Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, then, begins the process of talking about the difficulties that some of us are having. In this case, interestingly enough, it is the Department of Agriculture and it is the agricultural funds that are in question, the amount for salaries and expenses for the necessary employees to deliver the Emergency Disaster Program that we passed last fall and is now still awaiting execution. Obviously I reluctantly offer this amendment, but by the same token, the argument that I made before in general debate and I will make again now, I believe that the emergency should be stricken. I happen to agree with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) when he says we should pay for these emergency spending. My difference is I disagree with the manner in which the majority has chosen to pay for it. Two or three of those I think will do irreparable harm to this country's best interest. But specifically speaking to agriculture, I think, for any reason, for the United States to call into question capital available for countries of the world that are struggling and that different financial institutions might consider to be creditworthy, and that if they are considered creditworthy, they might then be able to borrow money in order to buy that which we have produced in the United States. As Chairman Greenspan pointed out in an eloquent speech last week, our problems with agriculture have been because our markets have dried up. He pointed out, and others are pointing out, that we are playing with fire when we begin to take what appears to be an innocuous, harmless something that we can attack as being foreign aid and that there is no repercussions, that there is no price to be paid. I happen to believe very strongly that we are playing with fire. If the majority succeeds in these offsets today, it will do far more damage to American agriculture and farmers than whether or not there is a delay on providing the credit, because it will be a short delay. We have already passed unanimously in this House a couple weeks ago the Combest-Stenholm amendment in which we recognized that. But here again, my argument would be, and what I ask unanimous consent for, is to just agree that the President asked that all of these be considered emergency. Do not blame the President for the impasse we have today. He has already declared it. The majority has said we do not believe we ought to breach the spending by declaring it emergency, a perfectly logical decision to be made. I happen to agree. The difference we have is how should we pay for it? I believe in an across-the-board cut in every account would be a much more logical and helpful way for us to progress. Even there, there are some offsets that I am sure that the committee can, in fact they have come up with some that makes sense, and, therefore, they can in the conference make those adjustments with the Senate and hold it down as much as we can as far as the across-the-board cuts. That is all that I am saying today. That is my point of my amendment today. I will be offering this amendment. I would rather have done it en bloc, but I understand the rules, and I understand the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), and I appreciate his handling of this. But I would seriously say to my colleagues, please consider what we are saying and do not look at this as something that we can take frivolously of which there are no prices to be paid. This Member's humble judgment is that there is a potential very high price to be paid and that there is a better way for paying for this today. That is my argument, and I would ask support for my amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman spoke very factually a moment ago. But precisely because America is one of the few if not the only country in the world that has been backing these institutions is why I offer the amendment today. Because I worry that if we, this body, should call into question the reliability of whether we will be there, I worry about the effect of that. That is precisely why I offer the amendment.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to try to clarify again why I am offering the amendment. And precisely why I am offering this amendment is the possibility that the capital that is being rescinded might be needed in order to maintain agricultural markets. It is precisely that reason, that just in case we find this year that that capital will be needed, I want it to be available. And I think it makes much more sense for this body to have that capital available in case agriculture or any other producers of anything in the United States might benefit by whoever might use that capital that it might be available. And we are kind of into the never-never land here, because if this really was emergency spending, this debate would not even be taking place here today. I happen to believe it is emergency. But I happen to believe at this stage in the budget debate that we need to pay for all expenditures, even emergency spending, and that is why I am here striking ``emergency''. The President asked this be emergency and not be offset. Some folks on both sides of the aisle believe it ought to be offset. I believe that unless we strike the particular offsets and do an across-the-board cut, we are playing with fire that will far more damage agriculture this year than any of the problems associated with the amendment that I offer in striking the funds for salaries, etcetera, at this time. That is the record. And I could not agree more with the chairman a