Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman from Indiana for allowing me to take these 5 minutes and to speak relatively out of order. I do not have an amendment, but I want to speak about a very, very real and growing problem in my district back home dealing with water. In almost any part of Texas, drive into a rural area and look for a large pond; and when one finds one, it is likely to have been built, funded and managed through a unique coalition of Federal, State, and local agencies. These projects provide many benefits, including flood control and bettering water quality, but more importantly the improve water availability in areas of perpetual drought. No resource is more crucial than water. There is an increasing need for water as the population and economy continues to grow rapidly. Water shortage problems arise primarily as a result of limited access to supplies and uneven distribution of water resources. It is these small watershed projects that provide many communities the means to maintain a viable water supply and literally keep the community alive. Unfortunately, many of these projects do not always find their way to completion on a smooth road. Time and time again I have seen projects back home held up by multiple bureaucratic hurdles that in the end seriously impact the health, safety, and welfare of the community involved. For example, the City of Stamford, Texas, is facing a very serious water availability problem in which the Army Corps of Engineers was involved as required by law. The population of Stamford is approximately 3,300. However, the city provides water to 10,000 residents in the area. Lake Stamford is the sole source of water supply for the city, as well as several surrounding communities and West Texas Utilities' 237 megawatt Paint Creek Steam Electric power station. The city is operating under a 1-year supply of water. A diversion project was formulated to supplement the inflow to Lake Stamford. The diversion project would be located on Paint Creek and would consist of a pump station, a pipeline and a channel dam, creating a detention pond along the stream channels. The city began by requesting a pre-application meeting to speed up the process. However, this request was denied by the Corps on the grounds that dams generally destroy and/or degrade riverine systems, even those that do not permanently impound water. As such, they should be avoided when a practical alternative exists. The applicant, City of Stamford, should evaluate alternatives to supplementing its water supply. Obviously, the authors of this regulatory requirement have never set foot in west Texas, as finding an alternative water source is about as likely as finding an udder on a bull. After 6 months of jumping through hoops and over hurdles, including the proposed mitigation of 2,200 acres of mesquite trees, a species and often eradicated throughout the State, the city was faced with their next obstacle, an on-site assessment of the project area to evaluate the culture resource sites identified through a required archeological survey which was requested to discuss the project's potential impact on the aquatic environment and formulate possible alternatives that might help reduce the project's adverse environmental impact. As expected, a site was identified, a site which if left alone would continue to wash away as a result of normal creek flow regardless of whether or not this project was implemented. However, the city is now required to mitigate this site as a mandate by the National Historic Preservation Act. As a result of this untimely process, and because of some recent spring rains as recorded by the USGS, the City of Stamford has missed out on a 2-year water supply increase of approximately 4,400 acre feet of water because the infrastructure was not in place. Opportunities to collect water come rarely in west Texas, and it is painful for those of us from the area to watch the opportunities flow away from us unnecessarily. Now, Stamford is not alone in this problem. Most, if not all, of the communities in my district are facing serious water availability concerns. The cities of Throckmorton and Winters have a 118-day supply of drinking water remaining with no other options, and the cities of Abilene and Snyder are currently working on potential solutions to their water shortage problem. Each of these cases will likely involve the Corps, as well as the numerous laws and regulations that require the Corps to dot every ``I'' and cross every ``T.'' Granted, it is important to carefully scrutinize projects ensuring that the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act are fulfilled; but 118 days does not allow much room for bureaucratic red tape, especially when one is dealing with an emergency situation involving the economic stability of a community, in addition to people's lives and well-being. The situation at hand is not entirely the fault of the Corps. We in Congress need to be mindful of the legislation passed. It is not implemented in a vacuum. A common sense approach to emergency situations like this, I hope, will get the attention of this committee and the committees of jurisdiction so that we might in fact find a solution to a very, very real problem in the near future. Amendment Offered by Mr. Hansen

