Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say again in reiteration of what all of my colleagues who have testified in favor of this legislation today and the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I do also thank them for their work and input into this very important legislation. I know, speaking from back home in Texas, the importance of these projects has been demonstrated time and time again over these 50 years, but now particularly as cities like Dallas and Fort Worth begin to look at some very serious flood concerns that they have and how they might address that. Other cities all over the United States, most communities will find, when one looks at how to solve a problem of flood control that one will find the small watershed projects would be right at the top of the list. Now, when we have these large number of dams that have been built and are in need of rehabilitation, this legislation only make makes very, very serious common sense. So I appreciate, again, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for bringing this legislation to all of our attention, and all of the cooperation that has been made to reach it to the point to where we are today. I encourage the House to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute and in opposition to the base bill we have before us concerning tax relief. I think what stuns me the most is how time and time again, the majority party proves its preference for clinging to a political sound bite that they hope will translate into Election Day results rather than actually seizing golden opportunities to accomplish something good for the American people. How much more clear could it be that the vast majority of this body, as well as the Senate and the President, are eager to bring about genuine marriage tax relief for the average American family? We could come to the floor this afternoon and in very short order develop the compromise that would bring meaningful support and tax equity to millions of Americans. Sadly, we choose instead to continue a charade. The other thing that amazes me is the level of inconsistency reflected from one message of the day to the next. On one day, this House loves to congratulate itself on its commitment to debt reduction. The next day it is tax relief for small businesses. Another day, we swear our support for Social Security and Medicare, while doing nothing about Social Security and Medicare. Then, we promise a huge tax cut not only for middle- and low-income married couples, but we also sneak in wider tax brackets to benefit on this folks. Now, I think most of these things are worthy, and, in fact, should be among our highest priorities. But it is just not possible to have 10 different number one priorities. The blue dogs looked at the whole picture and realistically balanced each concern with the other, rather than pandering to the ``cause du jour.'' We do not live in the political fairy land which believes in a Budgetary Godmother who can wave her magic wand and grant all of our expensive wishes. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Democratic substitute on the floor today. It would accomplish what the name implies: genuine tax relief for couples who have been penalized by virtue of marriage. It corrects the flaw in the Republican bill, the AMT problem which would deny relief to nearly half of middle-income American families with two children by the time the bill would be fully phased in. It also endorses the idea that lower-income, married couples deserve relief by adjusting their earned income tax credit. Just as importantly, the Democratic substitute ensures that we will have resources for other priorities, such as debt reduction, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, estate tax relief, prescription drug coverage, and providing relief to our rural hospitals. The Democratic alternative and motion to recommit will guarantee that estate tax relief does not come at the expense of raiding the Medicare trust fund or taking away resources needed for Medicare prescription drug coverage. Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to actually accomplish good today. Will we choose that path, or will we continue to choose rhetoric over solutions? Vote for the Democratic substitute and strongly oppose the base bill.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my good friend, it may be true, and I assume the gentleman's numbers are correct, but I also have 116,000 Social Security recipients in my district. In all due respect, the Republican tax bill and the entire other tax package will jeopardize the future of Social Security and Medicare. And just as the gentleman in his own district, he has 92,000 senior citizens that he is willing to put at risk for this continued charade that we have today. With all due respect, we have to have a balanced package, and we cannot do all of those things which the gentleman from Illinois and others contend we can do. We must map some priority choices, and I resent the fact that the gentleman from Illinois would imply that what I am voting for today does not eliminate the marriage tax penalty in the 17th district because it does, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) knows it.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WELLER, Not this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is going to use my name and my district, I would ask the gentleman to yield.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand where my friend is coming from, but he keeps talking about the Wool and Mohair Act. That is gone. The Congress took it away, voted it out, in 1994. Now, the money in question in the supplemental is a little bit different question, because from 1995 to 1998, domestic mohair production has declined 60 percent in the United States from 12 million pounds down to 5. In the wool area, the lamb industry, the market depression has driven over 25,000 sheep producers out of business in the 1990s. Now, the gentleman might say this is fine. If this is the market doing this and making this happen, this is in the spirit of voting out the wool and mohair program. But that is not what the facts bear out. When we look at the European Union this year, I say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), the European Union will spend $2 billion subsidizing their wool producers. Subsidizing their wool producers. The answer of the gentleman from South Carolina is to take away the help that was put into the supplemental from our industry that is struggling to survive in the international marketplace. What we are trying to do is get some support from the Congress, and there was some support given, in recognition that the