moment ago in his explanation of what he is doing and why, because he and I agree on this. But this does not take Congress off the hook. My amendment puts Congress on the hook, because my colleague and I both know that if we have across-the-board cuts, some things are going to be very meaningful. Some areas of the budget will have much more meaningful cuts than others because some are tighter than others. So I do not say I am trying to take anybody off the hook. I am saying I am willing to put us on the hook, and I think across-the-board cuts are much more doable. I do not want to use the word ``honest.'' I just believe that they put Congress in a more responsible way of saying, yes, we want to pay for, we want to live within the caps and we mean it. And I thanked the chairman a moment ago for agreeing that that is his interpretation of what I am trying to do. We have a difference on this. But to those who argue that this capital unexpended is not going to have any effect on Kansas wheat farmers this summer, be careful, be careful when they make that argument in case they win. Because if the economy of the world should turn around and go even worse, Mr. Greenspan, in what he has warned us, and let me just quote: ``The disappointing export developments and pressures on farm prices over the past few quarters can be traced to an important degree to the recession that began in Asia more than a year and a half ago and has since spread to other regions of the world. Falling shipments to Asian countries accounted for more than 80 percent in the drop of value of farm exports over the past 2 years.'' Let us be careful what we do today. There are real prices to be paid if we are in error. I believe an across-the-board cut would be much sounder for national policy and agriculture policy than what is being suggested by the majority bill.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman has explained the intent of what I would like to accomplish today as perfectly and honestly as I could have done it.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington very much for yielding to me, and I very much appreciate his taking the time tonight in order to discuss the subject that we will be debating in earnest tomorrow. I guess the one thing that he said that I want to overly emphasize is that if by chance we have surpluses, and most of us, I think, and most of the American people understand that when we owe $5.6 trillion, we really do not have a surplus to talk about. And since most of the surplus, in fact all of the surplus this year is Social Security trust funds, we in the Blue Dog budget that will be offered as a substitute tomorrow, we emphasize that we should take that money and pay down the debt with it and really do it. I believe we will have bipartisan support for doing that because everybody is talking about that. But the one thing that some are not talking about, and this is why we will offer our substitute amendment, some are saying that we ought to take future surpluses. And it was not too long ago in this body that we had a difficult time estimating next year, and then we started 5-year estimations and projections of what surpluses and what the budget would hold, and now we are starting 10 and 15 years. My colleagues, I believe it is very dangerous for the future of this country to base 15-year projections and say we are going to have a tax cut that will explode in the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth year. That is not conservative politics, at least if they are a businessman or woman. We understand that they do not make those kind of decisions today based on what might happen tomorrow. What we are going to be suggesting is, if in fact we do in the next 5 years achieve a surplus of the non-Social Security nature, let us put at least half of that down on the debt, let us pay an additional 50 percent down on the debt, and let us take 25 percent of that and let us meet the very real needs of which I know the gentleman from California is as concerned as I am about defense. Let us put some real dollars in recognizing that, just as we have our young men and women in harm's way tonight, that it is extremely important that we give them the resources to do that which we ask them to do. And we cannot do that with the budget the majority is putting forward tomorrow, and everyone knows that. It is time to get honest, and the Blue Dog budget will in fact get honest. And we will attempt, hopefully, to have a majority of this body agree with us.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and continuing in the light of the statement of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), this particular problem that we are solving today with this legislation is indicative of some other, even larger problems associated with our current crop insurance program. We are finding now that there is widespread but not necessarily unanimous agreement that crop insurance as it is current constituted, is inadequate to meet the needs of our farmers and ranchers around this country, and that is why I have been fully supportive of the gentleman from Texas' efforts this year to make revenue insurance, crop insurance slash livestock insurance, the number one priority of our House Agriculture Committee this year, and I think we are finding now that there is substantial agreement. I was in Crockett County, Tennessee yesterday with one of our colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), over 300 farmers there, in which there was substantial agreement that crop insurance needs to be improved. And