Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) a moment ago made an observation that I hope was not lost on the House. The gentleman stated that forest trees are a renewable resource. The intent of this legislation was to recognize that in the same spirit the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) just spoke in recognizing that there are differences of opinion. Many times, I have come to the floor on agricultural bills in which the same, much of the same opposition to science-based agricultural production practices are opposed by those who believe that somehow, some way, we can produce the abundance of food and the quality of food and the safety necessary of food supply at the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world and do it without science and technology. The same is true for our forests, the idea that we should not use the best science available in order to preserve and protect and utilize a renewable resource, because we will hear many times this year the importance of housing. It is awfully important to a housing industry that we have a reliable supply of timber. Mr. Chairman, I would just make one other observation. The House Committee on Agriculture, under the leadership of the Chairman, invited all interested parties to participate in this discussion and debate. It was interesting that the National Wildlife Federation, the Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Western Ancient Forest Campaign, the Sierra Club declined to participate in the hearings or participate in discussions of how to make this bill different or better. Those who did participate and made a better bill that we bring to the floor today included the Northern Forest Lands Council, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Black Bear Conservation Committee, the Nature Conservancy, the American Forests, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Ruffed Grouse Society, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the Wilderness Society. Now, to those I appreciate very much their participation in crafting this bill, controversial to say the least, but making it in a way in which we can preserve and protect our forests, and make certain that a renewable resource will be there for the best interests of all of the American people. I encourage the support of this legislation.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on both sides?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2515, the Forest Recovery and Protection Act. H.R. 2515 creates a 5-year national program that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to identify, prioritize, and conduct recovery projects. This program includes public notice and comment before any money is allocated to the local forests for recovery projects. Once they reach the local level, all projects will go through the appropriate environmental review before any work is performed on the ground. In the past, forest fires burned timber stands on a regular basis, purging the forest floor of the sickly trees and other undergrowth that fuel catastrophic wildfires and hinder the development of mature disease resistant trees. Throughout the 20th century, Federal agencies have worked to extinguish virtually every fire. This is for good reason, as uncontrolled fires threaten lives and property. However, allowing forest overgrowth to accumulate contributes to the current tinderbox conditions and reduces habitat for deer and other wildlife. Not fighting fires, however, is not the cure-all some assume. With so much accumulated fuel, prescribed burning, intentionally setting fires or allowing naturally occurring ones to burn is a real risk. All too often fires intended to rehabilitate a forest grow outside their boundaries, destroying millions of acres of healthy green trees as well as wildlife, watersheds and other critical parts of the ecological system. In short, fires reduce the number of uses our forest lands with support. Current moves toward hands-off policies which are applauded by extremists posing as environmentalists fail on several levels, including preventing catastrophic natural events like uncontrolled wildfire and insect infestations. Policies based on neglect also prevent us from protecting a full range of threatened and endangered species and reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions caused by fires. By abandoning active forest management, including timber harvesting in our national forests, we are condemning them to a cycle of unnaturally overcrowded, unhealthy tree stands which serve as poor habitat for native species and deprive Americans of quality wood products and a vibrant rural economy. Proper management of our forests is as important to Members from southeastern districts as it is to those from the Pacific northwest. My district, the Sixth District of Virginia, is home to large portions of the George Washington and Thomas Jefferson National Forests. Teams of natural resource specialists, including the Forest Service, EPA, the Appalachian Regional Commission, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, assessed the health of forest lands, including the George Washington and Thomas Jefferson National Forests, in the Southern Appalachian Assessment. These experts noted the following. Several tree species in the southern Appalachians are at risk of extinction or significant genetic loss because of exotic pests. Lack of active management in other stands has led to the development of dense understories and to the senescence of overstory trees of some species. That is the Southern Appalachian Assessment. By not managing our forests, we are in fact mismanaging them. I urge all Members to support H.R. 2515, the Forest Recovery and Protection Act. This bill abides by all applicable environmental laws and forest plans, creates a 5-year program to address forest health, creates a scientific advisory panel to help administer the national program, requires audits of the program and ensures that foresters have the access to the best and most current data. Most importantly, it enables the Secretary immediately to conduct forest health projects in those areas where there is sufficient science to move quickly. I strongly urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind our colleagues that today, March 27, marks the 65th anniversary of the creation of the Farm Credit Administration by the executive order of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The FCA is the independent arm's length reporting of the $78 billion Farm Credit System. It provides credit and financial services to this country's farmers, ranchers, and agricultural cooperatives. The FCA is charged with a highly challenging mission: to promote a safe and sound, competitive Farm Credit System by creating an environment that enables System institutions to serve rural America as a dependable source of credit and financial services within the authorities established by Congress. The FCA is ably led by a distinguished three-person board chaired by the Honorable Marsha Pyle Martin, who hails from the great State of Texas. In addition to her significant roots, Ms. Martin is the first woman chair of the FCA board and, together with fellow board members Doyle Cook and Ann Jorgensen, directs the regulatory activities of a small cadre of highly qualified professionals. While the FCA is a small agency with only 300 personnel nationwide, it is an impressive group of dedicated professionals, possessing insightful knowledge about how to ensure that sound financial institutions thrive to better serve agriculture. It is an agency with a rich history of profound service to agriculture, and is one of the surviving entities of FDR's New Deal. I would like to share a brief bit of FCA history with the Members today, because I believe it demonstrates how well government can work, and points clearly to the importance of those institutions which will maintain our Nation's position as the world leader in agriculture as we move forward into the next millenium. Shortly after President Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, he