Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this reconciliation bill. This bill takes another important step toward achieving a balanced budget. As one who believes that enactment of a fair and responsible plan to balance the budget by 2002 and beyond is critical to the future of our country, I believe it is extremely important that the House vote today to send this bill to conference and keep the process moving. The efforts of President Clinton and Congress have resulted in 5 consecutive years of declining deficits and the lowest deficit since the Carter administration. The agreement builds on this tremendous achievement, and continues the glidepath to a balanced budget. I am gratified that in numerous instances this reconciliation bill reflects the influence of Blue Dog budgets. The savings levels and the policies for Medicare and Medicaid and other programs are quite close to the savings levels and policies we predicted would comprise a reasonable compromise. Anyone who has ever tried to lead knows there are a dozen attacks on why a plan is bad for every one suggestion of how it might be improved. I remain solidly in the camp of those who will work for a constructive compromise. In that vein, I congratulate the President and his staff, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], and all of their staff for their hard labors which have brought us to this point. This has been a good-faith effort to work out the countless policy issues that need to be resolved for the budget agreement to achieve a savings in a fair and equitable manner. I remain concerned about the impact of some of the policies of this reconciliation bill, and particularly I am very concerned about the impact that the policies for achieving the savings in the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Program will have a harmful effect on small rural and inner-city hospitals. However, we need to remember that this bill has a long way to go before it is enacted into law. The administration will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats to work out these remaining problems. My primary concern is the lack of meaningful enforcement, but we will yet have another attempt at making that correction.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, because here we go again. Passage of a reconciliation bill that is projected to balance the budget by the year 2002 does not guarantee the budget will actually be balanced. Americans are tired of Congress and the President making unfulfilled promises about balancing our budget. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] have done, but I am a great believer that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Today is the time for us to deal with enforcement. I was sincerely disappointed that the Committee on Rules chose to report a rule that would not allow the House to consider the Barton-Minge balanced budget agreement. Our only request of the Committee on Rules is that we be given a fair shot to offer our proposal for an up or down vote. Members from the left and right oppose our amendment. Why not let it be considered at the appropriate time, when we have the best chance of getting it done? Whether Members support the balanced budget agreement and the reconciliation bill, which I do, I strongly encourage all Members who are committed to achieving a balanced budget to vote against the rule. If we do not deal with the matter today, it will not be dealt with. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I do so as one who supports the bipartisan budget agreement because this rule prevents consideration of an amendment that would ensure that this budget agreement lives up to all the promises being made by those of us who support the agreement. Joe Barton and David Minge submitted an amendment on behalf of a bipartisan group of more than two dozen members who believe that this budget agreement must include strong budget enforcement procedures to make this a credible balanced budget plan. Unfortunately, this rule does not make the Barton-Minge amendment in order. While passage of a reconciliation bill that is projected to achieve balance by 2002 is a significant accomplishment, I would remind my colleagues that history has taught us that passage of a reconciliation bill that is projected to balance the budget by 2002 does not guarantee that the budget will actually be balanced in 2002. We need only look to the experience of the 1990 budget summit to be reminded how quickly a balanced budget plan can fall off course. Americans are tired of unfulfilled promises about balancing our budget. The Barton-Minge amendment will prevent this budget from repeating the failed promises of past balanced budget plans by putting teeth in the budget agreement. The Barton-Minge enforcement amendment would establish a comprehensive enforcement mechanism that would require Congress and the President to ensure that actual spending and revenues over the next 5 years meet the goals of the budget agreement. It would enforce all portions of the budget--spending and revenues--without exceptions to ensure that everyone has a stake in keeping the budget on a path to balance. Critics who complain about the harmful effects of triggering sequestration or delaying the phase-in of tax cuts are missing the point. The goal of any enforcement mechanism is to establish a hammer with severe consequences to give Congress and the President the incentive to take action immediately when the budget falls off the glidepath to balance to avoid triggering enforcement. The Barton-Minge amendment has bipartisan support because enforcement would be targeted to the portion of the budget that causes a problem. Spending programs that grow faster than this budget assumes would be sequestered; the phase-in of tax cuts would be delayed if revenues are lower than assumed under this budget. Tax cuts will not be affected because spending grows too fast; and spending will not be cut if taxes are below projections. I was sincerely disappointed that the Rules Committee chose to report a rule that would not allow the House to consider the Barton-Minge balanced budget enforcement amendment. Our only request was that we be given a fair shot to offer our proposal for an up or down vote. I understand that many committee chairman oppose this effort to enforce the budget agreement and that Members from the left and right have concerns that our amendment is too strong and would vote against it. I welcome the opportunity to respond to these criticisms and debate the issue on the merits. Unfortunately, this rule prevents us from having that debate. Whether or not you support the budget agreement and the reconciliation bill that the House will consider today, I strongly encourage all Members who are committed to actually achieving a balanced budget to vote against this rule so that the House may consider legislation that makes this balanced budget plan meaningful.