as we do this, I think it is important for our colleagues and all interested in this subject to realize that we are basically starting with a blank sheet of paper. We are finding that when we talk about crop insurance, that even those crops that have been covered, there are holes in the program. We also are finding that livestock producers have been left out as far as being even eligible to purchase coverage. One of the things that we are finding now is that in light of the 1995-1996 farm bill that basically said to our producers, ``produce for the market,'' removal of a lot of government activity regarding agricultural production, that there was also a promise that we were going to free up world markets. And as we all know now, we have not been able to pass Fast Track, we have had all kinds of difficulty in even getting the United States negotiators to the table in order to free up those markets so that we might produce. That has now led us to another situation in which in the past crop insurance has been designed to care for weather-related disasters. We now are beginning to know that currency changes, whole regions of countries, when they have economic problems, it has affected our producers in ways in which no one in this body anticipated in the 1995-1996 area when we were passing this legislation. So I use this opportunity today to say that this particular bill and the need for this bill today was caused inadvertently by a misinterpretation, misapplication of what some believe was current law. What we now have, the task for us, ahead of us, is to see that we do provide a crop insurance, revenue assurance program that will be adequate for our producers, whether they be crop, livestock or anyone in between. That is the challenge, and we hope later this year or certainly early next year it would be my hope that we would be able to bring comprehensive legislation to the floor of the House dealing with this particular problem. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for House passage of H.R. 1212. I want to commend my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for all of the work he has done on this legislation. The bill offers a no-cost solution to a problem created by the interaction between Federal crop insurance and the private insurance industry. Mr. Speaker, crop insurance law and regulations provide definitive dates for the sale or cancellation of crop insurance policies. The deadlines help to protect the taxpayer from costs associated with adverse selection. Without firm deadlines, producers could wait until the growing season has commenced, make an assessment as to their likelihood of harvesting a good crop, and then those who had a good crop would decline crop insurance and those likely to have a loss purchase it. Sales closing dates help prevent bad insurance outcomes and excessive taxpayer cost at the same time. Mr. Speaker, this year many producers purchased a Federal crop insurance policy known as Crop Revenue Coverage, CRC, based on the belief that a related policy known as CRCPlus would be available under certain terms. The CRCPlus enhancement policy, while it modifies a producer's insurance coverage, is not approved, not backed and not regulated by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, after the Federal deadline for sale or cancellation for the Federal CRC policy passed in many areas, the company offering CRCPlus made an announcement that the terms of the policy would be changed from what many producers had applied for. Since some producers purchased their Federal CRC policies so that they could take advantage of CRCPlus, under the initial terms they have ended up with insurance outcomes that differ from their intentions. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would allow any producer who had applied for a CRCPlus policy to change their coverage under the Federal crop insurance program. In order to guard against costs associated with adverse selection, the bill provides that a producer may only change to a federally-backed policy that provides equivalent or lower coverage. In addition, the bill provides a date certain after which these changes could no longer be made. With these provisions CBO estimates that the bill will not increase program cost. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a fair opportunity for producers to make adjustments to changes and circumstances which were beyond their control. I thank the chairman of the committee and other Members for responding quickly to this situation. Again, I commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for his efforts, and I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Kosovo resolution before us, however suspect the timing may be. Furthermore, I support the Skelton Amendment, which would specify once a peace agreement is reached, Congress must approve the deployment of our troops. The United States is in an unquestionable position of world leadership. Along with that position comes a sense of duty. If we want free trade and open markets, not to mention exemplary worldwide standards of behavior in the realms of justice, scientific discovery, human rights, and other democratic values, we must lead by example. The responsibility of neutralizing potential global flare-ups of hostility comes with this territory. Senator Bob Dole recently returned from discussions with the KLA in Kosovo. He stated his support of continued work towards a peace agreement, and expressed his hope for bipartisan Congressional support. I stand with Senator Dole on this issue; I believe