Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I join this debate with my colleague from Minnesota, as one that represents a State that has very little, if any, Federal lands involved in this. I have spent several years analyzing whether or not this is a fair rental as far as the competitiveness with other ranchers. It is not just my judgment that causes me to support the bill today. It is cattlemen from all over the United States that have agreed. Yes, maybe it is not a perfect formula. I do not know that anyone can devise a perfect formula. But to continue to suggest that the only valid formula for charging rental rates has to be with private lands is an erroneous assumption. That is comparing apples and oranges and it is not relevant to this debate. Also we need to understand, yes, there are a few large enterprises that are involved. But 81 percent of the Forest Service permittees are part of small- to medium-sized family ranching. The amendment that the gentleman will offer, when we get to the amending process, would make it very difficult for these individuals to make a living in ranching in the real world. Therefore, I encourage all of our colleagues to listen carefully, particularly when you are concerned about environmental concerns. This bill is very important in this aspect. It is suggesting that we rely on sound science. This bill institutes a program of scientific range monitoring to ensure that land managers make their decision on the basis of current reliable data and not merely one's judgment. What we are debating today is one's judgment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I do this for purposes of confirming what the chairman said regarding the hearings that were held in the Committee on Agriculture and the subcommittee on this bill and also to reiterate what I know the gentleman from Minnesota totally agrees with. This is an issue that has been discussed for many, many years.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that clarification. Again, I was only speaking of the Committee on Agriculture and also speaking of the fact that I have participated in this debate for years, as the gentleman from Minnesota has. What the chairman has done this year is attempted, as the gentleman from Georgia earlier spoke to, to reach out to people who are willing to compromise and to find an acceptable middle ground to a question that has proven to be irresolvable over the years. What we have today is the best good-faith compromise to reach an agreement midway between extreme views. This is what the bill before us today is all about. We talk about the grazing fees. I think it is important for all Members who may not be as familiar with this, the grazing fee is merely for the forage and represents a small part of the overall cost of Federal lands ranching. Ranchers are responsible for fences, for water, for seeding and other improvements, keeping track of the livestock, along with anything else required by the agencies. That is where the real costs are. That is why ranchers from Texas, Georgia, Missouri, and other States do not have the objection as stated by the gentleman from Minnesota to this because based on the total cost, there is a reasonable certainty or a semblance of fairness as best that can be done in any formula. Also regarding the wildlife question, I find it fascinating when we see from 1960 to 1980 the increases of antelope, elk, and deer on these same lands that are being so misused by the livestock industry.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] and that he be allowed to yield it as he sees fit.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a perfecting amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], in attempting to continue the good-faith efforts toward meeting some of the concerns that have been raised by those who oppose this bill. It is my understanding that this amendment that I offer has been agreed to by all interested parties, and would basically do three things. In section 102 of the bill, it would strike the definition of the term ``allotments,'' in section 102 of the bill it would strike the definition of the terms ``base property,'' and in section 3, or in section 105 of the bill, it would strike subsection (b), which deals with the treatment of lease or sublease of base property. I offer this, again, in a good-faith effort to meet some of the objections which the chairman has agreed to, and it is my understanding all of the parties have agreed to this language.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer the perfecting amendment to the amendment that I discussed and explained in the general debate on the chairman's part.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. It is my understanding under the rule that we have unanimous consent 1 hour of debate equally divided between the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Agriculture and our time is divided and I control 15 minutes?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with that. My concern or my opposition to what the gentleman, both gentlemen are attempting to do, lies in the fact that nearly 50 percent of Western lands are owned by the Federal Government. Fully 50 percent of the Nation's marketable lands, 20 percent of the calves go to feed lots or are raised in Western public States. My concern is that we do not disrupt normal marketing arrangements, normal business practices in something as significant to the cattle industry as these areas are. If I were convinced, as the gentleman is convinced, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is convinced and others are convinced, that there is an unfair subsidy, I would not be standing here arguing that. I am of the opinion there is not an unfair subsidy. I disagree with those that have come to different conclusions. That is my concern and why I am participating in opposing the gentleman's amendment and the Klug amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. That is correct.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out to our colleagues that the State fees that we are discussing are set based on the Federal charges and are as tainted by the current law that we are implementing. So therefore it is not nearly as simple because we are talking about changing something of which we are already basing on the Federal structure.