Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of and encourage bipartisan support of both the motion to recommit and final passage. In spite of the countless words which already have been spoken and written about the vote before us today, I feel compelled to clarify what this vote is and what it is not. First, this is not a vote about guilt or innocence, primarily of President Clinton or, as some have recommended, of Kenneth Starr. While Members cannot be expected to be void of personal opinion, I believe those who already have made public declarations of guilt or innocence in this case have been both premature and negligent in their constitutional responsibilities. Second, this is not a vote about punishment or the specific punishment of impeachment. Unfortunately, the media frenzy about this action has confused many citizens who believe the House is voting today for or against impeachment. We are not. At this point, it is entirely unpredictable what the ultimate outcome of this process will be. What is clear is that the Constitutional standard of impeachable offenses is a high and serious one. Third, this vote is not about the election coming up in less than four weeks. I have been amused by reporters quizzing me in the past week about the degree to which political concerns enter into my votes today. I would like to know how they think any vote has a political advantage in a District, such as mine, which is split right down the middle on each question of impeachment, resignation, censure or discontinued all action. No, my votes today are not about politics and reelection. What we are voting on is of the highest, most serious nature. We must cast votes which can stand through time, votes which we can defend today, next week, next year, and for the rest of our lives. Every member must not only feel free to vote his or her conscience, as has been mentioned several times today, but they must feel obligated to do so. For me, that means doing all that I can to create an environment of fairness, justice, and stability for our Country. That is why I am supporting the motions which allow us to move forward toward those goals. While my constituents have differing opinions about what should happen next in this process, they are united in one desire: to have this unfortunate episode moved out of the present preoccupation and into past history. I believe that as a Nation we will not be able to move on to other pressing issues until we have properly cleared the air, until Constitutional scholars have dissected and debated the Constitutional questions, until Members have been given a chance to evaluate the merits of various responses, and until the public has confidence that fairness and justice has been served. I am proud of my party for working together to construct a motion which addresses concerns I had about the earlier motion. The scope has been expanded to permit additional referrals from the Independent Counsel, a critical amendment in my opinion. Second, while accepting the reasonable end-of-the-year time goal already suggested by Chairman Hyde, the Democratic motion also acknowledges the limitations of one Congress mandating behavior by a subsequent Congress. Further, the motion expressly states that if the Judiciary Committee is unable to complete its assignment within this time frame, a report requesting an extension of time will be in order. Thus, there is no arbitrary time limit included in this motion. But knowing that as the minority party this motion is unlikely to prevail today, I am also prepared to vote for the base motion which can pass and allow our Nation to progress to the next necessary step of the process which will allow healing to begin. This resolution provides the Judiciary Committee with a great deal of authority but a great deal of responsibility as well. I offer my vote in good faith, taking the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Hyde, at his word. By doing so as a minority Member, I believe that I can serve to help keep this process honest. Having shown my good faith by this vote, I also stand alert to object loudly if the process is then abused with partisan gamesmanship. Such abuse, by either side, has no place in this matter. I support both of the motions before us today and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do likewise.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. When Congress passed Freedom to Farm 2\1/2\ years ago, Congress promised to open foreign markets to U.S. Agricultural products. So far, we have failed to pass Fast-Track authority or provide funding for the International Monetary Fund. This bill, however, recognizes that sanctions, imposed as a part of a coordinated effort with our allies, may be an effective tool of foreign policy. The focus of this legislation, however, is to provide for greater scrutiny of the ineffective unilateral embargoes we place on our trading partners at the expense of our farmers and ranchers. In the words of U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, unilateral sanctions send the message, ``Stop that, or I'll shoot myself.'' By providing for congressional review of unilateral agricultural 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, which is essential to building long-term market share. It is time to find a more effective way to implement our foreign policy goals and to recognize that unilateral sanctions do not work. Let us pass this bill and give our farmers and ranchers a fighting chance. It is a very good first step towards comprehensive reform. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this side. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) for his initiative in bringing this legislation to us tonight, and I encourage all of our colleagues to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4148 which updates the Apple and Pear Export Act. For many years, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) has explained, the act has served the very beneficial use for the two industries, but tonight the pear industry asked to be relieved from coming under that bill. The effect is to eliminate an outdated requirement for a law that worked well for many years but is now hindering further development for markets for U.S. pears. The pear industry now believes that market opportunities will be enhanced by greater flexibility. For example, last year 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. This bill gives greater control to the pear industry just as the Russian government has begun to privatize its economy. Our farmers are increasingly dependent on foreign markets. It is, therefore, essential that the regulations they operate under are designed to help them compete in these markets. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this regulatory improvement which will provide our pear producers with much greater flexibility.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, commend the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this very difficult task. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report and I thank my colleague for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4101 is an important bill which funds the operations of the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the many functions of those agencies. The Department of Agriculture is an important partner to our nation's farmers and ranchers, and with the normal provisions of this bill the conferees have made recommendations that carefully balance program priorities. I am particularly grateful that the conferees have risen to the occasion and provided additional funding to aid our nation's farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods are being devastated by natural crises and low prices. Mr. Speaker, a year ago we were considering the conference report for the FY 1998 version of this bill. At that time, the El Nino weather pattern was continuing to warm the waters of the Eastern Pacific Ocean, the prices of agricultural commodities were displaying considerable volatility, and signs were appearing of trouble spots in the world's economy. We were well aware of the increasing level of uncertainty facing agriculture. With the failure to address IMF and Fast Track, I am afraid that we have ensured future uncertainty in agriculture. Now, this uncertainty has given way to multiple, compounded disasters. Extreme weather patterns have wiped out crops and pastures, increasing stocks and plummeting economies in Asia are destroying our prices, and it has become clear that the agriculture policies we have set in place are not sufficient to help producers secure the stable revenues they need to continue in business for the long haul. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report because it addresses the short-term impacts of the crisis. However, I am disappointed that we were unable to focus on improving the long-term safety net for farmers and ranchers. When I look at the projections for next year's crops, I see continuing low incomes in our agricultural sector. This year's events have made it more clear than ever that we on the Agriculture Committee must commit ourselves to making long-term improvements in Federal programs and give our producers the tools they need to manage adequately production and yield risks. Mr. Speaker, we have to move forward with this conference report. Too many producers need the assistance that will be provided. Unfortunately, we cannot at this time accurately assess the total damage inflicted on agriculture this year from natural disaster-- including Hurricane Georges--or from low prices. To the extent that this bill fails to address adequately the current agricultural crisis, in the days, weeks, and months ahead, we can continue to consider the scope of difficulties in rural America and fashion the appropriate Federal response. Mr. Speaker, in addition to disaster spending, H.R. 4101 will provide the Agriculture Department with the resources it needs to address the challenges facing rural America. Under the bill, funding is provided for cooperative efforts in agricultural research--the key to sustained economic viability for agriculture. While the bill prohibits funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems which became law earlier this year, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this promising program can be up and running in the not too distant future. The bill provides funding for the administration of the basic farm programs established under the Farm Bill, and for the conservation programs which are an increasingly important focus of the mission of USDA. The bill also funds important programs that will help rural communities address the substantial economic challenges they face. Mr. Speaker, again I wish to thank and congratulate my colleagues who worked so hard to develop this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for its passage.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. That was not the question I asked.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for the purpose of muddying up the argument today. We can go back as far as 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and I can find mistakes I have made. I can point to mistakes the chairman has made. That is a valid point. But I would say, we will borrow, under this proposal today, we will borrow $237 billion more over the next 5 years if the tax bill in question today is passed, $237, which is $830 for every man, woman, and child in the United States that we will borrow in order to give this tax cut. The projected surplus that we are talking about may never materialize. That is why this is a fiscally irresponsible bill we are bringing, if Members claim to be conservative, fiscally irresponsible. Abandoning fiscal discipline is the wrong message to send to our financial markets at this time. The recent volatility of world financial markets makes it even more critical that we reaffirm our commitment to what we agreed to do, Mr. Chairman, last year, what we agreed to do last year, which has set us on the right track to balancing the budget. Yes, I voted for it, but for the reason that we voted for it last year, and the reason I oppose doing more this year. The Concord Coalition has warned us that the election year temptation to use social security surpluses for other purposes will lead to a dangerous breakdown in fiscal discipline. The potential harm to our economy, and let me give this example to my agricultural colleagues, we hear a lot about what we are going to do for farmers and ranchers. This package that is going to be voted on in a moment will give to our farmers a $271 million annual benefit, but a one-half of 1 percent increase in interest rates