Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. For over a decade now, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and I have worked to reform the Legal Services Corporation. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman of this committee, has offered considerable help in this effort as well, and we have made some progress, but we have a ways to go. But we are not debating today whether or not to reform the Legal Services Corporation or change the delivery system for Legal Services altogether. We are simply setting a funding level where the Legal Services Corporation can continue to function and provide civil legal care for those in our country who cannot afford it. I fully understand the arguments for taking a hard look at changing our current delivery system for providing legal services to the poor. I intend to continue a careful examination of how we provide daily legal support for low-income individuals, and I hope at some time in the near future to work with the authorizing committee to see if we can address some of the things that are wrong, and there are some things that are very wrong. But until that happens, I support continuing to fund the Legal Services Corporation at $250 million for fiscal year 1998. This is exactly the funding level which my colleague the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and I proposed in our Legal Services Corporation reorganization bill of the 104th Congress. All of the arguments we have heard today come down to one fundamental question, whether we believe that the Federal Government has a role to play in ensuring that the poor have access to the courts. I believe that we do. Now, I will be the first one to tell my colleagues that the Legal Services Corporation has had its share of problems over the years, and we have heard many of them today. While I am not convinced that the current structure is the best way to deliver these services, I am not willing to demolish the Legal Services Corporation absent any other well-developed approach to caring for the people that depend on legal assistance in their daily lives. But that is precisely what we will do if we cut the funding today. As a lifelong supporter of a balanced budget, I understand budget realities and know we cannot fund every program at the level we want, and that is why I commend the sponsors of this amendment who have worked extremely hard in finding the offsets to pay for this amendment in a fair and reasonable manner. Finally, it is important to remember that we continue all of the restrictions agreed to on the Legal Services Corporation in the effort to make sure that this program works for its original purpose. While the Legal Services Corporation has certainly not been perfect over the past year, I do believe they have made sincere efforts to abide by these restrictions. Again, I commend the chairman of this committee for his efforts along that line, because it makes my support of this Corporation possible today. I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Fox amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because it would ensure that underserved areas, rural areas, such as the 17th District of Texas, will not be left with any fewer primary care physicians as a result of the new voluntary incentive program included in the balanced budget agreement, which would pay teaching hospitals to train fewer doctors. The balanced budget agreement included a number of provisions which should help rural Americans obtain access to health care. I am grateful for these statutory changes and for the leadership shown by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] in ensuring the inclusion of these provisions. I am concerned, however, that this medical education provision would set us back. Our amendment, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri, would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify to Congress that any voluntary incentive program would not adversely affect underserved rural areas before any funds could be released. It would ensure that any reduction in residents would not result in fewer primary care physicians available to practice in rural underserved areas. I strongly urge this body to address this issue and correct this provision.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, last month, the President exercised his line-item veto authority to strike out a provision in the tax bill providing a tax deferral on gains from the sale of agricultural processing facilities to farmer cooperatives. I was very disappointed that the President chose to exercise his line-item veto on a proposal that is very important to U.S. agriculture. However, I welcome the opportunity to debate this proposal on its merits. I am confident that this provision can withstand scrutiny and will receive strong bipartisan support. Today, I am joining with my colleagues, Kenny Hulshof, to introduce a resolution of disapproval overturning the President's veto of this provision to ensure that this debate occurs. In addition, we are continuing to explore other legislative options to address this issue. I hope that this issue can be resolved without resorting to a veto override. That notwithstanding, I am prepared to use all means available to me through the legislative process to enact this legislation. This provision has been repeatedly mischaracterized in the press as a provision narrowly targeted to benefit Harold Simmons. As the principal Democratic cosponsor of this provision, I can say with confidence that this is not the case. I support this provision because it will be beneficial to the entire agricultural cooperative community. Refining and processing of commodities represent an ever-increasing share of total profit in the agricultural sector. The price paid to farmers for farm commodities represent less than 25 percent of the cost of the final product purchased by the consumer. It is imperative for the American farmer to increase his ownership stake in processing and refining in order to survive in an increasingly competitive market. Allowing farmers