Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, contrary to claims by some organizations opposing campaign finance reform legislation, the Shays-Meehan amendment would not prevent independent organizations from running advertisements or prohibit these groups from using the name of a Member of Congress or any other candidate in that advertisement prior to an election. I strongly support that. I do not mind any organization running anything, any individual running anything for my opponent in this year or in any other year. But I do believe my constituents that I represent have the right to know who it is that is spending the money in the 17th District of Texas, and then we will welcome that in the field of free speech and debate under all of the First Amendment rights and privileges that all of us find so dear. Under the Shays-Meehan amendment, any independent group can run advertisements expressing any opinion it wants at any time during a campaign so long as it complies with the standards of accountability and openness that apply to other political advertisements. I heard an earlier speaker today talking about that was un-American. I do not understand for a moment how that can be. All we are talking about is making sure that freedom of speech means just that and that the people have a right to know who it is that is having the freedom of speech. I am standing in the well. Everyone watching in our offices and here know who I am, what I am saying. It is coming from me. I think the same should be true for any political advertisement run by any group on either side of the aisle. We ought to know who is behind it. It is not a partisan matter. I appreciate the tenure of many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are serious about this. And I hope we will cut through the chaff and get down to the meat of this issue. Candidates from both parties both benefit from and are hurt by these advertisements. Our Nation's important free speech should not be minimized, but it should be balanced by honesty and accountability. Vote for the Shays-Meehan amendment to bring honesty and accountability into all aspects of campaign finance. Amendment No. 132 Offered by Mr. Thomas to Amendment No. 13 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays- Meehan campaign finance reform and commend both of the authors for their tenacity and their hard work in bringing us to this point. Having joined with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Baesler) and other members of the Blue Dog Coalition to initiate a discharge petition last October to force consideration of campaign finance reform, I am very pleased to be here tonight finally debating a serious, substantive proposal to reform our campaign finance laws. The current campaign finance system hands a loudspeaker to interest groups and political parties, and while ordinary citizens are reduced to speaking in a whisper. That is not the free speech envisioned by the First Amendment. Enacting campaign finance reforms that limit the influence of wealthy individuals, special interest groups and political parties is critical to restoring the integrity of our democratic process. I respectfully disagree with opponents of campaign finance reform who argue that the free speech protections in the First Amendment guarantee the right of any individual or group to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence an election without having to take the responsibility for the advertisements or even acknowledge that they are funding the advertisements. The Shays-Meehan amendment strikes to the heart of the problems in the current campaign finance system by addressing the two areas of the campaign finance system that are outside of the rules; the unregulated, unlimited donations to political parties by corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals known as soft money and the sham issue ads that are used to influence elections without being subject to campaign laws. I agree with those who say that we must enforce the current campaign finance rules and punish those who have violated those rules. However, the vast majority of reported scandals involve activities by people in both parties that are unethical and offensive to many of us but were not illegal because of the loopholes in our current system. Virtually all of the scandals that have been reported in the press involve soft money or issue advocacy, which are exempt from most campaign finance laws. The Shays-Meehan amendment simply states that campaign activities of political parties and independent organizations should be subject to the same rules that apply to candidates for office. Under current law, the individuals who are engaged in unethical behavior in raising soft money or running issue ad campaigns in 1996 will not face any penalties because they are not covered by any laws. If Shays-Meehan had been the law of the land in 1996, these individuals would be punished, as they should be. One of the provisions I feel the most strongly about in this amendment is placing greater accountability on spending by independent organizations to influence campaigns. The Shays-Meehan amendment states that any independent expenditure made in connection with a congressional election would be subject to other regular current campaign finance laws and disclosure requirements, anyone making an independent expenditure of more than $10,000, if those communications include the name, likeness, or representation of a candidate for federal public office. These reports must be filed electronically with the FEC and posted on the Internet so citizens can find out and learn who is paying for the political ads. What could possibly be wrong with that? The Annenberg Public Policy Center compiled an archive of 107 issue advocacy advertisements that aired during the 1996 election cycle sponsored by 27 different organizations, both liberal and conservative. While this Policy Center's report does not speak out in support of or opposed to issue advocacy, their research shows just how much these advertisements look like