wool and mohair industry is now in fact trying to pull themselves back up by their bootstraps and compete. And it seems to me that an amendment that strikes $11 million out of a $7.1 billion total appropriation for recognizing the depressed prices that are occurring in all of agriculture is a little bit mean spirited, and it is not certainly up to the character of my friend from South Carolina. The gentleman's amendment, and I say to my colleagues, the Sanford amendment is misguided. It is based on some old historical facts that are no longer prevalent. The Sanford amendment sends a signal to domestic producers that their government does not stand behind them in the face of unfair trade. I would also point out to my colleagues that the industry has won a section 201. The International Trade Commission has found in favor of the domestic industry; that they have been experiencing unfair trade practices by other countries and, therefore, were entitled to $100 million in compensation as a result of what the ITC has found. It seems to me that this amendment should be defeated today. It is well-intentioned but very misguided. These two industries are doing everything they can to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to survive in this marketplace. They need a little assistance from the Congress to do it.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment again this year, and for the basic same reasons we have in the past. There is a lot of misinformation about what this amendment does and does not do. And I concede the point to the gentleman, and all of those who are proposing this amendment, that they are opposed to killing of wolves and coyotes and other animals that do great damage to American agriculture. I concede that point. But from the standpoint of what this amendment does, I think it is important to understand, first off, that the Wildlife Services program is a highly specialized organization within the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Wildlife Services uses, uses now, contrary to the previous Speaker, integrated wildlife management techniques and strategies to minimize the negative impacts of wildlife on livestock and crops, human health and safety, property, and threatened and endangered species. If this amendment were to pass, the $7 million, the DeFazio amendment would redirect the $10 million in additional funds by prohibiting their use for livestock protection programs. Because of the cooperative nature of this program, a $7 million cut and a redirection of funds actually results in a total loss in the program of $23.7 million. Now, this also will knock out $2 million of the bill's appropriated funds to increase wildlife services that will be dealing with the rabies control program and collaborations. The DeFazio amendment would not only cause a loss of $2 million for this important program, but would also cause an additional loss of cooperative money by local sponsors. The funding for these wildlife professionals provides the basis that allows the State to devote funds for permanent personnel to perform all of the duties of animal control. By limiting the duties that wildlife professionals perform, we undermine the entire program. Please oppose this misguided amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I rise in opposition precisely because of the nature of the amendment in which the gentleman from South Carolina, my good friend, reduces arbitrarily the amount of money set aside. And I do so without apology on spending or defense of this particular category. When we look at the total amount of money that is being invested in agriculture on food, then it should be relatively easy to oppose an amendment that arbitrarily strikes $16 million without saying where we will strike it. I trust the judgment of the committee that has spent literally hours in determining the priority of projects. And I say that as one who has had some of my own requests turned down this year because there was not sufficient money available to fund all of the projects. Mr. Chairman, I respect that, as much as it hurts me to say that, because I happen to believe some needs that we were supporting in Texas and in other areas should have been considered, but were not able to be considered under the tight budget restraints. But to come in and arbitrarily cut an additional $16 million seems to me to be a little harsh, because when we look at things like bovine tuberculosis in Michigan, a very, very serious problem that we do need to have a special rifle-shot attention being done for it. We have already heard about the citrus canker in Florida. Designing foods for health, very important. Potentially, something might be wasted, but by the same token, trying to find answers through our food supply of dealing with the very serious disease of cancer. I can list others. We have already heard the California problem in the wine industry, et cetera. But I remember not too many years ago in which, on this floor I am sure, but I heard it on talk shows, radio hosts who ridiculed a program that this Congress had appropriated dollars for, to study the sex life of a fly. If we let our mind wander for a moment, anyone who would hear that as we were spending taxpayer dollars and suggest what fun one could have with that. But, Mr. Chairman, it turns out that program was the Screw Worm Eradication program. That was a program that has now successfully eradicated the screw worm not only from the livestock industry in the United States, but also in Mexico. We are hoping to continue to move it completely off the face of this Earth. It has also benefited the wildlife industry tremendously. How many fawns have lived because there was no screw worm to take their life? So I would ask the indulgence of the body to stick with the committee. They have done a good job. I can criticize the $74 million as not being enough, but that is not what we are here today to do. But I would respectfully say to the gentleman from South Carolina, I know his intent, and he and I have joined on many occasions to reduce spending. But I would use this opportunity to point out to the entire House, we have done a pretty darned good job. We are now down to where we are going to be discretionary spending something like less than 17 percent of the available funds. At some point in time we who call ourselves conservatives have got to acknowledge that and begin to look seriously at whether or not additional cuts are going to do real harm. I respectfully oppose the amendment, because when we look at the 16 million, if some of these projects would come out, we could do some real harm that I know the gentleman from South Carolina, my friend, would not want to do.

Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his help, and I look forward to working with him and the ranking minority Member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) on this issue of gravest circumstance. Mr. Chairman, I would take the remaining part of my time, and again, highlight something that I said a couple of nights ago when the HUD bill was on the floor. The bureaucratic indifference to the problems of these communities is becoming a very, very real problem, so I would hope that all of the committees, the authorizing committees of jurisdiction, would work with us as we attempt to work with the various agencies in order that we might have a little common sense applied to these emergencies and not have projects delayed needlessly as we continue to dot every ``I'' and cross every ``T'' on many of the myriad of hindrances that Congress has put in the way of dealing with emergency situations. I would hope that as we work through this difficult situation in all communities, all over the United States, that we might have the kind of sympathetic, common sense concern to address the problems. Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Sanford

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. But from the standpoint of freeze, I would hope the gentleman would look at it from the total perspective of agriculture, not a particular program. Because if we look at it from the total and the needs that we have, and those needs that were not able to be funded, I believe perhaps the gentleman would have some sympathy for those of us who say it is a cut.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this time and ask for the indulgence of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to enter into a colloquy. I would like to bring a very serious matter to the attention of my colleagues, which is the devastating effect the drought is having on Texas and its residents. We are well aware of the economic impact it has had on agriculture production. Our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) was speaking in terms of what was happening in his State and other parts of the country. The prolonged drought is now threatening an essential human need, drinking water. Let me give my colleagues a few examples: Sylvester, McCaulley, West Odessa, Rhineland, Mirando City, and Bruni's water supply comes from wells. Because of the drought, the water tables have dropped and the water quality is poor. In addition, they face the real potential of their wells running dry. Stamford, Texas has about a 1-year supply of water. The water quality is poor. Solutions have been delayed by bureaucratic indifference. Without assistance to divert water into the lake, any rainfall will be lost. Throckmorton, Texas, a population of 1,036 whose sole source of water is a lake, has approximately 117 days of water left. They are working with State and Federal agencies for resources to fund a pipeline to a neighboring community about 30 miles away. This is an emergency situation. Mr. Chairman, within USDA, there are rural utility programs that are designed to address problems such as these. Section 381E(d)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act describes several programs that can alleviate the dire circumstances that these small rural communities face. For example, the Emergency Community Rural Water Assistance Program provides grants for communities in these dire situations. Unfortunately, the program has not been funded since fiscal year 1996. I would like to ask for the help of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and to work with the gentleman and others on this committee as this bill moves through the legislative process to find funding for these programs so these communities can receive the critical assistance that they need.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for yielding to me. Just to make sure that our colleagues understand this amendment, what we are saying is there is a process in which most folks in USDA and EPA have agreed to from time to time, and that is to allow the participation of all interests in this case, those groups concerned solely with conservation, but also not only those individual groups but also producers. There is a mistaken belief among some that farmers and ranchers are always on the opposite or other side of conservation, clean water and clean air; and nothing could be further from the truth. What we are saying and have been trying to say and have been almost totally ignored thus far by EPA is that we want to be included. We want to have them decide and discuss sound science and the rationale behind their proposal in this rulemaking and do it in the sunshine so everyone can see their rationale and can hear those who disagree, and then reasonable people can come together and can come up with a solution that accomplishes what we all want to accomplish. That has not been followed. That is the frustration that we have had not only on this issue but also on the Food Quality Protection Act. We are simply saying very strongly, as we know how, USDA, if they choose not to exercise their authority, as they stated to the Committee on Appropriations when they said in a letter that they take strong exception to what EPA is doing, if they took strong exception to what USDA is doing, why have they now decided to go along with what EPA is doing? That is the message today, and I urge my colleagues to support the Berry amendment.

