Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for their work in the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) for his work in bringing us here today, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Let us go to conference and try to work out these issues in the best way that we possibly can for all concerned. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2631, the Military Construction Veto Disapproval. I have the privilege of representing Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas. One of the thirty-eight projects stricken from the military construction bill was in my district so I have a very personal interest in this legislation, but I believe that the President made the decision to strike many projects in the bill based on poor advice and inaccurate information. One of the reasons the President gave for vetoing these projects was that they did not meet a so-called ``quality of life'' requirement. I don't know what the President's definition of quality of life is, but I do know this: these thirty-eight projects which were eliminated included facilities to provide a safe working place for the men and women we entrust with the defense of our nation. In the case of the squadron operations facility to be built at Dyess Air Force Base, there are currently no existing facilities to house the 13th Bomb Squadron. Without this facility, the men and women of the 13th Bomb Squadron will be denied the tools they need to do their jobs. How does this add to their quality of life or their ability to discharge their duties? ``Quality of life'' involves a great deal more than housing and child care facilities and gymnasiums, although those are very important. I cannot imagine how the quality of work life could be much worse than importing 500 to 1,000 men and women to do a job without any facilities in which to house that work. The projects line item vetoed by the President were included in the military construction bill because they are essential to the mission of our military. Most of these projects were included in the five-year plans of the military services so that the money for these projects will be spent eventually. These projects were considered by four different Congressional committees with expertise in the area of national security and were reviewed by the Pentagon. The House and the Senate voted by overwhelming majorities to approve the military construction appropriation act. Yet the President and his staff acting in haste crafted a new criteria for military construction projects--quality of life. While I do not oppose the use of quality of life as a consideration for determining the merit of a project, it should not be the only criteria, and it should be clearly defined and fairly applied. In the case of the 13th Bomb Squadron Operations Facility and many of the other projects cancelled by the President, it was not. The President incorrectly substituted his judgment for that of the Congress and the Pentagon. I urge my colleagues to support our men and women in uniform by voting again to override the President's line item veto to restore these projects.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers on this side, and I yield myself the remainder of the time. The controversy that has been talked about on both sides of the aisle concerning the Senate bill will have to be resolved in conference, as all legislation is resolved in conference. Getting us to the floor today was not an easy endeavor, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], the ranking member, and all members of their subcommittee did an excellent job of resolving some very, very strong differences; and as they have stated, they were not totally satisfied with their work, as I would agree with them, but they have done the best they could do. I commend the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], chairman of the full committee, for his leadership in bringing us to this point. Now we are asking our colleagues in the House to join with us in passing this bill so that we might go to the Senate and resolve those issues, of which there are several. But one of which I would speak particularly to is the administrative cost of the food stamp program of $1.25 billion. Those moneys, and the Senate has agreed, those dollars should be reserved for the Committee on Agriculture to be spent on food, hunger, nutrition. I happen to agree very strongly myself with the comments of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], but there are differences of opinion in this, and I believe we can work them out in a conference. Yes, the States are very opposed to this. They would much rather control the expenditure of those funds, if there are any funds there, which also has yet to be resolved. I understand that. But I would hope that all of our colleagues in this body would stay with the House Committee on Agriculture and with the Senate on this provision and work it out in a satisfactory way. I particularly want to acknowledge, as the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] did earlier, and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], that we have had a very good working relationship on this bill between the appropriators on the House side and the House Committee on Agriculture. That is something that we have not had as good a relationship in years past as we now have. I will just say in concluding that this Member will do everything on our part, working with Members on my side on appropriations and on the Committee on Agriculture, to work in the conference to see that we satisfy a majority of the House Members in resolving this issue. I would hope that all of our colleagues would join with us today in passing this legislation at this moment today so that we might get to that conference and work those out in the same spirit of cooperation that has brought us here today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, H.R. 2534, as amended, the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reauthorization Act of 1997. I am pleased to report that this bill is the result of a bipartisan effort in the House Committee on Agriculture and incorporates suggestions from both the providers and the users of agricultural research. The bill, as amended, will provide for the continuation of our Nation's historic commitment to agricultural research and productivity. It was through this commitment that our Nation developed an agricultural sector that is the undisputed technological leader of the world. Our commitment to agricultural research has allowed us to produce more food on less land. As a result producers have the option of devoting environmentally sensitive land to other uses. Among the provisions of this bill, as amended, is language to do the following: Increase merit review of federally funded agricultural research and extension, improve mechanisms for feedback from users of agricultural technology, and expand open competition for grant funds. In addition, we have included in the committee reported bill a provision that was inadvertently left out in the committee which would rename the Weslaco Agricultural Research Station as the Kika de la Garza Subtropical Agricultural Research Center. H.R. 2534, as amended, stretches every Federal