will cost our farmers $870 million, three times the cost, if we abandon fiscal discipline and interest rates go up. So we are muddying the message completely in this, and talking about the great benefit. What everyone who is fiscally conservative is saying is reserve the social security trust fund for paying down the debt, and making sure we can in fact save social security for our future generations. Vote down this bill. Mr. Speaker, there is no surplus--unless we count the Social Security surplus. Over the next five years, 125% of the surplus comes from the Social Security trust fund. CBO projects unified budget surpluses of $520 billion, $657 billion of which will be a result of the Social Security trust fund surplus. In other words, if you subtract the projected annual Social Security trust fund surpluses from the projected unified budget surplus, there is no surplus--a $137 billion on-budget deficit. According to the most recent report of the Congressional Budget Office, which included the projections of a budget surplus that are being used to justify this tax bill, we still have an on-budget deficit. ``Although the total budget is expected to show a healthy surplus in 1998, CBO still anticipates an on-budget deficit. On budget revenues (which BYLAW exclude revenues earmarked for Social Security) are projected to be $41 billion less than on-budget spending.''--(CBO Economic and Budget Outlook August Update) the tax bill will increase the deficit To my Republican colleagues who are insisting that this tax cut does not come out of Social Security, what you are admitting is that the tax cut is paid for with borrowed money, because there is no surplus if you exclude Social Security. I support all of the tax cuts included in this package, but, with borrowed money. Enacting a permanent tax cut that is not paid for would result in continued deficits as far as the eye can see. Instead of taking $137 billion out of private savings to cover the deficit over the next five years, the government will have to borrow $225 billion over the next five years if we pass this tax cut. That is another $830 of debt for every man, woman and child in this country. the projected surplus may never materialize The projections of a surplus are a result of dramatic improvements in budget estimates that could deteriorate just as quickly. As recent developments both at home and abroad have made clear, continued strong economic growth--and the budget surpluses it produces--are by no means guaranteed. According to CBO, a recession similar to the 1990-1991 recession would turn the projected surplus into a deficit. Even a modest slowdown in economic growth could wipe out much of the projected surplus. Republican economist and former Federal Reserve Governor, warned that the surge in income taxes that has contributed to the surplus in the unified budget may not continue, arguing that ``The prudent thing to do when you enjoy a windfall from some good luck is to save it, you might need the cushion in bad times.'' Given all of the uncertainty in budget projections, the conservative thing to do is be conservative by waiting to see if these surpluses materialize. abandoning fiscal discipline is the wrong message to send to financial markets The recent volatility of world financial markets makes it even more critical that we reaffirm our commitment to maintaining the discipline that has produced a dramatic improvement in the federal budget and a strong economy. In a letter sent out earlier this week, the Concord Coalition warned us that ``the election year temptation to use Social Security surpluses for other purposes will lead to a dangerous breakdown in fiscal discipline.'' The potential harm to the economy from relatting the discipline of the budget agreement at all will outweigh the benefit of any tax cut. don't forget the national debt The current projections of a budget surplus follow years of deficit spending that has resulted in a national debt of $5.4 trillion. Interest payments on the debt will consume $244 billion in 1998. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former CBO Director Rudy Penner and countless other economist have told us that the best course of action for the economy is for Congress to use the surplus to reduce the debt. Reducing the national debt will help maintain a strong economy by reducing interest rates and increasing the amount of savings available for productive investment. we need to reserve the entire budget surplus to deal with social security reform Funding this tax cut out of the unified budget surplus will limit our options in the Social Security reform debate by using revenues that would be necessary to fund many of the reform options that have been proposed. Even if the current budget surplus projections hold true, it will be difficult to fund the transition costs of comprehensive Social Security reform that deals with the $9 trillion unfunded liability in the Social Security system within a balanced unified federal budget. The current annual surpluses being run by the Social Security Trust Fund are intended to prepare for future needs of the Social Security system. Since Social Security accounts for virtually all of the projected budget surpluses, addressing the financial challenges facing Social Security is the only appropriate use of the budget surplus. conclusion It is extremely important that we follow the path of fiscal responsibility and take advantage of this opportunity to preserve the Social Security system for future generations. The bill before us, for all its merit, would undermine fiscal discipline and jeopardize our ability to preserve Social Security. If you care about fiscal discipline, if you care about the integrity of the Social Security system, all Members who care about the legacy we leave for future generations, vote for the motion to recommit and vote against this bill. tax relief H.R. 4579 provides $24.2 billion of tax relief for farmers and small business from 1999 to 2003. Excluding Estate tax provisions, there are $6.3 billion in tax relief. Focusing on farmer and rancher benefits, including the $25,000 expensing for small business and farmers, there are $1.4 billion in tax relief. The annual average tax relief for farmers and ranchers is $270 million. interest rate relief Total U.S. farm debt is $167.6 billion. The result of a 1% interest rate reduction is $1.676 billion less in annual debt service for farmers and ranchers. The result of a \1/2\% interest rate reduction is $838 million less in annual debt service for farmers and ranchers, more than 3 times the tax relief. The following chart illustrates this:

