it can use to encourage more farmers and ranchers to make donations that will leverage scarce Federal resources and improve the diets of food aid recipients around the world. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5224, the International Food Relief Partnership Act.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague from Texas a moment ago, I could not help but remember the infamous words of Will Rogers, when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much, it is them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem,'' and how many times we stand on this floor and we talk about things that are the truth, but we leave out the rest of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Now, I wish to congratulate my Republican colleagues for coming around to the Blue Dog position on debt reduction, which, by the way, has been supported by a majority on my side of the aisle since we first proposed it this year, and 37 on your side of the aisle supported it when we had a chance of making it work. Today we have a bill at least rhetorically that says we are now coming around to debt reduction. Unfortunately, this legislation falls into the category of too little too late, and completely unnecessary; but let us pass it. Once again, my friends on the other side of the aisle have gone back to their districts during the August recess talking about tax cuts and come back talking about debt reduction. They apparently have heard the same message I have heard countless times from the folks I represent; if in fact we have some extra money in the form of a surplus, we should use it to first pay down our debt and prepare to meet the challenges of Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Social Security and Medicare are the first priority of the American people, as it should be, and should be of this body. I would have preferred that the Republican leadership had been as enthusiastic about that position 6 months ago when the Blue Dogs offered a budget that would have made debt reduction our top priority, and I am tired of listening to this side of the aisle always being in the wrong. Let me remind every one of my colleagues, 140 Democrats supported the debt reduction bill offered by the Blue Dog Democrats, and 37 Republicans in a bipartisan way supported our budget. It made debt reduction our top priority instead of pursuing tax cuts that would consume all of that surplus. But I am glad we are coming around to our way of thinking. Over the last 2 years, while the Republican leadership has been pushing proposals to use all the surplus for tax cuts, those of us in the Blue Dog Coalition have been fighting to make debt reduction our top priority. On July 22, 1999, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) offered a motion to recommit, H.R. 2488, the Tax Cut Reconciliation Bill, which would have required that 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and 50 percent of the non-Social Security surpluses be dedicated to reducing the national debt. This motion was defeated by a party line vote of 211-210, roll call No. 332, with only one Republican voting for it. On February 10, 2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) offered a motion to recommit, H.R. 6, that would have required Congress pass legislation reserving enough of the on-budget surplus for debt reduction to put the Government on a path to eliminate the publicly held debt by 2013 before the tax cut could take effect. This motion was defeated by a vote 196-230, on roll call No. 12, with all Republicans voting no. Where were all my Republican colleagues who were talking about the virtue of debt reduction today on those votes when we had a chance to put in place a serious bipartisan plan for debt reduction? The solid Republican opposition to these and other efforts to reserve surpluses for debt reduction stands in sharp contrast to the professed commitment to debt reduction that we hear today. I was extremely disappointed to discover that the bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means would only apply to 1 year. The conversion to the cause of debt reduction appears to be just a short plan of convenience. The bill before us will leave Congress free to abandon debt reduction and return to fiscally irresponsible proposals to use the entire surplus for tax cuts and/or increased spending next year. The markets who are looking to us to see if we are serious about fiscal discipline will not be impressed by a temporary 1-year commitment to debt reduction that we can abandon next year. They are looking for a fiscally responsible, long-term framework that will keep us on a course to paying down the debt while meeting our priorities on the tax cut and spending side of the aisle. We should follow the advice of the Concord Coalition to set new discretionary caps for the next 5 years on spending for this Congress controlled by the current majority and develop a long-term plan for allocating the surplus between debt reduction, tax cuts and spending for priority programs such as Medicare, agriculture, and defense. Some of my colleagues have said that this bill dealing with debt reduction can apply for only 1 year because we do not know what the surpluses will be after next year. I would simply ask my colleagues, where was that concern last week when we were passing tax cuts and attempting to override? That was the concern some us had about those tax cuts. We do not know what the future surpluses are going to be. Therefore, we should be conservative and pay down the debt. In contrast to the debt reduction legislation before us now, the Blue Dog proposals which the majority rejected would have provided for a meaningful, long-term commitment to use surpluses for debt reduction. We believe that debt reduction should be our first priority and using the surplus not something to settle for out of desperation when all else fails. If the Republican leadership is sincere in their support for debt reduction, I would ask them to work with the Blue Dogs and all on our side of the aisle in our efforts to ensure that debt reduction is the first priority and using the projected surplus over the next 10 years, not the next year, and realize that there are those on this side, in fact the majority of my colleagues on this side have supported with their votes recorded that we believe deficit reduction is the most important tact. It still is not a bad plan. Go back to the drawing board. One year should not be enough. We ought to have at least a 5-year spending cap proposal on the floor of the House, and we ought to deal with the 10- year projections in a realistic way. I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to join with us in doing just that.