dollar by directing many grant programs to require matching funds from non-Federal sources. Additionally, this legislation places new emphasis on genetics and biotechnology, research cooperation and the development of new crops. As we look toward a future with greater reliance on international competition and exports, it is even more critical that we maintain our Nation's leadership in agricultural research. The modest reforms and the priorities in this legislation will help to ensure continued U.S. leadership in both agricultural research and production well into the next century. I urge all Members to support H.R. 2534, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] for yielding me the time and appreciate her efforts and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], and ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], who have worked very hard to bring this legislation to the point in which we have it today. I, too, commend my colleague from Missouri [Mr. Hulshof] for his tenacity on the Committee on Ways and Means, which had the jurisdiction over this, what started out to be noncontroversial but got to be somewhat controversial. When President Clinton announced his decision to veto the provision providing a tax deferral to sales of agricultural processing facilities to farmer cooperatives, I was extremely disappointed. But at the same time, he indicated a willingness to continue to work for legislation to help farmer cooperatives become vertically integrated. I continue to believe that the original provision was effectively structured and that the veto was based on misinformation and a misunderstanding of the challenges facing farmers in the current world market. I do not believe for a moment that the original provision was a narrow tax benefit that should have been subject to the line item veto, and I believe the fact that we are here today indicates that there is now a general consensus of all that that was true. I want to make it clear that this legislation before us is not my preferred position or my preferred option. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hulshof] and I agreed, though, that this compromised language because it was the only way to enact the provision after the veto was used on the original language which was included in the Taxpayer Relief Act. The compromise legislation which is before us does not include all the improvements I would have liked or Mr. Hulshof would have liked and falls short of our original legislation. I am concerned that it places several restrictions on sales of agricultural processing facilities to farmer cooperatives that do not apply to transactions with corporate agribusinesses. These restrictions also continue to leave cooperatives at a competitive disadvantage against corporate agribusinesses. However, as I have said, we were forced to add these restrictions to go after the administration's and others' objections to the original legislation. These reservations notwithstanding, I am very pleased that this compromise offers significant opportunities over current law for cooperatives comprised of individual family farmers to compete with corporate agriculture in the ever growing world marketplace. In that regard, I believe that a good deal. The original intent of the legislation has now been restored. It is important for all of us in this body and for others to remember that even the largest cooperatives are comprised of thousands of small and midsized farmers who have come together to farm these cooperatives. In an effort to be competitive with the phaseout of Federal farm programs, it is imperative that farmers develop new strategies for remaining financially viable. Strengthening cooperatives grants individual farmers the opportunity to increase their income, provide better risk management, capitalize on new market opportunities, and compete more effectively in a changing global economy. While not as thorough as our original legislation, this compromise begins the process of leveling the playing field by giving farmers and their cooperatives tax treatments similar to that for other types of corporate business, employee stock ownership plans, and worker cooperatives, when it comes to the purchase of processing and refining facilities. I am pleased that the administration has moved from the original line-item veto to a position of greater understanding for the needs of small farmers and their cooperatives. We have a victory in compromise. Farmers will gain admission into markets they were excluded from absent this agreement. It is not as sweet a victory as we had hoped, but it is a testament to our democratic government which reinforces balance and compromise. I have appreciated the support and advice and counsel of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, which has endorsed this compromise as a significant improvement over current law. Based on the advice of the National Council and other agricultural groups who have concluded that half a loaf offered by this bill is better than no loaf at all, I intend to vote for this bill and continue to work toward greater equity for family farmers and their cooperatives and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion of disapproval and commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] and others for their work Mr. Speaker, I rise today I to express my support for H.R. 2631, the military construction veto disapproval. I have the privilege of representing Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene. TX. One of the 38 projects stricken from the military construction projects was in my district so I have a very personal interest in this legislation, but I believe that the President made the decision to strike many of projects in the bill based on poor advice and inaccurate information. One of the reasons the President gave for vetoing these projects was that they did not meet a so-called ``quality of life'' requirement. I don't know what the President's definition of quality of life is, but I do know this: these 38 projects which were eliminated included facilities to provide a safe working place for the men and women we entrust with the defense of our Nation. In the case of the squadron operations facility to be built at Dyess Air Force Base, there are currently no existing facilities to house the 13th Bomb Squadron. Without this facility, the men and women of the 13th Bomb Squadron will be denied the tools they need to do their jobs. How does this add to their quality of life or their ability to discharge their duties? Quality of life involves a great deal more than housing and child care facilities and gymnasiums, although those are very important. I cannot imagine how the quality of work life could be much worse than importing 500 to 1,000 men and women to do a job without any facilities in which to house that work. The projects line-item vetoed by the President were included in the military construction bill because they are essential to the mission of our military. Most of these projects were included in the 5-year plans of the military services so that the money for these projects will be spent eventually. These projects were considered by four different congressional committees with expertise in the area of national security and were reviewed by the Pentagon. The House and the Senate voted by overwhelming majorities to approve the Military Construction Appropriation Act. Yest the President and his staff acting in haste crafted a new criteria for military construction projects--quality of life. While I do not oppose the use of quality of life as a consideration for determining the merit of a project, it should not be the only criteria, and it should be clearly defined and fairly applied. In the case of the 13th Bomb Squadron Operations Facility and many of the other projects canceled by the President, it was not. The President incorrectly substituted his judgment for that of the Congress and the Pentagon. I urge my colleagues to support our men and women in uniform by voting to override the President's line-item veto to restore these projects.