Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me this time and for taking this time tonight, and I appreciate my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), joining us. The gentleman is right, this is a joining of the Blue Dogs tonight, and my colleagues who are listening will hear us talking considerably about this very ill-conceived proposal that we have facing us very soon. I want to emphasize a few points that have not yet been made tonight. But first, last week the largest newspaper in my district had an editorial entitled ``GOP Tax Cuts Founded Upon Play Money.'' And this is one point I want to emphasize. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), spoke very succinctly and very matter-of-factly regarding the absolute fact that all of these numbers we are talking about are projections, and for us to base the future, really, of our country on projections is very dangerous. And here I want to make a point, since we have mentioned the Blue Dogs tonight. One of the things that we believe in, if we are going to be critical of the other side's proposal, and we are very critical of the proposed $864 billion tax cut with play money, we feel if we are going to be critical of the other side, it is incumbent to say what are we for; what it is that we propose. And I have been asked by many of my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, ``Charlie, what would you have done? What would you do?'' And we spelled this out very clearly in our budget proposal earlier this year in which we said the conservative thing to do is to be conservative. Do not spend the money until we have it. Let us realize that if we are going to use 10- and 15-year projections, we should use them for purposes of outlining what the effects are going to be. But, for Heaven's sake, do not spend the money until we have it in our hands. We suggested very strongly, let us fix Social Security and Medicare first. The primary responsibility of this Congress should have been, should be, and I hope will be, let us fix Social Security. Save Social Security. Everyone now agrees, since all the rhetoric we have been hearing around here is a lock box, we are going to save the money, we are no longer going to spend the Social Security trust fund for anything other than Social Security. We all agree to that, we thought. But if we carefully analyze this $864 billion tax cut as proposed, we will find I believe the numbers will show that we are spending Social Security trust fund dollars in that 10-year plan. I believe those numbers are there. I have a new set of numbers tonight that we can use, but I think it is going to be important that we use CBO numbers when they come out. And if we are going to show that if we have this $864 billion tax cut over the next 10 years, we will use Social Security trust fund dollars in payment of that tax cut. But here is the thing that I want to emphasize tonight, and it has to do with Social Security also. And this is something that is being overlooked thus far in this whole debate. What happens in the second 10 years? Once we put a tax cut in place, it goes on and on and on. And since there are pressures in the first 10 years to do all of which the Committee on Ways and Means majority has suggested, they have interestingly done, as Congress so often does, they allow the major part of the actions of the tax cut to occur in the second 10 years. How much? It is now estimated $2.9 trillion will not make it to the Federal Treasury in the second 10 years, to which a lot of people and a lot of our colleagues will say, hooray, that is what we were sent here for. Send the money back home. The only problem with that is in 2014, only about 14 years from today, that is when the baby-boomers begin to retire in earnest. That is when the pressures on the current Social Security system will build to the highest level that we have seen since Social Security was first started. Now, let us use a little bit of what I like to call west Texas tractor seat common sense. It can be Tennessee common sense. It can be Minnesota common sense. It can be any of our 50 States common sense. If we have a program that has been clearly defined by most of us as one of the best government programs ever created, Social Security, and what it is doing for senior citizens today, and if we believe, as I do, that we need to do the same thing for our children and grandchildren, why would we pass a tax cut in 1999 that is going to guarantee that the Congress in the year 2014 will have a very difficult if not impossible hurdle to meet? Why would anyone suggest moving revenue of $2.9 trillion at exactly the same time that Social Security is going to have a need for those moneys in order to pay the promises off to those young men and women, all working men and women, who are working and paying in today, why would anyone have the gall to come to the floor of the House and suggest this is good policy, good economics, good anything? But that is what we have been allowed to believe thus far by the rhetoric thus far. But we hope that with actions and discussions like tonight and the debate on the bill when it gets here and other discussions about this proposed tax cut, as much as I would like to see it, too, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) said a moment ago he is for it, we are all for it, that is not the question. The question is what is the fiscally responsible thing for this Congress to do? And again, I come back to this very simple statement to my colleagues that are asking what would we do. What I wished we would have done this year, I wish the Committee on Ways and Means would have spent the last four or five months debating a Social Security plan, a solvency plan, a proposal that would put Social Security on solid ground. We have many out there, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) on the other side of the aisle and I, joined by about nine cosponsors, now a partisan group, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), another Republican, has come up with some ideas. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), another Republican, has come up with some ideas. We have various bipartisan suggestions. Why did not the Committee on Ways and Means deal with Social Security first? That is what the Blue Dogs suggested. Take care of Social Security first. Then let us deal with Medicare, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) mentioned a moment ago. Most of us who represent rural districts are hearing from our hospitals saying, if you do not make some changes in the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997, if you do not make some changes, we are going to be forced to close our doors. Now, we heard an excellent presentation by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) in the previous special order just before us today in talking about some of the problems associated with health care a moment ago. But there is another problem with health care that is very prevalent in rural America and that is whether we are going to have health care available. If we do not address the very real priority of medical spending, Medicare and Medicaid, and do it in