to become vertically integrated in their products will permit farmers to better adjust to fluctuations in commodity prices. Now that we have adopted an agricultural policy that will leave farmers to compete in a more market-oriented system, we must enact provisions to help farmers and ranchers compete in the market place if these farmers and ranchers are to survive. Farmer cooperatives allow farmers and ranchers to improve their bargaining power and benefit from economies of scale. Strengthening farmer cooperatives will provide a counterweight to the increasing concentration of U.S. agriculture in large corporations. This proposal provides tax fairness by allowing farmer cooperatives to receive the same tax-deferred status for sales of processing facilities available to other businesses and entities under current law. Under current law, there are several strategies available to corporate agribusinesses to structure tax deferred purchases of processing facilities that farmer cooperatives cannot utilize. I appreciate the President's commitment to address this important issue, and look forward to continuing to work with the White House and representatives from the Department of Treasury to craft a provision that will aid our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Although we are introducing a resolution of disapproval in order to preserve our legislative options on this issue, Mr. Huslshof and I would prefer to resolve this issue by working with the administration in a cooperative manner. I am hopeful that we can reach an agreement with the administration on legislation to help farmers and ranchers, through their membership in farm cooperatives, become more involved in the profitable, value-added production of agriculture products. Enactment of this legislation is an important part of an agricultural strategy of helping individual farmers survive in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. I encourage all Members to support this effort.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to first begin by commending the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], the ranking member, and the President of the United States for their work in putting together this conference report which I urge everyone to support today. As so often happens in the legislative process, it is not a perfect document but certainly when we compare this bill with that which originally passed the House of Representatives, there are many significant improvements, one of which is in the area of the child tax credit, a debate that occurred that was truly amazing to many, that those who were earning $25,000 a year and also working were not to be entitled to a tax credit; amazing that the debate occurred, but it has been resolved in a very favorable way which pleases 50 percent of the constituents of the 17th District of Texas who find themselves in that income category. In the area of the capital gains tax cut, one thing that was recognized that I think will prove to be hopefully a goal for the future is to recognize longer held investments should be entitled to capital gains reductions, not necessarily the short term that provides for speculation and quarterly report syndrome. The estate tax relief, something that we advocated, the Blue Dogs and others, glad to see now a $1.3 million estate tax relief for family held businesses, as my colleague from Iowa a moment ago so eloquently put. Also when we look at the backloading, something that was very concerning to those of us who are called deficit hawks, the concern of the original House bill with indexation of capital gains, with backend loading of IRA's, has been satisfactorily dealt with in a compromise way, so much of our concerns there have been eliminated. Some other very positive features. Moving to 100 percent deduction of health insurance for self-employed, something that will be of tremendous importance in our continued quest for a fair health system for this country. Income averaging for farmers. Glad to see that is in because that is something so important. And also the Hulshof-Stenholm bill providing preferential tax treatment for farmer cooperatives that purchase processing facilities, something that is a very good sign for the future of agriculture.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this budget agreement. The very first year I ran for Congress, I talked about the need to abolish our Federal deficits. Putting our Nation's fiscal house in order has been my highest priority throughout my career. At long last, it appears we are going to accomplish that goal. The efforts of President Clinton and Congress have resulted in 5 consecutive years of declining deficits and the lowest deficit this year since the Carter administration. The agreement builds on this tremendous achievement and continues this glidepath to a balanced budget. While I will personally wait until the budget is balanced, in fact, instead of projections before I pop the champagne cork, this is a tremendous step for the future of our country. Two years ago, those of us in the coalition set out to prove it is possible to balance the budget while protecting education, health care and other important priorities. This agreement is a vindication of that effort. This reconciliation bill reflects the influence of Blue Dog budgets in many areas. The savings levels and the policies for Medicare and Medicaid and other programs are quite close to the savings levels and policies proposed in our budget that have bipartisan support. There are many important features of this reconciliation bill in addition to the promise of a balanced budget. The changes to payments to health care plans in underserved areas and the provisions allowing health care providers to form provider sponsored organizations will expand access to health care for seniors, particularly in rural areas. The formula for DSH payments to States is improved substantially over the bill originally passed by the House. The education and children's health initiatives are important investments in our future. The funding for local programs to move welfare recipients to work will help make welfare reform a success. Although the budget enforcement provisions fall far short of what I believe is necessary, there are some important improvements in the area of budget enforcement that closes some of the loopholes in the current budget process. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this agreement.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that if there is a greater supporter of the WIC Program in this body than Charlie Stenholm, I do not know who it might be. I am a great supporter of WIC. It does wonderful things for people that need wonderful things done for them. This bill, as presented to us, increases by $118 million the amount of dollars in the WIC Program. If it will take more, I will be glad to join with my colleagues in supporting more. But let me remind all of us, we are dealing with tight budgets. That means we have got to scrutinize all programs, including the good ones, if we are going to do our job. In regard to crop insurance, I am a great supporter of crop insurance. We have some terrific problems, and time will not permit me to talk about some of the frustrations I have with the crop insurance program today. But this is not the time and the place to revise and reform the crop insurance program. That belongs in the authorizing committee, and we are going to do that. Let me remind everyone in regard to agents, right now we are racheting down the reimbursement rate for crop insurance agents from 31 percent to 29 percent. We are scheduled to go to 28 percent in 1997. This bill takes it to 27 percent 1 year earlier. Therefore, all of the rhetoric about where this is going and how it is going to do, let me say to my colleagues, this is not the place to make arbitrary judgments regarding the crop insurance plan for some alleged wrongdoing. Stick with the committee bill, defeat the Obey amendment. We are all going to be supportive of WIC. We all are going to be supportive of crop insurance reform, but let the authorizing committee do its work, which I will publicly admit we have not done as yet, and that is a black mark on us, not the appropriators.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, quickly, fact: The sugar program has not cost the U.S. Treasury 1 cent since 1985. Fact: We will reduce the deficit by $288 million over the life of the farm bill that some said was not reformed. Now I want to talk about M&M candy. I like M&M candy. They include sugar in M&M candy. They also have less than 1 percent corn starch in M&M candy. This reference that the consumer is going to pay a billion dollars more is laughable. There is 25 grams of sugar in this package. The market price is 22 cents. That makes 1.23 cents worth of sugar in this candy. If we lowered it to the world prices, as the authors of this amendment want us to do, it will lower it to 8 cents a pound. That will make 0.78 cents per pound worth of sugar in this candy. We can buy this in the Capitol from the vending machines for 55 cents. Do we believe for a moment that there will be a new price at 54.217 cents on that vending machine if we pass this amendment? Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Chabot amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have stood before you many times over the years to praise the achievements of America's farmers and ranchers. And, up until now, I have been somewhat restrained, which is not always easy for a Texan. In past years I have told you that agriculture was the No. 2 contributor to U.S. trade, behind the aerospace industry--not bad when you consider that airplanes are priced in the millions, and wheat is a few dollars a bushel. Well, agriculture is no longer No. 2. This year, agriculture is the No. 1 contributor the positive side of our trade balance. Believe me, I am from Texas, and I know big. And our exports of agricultural products in the past year have been big--$60 billion. Critics claim that the Market Access Program, or MAP, has been ineffective--that it has not played an important role in the success story of American agriculture. But the experts at the Foreign Agricultural Service disagree. In a detailed 1995 report, they concluded that export promotion activities under MAP and its predecessor programs have been the leading factor in the 200 percent increase in U.S. high-value consumer food exports since 1986. The University of Arizona's National Food and Agricultural Policy Project agrees. The project analyzed export values, quantities and prices; measures of foreign income, prices, populations, and exchange rates; and export promotion expenditures by commodity, country and year. They concluded that not only does each promotion dollar return multiple dollars to the commodity being promoted, there is also a halo effect. This halo effect refers to the contribution that promotion of one product contributes to sales of other U.S. products. The Arizona project concludes that MAP ultimately serves as a ``Buy USA'' campaign, with broader application than the products it specifically promotes. Cornell University's National Institute for Commodity Promotion Research & Evaluation has extensively studied the effectiveness of agricultural promotion programs. The institute concluded that export promotion programs are highly effective in increasing private sector investment in export promotion, and that USDA's programs have stimulated promotion expenditures in both the domestic and the export market. Why have U.S. agricultural exports doubled in the last 10 years? Because American agriculture, long recognized as the most productive in the world, have increased their focus on world markets. They are producing more sophisticated products that cater to the tastes of foreign consumers. And, thanks to MAP, they are marketing those products more effectively. Last year we voted to phase out subsidies over a period of 7 years. Farmers and ranchers lost their safety net, and were told to look to foreign markets to make up the difference. MAP was an integral part of last year's farm bill. How important is the