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to this motion to recommit, but also to express my hope that a compromise policy can be worked out in conference. I support the goal of this motion expressing support for House position to allow section 245(i) to sunset as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act because I believe that the Senate legislation, which would permanently extend this section 245(i), leaves a loophole which could encourage illegal immigration and allows those who violate our Nation's laws to buy a reprieve. But, while I agree with the intent of this motion to close a loophole, I believe that in doing so we should make allowances for those folks and their families and employers who will be greatly impacted by the loss of section 245(i). I am convinced that there is middle ground to be found here, and I support looking for a compromise between the House and Senate bills to provide for a temporary extension of this legislation to give us time to study its impact on illegal immigration or an extension which would help those folks who have made a good faith effort to comply with all our Nation's immigration laws and who fall out of legal status. To me, their situations are different from those folks who enter this country illegally. I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct conferees but also urge conferees to continue working to find the middle ground on this issue. While we should do everything in our power to encourage compliance with our Nation's immigration laws and to discourage illegal immigration, we must take into account the cases in which exceptions can be made and should be made which will not jeopardize these goals. I support and encourage my colleagues to support a compromise between the extremes of the House and Senate bills which will serve the interests of all American citizens. Memorandum

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a representative of a rural district and as a deficit hawk to express my strong opposition to this legislation. It is not well thought out. For many of us, avoiding backloaded tax cuts that will cause the deficit to increase in the next century was one of the most important principles of the budget agreement. This bill creates exactly the type of backloaded tax cut that fiscally responsible Members in both parties fought to keep out of the budget agreement. The bill reported by the committee was paid for in the 5-year budget window by an offset that produces large one-time savings in the early years. The savings drop off after the second year and the revenue loss continues to grow every year. As a result, the bill will increase the deficit beginning in the year 2000. This last-minute transparent sunsetting gimmick added at the Committee on Rules does not solve the problem. Many of the proponents of this legislation ridiculed the President earlier this year for his budget proposal, and I agreed with your criticism. How is this different? It is not. No one believed that tax cuts proposed by the President would be sunsetted after 4 years, and I do not think anyone honestly believes that Congress will allow this provision to sunset after families have been contributing to an education savings account for several years. Paying for legislation during the budget window while ignoring growing out-year costs is exactly the type of budget gimmick that helped produce the record deficits in the past, and returning to gimmicks to get around the budget rules is a dangerous step down the slippery slope of unraveling the budget agreement and returning to uncontrolled deficits. If we are serious about helping our children, our first priority must be to remain committed to reaching a balanced budget and stop piling debt on future generations. I also oppose this legislation as a Member representing a rural district with 109 school districts and as a former schoolteacher in a rural school. School choice may sound good in theory, but it does not make sense in the real world of rural America without further eroding the fragile economies in rural communities. This legislation is bad fiscal policy and even worse education policy.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1534 and in stronger opposition to the Boehlert amendment. The bill, the base bill is an equitable solution aimed at balancing the rights of private property owners with increased environmental, economic, and land use concerns. The fifth amendment states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The legislation before us today is a bipartisan and moderate approach that guarantees the protection of the fifth amendment. The Boehlert amendment guts the heart of H.R. 1534 by removing equal access to Federal courts for property owners. The base bill is a targeted limited bill that does not define when a taking has occurred. Consequently, the proper trigger point for compensation does not need to be debated. The Boehlert amendment creates a dangerous precedent by forcing Federal courts to deal differently with property rights cases depending on who the defendant is. The base bill does not give Federal courts new authority on questions that should be answered in State courts, rather, it provides an expedited way to resolve State issues. Furthermore, this bill does not amend environmental law or regulation which was a point of contention in previous debate. Simply put, this legislation would provide for quicker and more straightforward access to Federal courts. The Boehlert amendment micromanages the Federal courts. I would like to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] and other supporters of H.R. 1534 for their efforts to find a new way of reconciling the difficult issues addressed here. This legislation is balanced and fair. I urge my colleagues to support the base bill and oppose strenuously the Boehlert amendment which guts the base bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2366, the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997, is, as has been explained, legislation that would shift the authority to carry out a census of agriculture from the Commerce Department to the Department of Agriculture. Similar legislation, H.R. 3665, passed the House last year. The interest in shifting the agriculture census from the Commerce Department to USDA has occurred because of budget pressures being felt by the Census Bureau, and USDA's interest in including the agriculture census responsibilities with the data collection and dissemination which they already carry out. The Secretary of Agriculture has indicated that the National Agriculture Statistics Service, which is already responsible for gathering statistics in the