regular campaign commercials and how much impact their one-sided information had on voters. While promoters of these ads claim that they are simply educating the public, more often they are stealth attacks designed more to keep the public in the dark about the full story of an issue. The issue ad loophole in current law makes it possible for foreign governments or other foreigners to influence American elections by setting up a front organization that runs issue ads attacking candidates who do not support the interest of that foreign government. Under current law, the voters who see those ads would never know that that money to run those ads came from foreign interests. I believe that my constituents deserve to know if foreign entities are running ads in my district. I strongly support the right of any group to express whatever views they have about me or any other candidates for office. However, I believe that the public deserves to know who is trying to influence those elections. Full disclosure is needed to allow the public to make their own judgments about advertisements run by independent organizations.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. I rise in strong support of responsible, credible tax reform. But H.R. 3097 is not about tax reform. It is an effort to take up our time with a meaningless political statement designed for a 20-second sound bite. I believe that Congress should begin to roll up its sleeves and begin to work on serious tax reform. We should have done it last year, the year before, the year before that; 4 years we have had. The same people that talk about the need, and I agree on this, we need to change our Tax Code and encourage savings and investment. Above all, we need to be careful that tax reform is handled responsibly to ensure that we do not jeopardize the economic expansion that we are now enjoying. The House will have an opportunity to express its support for responsible, credible tax reform by voting for the Rangel-Boyd-Tanner motion to recommit. It is irresponsible to pass legislation that will require future Congresses to establish a new Tax Code without knowing how the new Tax Code will affect taxpayers. A businessman trying to decide whether or not to make a new investment for the next 4 years is going to deal with tremendous uncertainty. A community considering issuing a tax exempt bond, again, uncertainty. Businesses deciding what type of health insurance or pension, uncertainty. Families who want to purchase a new home, uncertainty. Farmers and ranchers will not know how the new Tax Code will treat the sale of their land and other assets. Uncertainty. Why not deal with certainty? Why not have the debate about how we do these things before. That is what the motion to recommit is all about. Before I commit to supporting a new Tax Code, I need to know how it will treat farmers and ranchers, how it will treat the oil and gas industry, how it will treat small businesses who are now trying to compete in an international marketplace. I need to know how it will treat the average man and woman in my district before I vote to do away with the Tax Code, as politically appealing as that might be. This legislation is another example of the fiscal recklessness of the Republican leadership. Just last month the chairman of the Committee on the Budget was quoted widely saying, ``Balancing the budget was never our goal.'' Recently, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means issued a press release expressing grave concern that we are running surpluses that allow us to pay down the debt. Last week the leadership tried to intimidate CBO to change their estimates to fit the Republican agenda. A vote against this resolution says that the American people, get this, a vote against this resolution says the American people want proof up front what we are talking about doing, not endless political promises. If my colleagues are willing to jeopardize the growing strength of the economy and balanced budget plan in order to make a political statement, vote for this resolution. However, if my colleagues want Congress to begin serious work on responsible, credible tax reform, vote for the Rangel-Boyd-Tanner motion to recommit.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for that and I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). He has done a great job in putting forth a budget that all of us, hopefully a few on the other side of the aisle, can be supportive of. If you agree that we set the country on the right track with the balanced budget agreement, if you agree that our economy is moving in the right direction, if you agree that we have the lowest unemployment in 25 years, if you agree that we have the lowest inflation, then let us stay with that game plan. Let us not change it. Let us not go for a budget like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) puts out here today that is back end loaded, that promises spending cuts but only in 2002 and 2003.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt amendment. I would much preferred to have been supporting the Blue Dog budget, but as we know that was not to be. Let me make certain that all of my colleagues understand what the Spratt budget does and does not do. The reason I can support it, it stays within the balanced budget agreement of last year. It does not spend any more money than what we agreed to last year, nor does it raise any more taxes than what we agreed to last year. No matter how many other people say it differently, they should know that is not true. In addition, the Spratt budget is honest with the BESTEA, ISTEA, the TEA 21 bill by fully funding the additional amounts needed for highways and transit. If we look carefully at what the gentleman from South Carolina has done, we will see that in all aspects he is totally honest in the manner in which he pays for those additional spending proposals that he calls for, within the confines of the balanced budget agreement. I think that that is so important for us today, because I have listened to the previous debate regarding the so-called CATs bill, and I am reminded of Yogi Berra. That was deja vu all over again. Anybody that believed that that would have worked as was proposed has got to be smoking something. This bill that is before us in the amendment today will keep us on the track of the economy that we are now on. It lives within the agreement that we made last year. It certainly deserves our support.