program to those farmers who lost the safety net? The Foreign Agricultural Service concluded that in 1992, export promotion boosted net farm income by $642 million. By the year 2000, the level of net farm income supported by the Market Access Program is expected to exceed $1 billion. That translates into 124,000 jobs, including 80,000 nonfarm jobs, in trade, transportation, services, food processing, and manufacturing. Not only does MAP create jobs for farmers and nonfarmers alike, it also contributes to the U.S. Treasury. By the year 2000, annual tax receipts to the Treasury from economic activity generated by the program are expected to reach $250 million. Our competitors continue to outspend us in every area of agricultural export promotion--from direct subsidies to market promotion. The EU spends about $10 billion annually on subsidies and $500 million on market promotion. USDA research indicates doubling the MAP program level would support 40,000 additional U.S. jobs by the year 2000. In the competitive world in which we live, we shouldn't be here today talking about eliminating a program that gives us a fighting chance in export markets. We should be here talking about what else we need to do to build markets we can depend on to stay competitive in the years to come.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, in regard to whether or not what we did last year had any effect on farmers, I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the Stevenville Production Credit Association that stated if we did the 10-percent reduction last year in the support we would lose 36.1 percent of our farmers. We lost 34.42. Also when we talk about prices to consumers, is it not interesting that in Mexico and in Canada, they pay $2.55 in Mexico, $2.72 for an 18 ounce equivalent jar of peanut butter. In the United States, our consumers get at $2.10. Yet our consumers pay this outlandish price to producers for peanuts. Let us talk about the M&Ms again. When we start talking about the consumer, there are 25 grams of peanuts in this. The price support is 30.1 cents per pound. That is 1\2/3\ cents cost in this peanut. If you reduce it by 10 cents, you are correct. Those who have argued the consumer will benefit, the cost will go down by .168 percent. That would reduce this price in the vending machine in this Capitol building to 54.832 cents. I will introduce legislation to mint a 54.832 cent coin to make sure that the consumer gets the benefit of the gentleman's amendment. Vote no on the amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate, I am reminded of the wisdom of Will Rogers when he observed, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much. It's them knowing so much that ain't so which is the problem.'' This bill does not cut Social Security, does not cut veterans' benefits, does not raise taxes, does not put the Government on autopilot. It takes us off autopilot. It simply requires the Congress to act if we do not meet our promise to the people of 2002. Last fall, many of us ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility. They made countless speeches about balancing the budget, and that plank helped in their election to the House. In March, after voting for the successful balanced budget constitutional amendment, they sent out the press release claiming their portion of that success. In May, my colleagues joined in the press conference hailing the balanced budget agreement between the President and Congress, and they endorsed the plan by voting for the House-passed reconciliation bills in June. In every townhall meeting this year, my colleagues have insisted to skeptical constituents that, at long last, Congress can be trusted to balance the budget. Just like the national polls say, about four out of every five of their constituents say they do not think the Government can really do that. But my colleagues reassure them, after years of broken promises, this time we really are going to balance the Federal budget and keep it balanced. That scenario really does not require much imagination, does it? For the vast majority of this body, it is our story. Now imagine this: It is the first week of August and you are addressing the first of two dozen townhall meetings that you will face over the next month. The first person up to the microphone, the one your opponent always plants in these meetings, asks, ``Congressman, how are you going to keep your promises to us? How did you vote on that bill which makes sure we really get a balanced budget, the one that enforces the spending and revenue targets laid out in the budget?'' I do not know about my colleagues, but there is only one answer I can imagine giving to that question: Seal that answer today. Vote ``yes'' on the bipartisan enforcement bill. Take us off autopilot. And force the Congress to act if we do not do that which we say we are doing.

Mr. STENHOLM. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Boyd]. (Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor in opposition to a rule that is a tremendous disappointment to those of us who are serious about budget enforcement. This rule does not provide the type of debate that an issue of this importance deserves. We want the legislative process to work to produce the best possible bill. This rule does not let the legislative process work. We wanted the committee process to work. We were greatly disappointed when the committees of jurisdiction failed to consider this bill. It is disingenuous for committees to now criticize the process that has brought this bill to the floor and argue that the committee process has been thwarted because they chose not to consider the bill. We have listened to the criticisms that have been raised by the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget and Members on both sides of the bill, both sides of the aisle, as well as the administration, an outside organization. The bill's sponsors have agreed to several technical changes and other improvements to the bill in response to those concerns that were raised. This rule does not allow us to make