a responsible, conservative way but do it in a way in which we allow our hospitals to stay open, for many of our rural communities there will be no money, there will be no hospitals. And that is not just crying wolf. That is something that is a very, very real fact. There is one other area, then I will yield back and allow the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) to join us tonight. But we talk about we do not send the money back to those that paid it, we are going to spend it. One of the things that gets overlooked by this is the very real fact of who owes this debt? The American people. Who is paying the interest, the $300-plus billion that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) showed on his chart a while ago? Who is paying that? We are paying it. It is consuming an increasing amount of the percentage of income tax that we pay. We forget that when we pay down debt, as the Blue Dogs have suggested, when we pay down debt we reduce the amount that we have to pay on interest. One of the very real choices we are going to have to make very soon deals with military spending, defense spending of this country. And if we did as the current game plan, if we spend 87 percent of the projected available surplus for the next 10 years, there will be no money there for defense. Immediately folks will say that I am wrong about that, we propose to follow the President's suggestions on defense and, therefore, we will meet those numbers. Fine, I will concede that we will do that. That means that we are going to have to cut 31 percent out of every other function of the budget, 31 percent out of veterans' programs, 31 percent out of agriculture, 31 percent out of education in order to meet the budget goal that has been set by the majority, who are saying that we can afford this $864 billion tax cut. My colleagues, we cannot do this. I appreciate the fact that many of you are agreeing with us today privately. But we hope that we will find a way. And to those that are asking what is that way, the Blue Dogs set it out. Let us take any projected surplus and let us be conservative with it, whatever it is, you pick the number and let us wait until they are real. First off, 100 percent of all Social Security surpluses go to pay down the debt. Then half of any non-Social Security surplus, pay down the debt with that also. And then the remaining, let us meet the priorities of this Nation, military, agriculture, health care, education, and veterans. And then let us deal with tax cuts targeted towards keeping this longest peacetime economy that we have seen in the history of our country. That is a pretty good plan. We hope our colleagues will be joining us. I yield back now to the gentleman and look forward to participating in a moment.

Mr. STENHOLM. If the gentleman will yield for one other point. As my colleagues know, a 1 percent increase in interest rates, according to my arithmetic, costs the taxpayers $56 billion, 1 percent on a $5.6 trillion debt that we have to pay interest on. That quarter of a point costs us a little over $14 billion, the quarter of a point. Look how difficult it is for us to find $14 billion of spending cuts which went away just like that when interest rates went up. Therefore, the whole message of the Blue Dogs tonight and earlier this year and will for the remainder of this year in this Congress is the fiscally-responsible, conservative thing for us to do is to pay down the national debt while we have the opportunity to do so and use this opportunity to fix Social Security for our children and grandchildren. You cannot do it both ways. If you take 87 percent of the projected surpluses and spend them today in a program that literally explodes in the second 10 years, it will make it fiscally impossible to meet the social security needs. It is one of the most irresponsible fiscal actions. In fact, I have termed this. I have been here now 20 years, going on 21. This bill is the most fiscally irresponsible bill to come before the Congress in the 20\1/2\ years that I have been here, and I hope we will be able to turn that around, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this rule, but not to the intent of the bill before us. For the second year in a row, the Committee on Ways and Means has told us there is nothing to worry about with regard to transshipment of Asian textiles through Africa. Those of us in agriculture know better. In the past 15 years we have dealt with this multibillion dollar problem in commodities, including garlic, peanuts, walnuts, pistachio nuts and coffee, tobacco; it goes on and on, and, of course, textiles. Despite the tireless efforts of our Customs Service, our chief textile negotiator at USTR said recently that he felt the problem was getting worse. Indeed, the cleverness of exporters seeking illegal access to lucrative U.S. markets has forced Customs to result to complex testing for trace elements. Customs simply does not have the manpower to test every product entering the U.S., and the incentives to cheat the system have always managed to keep ahead of our ability to detect new methods of transshipment. The Bishop-Myrick amendment rejected by the Committee on Rules was an honest attempt to address the problem. The refusal of the Committee on Ways and Means to effectively address transshipment and of the Committee on Rules to deny us a chance to even debate this issue sends the wrong message to the agriculture community at a time when farm prices are at a record low. The adjusted world price for cotton is half of what it was a few short years ago, and mill use in the United States is down 8 percent from last year. Where are the new market opportunities for farmers that were promised by the leadership of this House when we passed the Freedom to Farm bill? They are in the Bishop amendment which was rejected by the Committee on Rules for the second year in a row. I thank the gentleman for having yielded this time. I hope our colleague will send this rule back to the Committee on Rules, where we can get a fair rule, one that will address a win for Africa and a win for the textile and cotton industry in the United States.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, it just popped into my mind when I heard the word ``budget,'' this body spent all last year and never passed a budget, and we spent 1 trillion, 700 billion dollars of the taxpayers' money. But here is the point I wanted to make in this 1 minute. There has been some I am sure unintentional but some very misrepresentational statements made concerning congressional oversight. There are monthly reports submitted to the Congress regarding all of the expenditures from the Economic Stable Stabilization Fund, monthly reports, annual reports to the Congress in which we have ample opportunity to oversee. If anyone had the problems that we have heard in the overuse of the English language tonight about what has happened, we can certainly have that debate. And we will have that debate, and we should have that debate. But for us to take away the flexibility that an administration might need in order to meet with an international crisis, if we do not have that flexibility, I would submit to my colleagues that we are literally taking the jobs of millions of men and women and putting them in our hands and in a situation in which we will be almost totally incapable of acting.