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lieutenant Colonel Gary C. Powell upon his retirement from the United States Army after serving our great nation for over 20 exemplary years. For the past three years Lieutenant Colonel Powell has served as the Congressional Affairs Contact Officer for the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters Department of the Army. In this position he has established a solid reputation among his peers and superiors alike. He serves as the principal advisor to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel on all matters relating to congressional activities. Lieutenant Colonel Powell was born in Rotan, Texas on September 25, 1953. Upon completion of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps curriculum and the educational course of study at Hardin Simmons University in 1977, he was commissioned a second lieutenant of Infantry and awarded a BS degree in Social Work. He also holds a Master of Arts degree in Human Resource Development from Webster University. His military education includes completion of the Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, the Combined Arms Staff Course, and the United States Army Command and General Staff College. His initial assignment was at Fort Campbell, Kentucky with the 101st Airborne Division. There he served as a rifle platoon leader, anti-tank platoon leader, and company executive officer, 1st Battalion, 503d Infantry, 3d Brigade, 101st Airborne Division. In January 1980, he was assigned to the United States Army Ranger Department as a Ranger Instructor in the Florida Ranger Camp. He attended the Infantry Officer Advance Course in October 1982. After graduating in 1983, he was assigned as a Test Officer with the United States Airborne and Special Operations Test Board at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. In November 1984 he was assigned as an assistant operations officer with 3d Brigade, 82d Airborne Division. In May 1985 he assumed command of A Company, 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, and again assuming command in June 1986 of Headquarters Company, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division. In June 1987 he was assigned as a combat arms assignment officer in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, XVIII Airborne Corps. He served in this capacity until his selection and assignment in July 1988 as the commander of the Joint Security Force Company, United Nations Command Security Force, Panmunjom, and Republic of Korea. After completion of his command, he was assigned as an operations officer in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Operations, III Corps and Fort Hood, Texas. He left Fort Hood in June 1991 to attend the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. After graduating in 1992, he was assigned as the Operations Officer for the 2d Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Following his tour, he was selected to become the Deputy Chief of Staff for Force Integration for the 82d Airborne Division. In June 1994, he was assigned to Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, in Washington, DC. He served as a Personnel Systems Staff Officer until his selection in October 1995 to become the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Congressional Affairs Contact Officer. Lieutenant Colonel Powell's military decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters, the Army Commendation Medal with six oak leaf clusters, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Superior Unit Award, the National Defense Service Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Master Parachutist Badge, the Ranger Tab, the Air Assault Badge, the Australian Parachute Badge, and the Army Staff Identification Badge. He has served with great distinction and has earned our respect and gratitude for his many years of unselfish service to our nation's defense. It is with great pride that I congratulate Gary upon his retirement and wish he and his wife, Tonie, all the best as they move on to face new challenges and rewards in the next exciting chapter of their lives.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report, and I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking the gentleman from Oregon (Chairman Smith), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for their work on the conference that brings us this report tonight, a result of months of hard work by Members on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, a number of significant differences between the House and the Senate bill had to be reconciled during conference. I believe the legislation we bring now is a fair and balanced compromise among those competing priorities. This legislation provides for a number of improvements in our system to conduct and deliver information from federally funded agricultural research. It increases producer input into the research process and authorizes research in several new and important areas such as nutrient management, food safety, and crop diversification. In addition, this conference report reprioritizes the spending which falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture to provide critically needed resources to a number of important national priorities. By limiting the States's ability to shift administrative cost to the Federal Government, this legislation prevents States from circumventing welfare reform while at the same time providing necessary funding for agricultural research, crop insurance, rural development and nutrition programs. Despite the fact that this bill results in a $1.2 billion reduction in Federal spending for food stamps, S. 