those improvements. We wanted this bill to be considered under an open rule so that Members who had additional concerns or criticisms could offer constructive improvements to the bill. We wanted Members who have different ideas on budget process reform to have an opportunity to raise those ideas. This rule prevents the House from working its will on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I was very disturbed by the threat from the chairman of the Committee on Rules a moment ago to people like me if we have the audacity to oppose this rule, he might just take this bill down and not in fact consider it. It should not be any surprise, ladies and gentlemen. That is what this House has been doing for the last week. Now we have got a threat of a gag rule on the agricultural appropriation bill later today. Why? Not because the ag appropriation bill is any problem, but because this same committee that has been gagging the House from allowing Members to have their ideas voted in a responsible way have refused to allow that to happen. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] stated a moment ago that if rules like this one continue, the House might find itself disrupted from its regular order of business. I suggest that we are going to have that to happen. It would be extremely unfair for Members to support a rule that prevents us from making improvements to the bill and then criticize this bill for technical improvements, bringing up Social Security as was heard a moment ago. The gentleman who made that knows there is no possible way Social Security is going to be affected by this bill. But he raises that in order to raise the temperature around here. And Congress being taken out of the process? They have not even read the bill. Listen to what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] said a moment ago. Look at the bill before criticizing it. All Members who care about the integrity of the legislative process and believe that we should strive to pass the best possible legislation should vote against this rule.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, the ARS has spent $100,000, roughly, studying the dump and has found it to be a typical dump with a little methane gas and other benign chemicals, and therefore to do what Federal regulations would require the State of Texas, Texas A&M University would be very remiss to spend $3 million cleaning up something that they consider would not be necessary to meet any health reasons. So the State of Texas cannot by law accept a gift of land that contains a garbage dump. So this language striking the provision is required for ARS to reverse the existing statutory language directing the conveyance. That is all simply that the amendment does.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment repeals a provision in Public Law 104-37, the Fiscal Year 1996 Agricultural Rural Development and Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, directing the conveyance of the Pecan Genetics and Improvement Research Laboratory in Brownwood, TX, from the Agricultural Research Service to Texas A&M University. Due to outstanding liability questions, the conveyance of the Brownwood Pecan Station cannot take place at this time. This amendment does not require any additional funds. I have consulted with both the ARS and Texas A&M, and both are amenable to this amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I join in commending the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], the ranking member, for the excellent work that they have done as well as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] the ranking member. Working on the agricultural appropriation bill cannot be fun. We have so many needs and so many limited resources that the pressures are great, but they have done a good job and I rise in strong support of H.R. 2160. I have only one negative remark to say about the work, and that was it has one blemish. The Nethercutt amendment, I think, was unfortunate. It will, as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] mentioned a moment ago, be debated in full tomorrow, and I hope that the full House will join in striking this amendment. It has no place in a bill of the nature of which we are talking about today. But all in all it is a good bill. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has done a great job again in putting together as best we can to meet the needs of the number one industry in the United States. If one eats, he is involved in agriculture. It is something we have heard our colleagues from the urban areas talk about tonight, coming to realize that food production is extremely important to all of us. The authorizing committee does not have very many problems this year with the appropriators, and that in itself is saying quite a bit here today. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the debate tomorrow and helping to defeat many of the amendments that some of our colleagues will be offering which they have every right to do, but I think we have to keep together the basic structure of agriculture as intended under the farm bill and with the intent of the appropriators and the work that they have done. I look forward to supporting them in that endeavor. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2160 is an important bill which funds the operations of the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the many functions of those agencies. The Department of Agriculture is an important partner to our nation's farmers and ranchers, and with this bill Mr. Skeen, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Obey, and the other Members of the Appropriations Committee have recommended a bill that carefully balances program priorities. Mr. Chairman, agriculture is our Nation's most basic industry. Every day, slightly over 2 million farmers are laboring to produce food to feed a nation of 265 million people and much of the world. In 1996, our nation exported $60 billion worth of agricultural products and our trade balance in agricultural products was a positive $25 billion. The House considers this bill today under a backdrop of both uncertainty and opportunity over the prospects for the business of agriculture. Milk prices are at 5-year lows, wheat prices have fallen by more than half since a little more than a year ago, and corn prices are not much better. At the same time, government financial support for agriculture is declining under the 1996 farm bill and the income certainty which once came with government programs for major crops no longer exists. Adjustments to these changes in conditions are occurring at a rapid pace as farm numbers shrink and concentration in agriculture grows. Mr. Chairman, the economic upheavals that pose such a serious challenge to our farm families are closely paralleled by general conditions in the rural economy. As farming resources become concentrated into fewer hands, we also see a comparable trend in the rural industries closely associated with farming and rural life. Farm product processing facilities, rural retailers, and providers of financial services have become fewer and larger. In many instances, those towns which traditionally served as trade centers are being bypassed. The subsequent challenges to the leaders of those communities are truly profound. Our Nation's important focus on the quality of our natural environment is one that is shared by our nation's farmers. The 1996 farm bill made important changes in programs meant to assist farmers and coordinate efforts to promote environmental health. Our policies work best when priorities set in Washington are closely coordinated with the natural interest the farmer and rancher have in promoting the health and productivity of the soil and the safety of our food supply. Mr. Chairman, these trends in farm and rural economies pose significant challenges to the rural communities of our Nation and to those of us who serve them. H.R. 2160 will provide the Agriculture Department with the resources it needs to address the challenges facing rural America. Under the bill, funding is provided for cooperative efforts in agricultural research--the key to sustained economic viability for agriculture. It provides funding for the administration of the basic farm programs established under the farm bill. It provides funding for the delivery of federal crop insurance. It provides funds for the conservation programs which are an increasingly important focus of the mission of USDA. The bill also funds important programs that will help rural communities address the substantial economic challenges they face. I am concerned about the impact the funding level provided will have on Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] as well as the restrictions that the bill places on the amount of funds that can be transferred for technical assistance work. According to the Department of Agriculture, the impact of the level of funding that was provided for NRCS salaries and expenses in the committee-passed bill would result in cutting NRCS employment by 500 staff years--over and above the personnel reductions that will occur from the absorption of projected pay increases, inflation, and retirement costs that this bill requires of all agencies within the Department. It is my understanding the Senate's Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee recommends a higher level of funding for conservation operations than H.R. 2160. It is my hope the conference agreement will yield a level sufficient to ensure that NRCS is able to carry out vital mandated conservation activities. With regard to the NRCS funding situation, Committee on Agriculture needs to deal with what I believe was an unintended consequence of language included in the 1996 farm bill. Section 161 of that bill to the extent it imposes a limitation on transfers for activities under the Commodity Credit Corporation Charger Act proven to have detrimental effects on the ability to provide adequate reimbursement for NRCS activities such as the agency's role in the Conservation Reserve Program sign-ups. Mr. Chairman, I raise these issues because I am concerned about the fact that in terms of real dollars we are spending less today on conservation activities on private land than we did back in 1937. In constant dollars, we invested 6 percent of the 1937 Federal budget for USDA conservation programs. Spending on USDA conservation programs in 1996 was 0.17 percent. By contrast, the appropriation for the Farm Services Agency [FSA] salaries and expenses represents a level of funding sufficient to run the Agency at the Administration's proposed 1998 level of staffing. The FSA work force has been reduced by more than 500 staff years in fiscal year 1997 since the President's budget was submitted. This reduction in personnel, along with lower nonsalary budget needs, means that FSA requires $44 million less funding in 1998 than the administration's February request, and will mean staffyears can be reduced by 1,000 instead of the 2,000 staffyear reduction included in the President's budget. Mr. Chairman, I have a very real concern about language that was included in the Committee report regarding NRCS's implementation of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP], specifically the allocation formula that was used to determine each State's share of EQIP funds. The report indicates that EQIP funds were distributed based on historical allocations for programs which are no longer authorized. However, section 334 of the 1996 farm bill states that the purposes of EQIP are to ``combine into a single program the functions'' of the agricultural conservation program, the Great Plains conservation program, the water quality incentives program and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. While these individual programs are no longer authorized, the intent of the Agriculture Committee and the conferees was very clear in last year's farm bill, in that this new program was intended to carry out the same types of practices as the repealed programs. The Department is expected to do this in a way that maximizes the environmental benefits per dollar