Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House of Representatives has recognized the need for considering legislation to address the concerns of many of my constituents regarding the impact of the medical payment reductions included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). The BBA included provisions which were intended to preserve the solvency and integrity of the Medicare program for future generations. Unfortunately, some of the provisions of the BBA have resulted in unintended consequences as many health care providers have indicated that the payment reductions go too far. This is particularly problematic in rural areas where health care providers have always had to do more with less. Along with my colleagues in the House Rural Health Care Coalition, I have been working to encourage the Congressional Leadership to consider legislation which would help rural health care providers. We introduced the Triple A Rural Health Improvement Act as a basis for these discussions, and I am pleased to see that some of the important rural health provisions from our bill have been included in the legislation we are considering today. In particular, this bill contains provisions which should help our rural hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies, rural health clinics, community health centers, and other health care providers. This bill contains provisions intended to protect low-volume, rural hospitals from the disproportionate impact of the hospital outpatient prospective payment system, creates an alternative payment system for community health centers and rural health clinics, strengthens the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility/Critical Access Hospital Program, expands Graduate Medical Education opportunities in rural settings, and permits rural hospitals in urban-defined counties to be recognized as rural for purposes of Medicare reimbursement. The legislation we are considering today is a step in the right direction; however, it is only a first step. We have much more work to be done in order to ensure that rural Americans have access to quality, affordable health care services, and to preserve the solvency of the Medicare program for current and future generations.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would just say that we have heard the term used over and over by speaker after speaker on both sides of the aisle that this is a reasonable short-term solution, it is a compromise, there has been a good-faith effort put forward by those who have worked very hard on this legislation they bring to us today; and, as indication of that, whereas when we started the administration was threatening to ask for a presidential veto of this legislation, they have withdrawn that threat. There is still opposition from the administration for the bill, but we are making good progress; and I believe that it is very highly probable that this can become law. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2389, the County Schools Funding Revitalization Act of 1999. The funding and day-to-day operation of schools and county governments located within our vast network of national forests present a unique situation for rural America. In fact, there are more than 800 rural communities that cannot include national forest lands in their taxable land base because the Federal government prohibits that option. This limits a rural community's tax base, and presents a serious problem when 98 percent of an individual county's total land is located within the boundaries of a national forest. In order to provide replacement revenue, Congress enacted a 25 percent receipt-sharing requirement in 1908 for national forest system land and a 50 percent receipt-sharing requirement in 1937 for Bureau of Land Management land. Over time, communities have understandably grown to depend on the 25 percent payment from the Forest Service, as well as the 50 percent payment from the BLM. Faced with the stringent requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and its judicial interpretations, there is not a single community within the national forest system that can rationally depend on timber harvest alone as a source of revenue for schools or county roads. The current situation in east Texas is a prime example. Prior to the August 16, 1999, a court injunction banning all timber sales in east Texas National Forest counties received more than $5.6 million from the 25 percent receipt sharing requirement in 1998 alone. Under the serious stipulations of this court injunction, however, that figure will now be zero, placing unimaginable financial strain on school systems. Mr. Chairman, this is not an isolated occurrence. School systems and local governments all over rural America are dependent on revenue from the National Forest System, but an injunction that prevents receipt sharing leaves these entities without the ability to do orderly budget planning. H.R. 2389 and the substitute amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) are a good start towards correcting this situation. The Goodlatte amendment in the nature of a substitute improves upon the central goal of stabilizing the payment to schools and counties. First, a full annual payment should be calculated by averaging the highest 3 years of the 25 percent payments between 1985 to 1999. The first portion of full payment would come from annual timber harvest, and the remainder of the full payment would come from appropriated funds. A similar formula is provided for BLM lands. In addition, the Goodlatte substitute requires the counties to use a portion of their full payment to initiate local projects on Federal Forest land. By placing a 20 percent limitation on the use of the full payment, the counties are given incentives to organize and develop sustainable forest harvest plans. These plans will then be presented to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior for further consideration. Mr. Chairman, there is an important connection between the viability of our rural communities and the vast resources that all citizens have a vested interest in protecting. This legislation allows local input in guiding the management of our National Forest lands for the communities and individuals who rely on them most. I encourage my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2389, the County Schools Funding