issued an executive order that established the FCA as an independent credit agency and consolidated under it all the fragmented programs previously created to improve the availability and deliverability of agricultural credit. The 1930s were not a good time for agriculture. Farm prices had hit an all-time low and hundreds of thousands of farmers were finding it impossible to produce enough income to pay their debts. One of the FCA's first major responsibilities was to implement the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933, designed to halt the wave of farm foreclosures by refinancing farmers' debt. Through radio broadcasts, President Roosevelt told farmers to write or wire Washington if their farms were threatened by foreclosure. The response was an avalanche of wires, letters, and phone calls, totaling 43,000 in less than 4 months. The newly formed Farm Credit Administration moved vigorously to intercede with creditors, asking them to wait long enough to see if farms could be refinanced. Most of the farms were refinanced, and the FCA's history of dedicated service to agriculture had begun. More recently, the FCA was instrumental in helping the Farm Credit System and its borrowers survive the severe disruption of agriculture that occurred during the 1980s. Like the 1930s, the 1980s were not a good time for agriculture. I think we all remember when land values spiralled downward and the devastating impact on the many farmers and financial institutions that financed the legitimate credit needs of those farmers. The FCA was there again, but in a different role, this time as the independent regulator of the Farm Credit System. In this new role the FCA ensured that farmers who had been devastated by economic circumstances were afforded the opportunity to restructure their loans, thereby enabling them to remain in farming. The FCA also ensured that cooperative financial institutions took proper management action to financially strengthen their operations so they could remain as a viable source of credit to their farmer borrowers. Though the FCA role had changed over time, the outcome of fulfilling their role remained the same, and the needs of individual farmers were met. Moving to the present, the FCA has become one of the more stellar performers to emerge from implementing the Administration's program to reinvent government. The FCA has reduced its expenses by nearly 15 percent since 1995, and has slashed its work force by nearly 30 percent since 1993. The agency is almost 25 percent below Office of Management and Budget's established personnel target for the FCA under the Administration's program to reinvent government. The agency is at the forefront of developing increasingly efficient and innovative programs that not only ensure that the safety and soundness requirements are adhered to by the Farm Credit System, but also result in minimal disruption to the vital business activities of the institution it regulates. The Farm Credit System today is financially sound, and stands on the threshold of making innovative progress at better meeting the credit and financial needs of farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives. The FCA has played a key role in the system's success, and is there to ensure that these institutions exercise safe and sound banking practices that comply with the law and regulations, as new endeavors take form. Over time, farmers, ranchers, cooperatives, and the public have all benefited from the professional activities of the FCA. Mr. Speaker, the FCA record reflects a deep commitment to agriculture. It is a record of exceptional performance from 1993 to the present. I am proud to recognize it here today.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last discussion regarding the schedule for Monday and the question of whether or not we should have a true discussion of campaign finance reform, let me remind all of my colleagues that we have a discharge petition at the Clerk's desk. It has 187 signatures on it. If we can get to 218 Members of the House who wish to see campaign finance reform, all ideas, the Shays-Meehan and all other ideas of serious debate on campaign finance reform, all we have to do is line up here at the Clerk's desk and get 218 signatures, and the regular order of the House will prevail, and we will be able to have the kind of discussion for campaign finance reform that I believe the overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the aisle really would like to see. But it is up to us now. Since the leadership has ruled, rather arbitrarily, on how we shall proceed, it is up to Members of the House to use regular House order and sign the discharge petition.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 365, a resolution which contains four provisions that upon their adoption will provide the following: One, it will take Senate bill 1150 from the Speaker's table; two, it will strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of H.R. 2534 as passed by the House and ably described by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith); three, it will pass Senate bill 1150 as amended by H.R. 2534 and insist on the House amendment and request a conference with the Senate. I would like to make it perfectly clear that this resolution merely allows us to go to conference with the Senate. That is all. H.R. 2534 passed the House on November the 8th, 1997, by a vote of 291 to 125 and is the result of a bipartisan effort. H.R. 2534 provides for a straightforward reauthorization and reform of current USDA agricultural research programs. H.R. 2534 does not contain any of the savings and reallocation measures associated with Senate bill 1150. Confusion and concern over this issue prevented our going to conference on this bill at the end of the first session, the 105th Congress. I recognize that there are concerns about provisions in the Senate bill. For this reason I urge Members to permit us to go to conference so we can begin to work through these differences. The sooner we begin working on a suitable conference report, the more time we will have to carefully consider these concerns while ensuring that support for vital agricultural research programs is not unnecessarily delayed. Again, I strongly urge passage of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully rise in opposition to this legislation which will rename Washington National Airport for former President Reagan. I rise regretfully because I do believe that President Reagan certainly should be honored, but I do not believe that this is the proper way to honor our former president. Washington National Airport is named after one of our founding fathers and first president, George Washington. It is not appropriate to change a name which honors our first president in order to honor another. President Washington lived just down the road from the airport at Mount Vernon, and it has been said here today that the tract of land on which Washington National Airport currently sits was actually owned by his family. Additionally, this proposed name change is not consistent with President Reagan's philosophies on local control and federal intrusion. President Reagan was a champion of shifting control from the federal government to state and local authorities where decisions are best made. The local governments of Arlington County and the City of Alexandria oppose this change; certainly the federal government should not usurp the wishes of the local governments to honor a man who worked to ensure local representation and control of many entities, including Washington National Airport. I hope that we in Congress will find a more appropriate way to honor President Reagan. I personally have a great deal of admiration for President Reagan and respect his public service to our nation. In fact, I doubt there is a singe Democrat in Congress who supported Ronald Reagan as much as I did during his presidency. I intend to visit with my constituents to come up with ways to honor President Reagan, and I hope that we come up with a better way to honor President Reagan and his legacy.