expended, as well as take into account regional priority areas and the significance of the environmental problems being addressed. Mr. Chairman, I believe combining the cost-share programs in the farm bill was a bold step which should prove to be beneficial in the long term. However, I am concerned that because of the limited amount of resources available and the great number of pressing needs throughout the country, we may have a situation where some types of activities may no longer be considered important, even though they may have legitimate conservation benefits. Mr. Chairman, we should not tie the administration's hands in terms of the flexibility needed to respond to arising needs. Obviously, if the program does not meet expections, we can legislate changes. However, we should preserve a certain degree of administrative flexibility as well. I believe that some lesser-known conservation programs that have been carried out over the years have yielded this country a great deal of benefit, and I want to ensure that this continues to be the case. In my district, dairy farmers are striving mightily to comply with environmental requirements. We must do all we can to ensure that areas with specific needs have access to the programs and funding needed to meet particular, legitimate conservation and environmental activities. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill overall but it does have one significant blemish. The Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment designed to eliminate the jobs of the Administrator and Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs of the Farm Services Agency. As I understand it, the amendment stemmed from the dissatisfaction of its sponsor with a policy decision related to the Conservation Reserve Program. Frankly, by the trivial approach taken by my colleagues on the committee. This provision is particularly unworthy in light of the important and profound work accomplished by this legislation in so many other areas. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to strike this provision from the bill, and I hope my colleagues will join with me to acknowledge that there are better ways to respond to adverse administrative decisions than to eliminate the jobs of Department officials. Finally, Mr. Chairman, it appears that once again we will use the annual agriculture appropriations process to debate the merits of several farm bill programs. While the House has the ability to address these issues--and did so during debate on the farm bill--through the normal legislative process, we will again rehash these debates today. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues continue to challenge farm programs in spite of the evidence of their success. Ours is the best-fed nation in the world. Our food is delivered to us in return for a lower percentage of disposable income than any other industrial nation in the world. Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, we will hear today the sad story of how our Nation's's family farms are somehow managing to take advantage of the enormous candy-manufacturing conglomerates. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will pay careful attention and will acknowledge the many reforms made to our program in the 1996 farm bill, and stand against these amendments which, if adopted, would greatly diminish the standing of an otherwise excellent piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for the time, and I again wish to commend the Committee on Appropriations and its leadership for the excellent work they have done on this important bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion, but I bring a somewhat different perspective to this debate. I find myself in agreement with much of what has been said by my Republican colleagues about the need to deal with both of these issues. I agree with the substance of both proposals addressed in this motion. A gradual increase in the eligibility age for Medicare must be part of a serious effort to reform entitlement programs to preserve them for future generations. I think most of us recognize that the budget agreement is a very humble first step in dealing with the long-term needs of the major entitlements. Bringing the eligibility age of Medicare in line with Social Security is a fair and reasonable reform that would have a tremendous long-term benefit for the Medicare Program. However, I do agree that it is reasonable for this issue to be considered in the context of overall Medicare reform where we can consider the various ramifications of this change on retirees, employers, the health system, and so forth. With regard to the second provision, I am concerned that a well- intentioned effort to protect welfare recipients will harm the very people that we are trying to protect. Many States have instituted community service and work experience programs as a safety net for welfare recipients who do not have the skills or experience to obtain private sector employment before they lose eligibility for cash assistance. Community service jobs often provide experience for these individuals then to be hired by private employers. If we apply all labor laws to community service programs, many States who sincerely want to help welfare recipients will find it too cumbersome and complex to operate a community service program, leaving welfare recipients with no source of income when they lose eligibility for cash assistance. States that rely on nonprofit organizations to provide community service jobs for welfare recipients will have a hard time continuing these programs because very few nonprofit organizations are willing to accept the legal obligations and liabilities associated with being classified as an employer. I don't believe that any of us want to eliminate this portion of the welfare safety net, but that will be the consequence if we do not take action on this issue. However, I support this motion because I question the ability to adequately deal with these issues within budget reconciliation. These are very controversial and complex issues that should be reviewed and debated on their own merits. I believe that both of these issues would receive strong support in Congress if they were considered separately. As someone who is very interested in taking constructive action on both of these matters, I am concerned that the politically charged context of the budget agreement will prevent a serious discussion of these issues. Allowing these matters to be consumed by the rhetoric in the budget debate will make it much more difficult to make any real progress on either issue. For this reason, I would encourage all Members who want to deal with these issues in a constructive manner instead of allowing them to be exploited for political purposes to vote for this motion.