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, today we will decide whether to maintain the normal trading relations we have had with China since 1980. This vote is critical to agriculture in the rural areas of our country that have made us the No. 1 exporter of agricultural products in the world. In 1996 alone, we exported over $60 billion in agricultural products. Last year we had a $1.4 billion trade surplus with China in agricultural trade. We sold over $2 billion of agricultural products to China. Ending normal trading relations will jeopardize this trade. As China reaches out to the rest of the world to meet more of its food needs, the last thing we should do is pull out of the market. While we clearly lead the world in agricultural exports today, many of our friends in Europe and Central and South America would relish the opportunity to supply the Chinese market. Agriculture is one of those things we Americans do best. And the jobs that it provides in rural areas are good jobs that are performed with pride by the American farmer and the workers who supply them; and that is why it is so critical that we maintain the markets that we have worked so hard to create. China has opened its markets to live cattle, cherries and apples from Washington and grapes from California. Because we remain engaged in trade with China, we are closer to gaining access for other important commodities. If we vote to end normal trading relations today, China will see us as an unreliable supplier of a very important commodity, the food it needs to feed its people. And finally, if we vote against normal trading relations with China today, we can forget about China's accession to the World Trading Organization. We have only begun to gain marketing access to China's agricultural markets. With accession to the WTO based on a commercially viable package, China's state trading enterprises which control imports of agricultural commodities will fall. In the brief time allotted to me, I cannot address all of the reasons we should continue normalized trade relations with China. There are certainly legitimate concerns about human rights, religious freedom, international cooperation, U.S. jobs, Hong Kong and Taiwan. I believe, however, that progress in all of these areas will best be made, particularly in the area of human rights and religious freedom, by pursuing ever-increasing dialog and constructive engagement rather than reverting to isolationism. The choices are clear. We can do what America does best or we can revert to those things that have been tried and proven to be wrong for America and wrong for those that we perceive to be helping. I ask that we vote to continue normal trading relations. Vote against this resolution before us today.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 54, on which I am proud to be listed as an original cosponsor. This constitutional amendment would empower Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. My support for this amendment is based on my strong belief in the values of liberty, equality, and personal responsibility which Americans have fought to defend. The flag is a unifying symbol which uniquely embodies the values upon which our Nation was founded, grew, and will continue to prosper. As I stand here on the floor of the House of Representatives, I am reminded of the importance of the flag as something which brings us together when many other forces seem to pull us apart. This Chamber has seen debates on the most divisive issue facing our Nation. Much ado has been made of growing partisanship within this body. Yet, no matter what the issue of the day, we in the House of Representatives begin each day with the pledge of allegiance. At that point, we discard all other labels and collectively honor the flag which brings us together as one nation. Not that the flag represents identical things to all of us. To the veteran it may represent the challenges and triumphs of the battlefield. To an immigrant it may represent unimagined opportunity. To a skeptic it ensures the right to disagree while to many others it represents the power of majority rule. Americans live and think and work and worship in many different ways--not always compatibly and not always politely, but always under the same flag. The flag's desecration is an affront to the freedoms, justice, and democracy for which it stands. On a more personal level, the flag's desecration is also an affront to the memory of all Americans who were willing to sacrifice their very lives for free speech, free worship, free association. Some Americans made those sacrifices on foreign and domestic battlefields, some on the Underground Railroad to freedom, some on the western plains and mountains as they struggled to tame a wild land, some in the poverty of inner city challenges. Each and every one of these brave patriots fought for the ideals represented by our flag, and each and every one deserves our respect and gratitude. Protection of our flag is a noble goal which I strongly support. As our Nation prepares to celebrate Flag Day, it is important that each of us find ways in which we can not only protect but also honor this most central of national symbols. Our flag is honored when we love our land, our families, and our rights. Our flag is honored when people speak out about injustice. Our flag is honored when someone risks their own comfort and position to help another. I challenge every man, woman, and child who loves this Nation to find ways to honor the values which our flag embodies and I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 54.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference resolution. I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the ranking member, for the work they have put into this resolution in setting the numbers into order for bringing about a balanced budget in 2002. That is something that certainly I and most Members of this body, both sides of the aisle, have agreed to in principle. Two concerns I express today, and it has been gratifying to me to hear from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] as well as from the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] the importance of enforcing these numbers. It is one thing today to pass this beginning, and that is the budget agreement that we have today. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, though, and that is whether or not we actually make it to those numbers, and only by enforcing not only discretionary spending levels, but also entitlement spending levels and the tax cut levels, because if we cut more taxes than we have agreed to in this, the deficit will go up and we will not achieve that which we have said we intend to do today. So I am very glad to hear the spirit in which both sides of the aisle, at least on the budget committees, have agreed that we will see to it that each bill, the tax bill and the other enforcement bills, will stand to the test of whether or not they meet these numbers so that we can all celebrate in 2002 by actually getting to that promised land of a balanced budget. Again, I close by saying I commend the chairman for his work in this endeavor, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], other Members who have been responsible for getting us to this point. I look forward to rolling up my sleeves now through a long hot summer and seeing that we actually do that which we say we are doing today.