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I yielded to the gentleman.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer), and I want to apologize for the tone in my voice a moment ago. But what I was wanting to say is if the gentleman will go back and examine the Record, that he will see that the Blue Dog Coalition last year argued for the opportunity to present on this floor a budget that would balance our budget without the utilization of Social Security trust funds. We were denied an opportunity even to debate that by the gentleman's side of the aisle. So, what the gentleman inferred to me a moment ago, I believe, was in error factually. We would have liked to have done it last year; the Republicans would not let us do it.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate again this morning, I am reminded of the words of Will Rogers, who said, ``It ain't peoples' ignorance that's bothering me so much, it is them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.'' I would yield to anyone who would challenge anything I am going to say in my remarks. There is no surplus other than social security trust funds. Over the next 5 years, there are $520 billion of projected surplus, of which $657 of the $520 are social security trust funds. That is a fact. Does anyone wish to challenge me on that? Hearing no response, this tax bill will increase the deficit.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. All Members who care about fiscal discipline, all Members who care about the Social Security system, all Members who care about the legacy we leave for future generations should vote against this fiscally irresponsible rule. I was sincerely disappointed that the Committee on Rules choose to report a rule which did not allow for consideration of the bipartisan Stenholm-Berry-Neumann amendment which would require that tax cuts be paid for out of general revenues and prohibits funding a tax cut out of the Social Security surplus. Once again the Committee on Rules denied a free and open debate on an issue of which some of us on both sides of the aisle feel are very important. That is the reason why everyone should oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker. The Stenholm-Neumann amendment would establish the common-sense position that we should wait until a true budget surplus materializes before tax cuts which are not paid for take effect. The rule does make in order a Rangel substitute that delays implementation of the tax cuts until the Social Security trust fund is restored to actuarial balance. I will support the Rangel substitute because it would make the underlying bill more responsible and add meaningful protections for the Social Security trust fund. However, the Stenholm-Neumann amendment would have set a significantly tougher standard by requiring us to balance the budget without using the Social Security trust fund surplus. The vote on the rule will be the only opportunity Members will have to express support for the principle set forth in the Stenholm-Neumann amendment that we should not be funding a tax cut from the Social Security trust fund. Let me be clear. I, too, support tax cuts, but not if they are paid for with Social Security Trust Funds. We should not talk about budget surpluses so long as we are counting Social Security Trust Fund. Under current projections there is no surplus available to use for tax cuts unless we are willing to use Social Security Trust Funds. The substitute amendment that Mr. Neumann and I proposed contained all of the tax cuts in the package reported by the Ways and Means Committee, but would add a requirement that any tax cuts which are not paid for be delayed until we have an on-budget surplus large enough to pay for the tax cut without relying on the Social Security trust fund surplus. This amendment would have ensured that the tax cut is not funded out of the Social Security surplus, and establishes the position that we should wait until the surplus materializes before tax cuts which are not paid for take effect. We should not talk about 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 tax cuts unless you are willing to use the Social Security trust fund surplus. Over the next 5 years, CBO estimates the surplus of Social Security Trust Funds will be $520 billion, of which 657 of that 520 is Social Security Trust Fund. Over the next 10 years, it takes 10 years before we find $31 billion that are not Social Security Trust Fund. Enacting a permanent tax cut that is not paid for would result in continued deficits into the future as far as the eye can see. In a letter sent our earlier this week, the Concord Coalition warned us that ``the election year temptation to use Social Security surpluses for other purposes will lead to a dangerous breakdown in fiscal discipline.'' We should maintain the discipline that has put us on a path to a truly balanced budget that puts Social Security off budget once and for all by 2002. The West Texas tractor seat common sense I hear when I go home also reminds me that we should not count our chickens before they are hatched. The surplus exists only in projections, not reality. According to CBO, a recession similar to the 1990-1991 recession would turn the projected surplus into a deficit. Even a modest slowdown in economic growth could reduce revenues and increase spending by tens of billions of dollars, quickly turning a projected surplus into a deficit. Lawrence Lindsey, a Republican economist and former Federal Reserve Governor, warned that the surge in income taxes that has contributed to the surplus in the unified budget may not continue, arguing that ``The prudent thing to do when you enjoy a windfall from some good luck is to save it, you might need the cushion in bad times.'' I cannot believe my friends on the other side of the aisle are not taking a conservative approach to the economy today, when everyone is saying that is what we should be doing. People out in West Texas know that when we get a little extra money, our first priority should be to pay off our debts, particularly if we have a debt. We should use the opportunity presented by the strong economy and improved budget projections to reduce the $5.4 trillion national debt, instead of leaving that burden for future generations. The current projections of a budget surplus follow years of deficit spending that has resulted in a national debt of $5.4 trillion. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former CBO Director Rudy Penner and countless other economists have told us that the best course of action for the economy is for Congress to use the surplus to reduce the debt. Reducing the national debt will help maintain a strong economy by reducing interest rates and increasing the amount of savings available to the private sector to invest in the most effective way possible. The senior representative in my State in the other body the other day echoed the view that I share when he said, ``I think I know the people I represent would agree we ought to save social security. I do not have to see a poll to know that.'' We have a tremendous opportunity to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation by reducing the debt and reforming entitlement programs. I have worked extremely hard over the last 3 years in a bipartisan effort with the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mark Sanford), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Nick Smith), and other Members on both sides of the aisle to bring us to a point where we are seriously discussing the long-term reforms necessary of the social security system. The task of enacting meaningful social security reform will be even harder if we use the projected budget surplus for a short-term, politically attractive tax cut. Members know that. I know that. Anyone that is serious knows there are going to be transition costs. We should not spend it today. I also strongly oppose this rule because it includes several major waivers of the Budget Act discipline. This legislation represents one of the largest violations of the budget enforcement rules since the enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act. At the same time that the Committee on the Budget is considering legislation that would take a positive step towards making it harder to waive the Budget Act, we are being asked to vote for a rule that makes at least four major waivers of the Budget Act. These are not routine waivers of technical violations of the Budget Act, but are major, substantive waivers of budget discipline. I hope that my colleagues who have joined me over the years in complaining about waiving the Budget Act would join me in opposing now the blatant violation of budget discipline in this rule. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and I have joined in this fight so many times over the years, when the gentleman was in the minority and I was in the majority, and I was differing with my party. The gentleman and I stood on this floor and said, we should not do this. Today, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is bringing a rule that does it, and he is waiving it. I cannot believe it that the gentleman is doing that. Mr. Speaker, the exemption from the PAYGO rules that allows the bill to be funded out of the Social Security surplus instead of being offset by spending cuts or revenue increases is a dangerous step toward weakening existing budget enforcement rules. The pay-as-you go budget rules have put us on a path to a balanced budget. Now is not the time to be waiving, suspending or otherwise violating our budget discipline rules. The recent volatility of world financial markets makes it even more critical that we reaffirm our commitment to maintaining the discipline that has produced a dramatic improvement in the federal budget and a strong economy. The conservative thing to do with the budget surplus is to be conservative. It is extremely important that we follow the path of fiscal responsibility and take advantage of this opportunity to preserve the Social Security system for future generations. The bill before us, for all its merit, would undermine fiscal discipline and jeopardize our ability to preserve Social Security. I strongly encourage all members who are committed to maintaining fiscal discipline and maintaining the integrity of the Social Security trust fund to vote against this rule so that the House may consider a tax cut that is not funded out of the Social Security trust fund. Vote down this rule and let us do what the country needs.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am holding up 10 one-dollar bills. But as you can see, there are none there. Because we do not have a surplus to distribute as yet from anywhere. All of what we are talking about today is projected. Projected. Let me remind all of us now the facts, because my colleague from Texas is a little sensitive about raiding, and I will not use that, because I agree with him, to a point. But when you have a projected surplus of $520 billion over the next five years, of which $657 billion of the $520 are Social Security trust funds, what else can you define the utilization of those funds other than misuse of Social Security trust fund? Now, my colleague from Louisiana, I happen to agree with the tone of his comments a moment ago, because I do agree. I have been working with a lot of folks on his side of the aisle on the long term of Social Security. That is why I stand here today absolutely supporting the Rangel substitute and absolutely supporting not supporting the tax cut. Because anyone that has spent any time at all looking at what it is going to take to transcend into a new and survivable Social Security system knows there are transition costs up front that have to be paid for. I challenge anyone, and I would be glad to yield to anybody that would challenge me on anything that I have said thus far. Because anyone, and I know the chairman of the committee has worked on this and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) about to speak has worked on this and I believe he will agree. If we are going to solve the long- term problems of Social Security, we have got to have some transition costs. That is why I oppose a short-term political fix of a tax cut because I want to spend the money on Social Security. Because we cannot get from where we are to where we want to be unless we do that. No one as yet has talked about the debt, $5.4 trillion, and we can point the