Revitalization Act of 1999. The funding and day-to-day operations of schools and county governments located within our vast network of national forests present a unique situation for rural America. In fact, there are more than 800 rural communities that cannot include national forest lands in their taxable land base because the federal government prohibits that option. This limits a rural community's tax base and presents a serious problem when 98% of an individual county's total land is located within the boundaries of a national forest. In order to provide replacement revenue, Congress enacted a 25% receipt sharing requirement in 1908 for National Forest System Lands, and a 50% receipt sharing requirement in 1937 for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. Over time, communities have understandably grown to depend on the 25% payment from the Forest Service, as well as the 50% payment from the BLM. Faced with the stringent requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and its judicial interpretations, there is not a single community within the National Forest System that can rationally depend on timber harvest alone as a source of revenue for schools or county roads. The current situation in East Texas is a prime example. Prior to the August 16, 1999 court injunction banning all timber sales in East Texas, National Forest counties received more than $5.6 million dollars from the 25% receipt sharing requirement in 1998 alone. Under the serious stipulations of this court injunction, however, that figure will now be zero, placing unimaginable financial strain on school systems. Mr. Chairman, this is not an isolated occurrence. School systems and local governments all over rural America are dependent on revenue from the National Forest System, but an injunction that prevents receipt sharing leaves these entities without the ability to do orderly budget planning. H.R. 2389, and the substitute amendment to be offered by Mr. Goodlatte, are a good start towards correcting this situation. The Goodlatte amendment, in the nature of a substitute, improves upon the central goal of stabilizing the payments to schools and counties. First, a full annual payment would be calculated by averaging the highest three years of the 25% payments between 1985 to 1999. The first portion of full payment would come from annual timber harvest, and the remainder of the full payment would come from appropriated funds. A similar formula is provided for BLM lands. In addition, the Goodlatte substitute requires the counties to use a portion of their full payment to initiate local projects on federal forestlands. By placing a 20% limitation on the use of the full payment, the counties are given incentives to organize and develop sustainable forest harvest plans. These plans will then be presented to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior for further consideration. Mr. Chairman, there is an important connection between the viability of our rural communities and the vast resources that all citizens have a vested interest in protecting. This legislation allows local input in guiding the management of our national forest lands for the communities and individuals who rely on them most. I encourage my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Udall amendment. As one who has participated in this discussion for the last couple of years, I am glad to see us finally get to the point to where we can achieve what the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) was just talking about that we need to achieve today with the amendment before us. At first glance, the Udall amendment seems to make sense, and I know that is certainly the gentleman's intention by allowing local entities total discretion in the use of their full payments. Usually, I support that kind of flexibility given to the local level for the use of such funds. But this is not a simple amendment as it appears. We have over 830 local entities that are suggesting that the compromise that we have heard mentioned over and over and over again is the best solution for us to date. An extensive coalition of grassroots or organizations, including education, rural development and labor organizations, have come together to determine the parameter of the payments provided. They recognize that local communities need a steady source of funding for things like education and the investment to ensure the long-term viability of these local communities dependent on timber resources. The Udall amendment, unfortunately, provides no assurance that funding would be available for local communities to develop a long-term sustainable solution for management of their forestlands. The bill will provide an incentive for local communities to participate and develop the resources available to the communities. Please oppose the Udall amendment. Support the bill on final passage. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize U.S. Navy Fire Controlman Chief (Surface Warfare) Lawrence Eric Evans upon his retirement from the United States Navy after 24 years of honorable service which will occur on the Thirty-First day of October, Nineteen Hundred Ninety Nine. Chief Evans has been supported in his service this great nation by his wife, Michele Karen (Gudyka) Evans; his son, Lawrence William Evans and his daughter, Lauryn Michele Evans. Chief Evans was born 28 June 1956 in Ruislip, England to 1stLT Larry Earl Evans, U.S. Air Force and Ada Mary (Georges) Evans. He graduated from Spring Woods Senior High School in May 1974 and entered Recruit Training Center, Orlando, Florida in August 1975 where he remained until October 1975. He then received basic Fire Control and Advanced Systems training from November 1975 to May 1977. He then served aboard U.S.S. Saipan (LHA 2) pre-commissioning command from June 1977 to August 1981 as Work Center Supervisor of AN/SPS-52B RADAR; the ship was commissioned 15 October 1977. Chief Evans was discharged from the U.S. Navy 15 August 1981. He attended Howard College, Big Spring, Texas in the Fall Semester of 1981 and worked briefly for Sperry Gyroscope in Clearwater, Florida from February 1982 to May 1982. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy Ready Reserves from June 1982 to October 1983 and worked for Vitro Laboratories in Washington, D.C. until October 1983. He attended Montgomery College, Rockville, Maryland in the Fall Semester 1982 and in the Spring Semester 1983. Chief Evans re-Enlisted in the U.S. Navy (Active) 13 October 1983 and entered the Recruit Training Center, Great Lakes, Illinois in October 1983. He received advanced Fire Control systems training from January 1984 to July 1984. He served aboard U.S.S. Whidbey Island (LSD 41) pre- commissioning command from August 1984 to November 1988 as Leading Weapons Petty Officer Navy Close In Weapons System; as the Command Shipboard Non-classified Automated Processing (SNAP) Coordinator; and as a Navy Small Arms and Weapons Instructor. The ship was commissioned 09 February 1985. Chief Evans earned an Associate of Science degree from Mohegan College, Connecticut in May 1987. He was transferred to Naval Recruiting District at Richmond, Virginia October 1988 to December 1991 and recruited 84 new Sailors from Culpeper & Fredericksburg, Virginia. He then received advanced Fire Control systems training from January 1992 to August 1992. Chief Evans served aboard U.S.S. Supply (AOE 6) pre-commissioning command from 09 September 1992 to August 1996 as Leading Weapons Chief NATO SeaSparrow Guided Missile System, Close In Weapons System, and Target Acquisition System; as the Command Information Systems Security Officer; and as the Command Material Maintenance Management (3M) Coordinator. The ship was Commissioned 26 February 1994. Finally, Chief Evans transferred to Fleet Combat Training Center, Dam Neck, Virginia from August 1996 to October 1999 as the Command LAN Administrator and Leading Chief of Information Technologies where he ends his career. Chief Evans is proud to wear many ribbons and medals: Navy ``E'' (one for each ship on which he served); Sea Service; Meritorious Unit Commendations; Recruiting; Expeditionary; Humanitarian; and National Defense. These are the awards of his teamwork and commitment to his commands' overall missions. Chief Evans has also personally earned three commendation letters for recruiting excellence; a letter of commendation for his service aboard the U.S.S. Whidbey Island; awards for weapons Marksmanship--most notably expert pistol marksmanship; and finally medals for both Achievement and Commendation for service aboard U.S.S. Supply (AOE 6). Chief Evans completes his naval career with many happy memories having served with honor, upholding his oath: I promise to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and hold true allegiance to the same. It is with great pride that I congratulate Chief Evans upon his retirement, express appreciation for his service and wish him and his family all the best as they move on to face new challenges and rewards in the next exciting chapter in their lives.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, as the principal Democratic author of House Concurrent Resolution 199, I join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) in expressing my strong support on this measure, which simply calls on the Supreme Court to rule on public prayer at events such as school football games. Our forefathers included the establishment clause in the first amendment to the Constitution for a reason. They had been subject to religious persecution, and wanted to make this country a place where Americans of every religion and denomination could practice their faith freely, or not practice a faith at all if they so chose. For those of us who believe in a God who grants free will to his creation, this constitutional approach not only makes for good government, it makes for good theology, as well. Still, a recognition of God and our country's need for divine guidance has been part of this Nation's fabric from the very start. Our currency reflects that, our pledge of allegiance acknowledges it, our Congress honors the tradition of opening prayers, and a respect for God is woven throughout our government's history and practices. It is in that spirit that I find prayer at football games both positive and constitutional. I would point out that many of the people who would prohibit such prayer also openly advocate for going still further and want to prohibit prayers in Congress, acknowledgment of God in our pledge of allegiance, et cetera. Finding a balance between conflicting rights and responsibilities, as well as a balance between the rights of society versus the rights of an individual, has been the challenge of our democracy from its beginning. The balance is never achieved once and for all, but rather, requires constant adjustments when one side of the scales becomes imbalanced and in need of countervailing weight. Recently a newspaper published in my district, the Graham Leader, addressed this very important point, which I share with my colleagues now: ``Although school prayer is often cloaked in separation rhetoric, the real issue lies in the definition of individual and group rights. Whose rights should take precedence? In this case, should those who want to pray or hear a prayer'' before a game ``have that right? Or should those who prefer no prayer have the right to stop it? Whose rights are more important?. . .'' ``Democracy centers on the ability to balance individual freedom with the common good. Let's not forget that cooperation sometimes means compromise. We relinquish some rights, and we must endure some offensiveness so others may be granted some rights.'' ``What the Federal courts and the American Civil Liberties Union seems to have forgotten is that no one group should bear the brunt in each case. Unfortunately, Christians have.'' I urge my colleagues to support this measure, which simply urges the Supreme Court to act on this currently conflicting issue, and expresses the sense of Congress that student-led prayers at school sporting events are an exercise of our constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of speech and religion.