Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the dean of the Texas delegation, Mr. Gonzalez, for yielding me this time. We all now know much more about Frank Tejeda, his records, his legacy, his biography, but what will last in those hidden hollows of the hearts that knew him as a son, as a brother, as a father, as a comrade, as a colleague, and as a friend will be Frank's unwavering courageous dedication to his God, to his family, and to his country. The mark of any mortal is not how much he exhibits to the world but the quality of what he leaves behind. Frank's real legacy is the high esteem in whom all who knew him held him. His honesty, his impeccable integrity, his quiet unassuming professional manner, his almost single- minded devotion to making life better. Whether you were his marine buddy in the swamps of Vietnam, his neighbor in the barrio of San Antonio's south side, the many kids, young ballplayers, who got that uniform that they treasured so much because of the generosity of Frank, whether you were a confidante or a combatant in the corridor of Congress, you could always be sure that Frank would give you every consideration, every remedy, every ounce of integrity, honesty, fair play and unwavering courage that inhabited his being. Let it be said in the words of two quotations that I think best fit now the memory of Frank Tejeda. Sir Richard Francis Burton said, ``He noblest lives and noblest dies who makes and keeps his self-made laws.'' And Daniel Webster once observed, ``Although no sculptured marble should rise to their memory, nor engraved stone bear records of their deeds, yet will their remembrance be as lasting as the lands they honored.'' Frank Tejeda loved this land and he honored it in so many ways while he was privileged to live on this Earth and we will forever remember him.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2508 is an example of how serious reform can and should occur. The Animal Drug Availability Act of 1995 enjoys broad support from camps that do not always see things from the same viewpoint, however, both the FDA and the regulated community agree on the reform embodied in H.R. 2508. Additionally, the users of animal drugs, the veterinarians, and the various animal agriculture groups representing farmers and ranchers that raise beef, pork, and poultry all support this bill. The Animal Drug Availability Act represents what can be accomplished when all involved, regulators, those regulated, and the end users sit down and sincerely listen to each other. Unfortunately, the larger issue of FDA reform has been slowed for a variety of reasons. Hopefully, this bill should serve as an example of how future Congresses can approach larger FDA reform and of the progress that can result from bipartisan discussion open to all stakeholders. H.R. 2508, the Animal Drug Availability Act of 1995, represents common sense reform that reduces regulatory hurdles for efficacy testing and preserves safety testing. Let me say that again. The Animal Drug Availability Act does not reduce evaluation of products on the basis of human safety, nor does it reduce the FDA's ability to require target animal safety information. Essential safety standards for humans and animals would not be weakened in any way. The effect of the reform should be a speedier approval process without jeopardizing safety confidence. Animal health products many times do not command lucrative markets and it is difficult to justify investment into research and development for a new product or an additional approved use on a label if markets are limited or absent. Currently a large commitment in time and money is required to prove a product's efficacy claims. This bill would give the FDA greater flexibility in determining the type and number of studies it can accept as proof of an animal drug's efficacy. Streamlining the process and eliminating unnecessary field trials should speed the time to an approval decision and hopefully reduce some negative economic pressures being applied by the regulatory system. Small markets or limited economic incentives, do not mean that drugs for animals are not important. Take for instance the cattleman who has experienced difficult times with low cattle prices who may be trying to diversify and is starting to raise ostriches or pheasants, or a farmer who is involved in aquaculture, or even the wildlife or zoo veterinarian who deals with very unique patients. These are examples of animals that as a species represent few in number and generate very little economic incentive for a drug manufacturer to pursue R&D in that area . . .the so-called minor use/minor species problem of animal drugs. The legislation that legalized extra label drug use in animals by veterinarians was sponsored by this Member and others in the last Congress--the Animal Medicinal Drug Clarification Act of 1994. Extra label drug use will always be necessary, however, this bill will potentially help reduce the reliance on using drugs extra label. It can offer an opportunity for FDA to evaluate how the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act and the Animal Drug Availability Act could efficiently work together. It is with some pride, as sponsor of the legislation that dealt with extra label use of animal drugs and now as one of the original cosponsors of the Animal Drug Availability Act, that this House is here addressing this issue on the Suspension Calendar. I am proud that animal drug regulatory reform may very well become an example of how larger FDA regulatory reform can be accomplished. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2508 and encourage the Senate to act quickly so that the President can sign this appropriate reform into law.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I will not object, but I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], for an explanation of the bill.