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I wish when my colleague makes mention of me that he would extend the courtesy of yielding for purposes of a response. I agree with the gentleman. That is precisely our point. We can deal with the death tax and meet every single one of the tear- bringing responses that he just brought again to the floor. I agree with him. We can deal with the marriage tax, not like you were proposing it last week, but like the Blue Dogs have suggested for the last 18 months. We can do it. Let us roll up our sleeves and do it, and you will find that we will reduce the debt as much or more as the bill before us today and do just exactly that.

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Madam Speaker, I would like to return the compliment to the gentleman from California. I truly have enjoyed attempting to work with him and several others on his side of the aisle who have attempted to be consistent. The bill today is not consistent. That is my problem. You cannot be on the floor one week arguing for gigantic tax cuts and then the next week coming in for saying debt reduction. You cannot do that in an honest sense. You can do it in a political sense, and I realize that is what we are doing today. I happen to have been here during the Reagan-Bush years. Only one of those 12 years did the Congress, the big-spending liberal Congress that we have heard so many times referred to, only one time in those 12 years did the Congress ever spend more than Presidents Reagan and Bush asked us to spend. I say that to say, let us stop the finger pointing. There is enough blame. I give credit to my colleagues on the other side for those things which they have attempted to do. But I have a healthy disagreement with the budget priorities they have brought. The gentleman from Kentucky a moment ago inferred in the usual sly way that the Blue Dog budget would have increased taxes. He knows that is not right. He knows that our budget proposed real tax cuts, just like he knows that last week when I stood up in support of the President's veto on the marriage tax penalty, I support eliminating the marriage tax. He knows that. My argument was that it did not take $292 billion to do it, it took $82 billion. Let us confine our tax cuts within the confines of what we need to do to pay down the debt, which the gentleman from Tennessee was talking about a moment ago. You cannot do both. If you are going to have a $1.3 trillion tax cut, you do not have any money left for deficit reduction and still meet the needs of Social Security and Medicare and defense spending and all of the other things that we need. My colleagues know that I support eliminating the death tax and have voted that way and hope that in this compromise in the 90-10 era that we can have a death tax repeal effective January 1, 2001, on all estates up to $4 million if we can pull up our sleeves and start working together. Now, I do not know why we have this legislation. Well, I do. Everybody knows why it is out here today. We keep talking about 40 years. Forty years is history. I am more interested in this year and the next 10 years and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) is, too. I know exactly where he comes from. But he has got a duty to do today. His leadership has decided we have to now emphasize debt reduction, so we are going to have a bill out emphasizing debt reduction so we can have press releases back home. But the real way we are going to deal with this is to get real. Let me also make it very clear when we talk about numbers, there is not a dime of these dollars that are not the people's money. It does not take Members of Congress standing up and saying this is the people's money. We do not have any money to spend that we do not first take from the American people. It is a matter of priorities. My priority is fixing Social Security and fixing Medicare first, paying down the debt and then dealing with the priorities that were your number one priority last week. This week it is a different one.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the shortages that we allowed to happen in the defense needs of this country have originated in this House of Representatives, not the President. We both agree to that. Therefore, my concern about the current budget implications today is that, when my colleagues base their entire budget on a tax cut, and the newest one now that they have proposed, the gentleman's leadership has proposed, not the gentleman, there is no money left. If we take 90 percent of the total unified budget and apply it to the debt, there is no money left this year to increase defense spending in those areas where the gentleman from California and I would agree. That is my problem. If my colleagues take it out 10 years, there is no money. Let me go back. The gentleman from California mentioned the Reagan years. I happen to be a Member that served here during that period of time. I happen to be a Democrat on this side of the aisle that helped pass much of the Reagan revolution. But I think it is important that we set in proper perspective, when we start comparing total outlays in spending as a percent of gross domestic product during the Reagan years was 21\1/2\ percent. It increased to 22 percent in the Bush years. It has dropped to 20 percent in the Clinton years, which the gentleman's side of the aisle had deserved some credit for bringing down the spending. But when one counts administrations, it is not correct to say that government has grown in the last 8 years. It has not. Federal employment has dropped from 2.1 million Federal employees during the Reagan years, went up to 2.2 million in the Bush years, and dropped to 1.8 million in the Clinton years. I do not say that in defense, because I am much more interested in the future than I am in the past. I rejoice in the fact that we now have a surplus, that we are, in fact, discussing how we shall spend the surplus. During my hour, we are going to talk about this surplus is fictional. We cannot spend it like it is real money. It is projected. But discretionary spending, defense, defense spending, let me make this point to bear out what the gentleman has been saying as regards to defense. The Johnson years, oh, how we have heard about those. Discretionary spending as a percent of gross domestic product was 12 percent. The Reagan years, it dropped to 9.5. The Bush years, it dropped to 8.5. The Clinton years, 6.8. Nondefense, though, 3.7. Johnson. Reagan, 3.5.