1150 has still won support from nutrition advocates. This legislation enjoys broad support because it reprioritizes spending in the food stamp program to provide needed benefits for those who cannot move to self-sufficiency as envisioned by the recent welfare reform, such as the elderly, disabled, and children. And for those refugees and asylees who are fleeing political and religious persecution, it provides a realistic time frame to make application for United States citizenship. In addition, this bill fulfills a commitment made by our government during the Vietnam war to some unfamiliar people, the Hmongs and the Highland Laotians who assisted our military during the Vietnam era. As a result of providing assistance to our military, these people suffered terribly at the hands of Communists. By supporting this legislation, we can provide assistance to those who fought so bravely for us. S. 1150 will provide funding certainty for the crop insurance program. Farmers will no longer have to worry if crop insurance will be delivered, nor will bankers who require it. But although S. 1150 provides this certainty, make no mistake about it; much more needs to be done. We must continue to search for new and innovative ways to improve the program in order to provide meaningful risk management for our farmers. In terms of budget discipline, S. 1150 is a perfect example of what balancing the budget is all about. Unlike other bills recently considered which provide no offsetting reductions in spending, this bill will not result in increased government expenditures as was stated by the gentleman from Oregon (Chairman Smith). I underline that. We do not balance the budget by creating new spending but by redirecting existing resources to needed areas. Mr. Speaker, this legislation simply reprioritizes existing funds from within the agriculture function. From my perspective, that is the very definition of budget discipline. This bill does not create unlimited spending but limits it by closing a loophole that the States could use to shift costs to the Federal Government, costs that were funded as a result of welfare reform. We are simply looking at agriculture, rural development, and nutritional needs and reprioritizing our existing resources to address current problems. If we are going to successfully address problem areas, our programs cannot remain static. With limited resources we have to have the ability to address issues as they arise. So if Members care about agricultural research, if they care with rural communities, if they want to save farmers' crop insurance, if they are concerned about reducing hunger in America, I urge them to support passage of this conference report. It is a responsible and balanced piece of legislation.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds for purposes of saying thank you to the staffs on both the majority side and the minority side for the hours and days and weeks and months of hard work that they have put in to bringing us to this point tonight. We appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research and I thank him for his work. (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I must say I was reminded of the famous quote of Will Rogers, when he observed that, ``it ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much, it is them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.'' The gentleman from New York is totally nonfactual in what he was saying. All States are not affected by this bill. States are affected only to the extent they charge common AFDC food stamp administrative costs, and the only States that will be detrimentally affected are those that have been double-dipping, and that is something that we would not want to see done. First, make no mistake about it, a vote against consideration of S. 1150 will kill the bill, and that is what the gentleman from New York honestly wants to do, is kill this bill. Funding for crop insurance research and rural development and nutrition will be denied. Now, Federal mandates are generally thought of as any provision that imposes an enforceable duty upon a State, except as a condition of Federal assistance. The original intent was simply to require the Federal Government to pay for requirements placed on States. The Committee on Rules identified the purpose of the unfunded mandates bill as being to prevent Congress from passing feel-good legislation that transfers the cost burden from the Federal Government to State and local governments, for example, the Occupational Safety Health Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The provision we are considering in this bill today is unlike any of these. Technically, a Federal intergovernmental mandate is any provision that relates to a program which provides $500,000 annually to States if the provision would decrease funding to the State and the State lacks authority to amend their programmatic responsibility. An unintended consequence of the 1996 welfare reform bill allows States to shift administrative costs previously charged to the AFDC program and already included in their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families grants, the TANF block grants, to the food stamp program. The result is duplication of Federal administrative reimbursement to States for the same activity, since these costs are included in the TANF block grants and would be matched at a 50 percent rate by the food stamp program. S. 1150 would close this loophole by annually adjusting States' claims for administrative cost reimbursement by the amount that was included in their TANF block grants for the same purpose. The CBO has identified this provision of S. 1150 as an unfunded mandate relative to the food stamp program because there would be a reduction in funding for that program without a commensurate reduction in administrative requirements. While this determination is technically correct for the food stamp program in isolation, the provision is drafted to deal with interaction between the two programs. Therefore, when the provision in question is