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, many Members have called this a historic day. I slightly disagree. Today has the potential to be a historic day but only if we are willing to do much more heavy lifting than we have been willing to do thus far. I am disappointed that the agreement missed the opportunity to make real reforms in long-term costs of entitlements. The failure of this budget to deal with the long-term problems with the growth of entitlement spending guarantees that this budget agreement will not end our budget problems. Sooner or later, we will have to come back and deal with entitlements. The gentleman from New Jersey was exactly right. Nothing in this budget agreement that I will support tonight deals with the CPI. That is a mistake. That is a weakness, not a strength. It is irresponsible for us to continue to place an unnecessary drain on the Social Security system by providing COLA's that virtually everyone acknowledges are inaccurate. A small adjustment to provide accurate COLA's would be a major step in strengthening the Social Security system. A 0.8-percent adjustment would extend the trust fund by 13 years and allow us to take it off budget honestly by 2005. I am disappointed that symbolic political arguments succeeded in blocking an agreement in the provision from the Coalition budget to require upper-income Medicare beneficiaries to contribute more for their Medicare coverage. Reaching an agreement to balance the budget by 2002 does not guarantee that the budget will actually be balanced in 2002. The 1981 budget projected balance by 1984. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings I promised a balanced budget by 1991. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II promised a balanced budget by 1993. The 1990 budget agreement projected a balanced budget by 2002. Only the 1993 balanced budget agreement met and exceeded the promises on this floor. All six of these plans, though, failed to reach the promised land of a balanced budget because we did not follow through to make sure the plan succeeded, and today the Coalition was denied the opportunity to even vote for a meaningful enforcement mechanism for this budget. In order to avoid a repeat of the failures of past budget agreements, legislation implementing this resolution must include a strong enforcement mechanism to force Congress and the President to take action if the budget falls off of the path. The Coalition budget proposed strong budget enforcement to lock in the deficit reduction through hard deficit targets enforced by sequestration. If the deficit fell off the glidepath toward balance and exceeded the deficit target for any year, Congress and the President would be required to take action to put the deficit back on the glidepath toward balance. If Congress and the President failed to take corrective action, there would be sequestration targeted to the part of the budget that caused the problem. The enforcement provisions that we have proposed to avoid the problems in past enforcement efforts were denied an opportunity to be voted on today. Two lessons from Gramm-Rudman-Hollings: One, exempting any area of the budget from enforcement will encourage certain groups to sit on the sidelines while balanced budget plans unravel. It is critical that an enforcement mechanism include all portions of the budget, spending and revenues, without exception, to ensure that everyone has a stake in keeping the deficit on a declining path. Enforcement cannot be a substitute, though, for making tough choices. Our proposal is designed to complement the reforms that are in this plan to make sure they achieve the savings they were intended to achieve. The 1990 agreement demonstrated that enforcement provisions can control new spending in taxes, but failed because it did not control existing programs or taxes. An enforcement mechanism must require Congress to control existing programs and taxes. Our proposal would set targets for the total deficit, all spending and all revenues. This resolution is simply the beginning of the process. The real test will come with reconciliation and appropriation bills implementing this resolution. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the administration, and others in improving this blueprint or plan or laying of the foundation tonight. I would like to see us improve the glidepath. I do not like to see the deficit going up temporarily for any reason. I think we should build on the success of the last 5 years, 5 consecutive years of a declining deficit. We should have built on that to, say, 6, 7 and 8. Instead, currently this plan suggests that the deficit go back up again for 2 or 3 years to get a running start on getting it balanced by 2002. I will support this resolution today to keep the process moving forward. However, I will find it extremely difficult to support reconciliation legislation that does not improve the credibility of this budget. This budget agreement--and I believe that many of my colleagues who share my concern for serious deficit reduction share this concern; but for tonight, this is the best we could do in a bipartisan way, working with a divided House, a divided Senate, and a divided Congress, and administration. I encourage my colleagues to support it but look forward to improving it as we build on this foundation.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I rise in support of the amendment and would say one of the key features of the welfare reform legislation that we passed last year was the principle that States should be allowed to try innovative approaches to improve the welfare system. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the administration to approve the waiver allowing Texas to explore the possibility of contracting out part of the welfare eligibility system. The Texas integrated enrollment system would allow private vendors to compete with a public agency for a contract to develop and operate an integrated enrollment system. The Texas legislature determined that a private contractor working in partnership with the public agency might be able to make the transition to an integrated process more efficiently than the current structure and achieve savings that could be used to assist needy individuals more directly. I do not know if that assumption is correct or not. Some of my colleagues have raised valid concerns about the impact that privatization would have on the welfare system. But we are not debating whether or not privatization is a good idea. All we are debating or at least all we should be debating is whether Texas should be allowed to explore the options of allowing private contractors to administer a part of the welfare system. It is not possible for anyone to know what impact privatization will have until the bids are submitted. I would say to those who oppose privatization as well as those who support it, let us wait and see what proposals are made for privatization before we jump to a conclusion either way. I regret this issue has become so politicized. I would urge all parties involved to cool our rhetoric and try to work together to find a way to allow Texas to explore this option while providing safeguards against the concerns we all share. I know Governor Bush and Commissioner McKinney are committed to finding a constructive solution and believe that the administration is willing to work with them as well. I hope they will continue their dialogue to find a solution that will allow Texas to move forward with this proposal. One of the key features of the welfare reform legislation that we passed last year was the principle that States should be allowed to try innovative approaches to improve the welfare system. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the administration to approve the waiver allowing Texas to explore the possibility of contracting out part of the welfare eligibility system. The Texas integrated enrollment system would allow private vendors to compete with public agencies for a contract to develop and operate an integrated enrollment system. The Texas Legislature determined that a private contractor, working in partnership with a public agency, might be able to make the transition to an integrated process more efficiently than the current structure and achieve savings that could be used to assist needy individuals more directly. I don't know if that assumption is correct. Some of my colleagues have raised valid concerns about the impact that privatization could have on the welfare system. But we are not debating whether or not privatization is a good idea. All we are debating--or at least all we should be debating--is whether Texas should be allowed to explore the options of allowing private contractors to administer a part of the welfare system. It is not possible for anyone to know what impact privatization will have until the bids are submitted. I would say to those who oppose privatization as well as those who support privatization: Let's wait and see what proposals are made for privatization before we jump to a conclusion either way. Injecting some competition into this process may produce a welfare system that is better for welfare recipients and taxpayers. I would hope that those who oppose privatization will put their energy into improving the current system instead of trying to prevent any competition. Approving the Texas waiver request does not necessarily mean that Texas will privatize any part of the welfare system. The Federal Government still must approve any contract with a private company before any privatization can become final. We should wait until we see the proposals from private companies before we decide whether or not privatization makes sense. We can't honestly debate the merits of privatization until we know the facts about what privatization will mean. If the bids by private contractors don't adequately address the concerns that have been raised about the impact that privatization will have on individuals applying for assistance and on the current employees, or if the public sector can demonstrate that they can administer welfare programs more efficiently and effectively than any of the private contractors, I will be the first to argue that we shouldn't go forward with privatization. I regret that this issue has become so politicized. I would urge all parties involved to cool our rhetoric and try to work together to find a way to allow Texas to explore this option while providing safeguards against the concerns we all share. I know Governor Bush and Commissioner McKinney are committed to finding a constructive solution, and believe that the administration is willing to work with them as well. I hope that they will continue their dialog to find a solution that will allow Texas to move forward with this proposal.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this has been a good debate and a true competition of ideas. Today I find myself in the past agreeing quite often with the chairman from Florida, but today I respectfully differ with the bill that he brings to the floor and enthusiastically support the substitute. When I first became involved in the issue of juvenile justice, I contacted judges, police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, educators and other folks in my district who deal with this problem on a daily basis to ask for their input. The input I received was very useful to me in helping my colleagues craft this substitute. The folks in my district told me that we do need to get tough with juvenile offenders from the first offense, but we also need to focus on prevention efforts to deal with at risk kids before serious problems occurred. They told me that in order to truly address the problems of juvenile crime we need to focus on parents as well as kids. Most importantly, local officials that deal with juvenile crime in my district ask that they be able to develop the programs in their own communities without mandates in micro-management from the Federal or the State government. The substitute will provide funding and technical assistance directly to local communities. Local educators who contacted my office warned me that we will never stop the cycle of juvenile delinquency without dealing with the problems of the family unit. The substitute give priorities to programs that focus on strengthening the family. The substitute will provide States with additional funds to establish detention centers for juvenile offenders that provide discipline, education, and training. The substitute allows States, and this is the fundamental difference, the substitute allows States to use these funds for punishment programs that are already working in their States. By contrast, H.R. 3 requires that States comply with several Federal mandates in order to receive any Federal assistance. My State of Texas would be required to rewrite the juvenile justice legislation that Governor Bush passed with bipartisan support in the last session of the Texas Legislature in order to receive additional funds. Texas has a successful program of determinant sentencing. I do not know where we get the idea that Congress knows how to deal best with juvenile crime, better than State and local officials. If my colleagues agree with me, I ask my colleagues to support the substitute.