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

Mr STENHOLM

Mr STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I must say that it saddens me somewhat to have to rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). However, I have been tremendously disappointed with the leadership shown, or lack of leadership shown, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the entire process that has led up to the publishing of the TMDL rule, the Total Maximum Daily Load. During the entire process, there has been much, much to be faulted. There are serious questions about the science and financial analysis underlying these new water quality regulations proposed by EPA. Recent reports by the General Accounting Office, the Society of American Foresters, and other respected experts have questioned the wisdom of EPA's proposed rules. Our colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have called on the EPA to withdraw this rule, as have a number of agricultural and environmental groups. Even USDA, in their own testimony before the Committee on Appropriations, took strong exception to some of what EPA proposed in their TMDL rule, although they seem to have tempered that concern somewhat. This House has already spoken on this issue with a provision passed by the House in the VA-HUD appropriation bill that does not allow EPA to implement the proposed rule in FY 2001. Now, USDA has the technical and scientific expertise to review the actions of EPA and help guide them toward a reasonable solution that might actually work in the field, and that is why the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) offers this amendment today and why it is very pertinent to the discussion today. If the Department of Agriculture is not willing to use their resources to stand up to EPA for the benefit of farmers and ranchers and the environment, then we should spend their money helping those same landowners that are already trying to preserve their soil and protect water quality. That is the simplistics of this amendment. Now I find it very frustrating, because I happen to have been chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry when we reorganized USDA in 1992 and one of the things we agreed to in this Congress and with the administration was that we wanted to improve the ability of USDA to be a coequal with other branches of government when it comes to dealing with environmental and food safety issues. The problem is that we do not have a coequal when one part of the coequal does not stand up for that which is in their own testimony and also in which they have said we agree. So the purpose of this amendment today is pretty simple. It is delivering what we hope will be a very strong message to both EPA and to USDA that common sense must apply, and to all of those groups that keep pounding on EPA to do things that do not make common sense, to require our farmers and ranchers to spend unlimited amounts of money fixing a problem that may not be fixable with any amount of money. If we could just come back, just come back to a common sense approach in which we recognize that farmers and ranchers want to solve the TMDL problem, I certainly in my district have some very serious problems in which all farmers and ranchers are willing to work with reasonable people to come up with a reasonable solution that will solve the problem. Therefore, I am not here today saying we should do nothing, but many times doing something is very, very detrimental to the very cause in which we are talking and today it is clean water. When there is someone within a bureaucracy that so believes they are right, that they are completely, completely willing to ignore all common sense and forge ahead with requiring paperwork burdens and things that absolutely will not solve the problem in the opinion of everybody but them, there is a problem. So this amendment is very serious. Let us put the money where there is an indication that we will have a willingness to solve the problem. Hopefully, though, we will have the kind of common sense approach to this question that will lead us to a solution that can be embraced by all. Certainly that is the desire of farmers and ranchers that I represent in my district, in my State and the other 49 States. To those out there in EPA land, listen carefully. We want to work with them. We do not agree with those of them who believe that the only solution is theirs and they want to do it in the quiet of the night. We want to work with them. Let us work with them. Quit demanding that it be done only their way.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is available, affordable, dependable and voluntary for all seniors and against the bill the leadership has brought to the floor today. The Democratic plan will provide a meaningful prescription benefit that is available to all seniors, including those in rural areas. Unlike H.R. 4680, it will provide equal treatment for all seniors, without disparities in coverage between rural, urban and suburban regions. It will use market power of seniors to reduce costs through competition, and it will help low and middle-income seniors afford prescription medicine. I am particularly pleased that the Democratic plan contains an amendment I suggested which will ensure that the Medicare prescription drug benefit will fit within a fiscally responsible budget. Specifically, the Democratic plan requires that we stay on a course to take the Medicaid trust fund off budget and eliminate the debt held by the public by 2012. In addition, despite what some of my colleagues on the other side have stated, the Democratic plan would provide a catastrophic benefit in 2003 if Congress and the President work together to enact reforms to strengthen and modernize Medicare. Several supporters of H.R. 4860 have said we need to reform Medicare, but unlike the Democratic plan, H.R. 4860 does not call for action on Medicare reform. Relying on private sector plans to deliver prescription drug coverage as H.R. 4860 would do will not