Mr. STENHOLM. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his explanation. An amendment adopted by the committee will be offered to incorporate a technical change in the bill recommended by the Forest Service. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the bill as amended by the committee, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, although I do not intend to object, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado Mr. Allard for an explanation of H.R. 3387.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I thank my colleague for his explanation of the legislation. I rise in support of H.R. 3387, and wanted to thank my colleagues from Georgia for their work on this effort. Mr. Campbell was certainly a driving force in their home State, as well as in a number of areas in agriculture, including Extension Service and research activities, in addition to serving as assistant chief of the Soil Conservation Service here in Washington during Franklin Roosevelt's administration. Therefore, it is appropriate that the agriculture research facility in Watkinsville that works on issues involving our natural resources be named after him. Again, I thank our colleagues, the gentlemen from Georgia, Mr. Norwood and Mr. Linder, for introducing this legislation, and I urge its passage by the House. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I thank my colleague for his explanation. An amendment adopted by the committee will be offered to provide for compensation to the Forest Service for its release of a reversionary interest it holds in land affected by the proposed exchange. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill with the committee amendment, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. STENHOLM. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. (Mr. BARCIA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I will not object, but yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], for an explanation of the bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. In doing so, I want to pay particular thanks to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for making this an inclusive conference, at least from the perspective of those of us on this side of the aisle, and also the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery] and the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. They have been very good to work with, at least in listening to those of us on this side of the aisle who had major problems with previous bills before the House and thought we had constructive suggestions of how to make it better. We were listened to, and many of the proposals we made are included, of which we are grateful. To those that suggest that somehow the State waivers portion of this is contrary to the best interest of the work programs of somehow guts work requirements, I only suggest that they read the bill. Read the language which is available, and they will see. Far from gutting it, it makes it much more workable. For States like mine, Texas, Utah, Michigan, and others that have already begun experimenting with work programs, this bill, I believe, allows those States and all of us who are interested in making this bill work as we say we wish it to, it allows the flexibility to allow States to experiment, to do pilot projects and pilot programs. In this case it is already happening in my State. Some of the concerns that we had with unfunded mandates, they have been alleviated as best as can be possible under a conference report. For that we are grateful. In the area of health care providers, protection of children, this is moved in the direction that we feel is much, much more preferable than the bill that originally passed the House. While this welfare reform conference report is far from perfect, it is clearly preferable to continuing the current system and preferable to welfare legislation considered earlier. For these reasons I support the welfare reform conference report. I am extremely pleased that the President has agreed to sign it, and I commend those who have worked so hard for so long in order to bring us to this day. Mr. Speaker, while some of the comments I've heard this afternoon have tended toward the hyperbolic, it truly is the case that the importance of what we are doing today should not be minimized. When this welfare reform proposal is signed into law, the status quo will be fundamentally changed. This kind of change does not happen by chance. More people than I can mention deserve credit, but in addition to the obvious leadership of President Clinton, Chairman Shaw, and other members of the leadership, I want to express my thanks for the bipartisan efforts of Mike Castle, John Tanner, John Chafee, Sandy Levin, Nancy Johnson, and others. One of the major reasons I opposed previous welfare reform proposals, and specifically the bill that was most recently before the House, was because of the restrictions it would have placed on the State of Texas. Earlier this year I worked extensively with Governor Bush and the White House to obtain approval of the Texas welfare waiver which includes the best plans of our State for moving people from welfare to work. President Clinton already has approved waivers allowing 41 States to implement innovative programs to move welfare recipients to work. The House's welfare reform bill would have restricted those State reform initiatives by imposing work mandates that are less flexible than States are implementing. Over 20 States would have been required to change their work programs to meet the mandates in that earlier House bill or face substantial penalties from the Federal Government. The conference report now allows States that are implementing welfare waivers to go forward with those efforts. Specifically, the conference report allows those States to count individuals who are participating in State-authorized work programs in meeting the work participation rates in the bill, even work programs which otherwise do not meet the Federal mandates in the bill. I know that some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle have been critical of the State waiver provisions included in this conference report. I must respectfully and forcefully disagree with that sentiment and say that in virtually all cases, I think that conversations with officials from their own States would lead them to supporting this waiver provision. I am convinced that these various State plans are precisely the best experiments for determining how to put people to work. Frankly, I think the State plans generally are more realistic about the work requirements and are more solidly grounded in the possible, rather than the hypothetical. Some of us around here have gotten carried away with our