partisanship should end at the water's edge. Whatever we think of the muddled foreign policy of this Administration, we should never engage in activities that produce American weakness in the international theater. NATO is the perfect and appropriate vehicle for this operation. I have supported the mission of NATO and will continue to do so. We have NATO to thank for one of the longest sustained periods of peace in Europe. Many in this body have complained that the Europeans in NATO were not pulling their weight in dealing with conflict in their own backyard. Many of these same voices are also opposing this peacekeeping operation. This confuses me; if we wanted the Europeans to shoulder a greater responsibility in resolving European issues, shouldn't we be pleased that European forces are going to make up 86 percent of the peacekeeping force? If we allow ourselves to succumb to the voices of isolationism that have been reverberating around this chamber, all that we do is create an international power void that allows other nations the opportunity to start operating as the Number One world power. Would we prefer to have China calling the shots in the world of international diplomacy, as opposed to the United States? I know I for one sure don't, and I bet my friends that are calling for an isolationist world view, if they really thought about it, wouldn't either. This resolution before us is only a Sense of Congress that has no binding effect. I support efforts to bring before the House, after a peace agreement has been signed, a bill in which Congress specifically authorizes the deployment of troops. My friend from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, is offering an amendment that says just that, and I plan to support it. My colleagues, I urge you to support Mr. Skelton's amendment, as well as the resolution as whole.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I wish to use this opportunity for a little prekindergarten 101 budget talk. Through all the rhetoric we hear today and we are soon to hear as we anxiously await the budget for 2000, let us remind ourselves today there is no surplus to be divided for any purpose for the next 2 years, other than by using Social Security Trust Fund. And for the next 5 years there is $82 billion that are non-Security Trust Fund. Let us remind ourselves of that and use this opportunity in a bipartisan way, as we unanimously vote for this resolution today, that what we are saying is, unequivocally, that a lot of the rhetoric we hear about who and how much we are going to spend, and how much we are going to cut taxes, will not fit within the spirit of the resolution that is voted on today. Let us remind ourselves of that today as we vote for this and use this in a positive way to do what all of us want to do, both sides of the aisle. And I agree with the gentleman from Michigan, there are some of us on this side, as on that side, that are willing to make some of the tough choices. That will come through committee work. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This resolution doesn't do anything to actually strengthen Social Security, but I hope that it is the beginning of a bipartisan process to honestly address the financial problems facing Social Security. Social Security reform should start by walling off the Social Security surplus and saving it for Social Security. We shouldn't even talk about budget surpluses until we have truly taken Social Security off-budget by balancing the budget without counting the Social Security surplus. All of the Social Security surplus should be saved for Social Security by using them to reduce the debt held by the public. There is no surplus today unless you count the Social Security surplus. A tax cut that is not paid for will require us to increase borrowing from Social Security trust fund for purposes other than saving it for Social Security. I want to remind all of my colleagues that there is no free lunch. The promised benefits under Social Security will cost $9 trillion more than we can afford over the next 75 years--that money will have to come from somewhere. The Directors of the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan have all testified that Congress and the President must make tough choices to bring Social Security costs in line with revenues. Many proposals that appear on the surface to offer painless resolutions have significant hidden costs and shortcomings which must be taken into consideration. I have been critical of the President's plan for avoiding the heavy lifting of proposing reforms to deal with the unfunded liabilities of the system. I am equally troubled by the proposals being floated by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle that suggest that individual accounts are a magic bullet that offers a painless solution to save Social Security without making any structural reforms. Rhetorically acknowledging that tough choices are inevitable is not enough. Reaching agreement on fiscally responsible legislation that truly makes Social Security financially sound without simply shifting costs to future taxpayers will require leadership by the President and Congressional leadership. I encourage both the President and the Leadership hear in Congress to provide the leadership necessary to move the debate beyond the misleading suggestion that projected surpluses alone will save Social Security and begin a serious discussion about the tough choices that remain. There is a bipartisan bill that meets all of the principles in this resolution which makes Social Security