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Health and Economic Stability Act of 1997. I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], for his work on this legislation. This bill would implement a community-based solution to improve the ecological and economic health of three northern California communities. Catastrophic wildfire is a chief threat to the ecological integrity of the forest system. By treating the landscape through a system of strategic fuelbreaks, this plan effectively implements the principles of ecosystem management, thereby providing forest conditions for wildlife, fish, and human beings. In addition, this bill provides interim protection of all roadless areas in the three forests. I would like to applaud the Quincy Library Group for their efforts in developing this plan. Representatives of local environmental groups, labor unions, wood product organizations, and local government officials sat down and hammered out a plan to address the challenges facing their community. I would like to encourage more local communities to work together to find practical solutions to address their problems. I am greatly encouraged to know that folks with such different interests can sit down and reasonably work out a solution based on sound science, bipartisan cooperation, and local expertise even on a sometimes controversial issue like forest management. Finally, H.R. 858 is not exempt from environmental laws. It simply provides for a 5-year pilot project in which the Forest Service retains complete control of its implementation. Let us give this type of community-based bipartisan scientific approach a chance to work. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest Health and Economic Stability Act of 1997.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the committee bill. I do not come to this point lightly because there are many things in this bill that I support. However, this bill has two serious shortcomings that compel me to vote against it. First, this bill is fiscally irresponsible and will ultimately undo the benefit of our work yesterday to balance the budget. Second, this bill does not sufficiently target tax relief to small businesses, farmers, and working men and women. In our current budget environment we cannot approve every worthwhile tax cut, just as we cannot fund every worthwhile spending program. Given this reality, we must set priorities in deciding how to target tax cuts. This bill has its priorities backward. The capital gains reduction does not distinguish between Wall Street speculators and individuals who make investments that create jobs. This bill terribly shortchanges family farmers and small businesses in the area of estate tax relief in order to provide tax breaks that are good but much less critical. The House will have an opportunity, though, to provide meaningful estate tax relief and targeted capital gains reduction by voting for the Blue Dog motion to recommit later today. Finally, I am extremely concerned about the impact that this bill will have on our efforts to balance the budget. The cost of this bill will explode in the next century, sending the deficit back up again. The harm to our economic future that will result from an exploding deficit will overwhelm any benefit that this tax bill will have in the short run. It would be morally irresponsible for this generation to enjoy the benefits of a short-term tax cut and leave our children and grandchildren with increased debt and a weak economy.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Continuing my question as to the point of order, if it is the parliamentary judgment today that this is not in order to be heard as a motion to recommit, under what circumstance could it be possible for us to consider this at a later date?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would say this is a very curious circumstance, but I hope the entire House is listening because this is a very important matter for a lot of us who are supporting this entire budget process. I am very worried to have this amendment as part of the recommittal be held out of order and then have hope that perhaps in the future it will be in order. That bothers me, but I respect the Chair's decision today.

Mr. STENHOLM. So the judgment of the Speaker is that today it is out of order but it might be in order at a later date?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the point of order, I will couple it with a parliamentary inquiry. It was my understanding, since the item in question is the enforcement mechanisms of the budget, what this motion to recommit includes is the entire Minge-Barton amendment that was denied an opportunity to be on the floor under the rule. In the colloquy that occurred this morning, it was my understanding, and at least my friends on the other side of the aisle who acceded to this, that this would eventually be heard in a separate bill on the floor by July 24. In so doing, it would then be coupled, assuming it passes, would be coupled with the reconciliation bill so that the final conference report would include, if the House chooses to include this in the language of the bill, would be voted upon. My question, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, how can it be out of order for us to consider this amendment today when it will be in order to consider it on July 24?