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley]. (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. That is my understanding, but I would ask the chairman to confirm it.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my perfecting amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I totally agree with the gentleman from California's statement that says when a rancher brings a calf to the market, the market does not differentiate whether it is grazed on State land, Federal land or private land. As I stated during the earlier debate, the general debate, if I were convinced that this was a subsidy for Western ranchers that accrued an unfavorable advantage to them over my Texas constituency, I would not be standing here today arguing, as I am, because it would be rather foolish politically or economically. I have spent years trying to ascertain what a fair grazing rate is. I have listened to those that make the argument today on behalf of the taxpayer that it should be much, much higher. But then I have also spent the time analyzing that many times those who have not taken all of that time really are trying to compare apples and oranges. Because as I stated before, there are other costs of a rancher doing business on Federal lands that do not accrue to a private owner. For example, the owner of the land usually furnishes the fences and fencing is a very, very expensive endeavor. I rise in opposition to the Klug amendment. I come at it, and I do not question sincerity of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] at all. He believes there is a subsidy. I believe there is not. I believe the facts are on my side. This is for colleagues to make that determination. One of the things that I do in the base bill, the Vento amendment, though, the 2,000 animal unit divided by 12 months, that is 167 cows per year. Now, there are very few if any real working ranchers that can survive on this low threshold of gross receipts. So the intent of the amendment that is being amended is one of which I really ask our colleagues to take a look at it, because it displays a lack of true knowledge of the cattle industry today. Also in the Klug amendment, having these grazing fees based upon State land rates, I think, would be an administrative nightmare. If we think the Tax Code is complex, currently let us take a look at the administrative cost. Imagine, two Federal agencies trying to implement a minimum of 11 different fee structures depending on location. I know the intent is good. At first blemish, it makes some sense. But then when you get down to the administrative cost, I find it interesting that some of the objections are dealing with the cost already of the BLM and the Forest Service in administering the program. If we go back and study the reams of studies and papers that have gone into this, it gets into what we all commonly call an accounting gimmick, how we allocate costs. We have a BLM and we have a Forest Service in order to manage Federal lands, one use of which is grazing. But there are other uses. Wildlife, public use and the rancher only gets the use of the grazing and in return he puts an investment back into that land and it is a considerable amount of investment that they have to put into Federal land. So I think when we look at the administrative nightmare of the Klug amendment, charging different State-based fees is going to be unfair, unless we come at the conclusion that somehow these Western ranchers are receiving a subsidy. I do not believe that the facts will bear that out. I encourage opposition to both the Klug and the Vento amendment.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, no, that is not the point that I was making in the debate. What I am saying, when we start picking arbitrary numbers, we begin to get into all kinds of problems with the industry which we are discussing today. That is my only point.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I will not take any additional time. I explained the amendment during general debate on the previous amendment. I do believe it is agreed to by all of the parties, that it is a perfecting amendment. I would urge its adoption.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2493, the Forage Improvement Act of 1997. I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, for his hard work on this bill and for his sincere efforts to address the concerns of other Members. Mr. Chairman, while very narrow in scope, this bill contains positive and necessary improvements to the current system for the management of grazing on Federal lands. I strongly support the requirement to use sound, verifiable science to monitor resource conditions and trends on grazing allotments. This bill allows Federal agencies to coordinate with ranchers to perform the monitoring or to hire a qualified consultant to do it. Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that we should base all environmental policy decisions on sound, verifiable science, and this provision is an extremely important step forward in that direction. Additionally, this bill creates a grazing fee which provides stability and continuity for ranchers while returning a fair sum to the U.S. Treasury. It does this by ensuring the receipt of an equitable price for the product purchased by the rancher from the Government. This bill raises grazing fees by 36 percent, and there are those who would argue that this is not enough of an increase and is just a government subsidy. But the fact of the matter is it is difficult to compare exactly all the intangibles associated with leasing public or private lands. They both contain their own unique qualities. Critics of this bill would do just as well to compare an apple to an orange. Mr. Chairman, we must not lose sight of the fact that this bill will return fees to the U.S. Treasury that are an increase of 36 percent. For those who say this bill does not increase fees enough, similar fee increases for other Federal programs would hasten the elimination of the Federal deficit. Finally, this bill requires the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to administer grazing programs in a coordinated way. This was done to ensure that ranchers would be treated in the same manner by either agency. This just makes good sense. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bill, a reasonable compromise, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.