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, no one is proposing that Congress change the methodology of calculating CPI. Everyone agrees that only BLS should change the methodology for determining CPI, and anyone who suggests that the blue dog budget or any other budget proposal would change the methodology for determining CPI is distorting the issue for political purposes. What the blue dog budget proposes is that BLS be given the resources and the authority to make whatever changes necessary to improve the accuracy of the CPI, change how CPI is used to index Government programs to the cost of living while BLS improves CPI. I think it is important to remind all of us today that numerous experts, including BLS, have warned Congress about the limitations of using CPI to make cost-of-living adjustments. The Consumer Price Index was never intended to be used to make cost-of-living adjustments. Congress decided to use CPI as an approximation of increases in cost of living to index Government programs. In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, BLS Commissioner Katharine Abraham stated, ``Although I believe that we can make important improvements in the CPI, I do not believe it is possible to produce a perfect cost-of-living measure.'' That means that those who use the data we are able to produce should recognize the limitations of those data and exercise judgment accordingly concerning whether and how the data should be used. Adjusting the use of CPI to index Government programs is not a political fix or a budgetary gimmick. Although there is no consensus on what changes should be made to the calculation of the CPI, there is broad agreement that continuing to adjust programs based on CPI provides increases greater than the cost of living. The blue dog budget proposes that we are adjusting the use of CPI or indexation to ensure that the cost-of-living adjustments for Government programs are accurate. We cannot justify continuing a mistake that numerous experts have told us results in incorrect cost-of-living adjustments. Continuing to use CPI to index Government programs to inflation is an unnecessary drain on the Federal budget and the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: Why a Legislated Change in the Use of CPI is Necessary Legislation reducing indexation based on CPI as an interim step will allow BLS to make corrections in CPI without facing the political pressure for a quick change in the calculations CPI in order to achieve savings. It will take BLS several years to conduct the necessary research and experimentation to address the complex issues that result in the CPI overstating inflation. Congress should not pressure BLS to make changes in the calculation of CPI before the experts are able to do so properly. BLS Commissioner Katharine Abraham underscored this point in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee: ``If the BLS staff or other technical experts knew how to produce a true cost of living index on a monthly production schedule, that would be what we produce. . . . However, I believe we would gain little, and possibly do much damage to the credibility of our statistical system, if we were to move hastily to adopt untested techniques for producing offsets to the official CPI.'' Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan concurred with the assessment of BLS about the difficulty of correcting CPI, stating in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee that ``Even if BLS moves aggressively, some upward bias will almost surely remain in the CPI, at least for the next several years.'' Simply directing BLS to correct the CPI quickly in order to meet budgetary needs ignores the very real difficulties that experts have identified that BLS must overcome in order to correct the problem. A budget that assumes substantial savings from a technical adjustment to CPI will fall short of achieving balance if BLS is unable to act quickly enough to meet budgetary timetables. The federal government cannot afford to add billions to the national debt through higher spending and lost revenues because of the bias in the CPI that has been identified in over a dozen studies. The federal government loses billions of dollars every year that government programs are overindexed for inflation. Since the impact of indexation is cumulative over time, even a short delay results in significant lost savings. Delaying the implementation of a CPI adjustment by one year reduces the savings by nearly one third. An adjustment of 0.4% implemented in 1999 would save $15.5 billion less than the same adjustment enacted in 1998. Although there is no consensus on what technical changes should be made to the calculation of the CPI, there is broad agreement that continuing to adjust programs based on CPI provides increases greater than the cost of living. Alan Greenspan advised Congress that ``If we cannot find a precise estimate for a certain bias, we should not implicitly choose zero as though that was a more scientifically supportable estimate . . . assuming zero for the remaining bias is the political fix.'' A legislated change to indexation will compensate for the overstatement in CPI that economists have identified in the CPI that cannot be corrected through technical changes. Many economists have warned that BLS may never fully eliminate the bias in the CPI. Some of the problems that cause the bias have no obvious solution. Other sources of bias are the result of ongoing problems resulting from changes in the economy that can never be fully corrected. After examining the ability of BLS to correct CPI, economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland concluded that a legislated adjustment is necessary for this reason. ``From a statistical perspective, there is no obvious way to `fix' the CPI. . . . Because the CPI is not likely to be fixed soon, and because it probably contains an upward bias, the most practical course may be merely to adjust the cost-of-living estimate by some amount.'' Even BLS has suggested that Congress consider adjusting how CPI is used to index government programs. In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, BLS Commissioner Katherine Abraham state that ``Although I believe that we can make important improvements in the CPI, I do not believe it to be possible to produce a perfect cost-of-living measure. This means that those who use the data we are able to produce should recognize the limitations of those data and exercise judgement accordingly concerning whether and how the data should be used.''