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a great deal of Texas pride to recognize the Centennial of my hometown, Stamford, Texas. On June 30, 2000, citizens in this small West Texas town will gather to celebrate this event. Founded by owners of the SMS Ranches and the President of the Texas Central Railway, Stamford will honor the Centennial with the unveiling of a large sculpture made of steel that depicts a mounted cowboy meeting the railroad. The sculpture acknowledges the two industries--agriculture and railways--that contributed to the City's founding. Citizens will also place items into a time capsule that will be opened at the Bicentennial. I wish to include in the Record a brief history of the City. In addition, I want to include an excellent article by Stamford native Ron Calhoun that appeared in the June 2000 issue of Texas Co-Op Power. I know that many of my colleagues join me in congratulating Stamford on this important occasion. The City of Stamford The City of Stamford was established through the combined influence of the owners of the SMS Ranches and the Texas Central Railroad. Svante Magnus Swenson, who immigrated from Sweden in 1836, bought 100,000 acres of West Texas land, sight-unseen from railroad scrip which included portions of Jones, Throckmorton, Shackelford, Haskell and Stonewall Counties. Until 1882, because of the threat of Indian depredation, isolation and lack of operating capital, the ranch land lay unused. It was at that time, after receiving word that Texas was imposing taxes on land, that Swenson decided to bring his two sons, Eric Pierson (E.P.) and Swen Albin (S.A.) to Texas to begin utilizing the family's vast holdings in West Texas-- thus beginning the SMS Ranches. The Swenson Brothers realized that a railroad in their area was a necessity. In 1899, a meeting of the Swensons and Henry McHarg, president of the Texas Central Railway, resulted in the extension of the line from Albany, Texas, and the beginnings of a new townsite. The Swensons gave every other lot in the new townsite to the railroad, which was laid out on ranch property. McHarg named the new town Stamford after his hometown of Stamford, Connecticut. It was also the hometown of Eleanora Swenson Towne, a daughter of S.M. Swenson. The first building in Stamford was opened on January 8, 1900. Robert Lee Penick had the building moved from Anson to the site for the new town. Penick had arranged with P.P. Berthelot, manager of the townsite company, for certain lots to be established by the first business establishment. Sale of lots had not officially begun, but Berthelot assured Penick that he could have the lot if he were willing to take on possible change of price, since they had not yet been determined. A small frame structure, the house was set into place on that site and a sign tacked on the front of the building reading, ``The Bank of Stamford.'' The first deposit was 15 cents and was made by Nathan Leavitt, Stamford's first postmaster. Just one week later, J.S. Morrow of Anson opened up a second bank, the Morrow-Lowden. Additional lots were sold on January 15. Penick-Colbert- Hughes and Baker-Bryant were two of the firms to buy lots. Leavitt bought a lot for the post office. The town was plotted and the principal streets were named McHarg and Swenson, thus beginning the town of Stamford. The first train came over the new extension on February 11, 1900. In the spring of 1900, the construction of the historic Stamford Inn was begun. It was formally opened in February 1901, operated by the Townsite Company, under the direction of W.E. Gunnig. Destroyed by fire in 1924, the motel was rebuilt and purchased by A.C. Cooper, and in the 1930's, 40's and 50's became a well-known hotel for travelers, visitors and railroad workers. The Stamford Inn was sold in the mid 40's and was a retirement home until the mid 70's. Most of Stamford's early operatives were established by the Townsite Company. The electric light plant was installed in 1900. This was later disposed of to the Stamford Gas and Electric Company in 1907 and still later was acquired by the West Texas Utilities, still operating the City. Stamford's first chamber of Commerce was established a few days after the town started as the old Commercial Club with Penick as president. The town was incorporated on January 24, 1901, and P.P. Berthelot, secretary and business manager of the Townsite Company was elected as the first mayor. In 1903, city fathers built a two-story building in the middle of the downtown square. The first floor served as City Hall and the second floor was an Opera House. R.L. Penick had been elected mayor just prior to the construction. In 1917, the U.S. government purchased the land to build a new Post Office. The City Hall was torn down and rebuilt in it's existing location at the corner of Wetherbee and McHarg Streets. Agriculture was the primary industry. The Swenson's Hereford cattle herd combined with other area ranches were a huge boost to the economy. Additionally, cotton was the primary crop in the area. In 1905, a world-record 40,000 bales were shipped from the area. Another factor for growth was the building of other railroads through Stamford. In 1907, the Texas Central extended its rails 40 miles west to Rotan and the Wichita Valley Railroad reached Stamford, linking Wichita Falls and Abilene. The Stamford Northwestern Railway Company was chartered in 1909 and the railroad was built from Stamford to Spur. Swenson Cattle company was a large stockholder in this railroad and they built cotton gins for the farmers along the route. By 1915, approximately twelve passenger trains were departing from Stamford and many wholesale houses were opened to accommodate business in the area. Stamford's early religious, cultural and educational life was not neglected. Churches were especially deemed desirable additions to the community by the Townsite organizers who donated plots to each denomination. In fact, Cumberland Presbyterian Church (later re-named Central Presbyterian) was organized prior to the actual beginning of the town, on September 3, 1899. St. John's United Methodist church and the First Baptist Church were both organized in 1900 followed by the Christian Church and