provide a meaningful benefit which is available to all seniors, including those in rural areas. It will not be cost effective for private plans to offer coverage in rural areas, which will result in expensive government subsidies to attract plans to rural areas. Rural seniors should not be forced to pay higher premiums or have less generous benefits, simply because they live in areas that are not financially attractive to private insurance companies. I am not hostile to private sector solutions. But we understand the role of the private sector is to make a profit. Meanwhile, the role of the government is to provide benefits in situations of great need that go unanswered by business. Over the past decade, crop insurance for farmers has shown not only that private insurance sometimes fails to provide a guaranteed safety net in necessary situations, but also that it can become enormously costly. Even though the Republican's prescription drug bill is tallied at $40 billion today, I have no doubt that, just like crop insurance, its costs would multiply many, many time as we have to come back to provide higher and higher subsidies over the coming years, and still seniors would be left without the guarantee of prescription drug coverage. Seniors deserve certainty about getting help with their prescription drugs. They deserve to be treated equally, regardless of whether they live in rural communities like my District or big cities like Dallas. They deserve to have their government supporting them with their most basic life needs. They deserve to have a Medicare program which is modernized in a way that reassures them the program will be strong for their grandkids. That is what the Democratic motion to recommit would do and what the bill before us fails to do.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the bill contains a number of preemptions of State law that would be intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. CBO cannot estimate the cost of a preemption of State taxing authority because of uncertainties about market changes. The bill also contains a private sector mandate on Medigap insurers that would bar them from providing coverage of prescription drug expenses for certain individuals. But CBO estimates that its cost would not exceed the threshold specified. Mr. Speaker, we have spent a lot of time in this body over the last several years discussing unfunded mandates; and there has been very strong bipartisan acknowledgment and support that the Federal Government, the United States Congress in particular, should pass no additional legislation that causes States and/or private businesses to incur cost without at least conferring with them and getting their acquiescence. This bill, developed somewhere in the middle of the night, no real bipartisan hearings, no discussions regarding the question of the point of order that I bring up at this moment, no one has had an acknowledgment of what do we do about these unfunded mandates. It seems that this bill has been agreed to and that unfunded mandates on this particular bill are okay. I would hope that we could have some consistency in our opinions regarding legislation and again would point out the number of preemptions that are in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 539 waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4680, including points of order against provisions of the House Rules pertaining to intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Mr. Speaker, the offending language in the resolution is ``without intervention of any point of order.'' Included in that waiver are points of order that would possibly lie against consideration of H.R. 4680.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration of the resolution.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think there is very strong agreement on both sides of the aisle that we need to deal with the pharmaceutical cost issue. I know in my own district at home that I have hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals who have to choose between the cost of their medicine and food every month. And I know that folks on both sides of the aisle agree to that. What bothers me about the bill that is being rushed to the floor and those of us on this side who would have had some differing opinions, or at least having a substitute, or at least having the opportunity to amend in some way being denied. Okay, I understand the rule of the majority. The majority can do anything that they wish to do, and they are doing it. But by the same token, I would hope that there would be large numbers of Members on the other side of the aisle that would have just a tinge of conscience in following their leadership down a path in which, when we ask the question, what is this plan that we will vote on later today going to cost, I do not know. That is up to the private sector to determine. That is where the unfunded mandates in this point of order come from. If my colleagues read carefully the legislation, they will find that there are mandates on the private sector and mandates on local and State government that I do not think most of my colleagues want to vote for. Most of them are like most of us, we have not seen in detail this bill that we are considering. We are rushing it to the floor because somebody thinks it is a good idea and everybody on that side suggests that we should not be allowed to even amend it on this floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the point of order is raised on the unfunded mandates. Read the bill, my friends on the other side who are about to blindly follow their leadership down the path. This is not the way to legislate. This is not the way to deal with the question as important as the pharmaceutical costs to all Americans is, and it is certainly not the way to have an unfunded mandate after spending the hours passing bills and doing all of the things and saying we are not going to impose costs on State and local government and private business for any purpose.