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am intending to offer an amendment to reduce by $3.9 million the funds provided in this bill to add new species to the Endangered Species List. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Concho Water Snake as a threatened species in June of 1986. Since that time, the Colorado River Municipal Water District has spent $3.9 million studying the snake and documenting its health. In June, 1998, after documenting a species population and distribution much larger than previous fish and wildlife estimates, the water district submitted a petition to delist the snake. In addition, the water district has documented that the construction of the lake, which the Fish and Wildlife Service argued would threaten the snake, has actually benefited the species by stabilizing stream flow and its habitat. According to the statute, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is supposed to provide a preliminary finding within 90 days of a petition to delist and a final decision within 12 months. It has been almost 13 months since this petition was submitted, and we are still waiting for their so-called 90-day response. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to propose adding a number of new species to the threatened or endangered list. Frankly, I find it difficult to fund an agency that is intent on expanding its responsibilities while failing to adequately handle the responsibilities it presently has. I would encourage them to prove they can handle proper listing and evaluation and delisting procedures regarding at least one species before they add any more to the backlog. There are certainly a number of larger problems with the Endangered Species Act, particularly with the whole delisting process, but that is a subject for the authorizing committee. However, I chose to simply limit funding by the same amount that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has forced the folks in my district to spend on studying the snake. I hope my amendment will send a message to Fish and Wildlife that they cannot ignore the law regarding delisting with total impunity. I believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should demonstrate they can complete their existing statutory obligations before taking on any additional responsibilities through expanding the Endangered Species List. Once they act on pending petitions, like the one for the Concho Water Snake, then we should talk about any funding for new species listings. Given the ongoing saga of the Concho Water Snake, adding more species to the current backlog might just demonstrate that common sense is the most endangered species in this Congress. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I am willing not to offer this amendment in the interest of moving this bill forward if the chairman and ranking member would kindly agree to work with me when the bill goes to conference to include conference report language that will require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a decision on the petition regarding the Concho Water Snake.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. With those assurances, Mr. Chairman, I will not offer my amendment. I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member as this bill goes to conference. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. Amendment Offered by Mr. Klink

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank my colleague for requesting this hour this evening. I very much appreciate the opportunity to participate. I will assure the Speaker, I do not intend to take the full remaining part of the time tonight. If some other colleagues do show up, I will yield to them under the rule. Let me sort of begin where the gentleman from Washington just ended and on the chart that he has in the well and point out, contrary to a lot of rhetoric in this body over the last few days, there is no budget surplus this year. When we look at the year 2000, the off-budget surplus is $5 billion projected. In the year 2001, it is $24 billion projected. Therefore, I would hope that this body would resist the temptation that is prevalent today to talk in terms of an $850 billion tax cut over the next 10 years when, according to all arithmetic today that is conservative, you will find that it will have to be done with borrowed money. Now, the people that I represent do not get excited about a tax cut that is paid for with borrowed money. The first thing they assume is that if you borrow $850 billion, the least you are going to pay for interest is about 5 percent, maybe 6 percent, because it is the government doing the borrowing, but then they understand that if that is done with borrowed money, there is a pretty good chance that the Federal Reserve is going to involve itself in our decisions. I ask my colleagues tonight, what did the Federal Reserve do a couple of weeks ago? If memory serves me correctly, they increased interest rates by .25 percent. Why did the Federal Reserve and the wisdom of Alan Greenspan increase those interest rates? Because they were afraid the economy was about to start overheating, inflation was going to begin moving up and they wanted to nip it in the bud. Now, let us move ourselves back to the subject of tax cutting. Why would we want a tax cut? Obviously because it is a politically popular thing to do. It makes good political rhetoric to say we are going to leave this money that has been accumulated by overtaxing the people and sending it back to you, but by the same breath, tax cuts stimulate the economy. Now, the problem that I have with this $850 billion tax cut is that if on the one hand we are going to stimulate the economy and that stimulation of the economy is going to cause interest rates to go up, who is going to benefit best? I would submit to you tonight, the best tax cut that this Congress can give to all of the American people is to act fiscally responsible and to make certain that interest rates do not go up, in fact can come back down. That is something we had better think about, because we are not in control of the Federal Reserve and it is predictable based on what Chairman Greenspan has been saying what will happen if in fact the economy starts to overheat. But I go back to my first comment and point out again, there is no budget surplus. Now I have a little further problem with this chart and all of these guesstimations because that is what they are. I have been around here a few years, and I remember the debate in this body not too many years ago in which we argued for hour after hour as to whether or not we could project 2 years, 3 years. Now all of a sudden we are accepting 15-year projections. Now who among us can predict tomorrow, much less 15 years from today? Who among us can make these kind of decisions? And that is why the Blue Dogs, as we are affectionately called by some, in the budget proposal that we made earlier this year suggested, let us stop this business; yes, Mr. President, you, and