the West Side Baptist Mission. Stamford's first school was built on Moran Street with Professor Coss Rose as the first superintendent. Citizens subscribed $4,000 for the erection of the building. In 1906, twenty acres was donated by the Townsite Company to establish Stamford College. A fire in 1916 destroyed the administration building and the college was moved to Abilene and the name changed to McMurry University. In early Spring of 1930, a small group of Stamford men organized the Texas Cowboy Reunion as an annual rodeo and reunion of cowboys and ranchers of the area which would help boost the local economy, as well. Staged each year during the Fourth of July weekend, the Texas Cowboy Reunion, known as the World's Largest Amateur Rodeo, continues to entertain approximately 25,000 each year. In 1950, Paint Creek, north of Stamford, was damned to enable Stamford to have a lake with an adequate water supply. Today the lake is a popular recreational area for boating, camping and fishing. Today, the railroad which played such a large role in the development of Stamford one hundred years ago, is no more. The Burlington Northern Railroad (final proprietor of the line) abandoned the track in the late 1990s. However, cotton, cattle and wheat continue to be among the town's leading industry with Swenson Land and Cattle Company still in operation and headquartered in Stamford.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the resolution, which would undermine U.S. markets abroad for billions of dollars of U.S. agricultural products. Trade is essential to U.S. prosperity, and the WTO makes trade work for America. Is it perfect? No. But all of the criticisms that I have heard this morning by my colleagues who oppose or support this resolution, all of these criticisms can be corrected by the United States maintaining a strong leadership role in making the WTO better. Academic studies estimate an annual GDP gain for the United States from the Uruguay Round of about $32 billion. These estimates do not even fully take into account gains due to reduction of non-tariff barriers to trade and the growth effects of more open markets. The WTO provides member states with a set of rules that open markets to U.S. agricultural and industrial products and services. At the heart of the WTO rules-based trading system is the WTO dispute resolution system, which keeps trade disputes from escalating into trade wars. From the agricultural point of view, the WTO dispute resolution is working to expand market opportunities around the world: There was a recently reported victory on Korean beef that adds about $35 million a year in U.S. sales to that country. The WTO has sanctioned retaliation of over $300 million against the European Union on beef and bananas. It has expanded varieties of U.S. fruit exports to Japan. It has increased exports of U.S. pork and beef by pressuring Korea to modernize shelf life restrictions. Dispute resolution has improved the European Union grain importation regulations that have benefited U.S. rice exports. It has reduced Hungarian export subsidies. I can go on and on with significant victories for United States agricultural products. It ruled, for example, against a Canadian dairy export subsidy scheme before it could be copied in Europe. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we need the WTO dispute resolution system to keep opening markets for U.S. agricultural products, and we need the WTO. A strong vote against Joint Resolution 90 will send an important signal to our trading partners that America is ready to lead a new round of WTO negotiations.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Lockbox Act. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for his work in introducing the legislation. I was proud to join him in sending out Dear Colleagues twice to our colleagues encouraging them to support this legislation. But I must say, I am rather disappointed that the gentleman's leadership chose to change the legislation significantly last night between the time we wrote the letter encouraging them to support it and what we have before us today. Why they did that only the gentleman and they know. That is not a reason for us not to vote for the legislation today. It is still a step in the right direction. By creating a firewall around Medicare trust fund surpluses to protect these revenues for exclusive use in the Medicare program, this bill will take another step forward in maintaining fiscal discipline and improving our ability to meet the fiscal challenges of the future. For the last several years I have joined with my Blue Dog colleagues to offer budgets that would truly balance the budget without counting either Medicare or social security surpluses. As has already been discussed, recently the Vice President put the issue on the national agenda by proposing that the newly calculated surpluses be used to take Medicare off-budget. I want to congratulate those, now the House leadership, for endorsing the wisdom of the Blue Dog position and following the Vice President's lead on the issue, and following the lead of the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), although I must say, I wish the gentleman on this side of the aisle would have seen the wisdom, and more on our side of the aisle would have seen the wisdom, in voting for our Blue Dog budget earlier this year in which we would have already had this done. While congratulating my Republican colleagues for bringing this legislation to the floor today, I also remind them that this legislation applies to both spending increases and tax cuts that would dip into the Medicare surplus. Every Member who votes for this legislation today and brags about protecting Medicare should keep that in mind when talking