examined from a broader perspective, it prevents States from being overfunded due to the combined effects of TANF block grants and the change in the food stamp cost allocation methodology. It is difficult to see the provision as an unfunded mandate in this light. Without S. 1150, CBO estimates payments to States for food stamp administrative costs will be $2.5 billion more than prior to welfare reform. Even with enactment of this conference report, States will receive over $800 million more for administrative costs than they were projected to receive prior to enactment of welfare reform. Welfare reform was never intended to allow States free access to the Federal Treasury, to double-dip for reimbursements to carry out these programs. I certainly am speaking for the State of Texas, who has informed me they support what we are attempting to do for the reason that the gentleman from Oregon (Chairman Smith) mentioned a moment ago. We are one of those States that will, in fact, benefit fairly from the passage of this act, and double-dipping or having an unlimited access to the Federal Treasury is something I believe this body would not want us to do.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule because of its unfair treatment of the Blue Dog budget. We have heard a lot of rhetoric tonight about what is or is not in anybody's budget. Some of it has been true. Some of it has been stretching. The Blue Dog budget that we wanted to offer and have a chance for an honest and open debate on would have moved us toward a consensus by narrowing the differences in this body instead of dividing us as we are hearing tonight. The Blue Dogs tried to find a reasonable, realistic alternative to the budget resolution based on a simple philosophy. When you have a game plan that is working, you should stick with it. Unlike the President's budget, we did not think it was wise to reopen the budget agreement for new, major spending initiatives. Unlike the majority's resolution, we did not think it was wise to call for another round of spending cuts until we have enacted the spending cuts we said we were going to do in the last year's balanced budget agreement. We support tax cuts, including the abolition of the marriage penalty. And we agree with many of the initiatives in the President's budget. But we believe that staying the course on the budget agreement until we balance the budget, without relying on the Social Security trust fund, is a greater priority. Our amendment would have saved 100 percent of the projected unified budget surplus for Social Security and recommend the unified budget surplus be reserved to fund the cost of Social Security reform legislation. Our budget reaffirmed the principle that budget discipline should be maintained until the budget is balanced without relying on the annual surplus in the Social Security trust fund. Our budget was based on the principle that the numbers in our budget should be honest and realistic. That is where our budget differs the most from the budget reported by the committee, especially with the changes in the manager's amendment. Our budget incorporated the changes in the ISTEA bill, BESTEA bill and the agricultural research bill as estimated and paid for by CBO in order to provide a credible budget blueprint that reflects the realities of this body. We do not reopen Medicare, Medicaid, Federal retirement and other mandatory programs for additional reductions. We did not double count savings as the majority does tonight in the resolution they bring before us. We do not rely on unspecified spending cuts mainly backloaded until 4 or 5 years from now in order to pay for a tax cut up front. Mr. Solomon, there you go again. I remember down the road that magic asterisk in David Stockman's budget that you and I both voted for and we are doing it again tonight with this resolution and I am not going to give credit to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) for this because I know he is not for doing what the Speaker has ordered somebody to do. We hear a lot of rhetoric around here about free speech. Well, free speech apparently does not apply to action on this House floor when it comes to having alternatives considered and an honest debate, an honest debate between a little different idea between the majority and the minority. I do not understand what you fear. I fear that every dog in America is going to wake up tomorrow morning a Democrat. I hope he will. Because we are discriminating against dogs. The CATS got their amendment, the Conservative Action Team. They said, ``You bet, come on the floor, debate your idea.'' But the Dogs, ``No, you can't have your time on the floor.'' That is wrong. That is wrong. We should defeat this rule. We should allow the Blue Dogs and others to have our opportunity to debate our idea in a free and open debate. This rule will shut down the Blue Dogs' opportunity to debate our idea. What are they afraid of? Why not let us have an opportunity to have our day in court.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, that was a fascinating statement that my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, just made. The position that I am for today is supported by the State of Texas. The State of Texas has already done that which the gentleman opposes today, because they believe it to be right for those who have been affected by the food stamp provisions. They support our version of this rule. It should not surprise anyone, though, because this is the same majority leader that was responsible for passing the farm bill in the Speaker's office and promising that we were going to have unlimited access to world markets, and then will not even bring up IMF funding or fast track funding. This is another backdoor attempt by the leadership of this House to gut agriculture in rural America, and let there be no mistake about it. We will not even have an opportunity to discuss the intricacies of the research and the crop insurance bill, because once this rule passes, with the mechanisms and the maneuvers that are going on in this rule, which