fingers at what caused it. I am reminded when I point my finger, there are three pointing back at me. But no one also has talked about the $9 trillion unfunded liability of the Social Security system. That is why some of us are so opposed to a tax cut right now, 60 days before an election, because we want to start the day after the election working together in a bipartisan way with our colleagues to solve the long-term Social Security problem. That is why I am here. I do not want my remarks mischaracterized as some have done this morning on the rule. I want it to be perfectly clear why I oppose the tax cut today using Social Security trust funds, because no one can refute me when I say when the projected surplus over the next five years, that is projected, and look at the world economy and tell me that it may not happen. The conservative thing for us to do is to bank the surplus of Social Security, reserve it for the future of Social Security, and reserve it for perhaps an economy that may not be as good next year as it is today.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of fast track legislation. Fast track authority will ensure that the agricultural trade success story does not reach an untimely end and that we maintain our position as a leader in the global economy. But it is not the esoteric language of economics and trade ratios that motivate me on this issue. It is people and especially the people of west Texas who I am privileged to represent. My farmers and ranchers are hurting, and so are all the people who have business related to agriculture. In the absence of recent trade progress, my constituents have lost ground and see their incomes decrease by 30 percent. They need a ray of hope that markets will soon open up and allow them to keep and expand jobs and care for their families. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2621 would renew the authority necessary to renegotiate new trade agreements aimed at achieving these objectives. To those who oppose this legislation, that is all we are talking about is sending our negotiators back to the table. To the Republican leadership I say that I sincerely hope in the process of making the judgment to bring this bill to the floor; today they have done everything in their power to make sure this measure succeeds. If this was a reckless gamble on their part, I fear the message that failure will send to our trading partners around the world. To my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle who support free trade but have been frustrated about the process, let me say I understand their frustration, but it is time to put people above politics. Our constituents who need jobs, who need opportunities, look at our partisan squabbling as just so much childishness. Adults are expected to know that there comes a time when it does not matter who is at fault. They just have to take the circumstances they have been given and try to do what is right. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to my friends on both sides of the aisle to vote yes for fast track. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of fast-track legislation on behalf of the farmers and ranchers and other producers of America. This legislation is far more important than any short-term political gain or benefit to either side. U.S. agricultural trade is a great success story. Our agricultural exports have increased nearly $20 billion since 1990 to $57.1 billion in 1997. Sixty percent of this expansion was due to the rising volume of high-value exports, such as beef, poultry meat, and horticultural products. Bulk commodities, especially grains and soybeans, accounted for the rest of the expansion as both volume and prices rose in 1995- 1996. How did this tremendous growth occur? Because of the trade agreements negotiated under previous fast-track authority. Fast-track authority will ensure that the agricultural trade success story does not reach an untimely end, and that we maintain our position as a leader in the global economy. Future export prospects for U.S. agricultural products depend, in large part, on our ability to maintain and expand market access, ensure fair competition, and further level the international playing field for U.S. producers and exporters. But it's not the esoteric language of economics and trade ratios that motivate me on this issue; it's people, and especially the people of west Texas whom I am privileged to represent. We have heard a lot today from folks on the other side of this issue about workers and jobs and what trade agreements mean for them. That is my concern precisely. My farmers and ranchers are hurting, and so are all of the people who have businesses related to agriculture. In the absence of recent trade progress, my constituents have lost ground and seen their incomes decrease by 30 percent. They need a ray of hope that markets will soon open up, allowing them to keep and expand their jobs and care for their families. H.R. 2621 would renew the authority necessary to negotiate new trade agreements aimed at achieving these objectives. Any trade agreement reached under fast track would still require congressional approval. Fast track legislation simply says that we give our negotiators the authority they need to be at the table in upcoming trade negotiations in the World Trade Organization, Latin America, Asia, and elsewhere. Without fast-track authority, the U.S. will miss an important opportunity to help write the rules that will govern trade in the 21st century. Our farmers and ranchers, as well as other business exporters, will be left out in the cold. To the Republican leadership I say that I sincerely hope in the process of making the judgment to bring this bill to a vote today, you have done everything in your power to make sure this measure succeeds. If this was a reckless gamble on your part, I fear the message that failure will send to our trading partners around the world. To my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle who support free trade but have been frustrated about the process by which this bill has come to the floor, I say that I understand your frustration. But it's time to put people above politics. Our constituents who need jobs, who need opportunities, look at our partisan squabbling as just so much childishness. Adults are expected to know that there comes a time when it doesn't matter who is at fault--you just have to take the circumstances you've been given and try to do what's right. Regardless of what you think about how we got to where we are today, we are past the point of arguing about whether this is the right time to vote on fast track. The time is here; the bill is before us. We must make a choice. I appeal to my friends on my own side of the aisle to rise above the circumstances into which we were thrust and reaffirm our commitment to the hard-working men and women of our districts who count on us to keep their best interests at heart. I ask all Members to put politics aside and pass this legislation. Vote for the American farmer and rancher, the small business man and woman. Vote yes for fast track.