about either large tax cuts or new spending proposals later this year. At the moment, the Medicare trust fund is running a surplus. That story will change drastically in the next decade when the baby boom generation begins retiring and depends on Medicare for their health coverage. Rather than consuming current surpluses through large tax cuts and new government spending, we should use them to prepare for the challenges Medicare faces. That is what we do with this legislation today. I again repeat, I am disappointed the bill before us was changed last night so it no longer excludes the Medicare trust fund from calculations of the on-budget surplus, and would allow us to continue the practice of using the Medicare surplus to inflate surplus totals. It is not as good a bill as the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) introduced or that I cosponsored, but it is still a good bill. Whether we technically take Medicare off-budget or not, I hope all Members will honor the spirit of this legislation and not count the Medicare surplus when talking about the amount of surpluses available to be divided between tax cuts, increased spending, and debt reduction. We are headed in the right direction. We are headed in the right direction by agreeing to save the Medicare trust fund surpluses to pay down the national debt and protect the long-term solvency of both social security and Medicare. However, we should go further by walling off some of the on-budget surpluses beyond social security and Medicare for debt reduction. Doing so would represent a much stronger commitment to paying down our $5.7 trillion national debt. Saving a portion of the non-social security and Medicare surpluses for debt reduction would start to make up for the years in which we borrowed from those surpluses instead of saving them, as we should have done. In addition, walling off a portion of the on-budget surplus for debt reduction provides a cushion if budget projections change for the worse. We should not kid ourselves that this legislation alone solves the long-term challenges facing Medicare, but until we can reach agreement on comprehensive Medicare reforms to put the program on a stronger financial footing, the next best thing we can do is pay down the debt by saving the entire Medicare surplus. I encourage all Members to support this legislation, which is a good step forward, and continue to move toward further fiscal responsibility. Again, I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for his leadership in this endeavor.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, there is agreement from both sides of the aisle today that there are very real problems with the estate tax that we need to address. Some small businesses and family farms cannot be passed from generation to generation because the estate taxes imposed upon the death of the owner plays too great a financial responsibility burden on the remaining family. This is wrong. But I encourage my colleagues to examine carefully the substance of H.R. 8 and the Democratic alternative to see which proposal actually delivers the relief we all want to provide. I want to bring estate tax relief to the people I represent in the 17th district of Texas. Family farmers and small business owners. But I want to do so from a fiscally responsible way, that which does not harm debt reduction or endanger necessary programs, such as defense, Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs. That is why I support the Rangel-Cardin-Stenholm substitute and oppose H.R. 8. Unlike H.R. 8, the Democratic alternative does not threaten Social Security and Medicare, with all due respect to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). The back-end loaded costs of the bill will threaten our ability to meet the challenges facing Social Security. This explosion in costs will come at the exact time the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will begin to face financial challenges and the Treasury will have to redeem the assets held by the trust funds to pay the benefits. The Democratic alternative provides immediate estate tax relief. The $4 million per family exclusion for farms and small businesses, the 20 percent across-the-board rate reduction for all estates, and increase in the unified credit of $1.1 million in the Democratic alternative would all take effect immediately. By contrast, H.R. 8 would make small businesses and family farmers wait for 10 years to receive the amount of relief that would be made available January 1, 2001, under the Democratic alternative. I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, why should we make them wait 10 years before they get the relief we have all been talking about today? The Democratic alternative is much more fiscally responsible than H.R. 8. H.R. 8 would cause an enormous long-term revenue loss which will undermine the fiscal discipline that has produced a strong economy and jeopardized our ability to retire our national debt. Many of my colleagues have stood here and made statements that I totally agree with. It is not the Government's money; it is the people's money. But how quickly we forget it is the people's debt, $5.7 trillion. How quickly we ignore the Social Security unfunded liability of $7.9 trillion when it comes to a tax cut that is politically popular to a few folks today. Let us stay with fiscal responsibility. The Democratic alternative does a much better job of targeting. It would immediately exempt 99 percent, 99 percent of family farms and estates from estate taxes and reduce the number of estates subject to the estate tax by 50 percent. The Democratic alternative provides meaningful relief which can become law. We can give the relief that we are all concerned about and give it immediately. H.R. 8 will not do so.