agriculture arena, will be the agency charged with carrying out the agriculture census. I also expect the Secretary to utilize the other agencies within the Department who also have a field structure. Last year's agriculture appropriation bill moved funding for the agriculture census from the Commerce Department to the USDA in order to ensure that no additional cost burden would be imposed on USDA by undertaking this task. Funding has also been included in the fiscal year 1998 agriculture appropriation bill. As a final step, the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight have agreed to legislative language that provides for the transfer of authority to carry out the agriculture census. Staff from both committees worked out language with the Census Bureau and USDA, and the result is H.R. 2366, which I introduced on July 31. I am pleased that 16 of my colleagues have cosponsored the bill, which was reported out favorably by the full Committee on Agriculture on September 24. I would hope that my colleagues would support this effort to streamline reporting requirements on agricultural producers while saving the taxpayer several dollars. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1779. It is exactly as the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt] has explained it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1789, and I want to thank committee chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], and Chairman Pombo, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry for joining me in sponsoring and supporting this legislation. I am also grateful to the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Glickman, for his support of the bill. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1789 authorizes appropriations for the dairy indemnity program through fiscal year 2002. Madam Speaker, on June 26, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing on this bill and received testimony from the Department of Agriculture in support of the program and its objectives. The subcommittee also heard testimony from Mr. Calvin Buchanan, a constituent of mine who spoke on behalf of Associated Milk Producers. Mr. Buchanan is a lifelong dairy farmer, and he and his wife, Virginia, milk 500 cows in Decatur, TX. During the hearing, Mr. Buchanan testified about the importance of the dairy indemnity program to a producer whose milk is ruined by contaminated feed. I quote: The Dairy Indemnity Program has been a small element of total agricultural policy over the years. It has, however, been the difference between many dairy farm families being able to continue in business and being forced to liquidate. . . . Not only do producers lose income from the market, they lose the value of the contaminated feed and often incur additional costs to clean up the problem. Given the current economic situation, there just is not room in the operation to absorb these costs. Madam Speaker, at the time Mr. Buchanan testified, milk prices were very low, and the economic challenges facing every dairy producer in this Nation were enormous. Since that time conditions have improved only slightly, and dairy producers in Texas and many other parts of the Nation are constantly being forced to shut down their operations. Madam Speaker, passage of H.R. 1789 will be a small but important step which will help to preserve certainty of payment for dairy producers, and a safe and stable milk supply for consumers. Madam Speaker, during fiscal year 1997 there were insufficient funds available to meet claims filed under the program. Appropriations and carryover funds provided $257,000 for the program, but that amount was depleted in February. There still are pending and unpaid applications for fiscal year 1997 funds in Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas in the amount of $230,635. I am grateful that the House and Senate have agreed to provide sufficient appropriations to meet these unpaid claims. Even in good times, a dairy farmer faces difficulties resulting from revenue lost because contaminated milk is withdrawn from the market. Many of my colleagues are well aware that now is a particularly bad time for a producer to remain unpaid for his or her milk. Passage of H.R. 1789 will help provide financial security for our Nation's hard working dairy farmers. I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report and commend those conferees who did an excellent job in making balanced the priorities.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, though much of the debate on correcting the undercount of the census is centered around the number of people not counted in urban areas, as one who represents a very rural district, I want to highlight the fact that people in rural areas are being missed as well. In fact, some of our rural areas are undercounted to a greater degree than the entire country. According to the Census Bureau, the net undercount for the Nation in 1990 was 1.6 percent, while rural areas were undercounted at a rate of 5.9 percent. I want to emphasize that accuracy is critical. Let there be no disagreement on that as we prepare for the 2000 census. The Census Bureau should form early and active partnerships with State and local governments so that these governments will have an early opportunity to review census address lists and maps for their area. This amendment will remove the restrictive language included in the bill and allow the Census Bureau to continue to plan for the 2000 census. Their proposal, which is supported by scientists and statistical experts, should improve accuracy and save costs. It is fascinating to sit here and listen to colleague after colleague argue against the best science available. I have taken to this well day after day after day, arguing that we should use the best science available, whether we are talking about environmental issues, food safety issues, or census issues. But tonight in this debate, we are being selective as to which science we should use. I find this a fascinating argument to listen to. I am convinced, absolutely convinced, that statistical sampling is the best method to get an accurate census, and I urge my colleagues to listen to this debate and to listen to those who are saying that only some science is good and we will be selective in which we choose to agree to. Statistical scientists say that sampling will help us get an accurate count. Is that not what we all should really be for? I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Shays amendment.