Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I, too, look forward to working with the gentleman from Maine. I appreciate him bringing it to the attention of the full body, bringing this, not necessarily unique problem, but it is one which is clearly made possible in the legislation that we consider today, these concerns to be met. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and seeing that, in the final conference report, that this be achieved.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I too commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) for offering this amendment. I think it does fit certainly within the spirit of the recognition that, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) pointed out, we have traditionally been in the crop insurance business. This bill is intended to expand into the livestock and crop. And I think the spirit of this, particularly in the environmental side, is something that we should accept today and that we should work expeditiously to be made part of the final legislation that ultimately is signed by the President.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to associate myself with his remarks. I hope that this might prove what I hear is happening on the agriculture appropriations to be unfounded. We have an opportunity to drop the sanctions language. One of the things that has hurt agriculture time and time again is when we have had sanctions on other countries applied that have a devastating effect on our agriculture producers. And so I hope that we will be able to deal in a very responsible way on the agriculture appropriations bill in eliminating these sanctions and the resulting lack of market opportunities for our producers.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to say that it certainly was the full intent of the Committee on Agriculture that all farmers be allowed full participation in this. I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas with the sense of Congress resolution that she offers today which will highlight the full intent of that. I commend her for bringing this, and I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no argument with this resolution. I do have a problem with hypocrisy. Where has the majority been for the last 6 months? The Blue Dogs put a budget on this floor 6 months ago which was not just a meaningless, nonbinding, feel-good piece of rhetoric like today's resolution. Our budget laid out concrete strategies for doing what this resolution pretends to do: Protect Social Security with a real lockbox, fix Social Security and Medicare long term and do it now. Where have we been the last 6 months? If the majority really embraced the tenets of today's resolution, they would have come on board the Blue Dog budget 6 months ago. The gentleman is correct, we have a budget. The only problem is, that budget has already spent Social Security surpluses. We have already done it. How can we stand on the floor and make speeches like we are not going to do it when we have already done it? I do not understand this rhetoric. Instead, we keep having devised scorekeeping and bookkeeping gimmicks which allow us to pretend that we kept the budget caps but which in fact have already invaded Social Security funds. When are we going to stop playing games and get serious? When are we going to have an honest effort at fixing Social Security and Medicare first and stop this endless speechifying on this floor about what we should do and the desire to do? Where have we been? We spent 6 months debating a tax cut that would have gone into Social Security in ways in which no one on this floor could possibly have stood up and defended in the 2014 period when Social Security is going to be in its biggest trouble. No one would stand up and defend that, but here we are today with another meaningless resolution of a desire to protect Social Security when we know it has already been spent.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Barbara Brown of Coleman, Texas who is crusading for increased awareness of prostate cancer in honor of her late father, Carl Houston Hale, of West Memphis, Arkansas, who lost his life to this cancer on December 12, 1997. Known as a silent killer, prostate cancer will affect over 175,000 men in the United States this year. Today alone, approximately 100 men will die from this disease, and in one year over 37,000 will be lost as well. Excluding skin cancer, cancer of the prostate is the most common malignancy and the second leading cause of death among men in the United States. The risk of prostate cancer increases with age; more than 80% of all prostate tumors are diagnosed in men over age 65. And while 1 in 5 men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime, we still know far too little about the cause and behavior of this silent killer. Clearly, it is a national problem that has a severe impact on our nation. In her younger years, Barbara sang in gospel groups, and dreamed of recording her own album. Through the grief of her father she wrote two songs, ``Resting In the Arms of the Lord'' and ``Wind That Blows From Heaven,'' in an effort to cope with the overwhelming emotion of losing her father. These two songs eventually led to the recording of her first album in March 1998, entitled ``Resting In the Arms of the Lord.'' With this Barbara achieved a life-long aspiration amidst unfortunate circumstances, and she is committed to donating a part of her tapes' proceeds to the American Cancer Society. As each tape is sold, a part of her father's life and his memory touches the lives of so many others, all while working towards the ultimate goal of a cure. Additionally Barbara has devoted her life to bringing more awareness to this disease by urging men to seek regular check-ups and treatment if necessary. At Barbara's urging, the Coleman County Commissioners Court passed a proclamation declaring September 21st through September 27st as Prostate Cancer Awareness Week and advocating all to be aware of prostate cancer. With this proclamation, countless lives could be saved. Barbara also has plans to continue to promote awareness of this disease in the community of Coleman as well as surrounding areas by hosting various on-going promotional events raising money for the American Cancer Society. I close by using Barbara's words which I believe have distinguished her as a heroic woman: ``Out of our pain comes some of our greatest accomplishments. As I continue to educate men on this disease, hopefully it will prevent another person from having to face this needless pain. I have a responsibility to do this: in honor of my father's memory.'' I ask that all of my colleagues join me in honoring Barbara for her efforts, and I encourage all Americans to take that crucial step of participating in important health screenings and visiting your doctor regarding health concerns. Early detection is critical for survival.