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 4567.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for indulging another 5 minutes to give a little different perspective to this discussion today. Before the Fourth of July recess, I stood behind the Speaker of the House and many other of my colleagues, including the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, when we endorsed what we called a Square Deal for Agriculture, recognizing that one of the promises of the Freedom to Farm Act was to provide that we would do everything within our power in the House of Representatives to make sure that foreign markets would, in fact, be open. We were promised that we would have a vote on the Square Deal and we have had two of those. The sanctions vote, and the normal trade relations with China have passed. We lack IMF and fast track. Part of the deal was that we were going to vote on the floor of the House on both of these very controversial issues. Both of them; not one of them. It is my considered judgment today that this action on the part of the leadership of the House to deny a free up-or-down vote on the IMF is the death knell to the fast track vote next week. The fault will lie right squarely here in the House, because we once again have refused to have an open and honest debate on issues on which we have some disagreement. The last colloquy made good, eminent sense to me. I think that is the kind of reasoned approach to many of these issues that we should be following, but it should not be misinterpreted to say that we can pick and choose these discussions in debate and pick and choose what we shall have debated openly and honestly, and still have the other decision that is so vital to agriculture, and that is fast track. That is very controversial on my side of the aisle. There are just a few of us on this side that do support it, but there are enough of us that do support it. In fact, I have said with my one vote alone is enough to pass fast track next week if we bring it up. But let me say this: By delaying IMF funding, we are playing with fire. We know this. Specifically speaking to agriculture, 40 percent of our agricultural exports now go to emerging markets. What is happening in those emerging markets is seriously affecting agriculture in the United States. We have the worst economic conditions in rural America since the Depression. I ask every one of my colleagues here, if they take their average wage and that of their constituents for the last 5 years and reduce it by 30 percent this year, what would the economic conditions be in their family? That is what we are, in fact, facing. IMF is critical for so many agricultural programs. Sure, there are warts, and I really appreciate and I sincerely accept what the gentleman from Alabama has said, as well as the chairman of the full committee, regarding this question. But when the House is burning, it is not the time to debate what color the fire truck shall be. The financial crisis could spread. We have been eminently warned by no less than Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve; by the Treasurer of the United States, Mr. Rubin, who I believe has great confidence on both sides of the aisle. And yet, once again, we are playing politics with two extremely important issues. IMF is critical to USDA export credit programs, liberalization of agricultural markets. There are a lot of successes. There have been some problems with IMF. I readily agree to that. But there have also been some successes. IMF has helped U.S. farmers and ranchers by using the IMF rescue packages to reach agreements requiring the countries receiving aid to liberalize trade to the benefit of US agriculture. Korea has streamlined import certification and just last week announced further reductions in trade barriers on 32 imported products, including wheat and fertilizer. Indonesia is reforming its State Trading Enterprise. Thailand is adopting harmonized import licensing procedures and establishing more transparent customs valuation procedures. Yes, there are problems but, yes, there are also good things happening. What I am worried about now is we have once again reneged, that is the word we use back home in Texas, we reneged on an agreement. That is troubling because that is not what the House Committee on Agriculture, both sides of the aisle, understood. We understood that we were, in fact, going to have an open and honest debate on IMF and let the will of the House speak and then have an open and honest debate on fast track and let the will of the House speak. And by this action today of denying an opportunity for this free and open debate, we have, in my opinion, served a giant nail in the coffin of not only IMF but also fast track next week.