to the leadership of this body, let us stop this business of taking 15-year numbers and acting like this $700 billion is going to occur, and let us go back to 5-year numbers. Let us be conservative. Let us use 5-year numbers and let us not get carried away either with our desire for cutting taxes or our desire on the part of some for spending more money. Now, again, let me repeat, there is no budget surplus. Most of these surpluses are dealing with Social Security. When you look at the off- budget or the on-budget surplus, you do have projected over the next 5 years 231 billion. What is it about this that should bother us when we take a 231 billion projected surplus over the next 5 years and suddenly use that as justification to have an $850 billion tax cut? And what ought to really bother this body is that when you look at that other number on this chart and you look at that 2414 number, that is when we have major problems dealing with Social Security. That is why another part of the Blue Dog budget has said: Let us devote 100 percent of the Social Security trust funds to solving the Social Security problem, and let us do this by paying down the debt. Let us pay down the debt with all of the Social Security trust funds. And we go further in saying let us take half of the non-Social Security surplus funds and pay down the debt with them. And then let us use the other half of that projected surplus to deal with the concept of tax cuts and the concept of increased funding, particularly for defense. We find over the weekend the Pentagon began to raise concerns, and rightfully they did. Because when anyone looks at an $850 billion tax cut over the next 10 years and then sees how it literally explodes about 2014, that becomes a problem for the military, it becomes a problem for our veterans programs, it becomes a problem for Medicare and Medicaid, but it even more seriously becomes a major problem for Social Security in 2014 because that is the year in which the Social Security trust funds begin not to, or the amount of taxes we are all paying on Social Security, begin not to cover the expected outgo of 2014. In other words, the current situation we have in which Social Security is bringing in more than we are paying out begins to turn the other way as the baby boom generation begins to retire. It ought to bother us, and it ought to say to this body and to those as we speak who are marking up this tax bill in extreme haste tonight: Now is the time for us not to be liberal with our thinking but to be conservative with our thinking and to realize that these are projections, and no one responsibly spends projections like it is real money. Let me give my colleagues a few numbers in backing up. There is no budget surplus this year. For the first 8 months of fiscal year 1999, October through May, the Treasury reported a cumulative surplus of 40.7 billion, but it is composed of an off-budget surplus of 78.8 billion minus an on-budget surplus of 38.1. There is no surplus, and yet we keep talking like there is one. Let me read an editorial that was printed in today's San Angelo Standard Times. This is the way it went: Washington's Budget Discussions Annoying. It is surreal to listen to Washington politicians arguing about how they ought to spend tax cuts on new programs, a projected budget surplus of $5.9 trillion over the next 15 years. There are two niggling problems with such talk. One is that it is the wrong policy; the second is that not only is the amount of money being discussed little better than a blind guess, there is not even any assurance that there will be any surplus. Consider that the new projections are $1 trillion higher than the one made just this past February. Then consider that just 10 months ago the projected surplus was about one-third the numbers being tossed around now. And finally consider that just 18 months ago we were still talking about deficits. Can anyone really have enough confidence in such inexact calculations to make any plans that rely on their accuracy? Is it not obvious that if economic conditions can improve so rapidly, they can worsen just as rapidly? In fact, would not the smart money say that after 98 months of economic expansion, the longest during the peacetime in the Nation's history, a downturn is vastly more likely than 15 more years of uninterrupted growth and that future plans ought to reflect that probability? The only good thing about the current budget blabbering is that the $5.9 trillion figure is in the ball park of the amount owed on the national debt. Would it not be nice if that image, paying off the debt and not dollar signs begging to be given, this political barter, was the one that filled the politicians' heads? Would it not be nice if the trillions of dollars that have been and will be paid in interest on the debt could be used in some more productive way? Making the current talk even more frustrating is that doing the right thing is not even a difficult political choice. Polls have consistently shown that, given the options, Americans want Congress and the President to get the Nation's fiscal house in order before doing anything else with extra money. Maybe the glorious projections being tossed around will turn out to be right or maybe the surplus will wind up being even twice as large, three times as large. That would be splendid. But it is foolish and irresponsible to base policy on dreams and wishes. Washington should take care of the priorities first, the money owed and the money that will be owed to future Social Security and Medicare recipients before committing any budget surplus elsewhere. I could not have said it better myself, and as we go into tomorrow's continued markup in the Committee on Ways and Means and then next week having an $850 billion tax cut on the floor, many of us are going to be reminding this body time and time again: If you really mean it when you say let us lock up the Social Security trust funds and not use them, if you really mean it when we talk about saving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, if you really mean it, that we are going to keep our Nation's fiscal house in order. We must not succumb to the temptation to spend this surplus that may or may not even be realized for any purpose, and that includes the cutting of taxes. Because if we make that mistake, let us remember what happened the last time when we were not able to meet the spending needs in the 1980s. We borrowed $3 trillion, almost $4 trillion. We borrowed because we could not and would not make the difficult decisions right here in this body. Again, my plea to the leadership of this House: Let us make the tough decisions first, let us settle the appropriations battle, let us acknowledge that if in fact we do have a need to build up our Nation's military, and we do, that there is no way on this earth we will be able to meet those numbers unless we deal with them responsibly in the budget by making that decision first. Let us acknowledge, all of us, that if you are concerned about Social Security, you cannot wink at 2014, you cannot say we are going to pass that on to the future congresses, we do not care about what is going