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the issue is pretty simple today. It is whether we are going to have sunshine in the political process or whether we are not. We all know we do not need another study. We do not have to wait on another study. All we need to know is whether or not the 527 and all other groups shall disclose how much they are spending, how they are spending it, and who is, in fact, contributing the money. Let us let sunshine shine on the legislative process. It is pretty simple. Vote for the motion to recommit. Let us move this process along.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, let me first say what I am for and what I will vote for tomorrow, and that is eliminating the death tax on every estate of $4 million and less. I could be persuaded in the kind of debate that I would hope we would have to repeal the entire death tax if it was done in the context of total tax reform. But in the context of which we will discuss it today and tomorrow and in this rule, I oppose strongly this rule because it prevents the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I from offering an amendment to ensure that the estate tax repeal does not threaten Social Security and undermine the fiscal discipline that has produced our strong economy. During the debate on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, I joined with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) to offer an amendment that made the new spending for conservation programs contingent upon certification that we were on a path to eliminate the debt by 2013 and protecting the integrity of the Social Security and Medicare funds. The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I submitted an amendment applying this principle to phase-in of the estate tax repeal in H.R. 8. Our amendment is a very straightforward proposal which would simply require that this tax cut fit within the context of a fiscally responsible budget and maintain our commitment to eliminating the publicly held debt as quickly as possible. Since the Shadegg amendment passed with strong bipartisan support, I would have hoped that my friends on the other side of the aisle who supported this principle when it applied to spending would support our effort to provide the same safeguards for tax cuts consuming the projected surplus. Mr. Speaker, not only did I vote with the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and others, I enthusiastically supported them, and I will be very disappointed if not any of them today support a similar type of an amendment. I do not understand how we can have this rhetoric going back and forth between the sides blaming us on this side when some of us are asking consistency and when most of us who are concerned about paying down the debt and protecting Social Security on both sides of the aisle agree that an H.R. 8 that is backend loaded that will provide a $50 billion hole in the budget in 2010 is not the kind of fiscal responsibility that we stand up and talk about day after day. I do not understand how we can have such a dual purpose. When we can have bipartisan support for the Shadegg amendment but when we offer the same amendment or we ask under the rule to be allowed to have the same amendment voted on, you say no. Mr. Speaker, I would yield any time to anyone on this side of the aisle right now to explain to me why they would not allow a simple up- and-down vote to say yes, we will have this repeal of the death tax if it does not materially affect the survival of Social Security beginning in 2010. I will be happy to yield to any Member right now to give me a reason why they would not allow the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I to offer this same amendment on this bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the House in concurring with the Senate amendment and passing S. 777, otherwise known as, the Freedom to E-File bill. I have long been a proponent of initiatives at USDA to provide better service to farmers and ranchers through streamlining and the use of new technologies, while at the same time saving taxpayer dollars. Growing numbers of farmers and ranchers are using home computers. This fact, coupled with budget demands, is putting enormous pressure on USDA's field service employees. It is therefore imperative that USDA take advantage of the internet for the efficiencies it can offer. Doing so will benefit overworked field service staff, save taxpayer dollars, and allow farmers and ranchers to spend more time on their operations and less time visiting USDA offices. For these reasons, I believe USDA must improve electronic access to its programs and services. Consequently, I support S. 777, the Freedom to E-File bill. While I support the goals of this bill, I would prefer a more comprehensive look at USDA reorganization and modernization. Unfortunately, it appears that changes at USDA are only going to be made on an incremental basis. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just let me say in closing, again, I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Ewing) and the ranking members on this side for the tremendous hard work that has gone into this package. There is no question that our producers all across the Nation will be very appreciative of this financial assistance once again this year. I thank the actions, as the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) has mentioned a moment ago, tremendous work of the staffs on both sides of the aisle who have been able to work together in resolving many difficult issues in which we do not always agree 100 percent. But this committee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest), I think, does as good and perhaps I would say best job of any committee in the House of working out differences between both sides when we, perhaps, have differences, not partisan differences, but honest differences in the manner in which various pieces of the legislation should be written. This was a difficult task with the additions and all, but it has been done in a way in which I feel that can be recommended to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support. Again, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) for his work and cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and to congratulate my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture. I particularly want to thank the chairman for his work that he has put into this bill and for the inclusion of the minority and of all the members of the committee in the development of its provisions. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, are all to be commended for their efforts. While I support the conference report and encourage its adoption, I do have reservations about the manner in which the budgeted funds are being spent. Mr. Speaker, the conference report's crop insurance provisions succeed in spending the funds that were allocated in fiscal year 2000 and 2001 budgets for risk management and income assistance. The bill's supplemental provisions succeed in spending the $7.1 billion reserve fund for agriculture as set forth in the fiscal year 2001 budget. As someone who represents a rural agricultural area, I know how badly these additional resources are needed. Throughout the process of developing the crop insurance provisions of this bill, I have supported the idea that our crop insurance program needs to be strengthened and improved. While it was the will of our committee and of the House and Senate conferees that these funds should be dedicated to improvements in our current crop insurance program, the budget resolution made funds available for the broader purposes of income assistance and for risk management. In so doing, it provided a level of flexibility that would permit nearly any kind of agricultural assistance. I feel that this flexibility should have been used to meet a broader set of needs. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, the reserve fund for agriculture in this year's budget could have been used for any manner of assistance for farm producers. Again, the conference report before us today ignores that flexibility. By spending the $5.5 billion available for this year entirely on additional AMTA payments, the bill fails to recognize other unmet needs. For example, payments to producers under last year's natural disaster assistance program were pro-rated because sufficient funds were not appropriated to make them whole. I would have dedicated some of the $5.5 billion to raising these payments, which would have provided assistance to producers of all commodities who suffered from disaster. Without a doubt, the supplemental AMTA payments will provide assistance to agricultural producers who are suffering from economic disasters because of our failure to live up to our promises to provide them with opportunities from the marketplace. The criteria for receiving assistance are merely the possession of an AMTA contract, however; and this allows producers to receive a payment without demonstrating real need. I strongly believe that more fully funding the disaster payments would have been a better method for directing these funds to agriculture producers most in need. But my view was a minority view. Mr. Speaker, I also believe that these allotted funds could be better utilized to establish an adequate safety net for producers. This year marks the third year in a row that Congress has been called upon to take extraordinary action to make up for the deficiencies of our current farm program. It is getting expensive. The fact that for 3 years in a row we are compensating producers for low prices seems to me to be a stark admission that our basic farm program is not working, just as multiple years of yield disaster aid shows that crop insurance is not working. Increases in the budget are a clear signal by our colleagues that these problems, income reductions as well as yield reductions, need to be addressed, and the crop insurance provisions of this conference report today do move in that direction. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I must express my reservations in regard to the timing of this economic disaster assistance. As of right now, all we know for certain is that commodity prices are low. We have no hard numbers in regard to the extent to which we will need disaster assistance this year. Current outlook suggests that drought in the Midwest and the South will severely affect production. There is a possibility that supply and price relations could result in a situation where we have strengthened prices later this year. I understand that these funds must be spent in a timely manner in order to meet budget requirements. However, I would have been more comfortable taking our time in order to fully assess the complete picture later this year. I am concerned that we may not be allocating the provision of economic loss versus crop loss in a manner that is most responsible to the actual conditions facing producers this year. Our Nation deserves a long-term reliable farm policy. Taxpayers and agricultural producers alike should be able to know up front what kind of assistance they can expect and what the rules will be for distributing it. In terms of yield insurance, this bill makes some progress. Higher subsidy rates, for example, will lead to higher levels of participation in crop insurance, better indemnity performance for the producers who participate and hopefully less need for