the chairman of the Committee on Rules has already acknowledged a mistake was made last night and is going to attempt to correct it in just a moment, there are other mistakes in this rule today that can be corrected by going back up and letting the House work its will on a bill that the Senate has passed 92 to 8. Yes, there are things in this bill that are outside the scope: crop insurance, food stamps. That is true. Why was it done? Because we have serious funding problems for rural America in the budget. The budget that I voted for has tight restraints. We are looking for ways to help production agriculture, and we put together a coalition of consumer groups and production agriculture that said, here is some money that we can reprogram for purposes of feeding people, providing crop insurance, and providing funding for research. This rule will destroy it. Let there be no mistake about it. If Members pass this rule, they are kidding themselves, if the Senate that voted 92 to 8, that it is going to go back and change its mind. Because the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the House have said they have a better idea. They have already been through that for months. It is not going to happen. The blame for having crop insurance problems is going to rest on the leadership of the House. If Members wish to have another political issue, and we have so many I cannot count them now, it is interesting, I am wondering if the Majority Leader's rhetoric is going to be the same on the ISTEA bill when it comes up later today as it is today. It is interesting how we are picking and choosing. I am frustrated with the picking and choosings that constantly and consistently say to rural America, you do not count. You do not count. So, I say to the majority leader, I welcome this debate with the gentleman back in Texas. He is dead wrong, and anyone that follows his leadership is going to find that out.

Mr. STENHOLM. Sometimes that is right, and sometimes that is wrong, but I appreciate the sense of humor in which the gentleman yields. But the colleagues should be looking at this right now and understand that we are playing games, and this is serious. This is serious. The reason, and I wanted to close with this, this bill, and it is a good bill, is paid for; to the extent changes are being made in this, these costs are fully offset by reductions in food stamp spending and in crop insurance programs. In fact, this bill, if it passes, will create a surplus of $101 million over the life of the bill. So I ask my colleagues, please reject this rule, and let us send the Committee on Rules back to do that work.

Mr. STENHOLM. Sometimes that is right.

Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I want to use this time to fully explain the issue that we are talking about. Mr. Speaker, if this rule passes, the crop insurance program is going to be thrown into turmoil, because it cannot and will not pass in the form in which the House leadership has suggested that it should pass. It will not. So let it be clear, if the rule should pass, the blame lies with the House of Representatives on what happens afterward. And that is not just Charlie Stenholm speaking. I have a list of 76 organizations that have come to the same conclusion, and I will read just a few: the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the National Cotton Council, the American Sheep Industry, Southwest Peanut Growers, National Farmers Union, American Farm Bureau Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, American Bankers Association, Independent Bankers Association, Catholic Charities U.S.A., Council of Jewish Federation, Lutheran Social Services in America, and I can go on and on. We are playing politics with the lifeblood of individual citizens of this country, farmers and ranchers, and also those who depend upon the production of those farmers and ranchers. This is a philosophical battle that we have been going through now for several years. This is a perfect way to demonstrate who feels how. I respect those who feel so strongly that they would take this issue that has already been rejected 92 to 8 and force the issue again and try to place the blame on somebody else. I respect them trying that, but I sure do not understand why they would choose that political motive to go. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. It is unprecedented. The parliamentarians of the House cannot think or find another method of this type on a conference report that has ever been tried. That ought to tell us something. The fact that the chairman of the Committee on Rules, he and I go back a long way, and I have a lot of respect for him, but the fact that he would come on the floor and speak against something and then offer the amendment should tell the Members of this body something.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I come and take this 1 minute today to alert my colleagues in the House of Representatives of a rule that we are about to take under consideration concerning the agricultural research bill that is unprecedented. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), and his leadership, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) are about to do some tremendous damage to production agriculture all over this Nation. Because of the same manner in which they wrote the farm bill in his office, they are now writing a rule that is going, as I said, to do lasting damage to production agriculture. For the first time in my legislative life, we have the nutrition community and the production agriculture committee agree on additional funding for crop insurance and other agricultural needs and restoring of some food needs and doing it in a budget-responsible way. The rule that we are about to consider undoes it all. I want to alert my colleagues in the House, immediately after the 1- minutes, I will urge a motion to adjourn until we can discuss this. And, hopefully, the leadership will go back upstairs and rewrite the rule in a fair way to let the conference report be considered by the full House.