rhetoric about being tough on work by getting into a bidding war over who can have work requirements that sound tougher. Our rhetoric about being tough on work has led us to impose work requirements in this bill that virtually no State can implement. The only work requirements that are meaningful are the work requirements that actually can be met by States. When I have said that previous welfare reform bills were weak on work, I have meant that the bills would not give States the resources to put welfare recipients into work. The mandates in the bill passed by the House would force States such as Texas to make changes in the plans passed by the State legislature or face severe penalties from the Federal Government. The important State waiver change included in the conference report gives States necessary additional flexibility in implementing programs to move welfare recipients to work even if they don't meet the mandates in this bill. The additional flexibility that this bill gives to States in developing work programs will reduce the pressure on States to cut benefits or restrict eligibility for assistance in order to meet the work requirements of the bill. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that States would be forced to tighten eligibility for assistance to needy families or by reducing the size of benefits in order to offset the unfunded mandate in the work programs. Members who are concerned about the impact that welfare reform will have on children should strongly support giving States this flexibility and reducing the unfunded mandates. Despite some reservations I have about this conference report, I believe it is critical that welfare reform be enacted this year. Failure to do so will signal yet another wasted opportunity to make critically needed reforms. We should enact this conference report and fix the current system now, moving towards a system that better promotes work and individual responsibility.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, can we fault the legislative process in any way in bringing forth this bill? I don't think so. Was a compromise reached? With much give and take, yes. Is this the very best policy for all parties concerned? I am sure some have reservations about that. Do I still have reservations? Most definitely. This is not same Food Quality Protection Act that I originally cosponsored. However, knowing full well that the jury is still out, and will be for some time, on the success of this major piece of legislation, we have to first look at its evolution--years of debate and struggle to reach the middle ground and now, finally, almost overnight, the end is in sight. Perhaps this suddenness after so long of a time where nothing seemed possible has made me a little overcautious. Perhaps in hindsight too much was left on the table. Every concerned party could make these arguments today. You can about most any legislation offered that finally becomes law, but can you argue that the process was circumvented? Not very easily. There would be few to deny that passing this legislation this year was a top priority. I have always pushed for reform based on sound science and will continue to do so. H.R. 1627 makes a move in that direction. Let us take this opportunity to address these issues in that light. I respect the process and the need to move when the opportunity presents itself, but I remind you that agriculture must be diligent in striving for a good compromise. I believe the most important thing to remember with this legislation is to hold a belief--or if you don't have the belief, work on developing one--that focuses on the future and instills faith that common sense coupled with scientific reason will always provide a reasonable solution to such complex issues as this.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this unanimous-consent request. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 contains a provision under section 118 which prohibits the planting of most fruit and vegetable crops on contract acreage, with three narrow exceptions. The primary intent of this provision is to prevent the subsidization of fruit and vegetable production in competition with traditionally nonsubsidized producers of these crops, yet allow for the same flexibility to plant fruits, vegetables, or other commodities as was allowed in the last farm bill, the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Rather than leave the issue open for interpretation, this bill more clearly defines the parameters under which farmers can plant a second crop without incurring an acre-for-acre reduction in their market transition payment. In Texas, blackeyed peas are historically grown on failed cotton acreage. They make for an excellent followup crop to cotton compared to other crops, because they more readily adapt to the herbicides used in cotton planting. More importantly, blackeyed peas allow producers an opportunity to grow a crop that: First, requires considerably less water during times of drought; second, serves as an excellent ground cover, even if they only get a few weeks growth; third, assists with fertilization for next year's crop by contributing nitrogen to the soil, and fourth, provides lenders additional incentive to work with difficult credit situations like many farmers are experiencing now. Most States have similar cropping substitutes. Maybe it goes without saying, but every true Texan knows that any good luck throughout the year can easily be traced back to those traditional servings of blackeyed peas on New Year's Day. If this year's farm bill is really about flexibility, it is important that producers who operate outside those counties currently designated as double cropping regions, but who have traditionally been able to plant a commodity in lieu of a failed program crop, continue to have that opportunity. I am confident that it was not the plan by the authors of this farm bill to prohibit or restrict planting options relative to the past, and I feel certain that their aim was, at a bare minimum, to maintain the producer's freedom to farm his land at 1990 levels. With the passing of this bill, we also encourage the Secretary of Agriculture to provide specific guidance to those producers who are considering bringing their land back into production from the Conservation Reserve Program. I understand the excessive workload that the Department is facing in issuing all the rules and regulations associated with this farm bill's implementation and the staffs of all those agencies involved should be commended for the long hours and headaches they have endured this summer--but it is very important that the eligibility requirements be determined and announced as soon as is reasonably possible so that CRP contract holders can know what to expect. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3900. This bill will give the U.S. Department of Agriculture much needed direction in the interpretation of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996--FAIR Act--which we passed earlier this year. H.R. 3900 is very simple. First, it reaffirms the Department's ability to continue the practice of ghost acres. Under prior farm bills, producers who suffered a natural disaster could plant a second crop of their choosing without having any impact on their participation in commodity programs. This practice allowed producers the ability to try to recoup some of their losses when Mother Nature was in an unkind mood. The second provision in H.R. 3900 will require the Department to issue regulations by September 15, 1996 to implement the Conservation Reserve Program which was amended by the FAIR Act. Producers and landowners in many parts of the country are wondering what the parameters of the new program will be and this provision will spur the Department on to work out the new regulations in a timely fashion.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of motion to instruct the conferees in exactly the same spirit the gentleman from Florida has just spoken with. I believe when we carefully analyze this amendment, in the spirit in which was indicated support for, we will find that this motion ensures that welfare reform will not shift costs to State and local governments, which I know the gentleman from Florida agrees to. The National Governors Association, the National Council of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities all have said the bill passed by the House places unfunded mandates on State and local governments and restricts the flexibility to administer welfare programs in their communities. I am submitting for the Record a letter from each of the latter three organizations. Members will find that the Senate has made marginal improvements. The conferees can, if allowed to do our work, make it much better in the spirit of this motion to instruct. I was particularly concerned to learn that the bills passed by the House and Senate would conflict with the reform initiatives being implemented by Texas, my State, and others States across the country. State legislators and Governors developed proposals after consulting with welfare field offices studying local job markets, evaluating the cost of implementing reforms, and deciding how best to protect children and other vulnerable populations. The bill as passed by the House does exactly what the majority party generally rails against: That is, having Washington dictate to the States a one-size-fits-all solution. In the spirit of this instruction, we can work that out in conference and have a much better bill. The bill would force many States either to apply for waivers from the mandates, make significant changes in the plans currently being implemented, or face penalties from the Federal Government. The second key principle in this motion is protecting children. Again, I would encourage my colleagues to listen to what the States decided must be done to protect children. For example, the welfare reform proposal now being implemented in Texas continues benefits for children after their parents reach a time limit. Several other States have followed Texas' lead in protecting children from the impact of time limits. Unfortunately, the bill passed by the House substitutes the views of Members of Congress in Washington for the judgments of State officials on how best to provide for children in their States by explicitly prohibiting States from using block grant funds to protect innocent children from being harmed because of the mistakes of their parents. If these provisions in the bill passed by the House become law, Texas and other States will be required to change their plan to apply time limits to children. If you believe that State and local officials know better than Washington how to provide for the needs of low-income children in their communities, you should support the motion to recommit. Third, the motion to instruct provides that no one should lose health coverage as a result of welfare reform. I was pleased that both the House and Senate adopted amendments preserving current eligibility rules for Medicaid coverage. However, I am concerned about reports that this provision may be dropped in conference. I hope that Chairman Shaw can assure me and other members concerned about this issue that current Medicaid eligibility rules will be preserved by the conference committee. I am also concerned about the impact that denying Medicaid to noncitizens will have on the health care system. The bill passed by the House will effectively deny Medicaid to thousands of individuals, removing $7 billion of Medicaid assistance from the health care system. However, health care providers will continue to be morally and legally obligated to provide care to these individuals, resulting in a cost shift to health care providers that will affect the cost, availability, and quality of care to everyone in Texas and other States with large immigrant populations. In closing, I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that this motion reflects a continuation of the spirit of trying to break through partisanship to find a commonsense middle ground position on welfare reform. All members who voted for the Castle-Tanner substitute--and all Members who agreed with the principles of the Castle-Tanner substitute but who voted against it for whatever reason-- should vote for the motion to instruct. I urge a ``yea'' vote on the motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letters: National Association of Counties, Washington, DC, July 12, 1996. Dear Member of Congress: You may be voting soon on the Welfare and Medicaid reform bill (H.R. 3507/S. 1795). The National Association of Counties (NACo) is encouraged that there were improvements to the welfare section of the bill, including: increased funds for child care; maintaining current law for foster care adoption assistance maintenance and administration payments; and no funding cap for food stamps nor a block grant for child nutrition. However, there are not enough improvements to warrant our support. In some respect, particularly the work requirements, the bill has become even more burdensome. NACo particularly opposes the following welfare provisions: 1. The bill ends the entitlement of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, thereby dismantling the safety net for children and their families. 