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1342. Mr. Speaker, it has become apparent from meeting with farmers and discussing the situation with the chairman, that farmers in winter wheat States who have expiring Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] contracts will probably not have adequate time to react should those contracts not be reenrolled in the CRP. In other words, these particular producers will not be able to prepare the ground and begin to summer fallow their acreage in time to ensure adequate moisture for fall planting. I am supporting the chairman's efforts to help these producers who were caught in a timing crunch through no fault of their own. I would have preferred that we would have completed the farm bill in a reasonable time so that we wouldn't be in this position today. We have a large number of acres expiring in 1 year because a great deal of them received a 1-year extension due to the fact that the farm bill was not completed in 1995. Now the USDA is under tremendous pressure to make quick decisions on how many acres of the nearly 26 million bid into the program should be accepted. There seems to be some question of fact as to how much time these farmers need to prepare their land. In addition, USDA has several concerns in regard to how this bill will affect the 15th sign-up. In any event, if USDA maintains its schedule to announce the results of the 15th sign-up, then this bill will become moot. I look forward to working with the Department to ensure the integrity of the new CRP remains intact. That is why I am supporting the chairman's legislation. This is a small fix for a major problem for a specific group of producers. We also give some flexibility to producers such as those in Mr. Peterson's district who are going to have very limited options should there be remaining effects from this spring's flooding or a repeat during planting season next year. By allowing landowners who were not eligible to rebid existing contracts or whose bids to reenroll were not accepted to early out of their contracts, we are giving them maximum flexibility to ensure they will be prepared for planting in the spring of 1998. Again, I rise in support of the chairman's legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1342. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. The welfare reform legislation enacted last year was a major step in the right direction of improving the welfare system, but all of us who supported this bill knew that it wasn't perfect and that we needed to continue to strengthen this bill. I want to commend Chairman Shaw for his sincere commitment to doing the hard work necessary to make sure welfare reform legislation works the way that we intended. One of the key features of the welfare reform bill was the principle that States should be allowed to try innovative approaches to improve the welfare system. In that vein, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the administration to approve the waiver allowing Texas to proceed with soliciting bids for the Texas Integrated Enrollment System. The Texas Integrated Enrollment System would allow private vendors to compete with public agencies for a contract to develop and operate an integrated enrollment system. The Texas Legislature determined that a private contractor, working in partnership with a public agency, might be able to make the transition to a integrated process more efficiently than the current structure and achieve savings that could be used to assist needy individuals more directly. I don't know if that assumption is correct. Some of my colleagues have raised valid concerns about the impact that privatization would have on the welfare system. I have some reservations myself about whether privatizing the welfare eligibility system makes sense. But we are not debating whether or not privatization is a good idea. All we are debating--or at least all we should be debating--is whether Texas should be allowed to explore the options of allowing private contractors to administer a part of the welfare system. It is not possible for anyone to know what impact privatization will have until the bids are submitted. I would say to those who oppose privatization as well as those who support privatization: Let's wait and see what proposals are made for privatization before we jump to a conclusion either way. Injecting some competition into this process will produce a welfare system that is better for welfare recipients and taxpayers. I would hope that those who oppose privatization will put their energy into improving the current system instead of trying to prevent any competition. Approving the Texas waiver request does not necessarily mean that Texas will privatize any part of the welfare system. The Federal Government still must approve any contract with a private company before any privatization can become final. We should wait until we see the proposals from private companies before we decide whether or not privatization makes sense. We can't honestly debate the merits of privatization until we know the facts about what privatization will mean. If the bids by private contractors don't adequately address the concerns that have been raised about the impact that privatization will have on individuals applying for assistance and on the current employees, or if the public sector can demonstrate that they can administer welfare programs more efficiently and effectively than any of the private contractors, I will be the first to argue that we shouldn't go forward with privatization. I regret that this issue has become so politicized. I would urge all parties involved to cool our rhetoric and try to work together to find a way to allow Texas to explore this option while providing safeguards against the concerns we all share. I know Governor Bush and Commissioner McKinney are committed to finding a constructive solution, and believe that the administration is willing to work with them as well. I hope that they will continue their dialog to find a solution that will allow Texas to move forward with this proposal.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 111, as amended, which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to convey for fair market value a parcel of unused agricultural land in Dos Palos, CA, to the Dos Palos Ag Boosters for use as a farm school for local high school and middle school students. Passage of this bill will achieve a couple of worthy goals: First, it will ensure that this land remains in agricultural use; second, it will educate and train students and beginning farmers by giving them the hands-on experience necessary to succeed. The students and beginning farmers will learn firsthand about irrigation and conservation methods, integrated pest management, agricultural marketing and administration. This bill will help these students learn to appreciate the hard work that goes into producing our Nation's food supply and may get a few of them off to a good start as farmers. I would note that this bill is virtually identical to legislation that passed the House last Congress. The minor and technical changes that we incorporate in the bill today are changes requested by the administration. The administration in a prior statement of administrative policy indicated that they supported the objectives of H.R. 111 but would seek perfecting amendments in the Senate. In the interests of expediting consideration of H.R. 111 in the other body in order to get it to the President's desk as soon as possible, we have included in the administration's minor technical changes in the version of H.R. 111 we are considering today. With these changes the administration strongly supports H.R. 111. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, food stamp rules make quite clear that residents of most institutions are not eligible to participate in the Food Stamp Program. Yet, according to GAO, thousands of prisoners are being counted as members of food stamp households, resulting in those households receiving more food stamps than they should. GAO has recommended that the Food and Consumer Service encourage States to implement periodic computer matches of data on State and local prison inmates with data on food stamp participants. H.R. 1000 goes several steps further than this recommendation. It requires States to perform such periodic verifications and also requires that the matches be not only of State and local prison inmates but of Federal inmates as well. It includes a provision allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to exempt from this requirement any State having circumstances making it impractical to perform the matches, such as a lack of a central computerized data base for its prison population. States will have 1 year from the date of enactment to comply with the new requirement. Several States, such as Texas, already conduct such matches. Other States have plans to begin conducting these matches in the future. This bill will provide the impetus for most States to perform periodic matches, thereby saving the taxpayers at least $1 million a year. It is a good bill, and I urge your support of it.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. In the spirit of the debate on both sides of the question, if this is as bad as some of my colleagues say it is, then we sunset it in 5 years. If it is not, then this Congress can, in fact, make other reasonable adjustments to the subject at hand. I continue to fail to understand why anybody would object to this legislation in its current form, but this amendment, we think, addresses many of the concerns by saying we are not going to do it forever if it turns out to be bad. We will, in 5 years, sunset it, and then we will not do the irreparable harm that we hear from so many who have been against this bill today. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boyd amendment, and want to compliment him for his constructive proposal. Many concerns have been raised about how employers may abuse the flexibility they are granted under this bill. I disagree with the views held by the opponents of this bill, but I respect their opinion. I readily admit that none of us can know for certain exactly what impact this bill will have. The Boyd amendment strikes a reasonable balance that allows us to let this good idea go forward for a test period. If the bill has half as many problems as the opponents claim it will have, and employers abuse it half as much as we have been led to believe, Congress will never reauthorize it. However, I believe that this bill will work to give employers and employees increased flexibility and that after it has been in effect for 5 years it will have earned even stronger support from employers and employees than it has today. The significance of this amendment should not be underestimated. This amendment will require Congress to come back and review this act in 5 years. Those of us who support this legislation will have the burden to demonstrate that the law has worked as we anticipated. I believe that this approach of sunsetting legislation and requiring Congress to review how the laws we pass actually work in the real world would serve us well in other areas as well. I urge support of the Boyd amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this shows how reasonable people can have differing opinions on the same legislation. I rise in strong support of the Working Families Flexibility Act. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] for their work on this bill, and particularly for reaching across the aisle to address many of the concerns that have been raised about this legislation. The willingness of Chairman Ballenger to incorporate suggestions from Members of both parties has produced a bill that I believe is deserving of strong bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I fail to understand the adamant opposition to this bill here in Washington, because I do not believe that same opposition exists across the rank and file workers of our country. This bill represents a commonsense philosophy that giving employers and employees flexibility to work together in developing work schedules benefits both the employers and employees. All of us who are concerned about the demands of balancing work and family responsibilities should make it possible for employers to offer their employees options such as comptime to deal with these demands. One of the most positive trends in the workplace embraced by employers and employees has been the growth of creative work force policies and flexible benefit plans. We should be encouraging this trend, not punishing it through inflexible labor laws. This bill would update our 60-year-old labor laws to provide another choice in the workplace, the ability of employees to accept compensatory time off instead of overtime pay. It is important to keep in mind this bill provides for compensatory time as an option that can be chosen but is not demanded or mandated. The decision to offer or accept compensatory time arrangements is voluntary for both the employer and employee. I have opposed and will continue to oppose all mandated leave proposals because a federally-mandated benefit can never be flexible enough to adapt to the diverse needs of employers and employees across the country. This bill provides the flexibility that will allow employers to work with their employees to develop work arrangements that allow individuals to balance their family and personal responsibilities against the demands of their jobs. I am troubled by the argument made by some opponents of this bill that we should not pass this legislation that would provide increased flexibility for all workplaces because a few employers may abuse this option. As has already been pointed out, the bill contains several provisions protecting employees from abuse by unscrupulous employers. More importantly, I encourage my colleagues to think carefully before making a decision that will reduce the flexibility of all employers based on the example of a few bad apples. I know many of my colleagues share my concern about the efforts of some of the media and elsewhere to exploit the misdeeds of a few public officials to attack this institution and undermine the credibility of all of us in public life. I would urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to apply this same type of unfair, broad-brush approach to businessmen and women. I urge my colleagues to support workplace flexibility and family- friendly practices by voting for this bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. But only as an offer to recommittal, and I am reclaiming my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. But