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind myself of the old adage, select your words carefully today, for tomorrow you may eat them. I rise in strong opposition to this rule for a fundamental reason why all of us should be opposing this rule: It brings a $95 billion spending bill to the floor without allowing the House to debate it and to decide where to cut it. That in itself is unprecedented, bringing a bill to the floor as a conference report that has not had committee action, that has not had floor action. That should be sufficient reason for anyone who cares about the process of this House to oppose this rule. Now, I, too, am sick and tired of demagoguery. I heard an excellent speech from my friend from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) this morning in which he openly and honestly said a lot of things. My reason for being here today is my opposition to the leadership of this side of the aisle, a leadership that has the gall to stand on this floor and to have a message from their party taking full credit for the balanced budget and the fact that we almost got by without spending Social Security last year, when that same leadership did not vote for the budget of 1990 that laid the foundation, the budget of 1993 that put the walls up on the economy, and only provided 187 votes for the balanced budget agreement in 1997 that has become the mantra of political demagoguery on this floor. How do you have the gall to stand here and to blame anybody? There is enough credit and blame to go around. I happen to be one of the 46 Democrats that stood and voted with you in 1995 when you said a balanced budget should be required and to use scoring by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office based on the most current economic and technical assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office. I agreed with you then, I agree with you today. That is why the Blue Dogs sent a letter to this same CBO asking them to score it, and when they responded to our question of CBO assumptions and methodology and excluding directed scorekeeping, they tell us we are spending $17.1 billion of Social Security, we, the Congress, both sides. But how can people blame the minority when the minority can pass nothing? That is CBO. All I am saying is it is time for a little honesty. You know, that tax bill that you begged and pleaded with us to support, according to CBO honest scoring, would have spent $120 billion of the same Social Security trust fund we here today are debating. Come on, it is time to be honest with our rhetoric. ``Across the board spending.'' I heard the gentleman from Oklahoma a moment ago make this talking claim. The measure does not specify the accounts.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker is precisely why I rise again today. It is not a letter to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), it is a letter to me from the Congressional Budget Office which we requested on behalf of the Blue Dogs that clearly states when we use CBO scoring as they wish, not as the House leadership instructs them to ask the question, we are spending $17.1 billion of social security trust fund. That is a fact. That is in my letter. That is a simple thing that we have asked, just to be honest in what you ask and stop this political gobbledegook that we are going through as to who is spending social security trust funds. I say that my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), a moment ago expressed a spirit of conciliation which I appreciate in acknowledging the process today. In the same spirit, I acknowledge that some of the rhetoric coming from my side of the aisle is not exactly right, either. I will acknowledge that, and I hope I am not part of it. But the reason why I oppose this across-the-board cut today is because by CBO's estimates, we will be spending social security trust funds after we have made an across-the-board cut of $3.452 billion in outlays. I do not wish to go into operations and maintenance of the Defense Department, of which we have heard witness after witness, statement after statement, on both sides of the aisle of people who are concerned about defense, saying that we cannot afford a one dollar cut out of $100, or a 1 percent cut. Everyone that knows something about this knows that it is not that simple. But yet today, for somebody's reasons, so somebody can continue to buy advertisements on television attacking some of my Democratic colleagues saying we in the minority are spending social security trust funds, the CBO, when asked honest questions, and I have no quarrel with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), I commend him for the job that he is doing, and the statements that have been made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a moment ago, all of this. But if we really wanted to deal with social security, why did not the leadership, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), why did he not insist that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) come from the Committee on Ways and Means and bring a social security bill to the floor of the House this year, instead of spending the first 8 months talking about a tax cut of $1 trillion that would have spent, by CBO's honest accounting, $120 billion of the same social security trust funds that we are here today to preserve and protect? Please let us get honest. There has been a spirit of conciliation. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) a moment ago acknowledged that even after this, we may still not serve it. I ask those Members to listen to their chairman and be careful of their rhetoric, particularly when they go out and make political statements, because they are going to have to live by these words next year. Remember, the budget of 2001 begins about February. All of this rhetoric about back-end loading and all of the things, and the little cute games we are getting in order to make sure we say today we are not spending social security, will actually be factual in about 3 months. I ask Members to be careful what they say.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2723. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Act, offered by Representatives Charlie Norwood and John Dingell. While I do have some remaining concerns with some of the provisions in this legislation, I believe that Dr. Norwood and Mr. Dingell have made a sincere effort to work with me and others to address the legitimate concerns with their bill. Whenever issues were brought to their attention, they took the time to consider these suggestions and worked to resolve them. I commend both the Members and their very capable staffs for their diligent efforts to develop bipartisan, meaningful managed care reform. I am pleased that they have been able to put together a bill which is much improved from the legislation considered by the House during the 105th Congress. Our health care system poses a challenging area of public policy. I believe that is it important that we try to strike a balance between the rights of patients, the duties of physicians, the operations of insurance companies, and the ability of employers to provide health insurance for their employees. One of the most difficult issues to address throughout this debate has been the matter of liability. If a health plan's actions cause harm to a patient, the plan should be held accountable. I believe that the internal and external appeals processes included in this bill will enable patients to get the care that they need and therefore preclude the need for litigation. In fact, this bill clarifies that a patient must go through an external appeals process before going to court unless they already have suffered an injury or death. Furthermore, this bill includes provisions which ensure that employers will not be subject to liability unless they specifically act as an insurer and decide that a specific enrollee shall not receive a certain benefit that is covered. I have long supported tort reform, and I certainly do not want to see an increase in litigation. I believe that the limited scope of this bill's liability provisions make lawsuits a last resort that is available only in egregious cases where all other avenues have been exhausted. I believe that the managed care plans in my district, First Care, offered by Hendrick Health System, and HMO Blue, offered by Abilene Regional, are doing a good job. I hope that the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Act will highlight the work of these responsible plans. In fact, the bill contains a number of provisions that these managed care plans already are using to provide better care for their patients. I am disappointed that the majority party did not allow the sponsors of this legislation the opportunity to pay for their bill. I believe that it is extremely important that we follow the budget rules that require us to pay for the legislation we pass. I continue to oppose any legislation that would use any of the budget surplus until we have an overall budget plan that protects Social Security and Medicare. I know that the authors of this bill agree with this position and offered a proposal to pay for the costs of the bill. The only reason that this bill is not paid for is because the majority leadership prevented the authors of the bill from doing so. I am voting for this bill today with the understanding and expectation that provisions paying for it will be added in conference. I am pleased to that the President has indicated he will not sign it unless its costs are fully offset by the conference committee. Even if we pass this legislation to ensure patients have rights in their health care, there is still much work to be done. The rising cost of health care and the growing number of uninsured citizens in our nation are alarming. In addition to giving patients who already have access to health care the ability to have a say in their health care decisions, we also have an obligation to work to see that everyone has access to health insurance. There are many valid and difficult issues to resolve as we seek to improve our health care system. H.R. 2723 isn't the final answer but it moves us in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support the Norwood-Dingell bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. I do not do so because I do not agree with the goal of increasing access to health insurance. In fact, I support many of the individual provisions in this legislation. I oppose this legislation because it is fiscally irresponsible to enact legislation that would cost nearly $50 billion, without paying for it and with no clear end game for health care in sight. Congress should not consider any tax or spending legislation without knowing how it would fit within the context of a comprehensive game plan which balances all of the various health needs of all Americans at an affordable cost. Any decision to fund tax cuts or new spending out of the projected surplus should be made only after we have sat down in a regular committee process in a bipartisan way to make sure there will be sufficient resources for competing needs. As important as the issue before us today is, we also have a responsibility to deal with the problems of Medicare that threaten rural hospitals, set more realistic discretionary spending levels, deal with the long-term problems facing Medicare and Social Security, and leave room for tax cuts for purposes in addition to health care. This legislation takes the approach of spend first, figure out if we can afford it, given all the other demands on the surplus later. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle argue they could not allow the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) to add an amendment paying for the cost of their bill that we will be considering tomorrow because it was not germane and did not go through the Committee on Ways and Means. I find it very curious we are now bringing up a $50 billion tax bill that did not go through the Committee on Ways and Means and which violates the budget rules. I do not understand that double standard that makes it easy to spend money we do not have and impossible to be fiscally irresponsible.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. Why would the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) at this time not go back to the Committee on Rules and give the minority an opportunity to pay for that?