2. The eligibility restriction for legal immigrants goes too far. The most objectionable provisions include denying Supplemental Security Income and Food Stamps, particularly to older immigrants. In fact, by changing the implementation date for these provisions, the bill has become more onerous. NACo is also very concerned about the effect of the deeming requirements particularly with regard to Medicaid and children in need of protective services. 3. The participation requirements have become even more unrealistic. NACo particularly opposes the increased work participation rates and increased penalties, the changes in the hours of work required, and the new restrictions on the activities that may count toward the participation rates. As the level of government closest to the people, local elected officials understand the importance of reforming the welfare system. While NACo is glad that the bill does contain language that requires some consultation with local officials we prefer the stronger language that is contained in the bipartisan welfare reform bill (H.R. 3266). NACo also continues to oppose the Medicaid provisions. By capping the fiscal responsibility of the federal government and reducing the state match for the majority of the states, the bill could potentially shift billions of dollars to counties with responsibility for the uninsured. Allowing the states to determine the amount, duration and scope of services even for the remaining populations which would still be guaranteed coverage, will mean that counties will be ultimately responsible for services not covered adequately by the states. While we support the increased use of managed care and additional state and local flexibility in operating the Medicaid program, we do not support the repeal of Medicaid as envisioned in the current legislation. As it is currently written, the Medicaid and Welfare Reform bill could potentially shift costs and liabilities, create new unfunded mandates upon local governments, and penalize low income families. Such a bill, in combination with federal cuts and increased demands for services, will leave local governments with two options: cut other essential services, such as law enforcement, or raise revenues. NACo therefore urges you to vote against H.R. 3507/S. 1795. Sincerely, Douglas R. Bovin, President.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. For over a decade now the gentleman from Florida, Representative Bill McCollum, and I have worked to reform the Legal Services Corporation, with a lot of considerable help from the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, and it has been like pulling teeth. Our intention all along has been to make sure that the folks in our country who cannot afford legal assistance in civil matters have access to the courts, the original intent of LSC. Last year we introduced H.R. 1806, a bill to reauthorize LSC for 5 years at $250 million per year. In addition, our legislation proposes tough, smart restrictions on the corporation. The full Committee on the Judiciary marked up its bill, H.R. 2277, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Gekas, and reported it out last September. This is a 4-year authorization which recommends $250 million in fiscal year 1997 to provide legal services to the poor. That notwithstanding, we have not had the opportunity to debate this or any other authorization bill here in the full House. In fact, Legal Services has not been reauthorized since 1980, yet here we are today trying to decide its fate in a 1-year appropriation bill. Let us let the process work the way it is supposed to. Let us take the authorizing committee's recommendation of $250 million with appropriate restrictions for fiscal year 1997, and come back next year and address the future of LSC through the authorization process, the right way. All of the arguments we will hear 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 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 will hear many of them today. In fact, if the program is ever killed, it will be by some of its supporters. Absent any other well-developed approach to caring for the people that depend on legal assistance in their daily lives, I am not yet willing to demolish the LSC. That is precisely the direction we will be heading if we cut the fund to $141 million. As a lifelong supporter of a balanced budget, I understand budget realities and know we cannot fund every program at the level we want. 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. Additionally, I am very pleased that they specify that all the increased funding will go to field programs, not to management and administration. We continue all of the restrictions agreed to on the LSC in the effort to make sure that this program works for its original purpose. There can be no denying that there are a large number of indigent individuals who desperately need legal assistance in their daily lives. We cannot become a country where just treatment in the courts depends on economic status. For this reason, and in agreement with many of those who will find things that have gone wrong with Legal Services, this is not the time and the place to make that decision. Let us allow the program to continue and allow the full changing of the program to take place in an orderly manner, so that we do not end up doing more harm than good for all the right reasons.