there again we both know that those are more partisan than they are actual activities on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of our alternative is to try to put an end to finger pointing and the blame game that has distracted us from doing the serious work to balance the budget. I was reminded of a speech that I was making not too long ago. When they point a finger at the other side, they should take a good look at themselves; there are three aimed back at them. Our amendment recognizes that both the Congress and the President must demonstrate more leadership than they have to date in order to reach a balanced budget. We should not allow Congress or the President to avoid this obligation. The Minge-Stenholm-Tauscher amendment contains the exact same language as the underlying resolution requesting that the President submit a new budget by April 7. However, our amendment would hold Congress to the same standard as the President by requiring the House Committee on the Budget to report a balanced budget by April 7 as well. Although the underlying resolution calls on the House to consider a balanced budget resolution, it sets no deadline or timetable for action. This will allow us to continue to postpone action and continue the current stalemate. We should not vote to exempt ourselves from responsibility to produce a credible balanced budget. I believe it is very dangerous, in spite of the very eloquent words of my colleague from Texas a moment ago. I believe it is very dangerous for Congress, as an institution, to continue to shift responsibility for the budget to the President. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress primary authority over legislation dealing with tax and spending and borrowing money. I encourage my colleagues to read an opinion editorial on our desk in last week's Washington Times by Professor Thomas DiBacco, who pointed out that for most of our history, Congress had the primary responsibility for budgets. Although Congress has given the President more authority in budgeting in order to bring more discipline to the process, the increased presidential role in the budget process has actually coincided with increased deficits. I would remind my Republican colleagues of the words of a previous Republican Speaker, Joe Cannon, who said, ``When Congress consents to the Executive Branch making the budget, it will have surrendered the most important part of governing. I think we had better stick pretty close to the Constitution with its division of powers well defined and powers close to the people.'' The resolution before us today allows Congress to avoid its constitutional obligations on budget issues. What they are saying in their resolution is ``Mr. President, you submit the budget.'' Our responsibilities in this body are for us to submit the budget, and I am ready to reach out and work on both sides of the aisle on going through the regular legislative process. That is what our amendment would make in order. I urge my colleagues, if they agree with the tenor of my conversation and the concerns about the Constitution, I urge them to defeat the previous question, allow our amendment to come up in which we say to us and the President, ``Let's get on with the business of the American people.''

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the tenor of the last speaker, my friend and colleague from Texas, is exactly why I wonder why we are doing this today. It is just like last night when I appeared before the Committee on Rules. It seemed like we were in more agreement than disagreement, and yet I have to come to the floor expressing my extreme disappointment that the amendment that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Tauscher], and I have suggested for today would not even be made in order, that we would not have the opportunity to even vote upon that.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult not to be discouraged by this debate today. Why in the world are we wasting time debating a meaningless one-sided resolution which has little or no value other than seeking political points? I must clarify several points. First, those of us who were gagged by the closed rule today are not interested in letting the President off of the hook. We wanted to include every single requirement on the President, even though he had already met his legal responsibilities that the majority created. We simply wanted to demand the same sort of responsible behavior from the Congress. We were denied an opportunity to debate our amendment. Second, the last-minute provision added by this resolution's sponsors does not set the same requirement on Congress. It does not set a deadline for action. It does not acknowledge Congress's constitutional and statutory responsibilities. It does not reference, in an equal manner to the President's budget, the shortcomings or the outright absence of the Republican budget efforts. It is a false statement to make on the House floor that the resolution creates the exact same standard for Congress as it does for the President. Americans are tired of us making unfulfilled promises about balancing our budget and trying to place the blame on the other side. The public wants us to roll up our sleeves and just do it. The current standoff in which both the congressional leadership and the President refuse to move until the other side goes first simply increases the public cynicism about us all. That is why the blue dogs have stepped up to the plate with a balanced budget plan that we believe represents a credible fair approach to balancing the budget. We have already received a good deal of editorial praise for our approach. We have the support of the most credible fiscal group out there, the Concord Coalition, received warm reception on the Senate Budget Committee the other day. Frankly, I appreciate the praise, but we would like to have some support. That is what we are looking for now. I appreciate the fact that we are beginning to sense that on both sides of the aisle. The chart that I have up here, the blue line shows the blue dog budget. It brings the deficit down. The other line, the red line, is the criticism that we join in on the President's budget because it does increase the deficit. But the yellow line is the baseline with the Senate recommended tax cuts, which we have to assume. And I know this is a relatively cheap shot and I am not taking it as a cheap shot. I am just pointing out that, until we have a budget resolution, that is all we have to go by. I share the disappointment, as I mentioned, the shortcomings of the President's budget. And I know that my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, is soon to be on the floor with a budget. And I know that, once we get through this little exercise today, we are not doing irreparable harm, but it has been a great disappointment that we are even here debating this today. It is not helpful in finding a solution when we have a one-sided finger-pointing operation.