Mr. STENHOLM. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit puzzled, and I rise very strongly opposed to the rule for my puzzlement. I am going to ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) a question in just a moment, or the chairman of the committee. Last week, my colleagues were criticizing we Democrats for spending Social Security Trust Funds. Last week, we had threats of advertisements being run against several of us. This week we come to the floor, and we only ask for a rule allowing all of the bills to be paid for. My colleagues deny it. Why do my colleagues choose to deny the right of this body to pay for that which we will discuss today?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I did not.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1906. Let me say I am grateful to the conferees for their recognition of the economic plight of American agriculture and I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts. I cannot, however, feel good about the way in which we are helping our farmers and ranchers. For the second year in a row, we are using emergency spending to compensate producers for low prices. This fact is a stark admission that our basic farm program is not working. Our Nation deserves a long-term reliable farm policy. Taxpayers have a right to know what the Nation's agriculture programs will cost and agriculture producers should be able to know up-front what kind of assistance they can expect and what the rules will be for distributing it. I wonder how much longer we can go on like this, how much more our government will spend on ad hoc, supplemental AMTA payments before we realize that a more rational, predictable policy needs to be in force. Mr. Speaker, last year we waited until the last hour to debate the omnibus appropriation bill and the emergency agricultural spending it contained. Many of us spoke at that time about the need to prepare for this year. Instead of preparing, however, we waited, and today we respond with off-budget spending to address a problem that was entirely foreseeable. I would like to once again thank the appropriators for delivering a bill that recognizes many of the needs. The deficiencies contained in the bill are a result of a lack of coherent agricultural policy which is impossible to address in one year's spending. Let me say to my friend from Pennsylvania who spoke a moment ago, his request is reasonable. We should treat the northeastern States no different than any other States were treated last year, and it is my belief that in a supplemental we will do so. Dairy policy, I agree, but we passed a bill here. It is now up to the Senate to deal with it in the regular legislative process. Sanctions, we ought to be doing more, but we cannot do it all on an appropriations bill. We need to do most of this in the regular legislative process. I am dedicated to working with my colleagues on that. I am very grateful that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has announced that we start full committee hearings early next year to address this problem so we do not find ourselves back in the same position next year at the same time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2559. I want to thank the chairman for the work that he has put in to this bill and for the inclusion of the minority and all members of the committee in the development of its provisions. The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest); the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 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. Mr. Chairman, this bill succeeds in spending the funds that were allotted in the fiscal year 2000 budget. While it was the will of our committee that these funds should be dedicated to improvements in our current crop insurance program, the Congressional budget resolution made funds available for the broader purposes of income assistance and for risk management and, in so doing, provided a level of flexibility that would permit nearly any kind of agricultural assistance. The bill before us today, however, does not recognize that flexibility. In a rare moment, at a time when the congressional budget actually allows us to increase the amount spent on farm programs without having to offset them, the bill spends all of its money on yield insurance and ignores the many other needs facing agriculture. Mr. Chairman, these budgeted funds came on the heels of last year's $6 billion in emergency agricultural spending. Even as we speak, appropriators in conference are finalizing a proposal to designated over $8 billion as emergency spending to compensate for economic circumstances that were entirely foreseeable. The fact that 2 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 yield disaster aid shows that crop insurance is not working. Increases in the budget were a clear signal by our colleagues that these problems, income reductions as well as yield reductions, need to be addressed. 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 and better indemnity performance for the producers who participate. Absent from the bill, Mr. Chairman, is the other half of the picture. Last year, our programs left producers overexposed to price and weather disasters. This bill makes progress toward addressing yield disaster. But what about price disaster? 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. Chairman, I intended to offer an amendment that addresses the total revenue picture for program crops. Because the score from CBO came in at a higher level than expected, I will not offer it at this time. However, I am committed to exploring all avenues in order to provide this type of assistance in a budgetarily responsible manner. I will describe it now in the hope of encouraging my colleagues to give it their consideration as we continue to debate long-term farm policy. My proposal would establish a system that would allow for supplemental income payments, SIP. Producers who planted crop would receive a payment for a crop year if national revenue for the crop falls significantly below the most recent 5-year average. Payouts would occur if national prices are low or if a national production is low. A supplemental income program can work for our producers and for taxpayers as well. It is a simple program under which payments would go directly to actual producers in time of need. It is the kind of long-term approach we should be using to address agriculture's cyclical problems. H.R. 2559 does increase the subsidy provided to the current revenue products that address price drops within a crop year. However, it does nothing to protect producers from severe downturns in income from year to year. The supplemental income program would complement existing farm programs and the changes made to the crop insurance program by providing a complete risk-management package. Mr. Chairman, once again I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and all members of the Committee on Agriculture for their work on this bill thus far. Going into this process, we agreed that short-term changes in crop insurance this year 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. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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