financially sound and gives future generations the flexibility to address other priorities. Jim Kolbe and I have proposed legislation, the 21st Century Retirement Security Plan, which would preserve the best features of the current system while modernizing it for the 21st century. Our plan would strengthen the safety net, restore the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, reduces future liabilities and increase individual control over retirement income, all without increasing taxes. The plan would create individual security accounts, funded through a portion of the current payroll tax, to explicitly replace unfunded liabilities by prefunding a portion of future retirement income. The plan also establishes a minimum benefit provision which, for the first time, guarantees that workers who work all their life and play by the rules will be protected from poverty, regardless of what happens to their individual accounts. We make benefit changes in a progressive manner through bend point changes that affect middle and upper income workers, who will benefit from individual accounts. Perhaps most importantly, our legislation ensures that future governments will have resources to deal with other problems in addition to providing Social Security by honestly confronting the future unfunded liabilities of the system that will threaten other budgetary priorities if we do not take action. I encourage all my colleagues to follow through on the bipartisan rhetoric embodied in this resolution and roll up our sleeves to tackle the tough choices necessary to strengthen and preserve Social Security for the 21st Century.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 609, which updates the Apple and Pear Export Act. For many years, the Apple and Pear Export Act served pear growers well by ensuring a quality product to consumers overseas. The pear industry is now seeking greater flexibility to sell its product in emerging markets around the world. Recently, the sale of 200,000 cartons of pears to Russia was made possible by a January, 1997, amendment to the act that allowed for the shipment of a more competitive grade of pears to that country. Our farmers are increasingly dependent on foreign markets. It is therefore essential that regulations governing the agricultural industry be designed to help producers compete in those markets. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this regulatory improvement that will give pear growers greater flexibility to market their product. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 882 and urge its passage by the House. H.R. 882 would provide available guaranteed loan funds to farmers and ranchers currently working with their local lenders to ready their finances for planting or in deciding whether to keep their livestock herds intact. The Department of Agriculture is projecting they will run out of guaranteed operating funds nationwide by March the 15, with interest assisted operating loan funds depleted by the end of this week. Many of my colleagues may already be receiving phone calls from constituents who are getting ready to plant and need to buy seed, but they have been told there are no USDA loan funds available so they cannot go out and buy their needed inputs. H.R. 882 would speed up the needed release of available guaranteed loan funds that have been reserved for beginning farmers and ranchers until April 1. Since we are not certain when a supplemental spending bill may be approved by the Congress, we could face a situation where ag producers are left without the ability to purchase needed inputs. H.R. 882 will provide a bridge to agriculture producers and lenders until we are able to provide additional credit funds and supplemental appropriations legislation. While it does help by providing needed credit that is already available on a more timely basis, it does not do away with the need for Congress to act on this front. This is especially true since H.R. 882 only deals with the guaranteed loan programs and does not help ease the immediate need for additional emergency loan funds and the pending need for additional direct operating and ownership loan funds. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to support this modest, fiscally responsible step to help ease the financial strain facing our farmers and ranchers as well as their hometown banks and local communities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding and I thank him for taking the time today to allow the Blue Dog Democrats to discuss in quite some detail where we are coming from and will be coming from regarding this year's budget debate. Our position is pretty simple. We think the primary goal this year should be reducing our debt. In that, we agree with the President very strongly. And strengthening Social Security. To do that, it is awfully important, extremely important for the American people to understand that this year, 1999, there is no surplus other than Social Security surpluses. And next year there is no surplus to be divided other than Social Security surplus. So any dollars that we spend over and above the budget caps, whether it be for defense, and I am one of those that do believe that we do have a need of taking a good, hard look at our defense capabilities, but I also do it in the same spirit in which I speak today, of saying that in the short term, you will find that the surpluses are in fact Social Security trust funds which we believe very sincerely that we have now a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to honestly take Social Security