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, how many times have I stood in this well and have been reminded by others, as I remind tonight, Presidents do not spend money. Congress spends money. All of the rhetoric that I have heard about spending will only occur if a majority of this House votes to spend the money. I have reached out in the hand of friendship to the gentleman on the other side, as he knows, regarding Social Security. I can honestly say we do have a plan. My disappointment, and why I very strongly support the President's veto of this bill today, is that Congress has chosen not to lead on Social Security. It was our responsibility. It was the responsibility of the Committee on Ways and Means, in my opinion, obviously not shared by the majority, to come up and fix Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid first and then deal with the question of marriage tax relief, of capital gains tax relief. And I have said it many, many times. I am for tax cuts. I am for tax cuts. There are many good proposals in the bill which is vetoed which I support philosophically. But I do not support tax cuts when they are the equivalent of taking candy from a baby, and that is what we are talking about today. It is true that these dollars that we hear talked about are the American taxpayers' dollars, American people, all of us, but it is also true that the $5.6 trillion debt is our debt. And I believe very strongly the President is correct in saying we should pay down that debt first before we spend additional dollars for any purpose. That debt will need to be paid back to the Social Security program. We should not be carelessly spending Social Security dollars. And as we have discussed many times on the floor of this House, and why I have said in my opinion this bill that is vetoed today is the most fiscally irresponsible bill, because what it proposed to do in the second 10 years, precisely at the time Social Security was going to need some additional help, this bill proposed to take money from our children and grandchildren. If responsible tax cuts are brought for a vote, tax cuts which are paid for by today's dollars, I will gladly consider their merits. But I will not steal from children and senior citizens. The President is right to veto this irresponsible bill, and I support his action today. And I am glad to hear that finally, after September 22, we will have serious discussion of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and I will certainly reach out and accept the hand from the other side. But in the meantime, let us stop this debate and this ceaseless rhetoric regarding this tax cut and openly acknowledge that if we are truly concerned about the future of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, do it first and then do these other things, that amount to what most of us would call the dessert. That is why I support this veto, and I think now let us get on with doing what we should have been doing at the first of this year, and that is fixing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I want to respond to the last speaker for just a moment when we start talking about this as a tax. Let me give my colleagues some mailbox prices. That is what dairymen have been receiving, average, for the first 5 months of this year. Dallas, Texas or Texas order, $14.13; the current retail price for milk in Dallas is $2.50. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, the mailbox price was $13.52, which is 51 cents less than Texas. But guess what? The retail price of milk in Minnesota as of today is $2.99. In fact, New York City today, the price of milk, $2.79. The farmers' mailbox price, $14.43. We can go right down the line on any of the mailbox prices that are determined through the Federal milk market order system that can be made to sound very complicated, which it is, but it accomplishes a very important goal for the dairy industry in that it provides a stabilizing way of pricing milk. There is no one that can say that what the price the farmer gets is affecting what the consumer pays to the degree that the previous speaker said it. As my colleagues know, one of the things that I have said over and over in this debate, somehow, some way we have got to get away from this idea that only the dairy farmer or the corn farmer or the cotton farmer or the rice producer or the peanut producer has to constantly produce for less in order that the consumer might pay less when everyone in between does not do that. Remember, last December, there was an article in the Washington Post that stated their commodities winners and losers, and the losers were producers and consumers. And the article there had to do with cereal, and the price of cereal went up last December by 9 percent. Why did the cereal prices go up? Because the cost of advertising and marketing for the cereal manufacturers went up. Now that means that somebody's television contract went up, and it was judged important enough for the processors of cereal to increase their price to the consumer at the same time we were seeing the lowest prices to producers of grain since the Depression. Now the tone and tenor of the argument today, and I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have good intentions, I know that they believe that if we can just eliminate Federal market orders that the dairy industry would be better off in their regions or in the country as a whole. And I assume it is the country as a whole. But to that argument, let me point out again dairy farmers in their regions and in