Mr. STENHOLM. If memory serves me correctly, Mr. Chairman, we did not vote last year. I have expressed publicly and I will say again to the gentleman in all sincerity, had the leadership of the House chosen to bring it to a vote, we would have passed it with the required number of votes on both sides of the aisle to get 218 votes, but, once again, for some reason, we chose not to allow the will of the people's elective body to express themselves. We did not vote, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this emergency declaration motion to instruct conferees in the conference on the agriculture appropriation bill. I wish there were other ways in which we could deal with this. I would hope that the House Committee on Agriculture would soon come together and begin to address this question from the perspective of our committee. This problem is much bigger than the Senate anticipated. I think, as others have said, that it is very clear that $500 million will not begin to address the devastation that is occurring in farm country. We have the natural disaster which we are addressing here. On top of the natural disaster, we have an economic disaster of low prices that I think a lot of people perhaps cannot fully appreciate. A lot of concern has been expressed about a 20 percent drop in the stock market. If it goes to 20, we are in a recession. Well, corn prices are 30 percent below the average of the past 5 years. Think about this as I recount some of these numbers. If one thinks of any other part of our economy, or very few parts of our economy in which the last 5-year average of prices and/or salaries that this year would be projected 30 percent below that, and then looking ahead to 1999 is getting no better, I think one can begin to appreciate the full economic problems facing American farmers and ranchers. Wheat prices, 28 percent below. Cattle prices, 17 percent below. Net cash farm income, 43 percent below the average of the last 5 years. This is what we are dealing with, and the frustration that I have today is nobody seems to be concerned about it from the standpoint of doing what we should normally do, and that is address it through the committee system, working with the Secretary of Agriculture. I heard previous speakers talking about the blame game and the fingerpointing to the administration. Perhaps there is some of that that is due, but there is also a blame game, and I was reminded of this when we start pointing fingers, I was reminded that when one points a finger, be careful, there are usually 3 pointing back at you. This should not be a partisan argument. This ought to be today the beginning of an honest and sincere effort to address a very serious economic situation that is facing those who produce food and fiber in the United States. At home, we are talking no longer about farmers and ranchers going out of business, we are talking implement dealers, we are talking the support groups, we are talking the small towns and communities. One cannot take 30 percent of the economy out of the rural community and not have devastation. That is what we ought to be talking about today, and that is why I commend the gentlewoman for this motion to instruct. I think it should be clear, though, that there are so many other areas that need to be addressed. There is so little time remaining, 18, 17, legislative days. Mr. Speaker, let us not waste them in talking about other activities; let us go to work, roll up our sleeves and deal with it. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the Committee on Appropriations as a member of the House Committee on Agriculture. I see my chairman is here, and I would hope, and I know that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is very concerned about this and is doing what I am about to say already. But the problem is that we need somebody else to listen to us, and the leadership of the House to say, let us seriously and sincerely begin to address this. Certainly our side of the aisle will reach out and work with my chairman and the members of the House Committee on Agriculture and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and I know where his heart is on this, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). The bottom line is, as of today, we feel like that there is not very much being done, other than what the Senate has done. They have made a good step forward. We need to join in that and begin to build upon that to avoid a terrifically serious problem becoming even worse if we choose to do, through inaction, what we otherwise should do.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for yielding me this time, and I associate myself with her remarks concerning the work of this subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and their fellow members. The problem we face is not their fault. In fact, they have done an admirable job in dealing in a very, very judicial and positive way with a very tight budget. But I want to speak to the question that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) brought up just a moment ago, because he is right on target with one major exception. That is if we are truly to work out the expenditure cuts in order to fund this particular need of an emergency, that must be done supporting a budget that can get 218 votes. If the gentleman will remember, and just for the body's recollection, those of us who had a slightly different opinion of what this budget ought to look like this year, those of us so-called Blue Dogs, were denied the opportunity even to debate our ideas on this floor when we had the opportunity to talk about this issue. The leadership of the House chose not to even let the free exchange of ideas occur on the floor of the House as some of us would like to have talked about this. So, it is important for this body to understand those of us who bring this resolution today, admitting it is inadequate, admitting that it is muddying the water, but unless the water is muddied, some of us believe that nothing is going to happen because we will never be able to get the perfect plan. Later this week we are going to debate an $80 billion tax cut with Social Security trust funds. I agree with the gentleman, any dollars that are spent for any purposes are coming out of the Social Security trust fund. Therefore, I am going to be very judicial with how many of these dollars, and I will reach out and work with the gentleman from Oklahoma and anyone else that can help us find those dollars. But I believe someone has already spoken to the fact that we have got a potential growing emergency in the defense areas of this country that I am very concerned about also. And, therefore, perhaps it is time for reasonable heads to get together and start working on a plan that can be supported by 218 votes that meets the needs of this country. Mr. Speaker, today we talk about agriculture. We made that argument. But I think it is going to be ``fess up'' time and ``honest up'' time for a lot of us. The concern I have, and why I asked to speak again, is I am afraid that we are going to pursue a process in which we have all kinds of ideas, but no one ever gets 218 votes and we end up pointing the finger of blame. Rural America cannot stand that.