off-budget. We have done it many times over the last umpteen years, but we have never meant it. As one of my colleagues spoke a moment ago, we are elected to make difficult decisions, and this one should not be too difficult today if we can just withstand the temptation of spending the surplus. Let me remind my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, that it was not very many years ago that the biggest debate that we had here was whether or not we could have 3-year projections. And then we went to 5- year projections. And then we went to 6 and 7. During the 1980s we had a habit of backend loading, that we would do the easy stuff up-front and we would backend load. As we did that, we saw our debt grow from about $1 trillion in the late 1970s to now $5.5 trillion. That is a significant amount of money. It is one of the reasons why the Blue Dogs say now one of the best things we can do is pay down the debt, and the overwhelming majority of the American people are agreeing with us, so, therefore, that should be the policy that comes out of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, projections. Today we are now projecting, not 6 years, not 7 years, we are projecting 10- and 15-year surpluses like they are going to happen. No one can predict tomorrow. But for us to do, as some suggest, that now because we have these projected surpluses for the next 15 years, that we should spend them, whether it be for a tax cut, 10 percent straight across the board, or whether it be for any other spending. I do not think that is a very conservative approach. In fact, it can be a very alarming approach. Our debt today is $5.5 trillion. Let us not for a moment forget, which is being conveniently forgotten and this is an area where I have criticism for our President's budget. He is not doing anything about the $9 trillion unfunded liability of the current Social Security program. I hope that we can in a bipartisan way, and certainly the Blue Dogs will be willing to work, as I have been working with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) on the other side of the aisle for the last 3 years coming up with a proposal and we hope more of our colleagues will look at that, of something that we can do, that we can deal with the real problems of Social Security, the $9 trillion unfunded liability, the bills that will come due beginning 2010 to 2013 unless we do something additional other than what anybody is talking about today. The Republicans' agenda focuses on massive tax cuts out of the budget surplus. I hope we can avoid that, and I am glad to hear those voices on the other side beginning to talk about that. Because right now we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deal with the very serious long-term problem of Social Security. We should avoid frightening those on Social Security today or those soon to be on it. What we are talking about is our children and grandchildren. I will conclude today by saying this. The reason that I have been as involved in Social Security for the last 3 years, in trying to come up with a plan or plans, of trying to be a part in a constructive, bipartisan way of making some difficult decisions, I have two reasons. It is mine and my wife's 3\1/2\- year-old and 1\1/2\-year- old grandson. 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. Every one of our colleagues know that unless we can make some difficult decisions now when we have got a chance, we are postponing and we are saying to our children and grandchildren, ``We don't give a rip about you, we want ours today.'' That is not the Blue Dog position. You are going to see that our input into the budget debate is going to be one of saying, let us pay down the debt, let us truly preserve Social Security. We will be willing to roll up our sleeves and bite some of the tough bullets. We hope that we will see from both sides of the aisle this effort put forward in a very meaningful way. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for conducting this special order today. I would love to see, and I will be more than willing to participate in some honest discussion where we have differences of opinion on either side of the aisle as we talk about these specifics, of having some of these special orders where we have an honest discussion when we have got plenty of time to talk about it, and I hope we will see that in the days ahead and you will see us back here.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the last few years have been very difficult for the U.S. livestock industry. In addition to the recent drought, an epidemic of low prices has further erased producer equity. During these years, producers of beef, lamb, and more recently, pork have all experienced prices that are simply too low to endure. Livestock products account for more than half the value of all our domestic agricultural production. Consequently, if we are to maintain a viable and stable rural America, we must pay particular attention to the livestock producers who help sustain those rural communities. When livestock producers suffer, their losses spill over to all the small, rural businesses that depend on their patronage. Reflecting on this economic difficulty, many have questioned whether the prices currently paid to livestock producers reflect the true market-value of their products. As more and more animals are sold in ``closed'' trades, which are not included in reported average prices, the actual value of those remaining animals sold in open, ``cash'' markets has been cast into some doubt. With this in mind, language