to happen then, oh, we care, but we have got a plan, and the plan is yet to be materialized. Why would it not be the most responsible thing for us to have a Social Security bill on the floor? Why would it not be the most responsible to have a bill for Medicare reform on the floor and have honest to goodness projections? Why do we have our hospitals in town this week again concerned, as my hospitals are here, as I met with them, hospital administrators from about 20 in my district who are concerned about having to shut down because the budget decisions that were made in the 1997 balanced budget agreement went too far. And as I point out to them, it did not go near as far as some folks in this body would have liked to have seen. But why not have an open and honest debate about how we are going to deal with health care first? Why do we postpone that until after we have a vote on spending the entire surplus that may or may not be a real one? These are some of the questions that I think we are going to have to ask and to answer over and over and over again. Remember: When anyone talks about an $852 billion surplus that is not Social Security; remember the highway bill that this body passed last year overwhelmingly? Look at the money that we voted to spend there that busted the hound out of the caps, but nobody saying, oh, we were not busting them because that was just part of the highway bill. Look at this year, when we passed an airport bill not too many days ago and folks were standing up on the Committee on the Budget and saying we are busting the caps. No, we are not, because the total has not been busted yet, but that old bucket is filling up, and as it fills up, we are going to have some extremely interesting times, and I do not want, I hope, to be part of another Congress that for political reasons absolutely and totally disregards the future of our children and grandchildren. That is what we will do if we choose to have a tax cut for self-gratification today. We will be saying to our children and grandchildren we do not give a rip about you. Because the urgency is what the polls that we have to be looking at this year, and that is somebody somewhere is saying we need a tax cut. I agree we need a tax cut, but not with borrowed money. That is the significant thing that we are going to have to somehow get over, hopefully to a majority of this body, that it does not make economic sense for us to waste this opportunity of fiscal responsibility, the first time in many, many years that we have got 2 years in a row in which when you take Social Security trust funds and off-budget, on- budget, all of this malarkey that we talk about here, that we do have a surplus. If we apply it to the debt and honestly use this opportunity to deal with the long-term problems of Social Security, we can do something that our grandchildren will look back on. And I happen to have two. I should say my wife, Cindy, and I happen to have two. And I have resolved, and many people asked me why I have been so involved as I have in the Social Security question. I am not on the Committee on Ways and Means. I have been working with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my colleague. We have bipartisan support now for a proposal on Social Security that does what we say it will do. And people say, well, what do we say it will do? It goes a long way towards solving the long-term problems of Social Security, better than any other proposal out there. And people say, ``Well, Charlie, why are you so involved in Social Security?'' And I say two reasons. Their names are Chase and Cole. It is mine and my wife's 4-year-old and 2-year-old grandsons. I do not want them to look back 65 years from today and say, if only my granddad would have done what in his heart he knew he should have done when he was in the Congress, we would not be in the mess we are in today. We have a wonderful opportunity, if we can find the bipartisan political courage to deal conservatively with this surplus, to avoid the temptation that some have today to spend the money, whether it be on tax cuts or whether it be on spending for new programs. Members will see me up at this mike and at other mikes and using every possible opportunity over the next several days to encourage a majority of my colleagues to take this surplus and pay down the debt. Listen to what the American people are telling us in district after district. They are saying, pay down the debt. Any small business man or woman knows what happens to their business when they get more debt than they can pay back. When the interest cost becomes insurmountable, an insurmountable problem to them, they understand. Why is it so difficult for Members of Congress to understand? That is the message the Blue Dogs will be bringing. That is the message I hope we will find bipartisan support for.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Dingell amendment, a common-sense compromise that represents the views of the overwhelming majority of law-abiding gun owners who accept reasonable reforms and who want to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and who recognize the best way to do this is to conduct background checks and the best way to do that is to use the existing system. Contrary to what some folks would have us believe, gun shows are not illegal arms bazaars. They are commercial forums where citizens can buy and sell firearms for hunting, to add to a collection of antiques, for self-protection or any of a litany of lawful purposes. This amendment streamlines the instant check process for firearm transfers at gun shows. The speed and ease of the check under the Dingell amendment will encourage folks to make their purchases in a regulated forum. Some folks who want to ignore the existence of the second amendment seem to think that if we just make it too much of a hassle for citizens to purchase guns that the transactions will not occur. In reality the sale will still take place, but without the benefit of a background check. I urge my colleagues' support of the Dingell amendment, a workable compromise which achieves the goals of protecting the rights of all citizens while best protecting society as a whole.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate the reason why we are here and to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for bringing this bill again to the floor, the reasons for passage are very, very clear. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) pointed out the recent activities or actions taken by the administration, along the same line of beginning to recognize that unilateral sanctions are not helpful, particularly when it applies to food and to medicine. The administration supports the spirit of this legislation from the standpoint of continuing to work with the Congress to make those changes necessary to bring about an end to these very harmful actions, harmful to the producers of food and fiber in the United States. I think I would be remiss if I did not also mention, though, we have some other actions that this Congress needs to take this year along the same line. We have some very controversial actions coming up regarding normal trade relations with China, a country of 1,200,000,000 mouths to feed. This is something that also needs to be looked at in the same bipartisan spirit. Fast track negotiations need to be brought before this Congress so that we might include sending our negotiators to the table to negotiate in areas in which perhaps we can avoid sanctions even being considered by any administration. We also have to acknowledge the fact of the disappointment of many in the agricultural appropriation bill that was passed just a few days ago. The lack of step 2 funding for cotton, for example, is going to make it extremely difficult for our cotton industry to participate in the international marketplace; China's ascension to the WTO; all of these need to be considered in the same spirit in which we are here today in support of H.R. 4647. Again, I commend the leadership, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), his leadership on this, and look forward to the passage of this, the passage in the Senate, a presidential signature and moving on to other very important activities regarding agriculture.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise as an original cosponsor in support of the Selective Agricultural Embargo Act of 1999. This bill provides for greater scrutiny of the unilateral embargoes we place on our trading partners, and is an important step towards the comprehensive sanctions reform that need to be enacted. When Congress passed freedom to farm 3 years ago, it promised to open foreign markets to U.S. agriculture products. So far, we have failed to deliver on that promise. By providing congressional review of unilateral agriculture sanctions, this bill will require us to put a little more thought into our actions, to think before we concede our agricultural markets to our competitors. The bill will also help to maintain our reputation as a reliable supplier of food. It is time to find a more effective way to implement our foreign policy goals. Unilateral sanctions do not work, and they cost our farmers and ranchers dearly. Let us pass this bill and begin moving in the direction of comprehensive sanctions reform. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps). (Mr. PHELPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the en bloc amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment includes an amendment which I propose along with the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune). Our amendment makes needed improvements to TriCare, the military managed health care program. Our amendment complements the excellent work done by the Committee on Armed Services to better military health care. The Thune-Stenholm amendment will improve the claims processing system, reduce paperwork and financial burdens to TriCare beneficiaries, and improve coverage for active duty members of the armed services. Our amendment has the support of the Military Coalition and the National Military and Veterans Alliance. As we increase military pay and benefits, it is important that we also continue in our efforts to provide the highest quality medical care for military members and their families, retirees and their families, and survivors. I urge the support for the Thune-Stenholm amendment as included in the en bloc amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. That is where we have reasonable differences. I have real life experience on the other side. But also I would point out one other major, important aspect of it. It is rabies control. This is something that is extremely important to the general population in large segments of Texas. Perhaps in this one district in Oregon it is different. I would assure the Members, in most places of the country, the argument on the side of the Committee on Appropriations and what the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) are suggesting is what the full House ought to do today. We ought to defeat this amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. I most certainly would not, because I absolutely disagree with the intent of gentleman's amendment. Even though that sounds very reasonable, it completely overlooks one of the fundamental areas I disagree with, that we do not need to be assisting our ranchers with predator control. The gentleman ought to come to the Seventeenth District of Texas and see what happens to livestock and what would happen under gentleman's proposal. I just respectfully differ with the gentleman regarding what the gentleman intends and would like to do.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment, which basically guts the core funding for USDA's Wildlife Services program. This is an important program that serves the public good in a number of ways, and it should be funded at the level approved by the House Appropriations Committee. Reducing funds for USDA's Wildlife Services will not just affect lethal predator control in the West, it will also cripple other needed activities throughout the Nation. Often the same USDA staff who help ranchers manage problems of predators may also help local airports protect human life by removing flocks of birds near runways. I emphasize that one of the reasons why the DeFazio amendment does not work as he had intended is that we use the same people, and when we eliminate a person, that person who might be not only helping ranchers with their predator problems might also be the same person that is dealing with flocks of birds around airports. That gets overlooked in some of the concern which has been expressed here on the floor. Make no mistake about it, this reduction in funds is not a targeted cut. Let me also add that Wildlife Services is not a Federal giveaway program. The majority of funding for the work of USDA's Wildlife Services comes from sources outside the Federal government, like State, local, and private organizations. Federal funds help to secure the basic program staff, who then are able to draw in significant funding directly from those who benefit from their work. However, without these USDA staff, it is unclear whether these outside funds will continue to be made available. Finally, I am amazed by the argument that this program is not needed because wildlife-generated losses to property and human life are considered low by some folks. That is like arguing that childhood immunization programs are a waste of money since so few children now die from these diseases. That is the whole point. We spend public money on preventative programs so we will not have to face the alternative. We spend money on Wildlife Services in order to avoid rabies epidemics, downed aircraft, and dead or maimed livestock. I simply do not agree that just because the program seems to be working efficiently, it should now be eliminated. Please support the responsible and necessary management of wildlife by opposing the DeFazio amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. This bill before us endorses a position that we have been advocating for years. I have come to this well many times to argue that we should not even talk about budget surpluses until we truly have taken Social Security off budget and balance the budget without counting the Social Security surplus. For