Congress to respond to weather disasters with emergency spending. Absent from the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the other half of the picture. In this and the previous 2 years, our programs have left producers overexposed to price and weather disasters. The bill makes progress towards addressing yield disaster, but what about future price disasters? How much more will our government spend on ad hoc supplemental AMTA payments before we realize that a more rational, predictable policy needs to be in force? Mr. Speaker, having pressed my reservations, I once again want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and all the members of the Committee on Agriculture and the conference committee for their work on this bill. Going into this progress, we agreed that short-term changes in crop insurance in this cycle would pave the way for a broad look at the entire program in the years ahead. I look forward to working with my colleagues in developing a crop insurance program that works better and a farm revenue program that meets producer and taxpayer needs. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that my colleagues vote to adopt the conference report before the House today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), a sponsor of the biomass legislation in the House, H.R. 2819, and who also contributed to the biomass provisions that are contained in this conference report. I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work on this issue. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers on the floor at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and as I have been listening to the debate, I have found it interesting that people would be talking about why are we mucking up this bill with this nonrelated issue. There is a pretty simple answer to that question. If we only allowed the regular legislative process to work, we would not have to do this. But remember, when we had the Shays-Meehan bill on the floor, opponent after opponent after opponent of the bill came forward and said, all we really need to do is to have disclosure. That is what this is all about. I would hope that the majority would finally agree to allow a simple disclosure bill, the bill of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore). All we are trying to say is, the 527s should not promote secrecy. Money is going to be spent in politics. What we are saying is it should not be spent in secrecy. We ought to shine the good sunshine and let the people know who is spending how much money in political races. This being our only opportunity, I commend the gentleman from Austin for coming up with a very innovative amendment today. This will give us a clear up or down vote on whether we are for it or whether we are against it.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it allows us to continue the pattern of fiscally irresponsible legislation that will squander the budget surplus drip by drip. Once again, we are being asked to waive the Budget Act in our rush to pass politically popular and, I might add, common sense legislation without regard for the consequences on our promises to retire the national debt and on our ability to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. I submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules that would have added very modest protection to ensure that this legislation does not jeopardize fiscal discipline. My amendment would allow the repeal of the telephone excise tax to take effect so long as Congress and the President maintain our course of fiscal discipline. Specifically, my amendment would have made the implementation of the telephone excise tax repeal contingent upon certification that Congress and the President have taken actions to ensure that we are on a path to eliminate the publicly held debt by 2013 and to protect the integrity of Social Security and Medicare. This amendment represents a common sense principle that should be supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. In fact, a bipartisan majority of this House has already voted in favor of the provisions of my amendment when we adopted the Shadegg amendment to H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I agreed with many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they argued during the debate on CARA that they should make sure that we are on a course to pay off the national debt and protect Social Security and Medicare before we spend the surplus on a new program. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who agreed with me on that principle when it applied to spending bills, why they are not willing to even consider applying this principle to tax cuts? If they believe that repeal of the telephone excise tax is more important than eliminating the national debt and protecting the integrity of Medicare and Social Security, vote for this rule.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, today our colleague from Illinois, Mr. Ewing, who chairs the Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research, and Specialty Crops of the Committee on Agriculture, is introducing a bill to begin the process of reauthorizing and reforming the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). Mr. Speaker, the CEA is the primary statute providing for the regulation of futures and futures options trading in the United States. While its provisions are founded in legislation adopted by Congress in the 1920s, the Act has been modified repeatedly over the years in response to changing market conditions. We have changed the Act to cover metals and energy products, to cover trading in foreign currencies, to cover bonds and stock indexes, and to permit trading in options on futures. Each innovation that the market has brought forward presented challenges to Congress and to regulators. Along with the increase in contracts traded, total volume of trading in derivatives has grown vigorously and consistently over recent decades. In particular, over the last 15 years is the market in over-the- counter derivatives such as swaps and forward rate agreements has increased tremendously. Because these products have economic characteristics so similar to exchange-traded futures contracts, a legal debate has taken place over whether or not they are in fact covered under the CEA. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has generally found that these products are not appropriately regulated as futures contracts and has used powers at its disposal to settle that question to the extent possible. In 1989, the Commission issued the ``Swaps Policy Statement'' laying out in essence a safe harbor for trading in over-the-counter derivatives. So that the agency would have more flexibility in addressing the swap situation and other situations, the Congress in 1992 granted the CFTC the authority to issue exemptions from the CEA to contracts that meet specified conditions. The CFTC has used that authority to exempt swaps (and other OTC derivatives), hybrid securities, and certain energy contracts from CEA regulation. In spite of these actions, an element of legal uncertainty remains regarding these products. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has recognized that the financial services industry is changing rapidly. We face this reality very clearly in the derivatives world. During a recent speech before the International Organization of Securities Commissions, CFTC Chairman William J. Rainer pointed out that only two new exchanges sought CFTC approval between 1986 and 1997, while in the last six months the CFTC has become aware of numerous electronic exchanges that may Mr. Speaker, financial capital flows across international boundaries today with an ease that was unimaginable only ten years ago. As our commercial world continues to shrink in this manner, we see ever more clearly how vulnerable our industries can be to outside competition if we hamper them with unreasonable or inappropriate regulation. Mr. Speaker, these changes and trends challenge the Agriculture Committee--working together with the Banking and Commerce Committees-- to again update the CEA. Chairman Ewing has vigorously engaged all segments of this industry in an effort to discover what improvements need to be made. Thanks to his effort, the task has been clarified and we are poised to proceed ahead on legislation that meets these objectives: Provides full legal certainty to the OTC derivatives industry so that the rules of commerce will be clear. Modernizes our scheme for the regulation of trading that occurs on exchanges. Eliminates statutory barriers to trading products that can be useful to the management of financial risk. Mr. Speaker, I support Chairman Ewing's effort and am committed to participating alongside with him. I share his goals and know that we can find common ground on how they can be achieved. Important components of the legislation he introduces today are the result of very productive industry discussions and I believe they will lay an excellent foundation for modernization of the CEA. Along with industry representatives, the several regulators involved are engaged in cooperative discussions--a condition that has often been lacking in past modernization efforts--and stand to be extremely helpful in resolving these tasks. Mr. Speaker, while domestic modernization of financial contract regulation is an important goal I will also work to develop provisions that promote the goal of international harmonization of regulatory standards. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has demonstrated in recent years that a great deal of coordination can be achieved. In particular, the BIS has devised uniform capital standards that have been widely adopted by bank regulators of the major industrialized nations. Securities and futures regulators have also made great strides in recent years in creating formal lines of communication with their foreign counterparts to prepare for coordinated responses to cross- border crises. Already they serve as members of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, which has facilitated much of this progress and served as a tool for its member nations to become familiar with the regulatory systems that exist. Our recent history has shown us that manufacturing capacity moves easily offshore. The manufacturing capacity of financial contracts-- capital--moves across borders with much greater ease in search of the lowest cost investment environment. By encouraging continued international discussions regarding regulatory standards, we can encourage the elimination of artificial distortions that threaten the competitiveness of our futures exchanges and other financial institutions. As we develop CEA improvements, we should do all we can to facilitate international coordination and harmonization. Mr. Speaker, in the weeks ahead I trust that all interested members of the public will take the opportunity to closely examine the bill Mr. Ewing introduces today. I am particularly hopeful that the markets' end-users--including agricultural producers and merchants, energy producers, and investors--will pay close attention and provide detailed comments regarding their view of the challenge of achieving appropriate regulation of derivatives markets. I look forward to assimilating those views and to working closely with Chairman Ewing, with the Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Condit, and others on the Agriculture Committee and other committees in this effort.