was added to last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill, requiring a one-year pilot study of comprehensive, mandatory price reporting for beef and lamb. Now, this bill before us, H.R. 169, would simply add pork to that one-year study. Given the recent disastrous drop in pork prices, it is not difficult to understand why pork producers are anxious to have insights into the curious behavior of their markets. While this pilot study does not begin to solve the problems facing U.S. livestock producers, it is a small step in the right direction. I hope that the information from this study will help us to decide if permanent price reporting would in fact result in more accurate markets for beef, lamb, and pork. It is logical and reasonable to settle that question once and for all, so we can consider whether further action is warranted. I encourage all members to support our livestock producers by voting for H.R. 169.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the optimism that has been flowing from this body all today, and in doing that, recognize that there are parts of the Republican rules package that I support and I think everyone does, but there are 2 glaring omissions. One is in the area of committee ratios, something that we on the blue dogs and our caucus in general suggested that it would be a good way to start this Congress by saying that all committees should have the ratios as made up in the House. Unfortunately, many of the committee chairmen, Mr. Speaker, did not see fit to do that. I think that is a mistake for us, because I think it would produce the bipartisan legislation a lot better if we have balanced committees. The Democratic package provides for that. But the area I am particularly concerned about and hopeful that we can have bipartisan cooperation on is Social Security reform. I have worked extremely hard with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and other Members on this side of the aisle, along with Members on my side of the aisle, to bring us to a point where we can seriously discuss Social Security. The Democratic rules package contains an important provision that will reaffirm and strengthen our commitment to make Social Security secure for future generations. The Democratic rules package strengthens our budget rules to clarify that there is no surplus to be spent for any purpose until we balance the budget without counting Social Security, and prevents us from any budget surplus being used to do anything else. This will bring a greater honesty to the budget process and will ensure that fixing Social Security reform is our highest priority. We should not talk about spending budget surpluses so long as we are counting the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. Under current projections, there is no surplus available to use for any purpose unless we are willing to use the Social Security Trust Fund. The conservative thing to do with the budget surplus is to be conservative. Do not spend it. It is extremely important that we follow the path of fiscal responsibility. I encourage all Members who are committed to maintaining fiscal discipline and maintaining the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund to vote for the Democratic rules package to maintain this fiscal discipline.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these articles of impeachment. Mr. Speaker, today is one of the most somber days I have known since coming to Congress twenty years ago. We are poised to vote on whether or not to impeach the President of the United States at the same time that uniformed men and women of our armed forces are engaged in conflict in the Middle East. It doesn't get much worse than this I have listened to the arguments that have been made about why the President's actions do not rise to the level of ``impeachable offenses'' under the Constitution. Despite these arguments, I am not persuaded. It is clear that the President's actions are sufficient to charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors. Our President has admitted to wrongdoing. he has lied to his family, his friends, and the nation. He has protected himself at the expense of those around him. He has shown judgement so suspect that his actions are now called into question. It is clear that the President's deeds and words have placed an indelible mark on the Presidency of the United States. It is not for us to judge President Clinton for his moral transgressions; God will do that. His family will have to forgive him for the pain he has caused them. He has already suffered tremendous punishment in regard to lost respect and credibility. Our duty is to decide whether to charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors and send the matter to the Senate to be tried and if convicted to determine what punishment is appropriate for his actions. I do not agree with those who suggest that the President's actions are a private matter that do not reflect on his fitness for office. Lying under oath and repeated disregard for decency by our nation's top elected official is a serious offense. The strength of a nation is ultimately dependent upon the strength of its moral character. The consequences of the President's actions go well beyond the details of perjury. They go to the heart of our national character. In considering the impeachment question, I have studied, listened and prayed for guidance. Throughout this process, I have been troubled that some of those calling for the President's impeachment are not interested in fairness and objectivity. They