the last several years, I have joined with my Blue Dog colleagues to offer budgets that incorporate that philosophy. Thus, I congratulate the House leadership for seeing the wisdom of the Blue Dogs' position on this issue today. Although I must say, I wish they had seen the light a little earlier and supported some of our budgets over the last 2 or 3 years, particularly the last budget a little earlier when we had an opportunity to pass a real budget which would have actually helped us do that which we talk about today. I am glad, though, to see that we have reached a point where everyone agrees with the principle that we should wall off Social Security. The real test will be whether we can follow through with our rhetoric as we go through appropriations and tax cutting processes. I hope we can do so, but history is not encouraging. The budget which we passed just a few weeks ago set up a virtual guarantee of failure because of its unrealistic numbers. Already, with this year's first appropriations bill, the Agriculture Appropriation has been on the floor for 2 days and we have seen nothing constructive happening. The victim of this unreasonable budget is not only inadequate agriculture funding but also funding for other programs and ultimately Social Security. The pressure created by an unrealistic budget translates into vulnerability for Social Security. If the House had shown the foresight to follow a path more along the lines of the Blue Dog budget, we would have invested in priority programs such as defense, agriculture, veterans, education, and health. At the same time, our budget did protect all of the Social Security surplus fund over a 5-year period while using 50 percent of the on- budget surpluses to reduce our debt and 25 percent to provide a tax cut. This plan reflected a reasonable balance, but that is not what we passed. Last year the majority, though, passed an $80 billion tax cut that would have been funded entirely from the Social Security trust fund that we lock up today. And just last week, we voted to spend $15 billion from the Social Security trust fund, we did that, by the same folks that today say this is going to be a magic bullet and is going to save Social Security. We should not kid ourselves and pretend that this legislation does anything to deal with the long-term problems of Social Security. Walling off Social Security surplus is a good start, and that is why I support it. But it is not a solution. A true solution will require us to roll up our sleeves and do some heavy lifting to deal with the tough choices facing Social Security. It would be a terrible mistake if we let passage of this legislation be the end of the discussion of Social Security. Our vote today should be the beginning of a bipartisan process to honestly address financial problems facing Social Security.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this bill. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for the hard work they have done under some very difficult circumstances. We come here today with a situation in agriculture that is worse than it was a year ago. Farm income stress is only intensifying from last year. To those that are worried about the spending level on agriculture, let me make this point. In 1990, net farm income was $44.7 billion. In 1999 it is projected to be $43.6 billion, which includes all of the $12 billion in subsidies that have been written. At the same time look at what has happened to the Dow Jones average. It has gone up 230 percent. My colleague from Oklahoma that spoke, I want to commend him for his honesty and his forthrightness and his persistence. He voted for the Blue Dog budget. Had the Blue Dog budget passed, we would have been talking about increased funding for agriculture today. We would have been talking about meeting the needs of the cotton step-2 program, meeting the additional needs of research in agriculture, paying the $100 million the WIC program needs in order to meet all of the human need. The gentleman from Oklahoma voted for it of which I deeply appreciate. A majority of my colleagues on this side of the aisle voted for it. If we had only gotten a majority on both sides, we could have been doing a much more adequate job of meeting the true needs of agriculture. Now, we have got a lot of problems that need to be solved. They should not be attempted to be solved on this bill. It needs to be done in the House Committee on Agriculture. We have got work to do on crop insurance, opening world markets. We are going to get an opportunity to do that. Coordinated policies, working together with USDA in this Congress. We really cannot afford to wait much longer. I hope and expect that this year under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and those on both sides of the aisle that we will be able to take up in an orderly fashion those things that need to be done in order to make sure that agriculture will continue to be for all of America what it is today. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following correspondence for printing in the Record: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC, May 12, 1999. Hon. Dan Glickman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary: We are writing to urge you to give careful consideration to the development of new programs to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. wheat exports by improving the cleanliness and uniformity of grain delivered to foreign buyers. Over the past decade, competition in the wheat export trade has intensified. The domestic wheat industry believes that cleaner US wheat will be more competitive in foreign markets. We are writing to urge you to develop a program that would provide assistance to export elevators for the financing of high speed cleaning equipment. In recent months, we have had some very strong reminders of just how important exports are to US agriculture, along with the recognition that we need to make our products as competitive as possible. We believe that improvement of the domestic cleaning infrastructure is a worthwhile investment that will help US wheat gain market share in the years to come. Capital investments made now will ensure the future competitiveness of the US grain industry. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal, and we look forward to working with you in developing and implementing a program that will enhance US grain competitiveness in world markets. Sincerely, Charles W. Stenholm. Jerry Moran.