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, I might point out that this is an excellent example of cooperation between various agencies, cooperation between various committees that will now allow us to do the most efficient census possible with the least amount of taxpayer resources and the best utilization of all of the talents available in agriculture already there in order to do the job that needs doing for American agriculture. Mr. Speaker, 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 today in support of H.R. 3665, the Census of Agriculture Act of 1996. I would simply like to reiterate to my colleagues what my colleague the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] has already said, and that is that this bill does not change the definition of what constitutes a farm nor does it decrease the amount of funding available for other discretionary activities within the Department of Agriculture. This legislation simply moves the administration of the ag census from the Bureau of the Census within Commerce to the Department of Agriculture. Secretary Glickman has indicated that he will charge the National Agriculture Statistics Service with continuing to carry out an agricultural census every 5 years. The Ag Statistics Service within USDA is well suited to take over the responsibilities for carrying out the census activities, as they already maintain a network in every state that allows them to put out State by State reports weekly and major reports throughout the year. These reports are utilized by all segments of the agricultural sector in this country and every by our foreign competitors. I am pleased that Secretary Glickman took the initiative in forging this compromise with the Department of Commerce as well as the Office of Management and Budget to ensure the viability of the ag census for future years. I would also like to thank our colleagues on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for their cooperation in ensuring the passage of H.R. 3665 and urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this single- bullet amendment to this year's first reconciliation bill. I understand full well the political advantage which is sought with amendments such as this. I am certainly not interested in ever defending a wasteful use of food stamps. But I am also interested in abandoning people in real need, confronted by unexpected, uncontrollable circumstances who count on food stamps for their survival. I find it amazing that the Rules Committee took the unprecedented action of allowing an amendment other than a complete substitute. Had I known there was any possibility of such amendments being made in order, I assure my colleagues I would have had a number of my own to offer, and I know dozens of other Members would have wanted to do the same. This unprecedented change of the rules aside, I must point out that this particular amendment is not about a food stamp time limit; it is a lifetime ban on food stamp benefits if ever they have received them in their adult life for 3 months and been unable to find work during that 3 months. If they have faced unexpected and uncontrollable circumstances in their life, if they have been laid off from their job in a period of recession, if they went on food stamps, searched high and low for work and found nothing after 3 months, it is tough luck for them. They are off the food stamp program and until they have reached age 50 or until you have found a job. It does not matter if they are following all of the rules, looking for work, in real need of a hand up, the food stamp program just will not be there for them. The implication behind this amendment is that finding some kind of job is always easy. That simply is not true. For example, food stamp data show that more than 40 percent of those who would be affected by this provision are women, and nearly one-third of those women are over the age of 40. Whether widowed, divorced, or facing some other difficult life circumstance, these 40-plus women typically have a very difficult time finding employment. Their skills may be out of date or underdeveloped because they have been raising their families, and there simply are not many jobs out there for which they are qualified without training, which is another shortcoming of the base bill. Coming from a rural district, I know very well that this amendment will hit particularly hard because there are an especially limited number of new employment opportunities in many small towns and rural communities of America. This amendment is much more extreme even than the original bill passed by the House last year. Under that bill, people who were unable to find work could have continued to get food stamps if they participated in job search programs. This amendment cuts those people off the program and imposes the harshest work requirement of any proposal made during this Congress. The amendment cannot be said to be toughening the work requirements. Such a statement assumes that for every person cut off from food stamps there is a job. Common sense tells us that is not the case. If this amendment were really intended to put people to work, it would provide a number of things, including funding for additional workfare slots. But, of course, that would cost money, and this amendment is intended to save an additional $2.2 billion. This is just another example of how extreme philosophy and this year's budget, not sound policy, are driving welfare reform. This amendment is bad policy, a paperwork nightmare, and I urge every Member to vote against it.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, let me first begin by commending my colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] and the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], for the tireless work they have put in on this issue, and also to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], for his very constructive handling of this bill. With the lone exception of the rhetoric on EITC, I have appreciated the gentleman's approach and attitude toward the development on this issue. To set the record straight one more time, I simply want to reiterate that Castle-Tanner ensures that scarce EITC dollars go to the working poor who need it, not to the individuals with substantial business income who do not need it. And I suspect the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] would like to see the same provision in his bill today. Also, I do not see my friend and colleague, the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture on the floor, but I find