have been motivated by their own political blood lust. For example, I believe that all Members should not be denied the opportunity to vote their conscience on censure. I understand that my vote today will be unpopular with many of my colleagues, my President and many of my friends and constituents. I also realize that by voting with the majority, this is an issue some will use for their own political purposes. My vote today in no way condones the behavior of those supporting impeachment whose actions are motivated more by political vendetta than the principles of the Constitution. Let me make clear that my sole motivation is to fulfill my Constitutional duty as I see it, no matter how unpopular that may be or at what personal cost. Those of us who have the honor of holding public office should hold ourselves to a higher standard. I respect those who have come to a different conclusion than my own. However, if I do not vote to impeach the President for his actions dishonoring his office, I not only fail to carry out my Constitutional duty, but I also diminish the office of all elected officials, including my own. One of our Founding Fathers, John Jay, said, ``When oaths cease to be sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights become insecure.'' for these reasons, I will vote for articles of impeachment.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1733, a bill that will require that food stamp State agencies take steps necessary to ensure that food stamp coupons are not issued to deceased individuals. As the gentleman from Virginia has explained, this is a rather common-sense bill today, something that needs to be done and in my judgment is another step in a series of steps that the House Agriculture Committee has taken in cooperation with our various States to see that the food stamp program works better to ensure that the food gets to the people that need the food and that waste and fraud and sometimes plainly mistakes, many of those, where we cannot be in a perfect world we can in fact ensure that we make the least amount of mistakes. That is what this bill is about. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture for holding a hearing on this issue. Far too few hearings have been held this year on matters of substance within the Committee on Agriculture. This is one of them in which substance was worked on and a desired result occurs now today. I want to thank him for his diligence and work in continuing to work to ferret out this kind of issues and present to the full House this bill today which will result in a savings, as has already been pointed out, $1 million savings over the period of 1999 to 2002 and $17 million over a period of 1999 to 2008. This is a good bill, I commend its support to all of my colleagues, I support this legislation and urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing the hard work and the persistence of our Trade Representative and the Department of Agriculture in pursuing the European compliance with WTO decisions on both beef hormones and bananas. Ambassadors Barshefsky and Scher, Secretary Glickman and his team, including Paul Drazek, who has just left the Department and will be sorely missed, have tirelessly raised the beef hormone and banana issues at every opportunity and every level of the European Parliament. Unfortunately, there is no way to make Europe play by the rules. Even this effort today will not force the Europeans to do anything to remove the barriers to free and fair trade. But it will provide them with a strong incentive to adhere to agreed-upon rules. Listening to the debate today, I think we can see the difficulties that we have. There are those among us who honestly differ regarding what we should and should not do. I speak today not about bananas. I would just say this on bananas; I agree that we should encourage the Europeans to meet their obligation to provide aid to their former colonies. That aid, however, should not come at the expense of U.S. and Latin American trade interests. Mr. Speaker, I speak today on behalf of beef. When we say that no one has been hurt in this country, they have been hurt. Tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost in income to cattle producers all over this country; have been lost because of the refusal of the European Union to adhere to the rules that all of us who believe in free and fair trade should adhere to. That is the problem. By expediting the established process for retaliation against unfair trade practices, this bill will provide the European Union with an advance list of which of their products will lose favorable tariffs. This list will likely be of great interest to Europeans whose jobs depend on exports of the products listed, just as the WTO cases on beef hormones and bananas of are interest to American ranchers and the thousands of Americans whose jobs depend on fair trade in bananas and in beef. I would like to express my thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for including consultation for the Committee on Agriculture in the formulation of the list, which I believe is very appropriate, given that both of these cases, and many of the cases coming down the pike, involved agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying this to those who speak on this floor and suggest that there is something unsafe about the American food supply. They do no good, no benefit to the producers. We have the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost to our people. It does no good to suggest otherwise to the people of America.