every region had a chance to vote on whether they wanted to eliminate the Federal milk order last August, and from 90 to 99 percent of the dairy producers said, no, a resounding no, to the Boehner-Obey amendment. Why did they say that? If they believe that things are going to be better for dairy farmers, did they not vote it out when they had a chance? That is a question for this body to answer. Now my colleagues will hear, already heard, the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned a moment ago, that the latest figures, October, show that under the new pricing system that dairy farmers are going to get more money. That is true compared to the old, but it is irrelevant to whether or not we deal with 1402 or whether we deal with 1-B. It is irrelevant. We are making changes. In spite of the fact that speaker after speaker after speaker said it is a decision or a choice between status quo, it is not. We said when we passed the farm bill that we wanted to reduce the number of orders. We are going from 31 to 11. When we went from 31 to 11, that meant we had to have another vote so the dairy farmers could say they agree with what Congress told USDA to do, and they voted overwhelmingly, not because they approved of everything. They have a difference on 1-A and 1-B, and that is what this is all about. While it may be true that under current conditions Class I prices will be higher in the USDA decision than under the current system, this effect is the result of changes in the calculations of manufacturing milk prices that Class I differentials are added to. In spite of the fact that we continue to talk about milk being priced in one spot, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, that is not true. I do not know how many times we have to say, those of my colleagues arguing the other, that that was changed. We are not keeping the status quo. We do recognize that this system, the federal market order system, needed to be improved and we are doing that, whether we go 1-A or 1-B. Mr. Chairman, I hope we will all oppose very strongly this amendment and support 1402. That is what the dairy farmers of America believe is in the best interest of their futures. Then I hope that we can get on with some more serious type of discussions as to how we deal with the real problem, the fact that prices for all agricultural commodities are too low. That is what it is all about.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) a moment ago, speaking of the constitutional authority, I am sure has forgotten that the rules of the House determine that every committee that brings a bill to the floor of the House must determine that the act is constitutional before it is eligible under the rules to come to the floor of the House, and on page 16 of the report the committee, the Committee on Agriculture, finds the constitutional authority for this legislation in Article I, clause 8, section 18, that grants Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the powers vested by Congress. So we have made that determination in the committee bringing the bill to our colleagues so they can feel a little better about their concerns.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, let us assume for a moment the gentleman is correct. I am not a constitutional lawyer myself, but I will assume for a moment that he is correct. Would it not be the proper forum to determine that at the Supreme Court and not the United States Trade Representative?

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I beg to differ with the assessment of the gentleman of the bill that we have in this country.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is my point.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I join in the chairman's opposition to this amendment. It is interesting that we have those who support free trade who stand here and say we are for free trade and fair trade but also who consistently fight that Congress might have a determination over whether or not our policy mixes or matches with what other countries are doing suddenly come with an amendment that says that the ultimate judge of this will be the U.S. Trade Representative. I find that very interesting. But my opposition to the amendment stems from the practical side of the argument that they make. If in fact we are somehow calling this bill that we have today an anti-trade agreement, it would have already been discussed in the House Committee on Agriculture. Because, to the best of our ability, we bring no legislation to this floor that is not consistent with laws which we support. Because just as the chairman of the subcommittee, myself, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) support free trade, that is not the argument today. The argument on this amendment and why it ought to be opposed is who are we going to allow to make that determination. If we in fact were concerned about the spirit of this amendment, what we ought to have done is pass Fast Track so we could be negotiating in Seattle in a few weeks because this House has chosen not to do that, not the President, not the Senate. This House has voted we do not want to negotiate. Now, my feelings are very, very strong on trade. I would like to see freer and fairer trade. I want to see it negotiated at Seattle. I want to be part of it. We will be part of it. Under the chairman's leadership, the House Committee on Agriculture will be part of it. And we in fact will see that whatever is negotiated that we conform to it. But we are going to do it a little differently this time I hope. I hope that at this time that instead of us waiting to see or negotiating first and then adjusting to it that we do it a little bit differently; that whatever is negotiated this time, I hope we will conform our legislation to the spirit of that so that our producers, in this case our dairy producers, will have our Government standing shoulder to shoulder with them. To those that make the argument that somehow this bill is anti-free trade or hypocritical, have they taken a look at the Canadian dairy system, their neighbors just to the north, and see what they do, and then suggest that what we are doing today is anti-free trade? They are aiming their guns at the wrong target.