it very, very interesting that he would be complaining about the fact that our bill attempts to maintain indexation of housing benefits for the very poor, those who have to spend over 50 percent of their income for housing; and at the same time the majority will have next week on the floor a bill dealing with campaign reform in which they will say indexation of those who would contribute to us is OK but those who would index those of the very poorest among us is bad. I find it very, very interesting. Madam Chairman, I want to take a couple of minutes and try to make it as plain and simple why I support Castle-Tanner versus the base bill. I want to do it in a way that is perfectly understandable. First is the matter of political practicality. I am weary of political posturing, and we have heard it from a few today over and over, language that is intended more for campaign platforms than for realistic problem-solving. The Castle-Tanner proposal was developed to try to break that partisan stalemate on this issue and reach a consensus on welfare reform that can be signed into law. Our proposal is a true compromise, as evidenced by the fact 26 Democrats and 16 Republicans have cosponsored the legislation. The principles and policies of this substitute can be supported by both parties in both bodies of Congress. The bill can be signed into law by the President. The base bill cannot. Second is the matter of unfunded mandates. One of the first pieces of legislation passed by the 104th Congress was a resolution ensuring that the Federal Government pay the cost incurred by State and local governments in complying with Federal statutes and regulations. The work mandate placed on the States in the base bill is not matched by financial support necessary to meet the mandate. CBO says so, the National Governors Association says so, and in addition to the unfunded work mandate, there is also an unfunded mandate on health care providers that will result from Medicaid changes for current welfare recipients. So, $7 billion in Medicaid will no longer be available for those recipients, and yet health care providers in our States will still be morally if not legally obligated to provide care for these people. Castle-Tanner does not have unfunded mandates. The base bill does, as ascertained by CBO. Third is the matter of how our Nation treats its children. Tanner- Castle is much stronger than the Republican bill in protecting children, all children. This substitute requires States to provide vouchers for the needs of the child for families removed from welfare rolls as a result of a time limit of less than 5 years, and gives States the option of providing vouchers for families cut off as a result of the 5-year time limit. The base bill explicitly prohibits States from using block grant funds to protect innocent children from being harmed because of the mistakes of their parents. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the bipartisan, bicameral, commonsense, achievable, enforceable Castle-Tanner substitute, and against the final passage of the base bill in its current form.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, it has been stated numerous times already tonight that the House now has a historic opportunity to move toward enactment of meaningful welfare reform legislation, discouraging the cycle of dependency and moving welfare recipients into work. I could not agree more. But I believe the legislation I am supporting is the best way for the House to realize that opportunity. There is a bipartisan welfare reform alternative that can be supported by a strong majority of members on both sides of the aisle and can be signed into law. That's how historic opportunities are realized. My objections to the Majority bill come down to two simple concerns: I believe their proposal is weak on work and tough on kids. In my book, that's a bad equation that is fixed by the Castle-Tanner substitute. This substitute achieves $53 billion in savings in welfare programs as required by the Majority-approved budget, while protecting children and providing States with the resources that CBO says they need to put welfare recipients to work. Let me repeat. CBO says they need. How many times have we in this body heard unfunded Federal mandates. I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to take a good hard look at their language because CBO says it falls short regarding the very States we are attempting to work with. In fact, the Castle-Tanner substitute is the only proposal that has real work requirements that the Congressional Budget Office says States will be able to implement to move welfare recipients to work. Madam Chairman, over the last two years, I have solicited the views of welfare providers, recipients, and local citizens in my district on what Congress should do to allow local communities to implement effective welfare reform. The citizens in my district expressed a very strong desire for local flexibility and adequate funding to design a workable welfare delivery system that would more efficiently and effectively move welfare recipients from welfare to work. I am proud of the work performed by my constituents. They invested their time and energy, they engaged in dialogue with individuals of a different perspective, they developed common goals, and they promoted concrete suggestions for improvements. They did the work I asked of them and now it's my turn to do my part here in Washington. That is precisely how I ended up one of the strongest supporters of the Castle- Tanner substitute. It is the only welfare reform alternative that provides local communities with the support they need to move welfare recipients to work. The welfare reform bill proposed by the majority falls well short of giving state and local governments that flexibility or the resources they need to implement welfare reform proposals. The National Governors Association adopted a resolution yesterday expressing ``concerns about restrictions on states flexibility and unfunded costs'' in the work requirements of H.R. 3734.'' That is the Governors' Association. The Republican bill rejects the NGA recommendations for state flexibility in developing work programs appropriate for local communities and does not provide any additional funds for states to meet the increased work requirements. CBO