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First off, I think it is important that we know just exactly what the proposed increased spending is for. And I have great respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma, I do not believe he intends to misspeak, but this is an attempt to do something that many of us have been attempting to do since 1992, and that is bring the USDA into the next century technologically. And that is what these computers are all about. It is to allow our farmers to be served better by less people. And that is what the cuts that are being proposed are all about, and that is why some of us have opposed these cuts. But let me make a couple of other observations. If we want to save Social Security, let us bring a Social Security bill to the floor of the House from the Committee on Ways and Means. Now, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) have brought bills and ideals but not to the floor. This is the wrong time for us to be picking on an agricultural bill, particularly making cuts that do just the opposite of what the gentleman from Oklahoma wants to do, in my opinion. But the gentleman is correct in many of the observations that he makes with his amendments today. We have no appropriations strategy, ``we'' meaning this body, unless those who voted for the majority's budget are prepared to cut $6 billion from the Veterans Administration and HUD, unless they are willing to cut $11 billion in Labor HHS, unless they are willing to cut 8 percent in Commerce, State, Justice, and the energy and water bills, and unless they are willing to cut 20 percent from the Interior and Foreign Operations. Now, I did not vote for that budget, because I am not willing to make those kinds of cuts in those areas, because I believe it would be counterproductive, and I am perfectly willing to say what I mean. But I did vote for the Blue Dog budget, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) did also, which suggested that in the areas of agriculture, defense, education, health and veterans we might need to spend a little bit more on those areas, subject to the scrutiny of this body, which is perfectly okay for any Member in this body to challenge the Committee on Appropriations at any time on anything we are doing, and I do not begrudge the gentleman for doing that. We also, in our amendment, saved Social Security, and I would submit we did it really, and the gentleman agrees because he voted for it. We also provided for a 25 percent tax cut, or using 25 percent of the on- budget for cutting taxes. But we also recognized there was going to be a need for additional spending, and we are proving it today. And this is an area in which when I say ``we,'' the leadership of this House needs to look at the train wreck that they are leading us down by the proposed 302(b) allocations. The gentleman from New Mexico and the gentlewoman from Ohio are doing what they were told to do. They were given a mark in the budget. This budget passed by a majority vote of this body. Therefore, that means a majority must support it. Well, if it means a majority do not wish to spend that which has been designated for agriculture, vote against it. Cut the agriculture bill. Vote to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma, in which he will cut the very technology that we need in order to make the efficiencies to do more work with less people. That is what this is all about. I know the gentleman has not looked into it. I have spent since 1992. I was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry that started us down the road of USDA reorganization, and I have been fought every step of the way by the bureaucracy. We have made some substantial improvements and changes, and one of the things that we must do now is provide our people with the technology that they need in order that they might do that which they are criticized every day for doing. Secretary Glickman has been criticized day after day after day because he has not been able to deliver that which our farmers expect. Part of the reason he has been criticized is we have not given him the tools to use. So before we start blindly making amendments and trying to make points, let me just say this agricultural function is within the budget that passed by a majority of this House. It does not meet the criteria of the Blue Dogs. Those who supported us, which was a majority on my side of the aisle and 26 on that side of the aisle, said, no, we cannot do that, we have some other needs, and we are willing to stand up and be counted for those needs in a very responsible way. But if we truly want to save Social Security, let us bring a Social Security bill to this floor and do it tomorrow. Then we will have an honest debate about how we can best do it, not on an agricultural bill.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to first associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) a moment ago. Indeed, that last amendment did hurt farmers. If my colleagues had been following, as he has for the last 3 years and I have for the last 6 years, what we are trying to do at USDA, they would understand there was a little wisdom in the money that was proposed to be spent. Let me speak specifically to the amendment the gentleman proposes to cut now, a $21 million increase, which the gentleman said a 420 percent increase, which sounds like a whole bunch of money, and it is a whole bunch of money, but this is to implement the strategic space plan, which includes the new USDA office facility on Federal land at Beltsville. The construction of the Beltsville office facility started in June 1996, was substantially completed in 1997, and we are completing the occupancy this year in 1999. The 2 million gross square feet south building is over 60 years old, eligible for listing in the National Register. The required renovation work includes fire protection, abatement of hazardous materials, such as asbestos, PCB light fixtures, and lead paint, replacement of old, inefficient heating, ventilation, and all conducting air conditioning systems for improved energy conservation. The construction contract for phase one of the modernization was awarded in July of 1998 but has been tied up in a legal suit, and is now being proposed to be funded. The fiscal 1999 appropriation of $5 million included funds necessary to continue the south building modernization. One of the problems we have got with delivering services to our farmers, we have not kept up with the technology. We are doing it in our offices. Notice what happens when we improve the computer technology here, there is a lot of wires get run. We have to go back and do things. They are very expensive. When we are trying to do that to our USDA headquarters so that we will be able to coordinate our services, it requires spending of some money. This was a plan that was proposed and is being implemented. We can cut this money, very easily cut it. But then do not stand up and criticize USDA for not being able to deliver the services to our farmers and ranchers as we have been doing, many have been doing, blaming it all on the Secretary of Agriculture because the disaster payments were not delivered on time. Part of that we are dealing with in this first few lines of the bill. It is what the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentlewoman from Ohio have been supporting and trying to do. I know the gentleman's intentions are very honorable. I do not question those at all. And I am certainly one that would never stand up and suggest the gentleman does not have a right to do it. But it would be helpful if the gentleman's staff would spend a little bit of time talking specifically about what the gentleman is doing before he stands up and talks about how he is not doing harm to farmers, because the gentleman from Iowa stated it very, very accurately and succinctly.