has estimated that the Republican bill would fall $12.9 billion short of the funding for work programs necessary to meet the work requirements in the bill, and $800 million short of the costs of providing child care assistance to individuals required to work. The CBO report accompanying the Republican bill states: CBO * * * concludes that most states would fail to meet these [work] requirements * * * most states would simply accept the penalties rather than implement the requirements. That is CBO. The same CBO we talk about day in and days out that we need to pay attention to. The Castle-Tanner substitute ensures that states would be able to meet the work requirements in the bill by providing $3 billion in additional mandatory funds that states can access in order to meet the costs of moving welfare recipients to work. In addition, Castle-Tanner adopts the recommendations of the National Governors Association regarding state flexibility in meeting work requirements. Rhetoric about tough work requirements is either an empty promise or the greatest unfunded mandate Congress ever imposed if it is not backed up with funding for states and local governments to meet the work requirements. Welfare reform will fail to meet the goal of ending the cycle of dependency and moving welfare recipients to work if states do not have sufficient resources to operate work programs. As the CBO report makes abundantly clear, the work requirements in H.R. 3734 are illusory because states will not be able to implement them. If you support breaking the cycle of dependency and actually moving welfare recipients into work instead of just talking about it, vote for the Castle-Tanner substitute. The Castle-Tanner substitute proves that it is possible to dramatically reform the welfare system in this country without harming children, while still achieving substantial budgetary savings. As we said, we do have an historic opportunity to reform our failed welfare system. We cannot afford to waste this opportunity. The House can take a tremendous step toward ending the political gridlock and finding a bipartisan solution to the problems of our welfare system by passing the Castle-Tanner bill tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to vote for the bipartisan Castle-Tanner substitute. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne].

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chairman, I take this time to make a comment or two regarding some of the allegations about some of the statements that have been made from this side of the aisle. To the best of my knowledge this evening, no one on this side has suggested, by any other standard other than CBO or the National Governors Association, that the proposal of the majority has some problems with work. We did not make this up. The Congressional Budget Office has carefully analyzed their proposal and suggests that it is going to come up short regarding the work requirements. Also, regarding the allegations on child care and children, we are not making this up. This is the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the proposal that is before us. This is why we say that the bipartisan attempt by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] to address some of these concerns is worthy of serious consideration by both sides of the aisle. I want to make that point, Madam Chairman, so the rhetoric of this body does not overshadow the facts. Madam Chairman, I would make a few other observations. Statements have been made by a few this evening about the vetoing of the welfare reform bill twice by the President. I think most reasonable citizens of the United States, when they look at the original bills that were vetoed by the President and compare them with the two bills we will be considering tomorrow, they will see the wisdom of those vetoes, because I think any fair-minded person on either side of the aisle will see that as a result of having to go back to the drawing board and take another look at how we might make welfare reform more workable, we will see that both proposals are significantly better than the proposal that was vetoed twice. That is progress, that is not a subject for criticism. Madam Chairman, Castle-Tanner, as has been said many times, and I think it bears repeating, is bipartisan and bicameral. If we are truly serious about getting a bill, which we are, and let me make this observation, every single Member of the House of Representatives has voted with their name on the board, with a green light, for significant welfare reform. We have differences of opinion, and that is to be expected in a body of 435 as diverse as we are in the representation of the people of the 50 States of the United States. But it is not a fair statement to say to anyone that anyone on either side of the aisle is not serious about welfare reform, because we are. Those of us who support very strongly the Castle-Tanner believe that it merits the support, merits the support because it is stronger on work, particularly by making certain that the mandate that we place on the States under the giving of the flexibility to the States, that we send the money with the mandate, rather than saying to the States, ``You do it, and by the way, if there is not enough money, that is your problem.'' Clearly my people at home, my constituency have said, ``Please, no more unfunded Federal mandates.'' We believe a careful analysis of Tanner-Castle will show that it is superior. The criticisms that we offer tonight are based on CBO, and that is my final comment to make tonight, whether it is talking about work funding, child care, who is tough and who is not tough, what works and what will not work, the shelter cap, for example, all of the other areas. We believe that CBO and their careful analysis should cause most Members to support the Castle-Tanner and we hope that that will be the verdict tomorrow. If we can send that bill to the Senate and the Senate works their will and then a conference, there is no doubt in this Member's mind that we will have the most significant welfare reform bill that will meet the test of what all of our constituents want us to do. The current system is broken and it needs to be fixed. Castle-Tanner in our opinion does the best job of fixing it. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].