Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], the other half of the Castle-Tanner team. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, primarily because the funding for the amendment comes from the Area Health Education Centers Program. Establishing priorities is always difficult for each of us but my support for the AHEC Program specifically stems from the fact that rural America still is in desperate need of health care providers. While there is talk of physician gluts in some parts of the country, rural America faces exactly the opposite with regard to its needs for physicians. In Texas several AHEC Programs have a direct impact on the supply and support of rural providers in my district and all over the State. The AHEC Program has a proven track record of successfully improving the supply and support of health practitioners. To me, keeping the funds in this program is a much higher priority for dollars spent than what this amendment proposes. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Lowey-Castle amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment as a member of the Committee on the Budget. In some of the debates we have already heard today, it needs to be pointed out to the House we already have dynamic scoring. That is already, when it is supportable it is used. That is the way it ought to be. The idea that CBO uses only static scoring is erroneous. If dynamic scoring is a good thing, it should be a good thing in all instances, not just when the Committee on the Budget chairman finds that it will serve his purpose to use it in consultation with the ranking minority. Saying that the dynamic scoring is only informational ignores the fact that all CBO scoring is informational. It is the Committee on the Budget which ultimately decides which assumptions to use. And therein I want to close by again repeating the words that we should heed, those words of Alan Greenspan, when he testified earlier this year in the Committee on the Budget. He stated, clearly, our political process has a bias to words deficit spending, a bias toward deficit spending. Accordingly, we should be especially cautious about adopting technical scoring procedures that might, might be susceptible to overly optimistic assessments of the budgetary consequences of fiscal actions. We must avoid resting key legislative decisions on controversial estimates of revenue and outlays. Should financial markets lose confidence in the integrity of our budget scoring procedure, the rise in inflation premiums and interest rates could more than offset any statistical difference between so-called static and more dynamic scoring. We should oppose this amendment today. It does not serve a helpful purpose. At a time in which we clearly are needy, have got the deficit heading in the right direction. This is not a time to be experimenting with somebody's philosophical beliefs.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the Bill Emerson that I knew was a very, very special person. Bill loved his God. He loved his country. He loved his family. He loved his district, his State, and he loved this House of Representatives. The last conversation that I had with Bill, he was looking ahead to next year and wanting to be a part of making the constructive changes that he tried all of his life, from, I think, since serving as a page in this institution the first time. Having sat by Bill every Thursday morning in the House prayer breakfast group, I was blessed many times by having him share his ideas about life and what it meant, and even during these last several weeks when it clearly was becoming more and more of a severe problem for Bill, he never lost his faith. I would just, too, like to say to Jo Ann and to the family and to all of his many other friends back home, I know everyone will miss him, but so will we. We know now that Bill is in Heaven and I know he is smiling down and appreciating the nice things that many of us have said when perhaps he would say, ``You could have done a little better job when we were here, too, Charlie.'' But Bill, we miss you. God bless you.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule allowing for the consideration of H.R. 3666, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriation for fiscal year 1997. My problem with this rule should come as no surprise to anyone, because it embodies precisely the shortcomings which are inevitable when supporters try to make a bill be all things to all people. The price of being less than forthright, the cost of refusing to decide what your priorities are, is always a dependency on gimmicks and parliamentary gymnastics, employed in the hopes that our colleagues, first, and our constituents, second, will fail to see through the ruse. I stand here as one who wants to see the Superfund Program reauthorized. I largely support the majority in their efforts to reform the Superfund Program. I commend Mr. Oxley and Mr. Lewis for the work they have done in reforming the Superfund Program. I also stand here as one who believes we must be honest about the cost of those things which we say are a priority and then we must pay for those priorities by finding savings elsewhere. This rule attempts to have it both ways when it comes to the cost of the Superfund Program. To those who support the $861 million appropriation, the bill says, ``Sure, we'll take care of you--here's your money.'' To those who are concerned about how this additional spending will add to the deficit, the rule says, ``Not to worry--you don't have to count this $861 million. We'll take care of that later on in a supplemental appropriation.'' Back home we call that being ``too cute by half.'' Not only is it dishonest; it also insults the people who are expected to buy off on a rationale that conflicting goals can be accommodated without sacrifice being made anywhere else. There were many times during the previous Congresses that I spoke out against rules which abused a sense of democratic fairness. I especially protested the regular waiving of the Budget Act, an act designed to protect the integrity of the legislative process and impose a measure of fiscal discipline. But I have to say we are testing new depths of parliamentary gimmickry in this Congress with this rule. We have now waived the Budget Act over 700 times since its enactment. In addition to making a mockery of the act, this sort of behavior adds to the skepticism and cynicism which continues to undermine the credibility of this institution. There are simple questions to be answered here: Are we appropriating funds or aren't we? If we are appropriating funds, are they adding to the deficit or have we made cuts elsewhere to support this priority? Are we honoring allocations and appropriation caps or are we attempting to spend nearly a billion dollars outside of the normal budget disciplines? These are questions that should be easy to answer in a bipartisan way if legislation is being presented in a strightforward way. Unfortunately, today's rule is anything but straightforward. Vote ``no''.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is not too late to reverse the actions of last week's budget vote and still continue to attack the deficit. I am very, very concerned that after 4 years of continuously declining deficit, we now see again in the chart that instead of continuing the trend to balance, we are going to borrow an additional $99 billion over the next 2 years in order to give ourselves a tax cut with borrowed money. That does not make sense. Also when we look at the budget last week, and now we hear the discussions going on about whether we are going to combine welfare and Medicaid with a tax cut, we find we are postponing the difficult choices. The difficult cuts are going to be postponed until 2000, 2001, and 2002. Mr. Speaker, please, let us reverse that. Let us get the House back in the same direction we were going in 4 consecutive years of the deficit coming down. Let us not give up now. Let us continue now with some good bipartisan support for deficit reduction and not increasing our Nation's debt.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, again we are getting to the end of the debate, and I think it is awfully important to have the record and all of our colleagues clearly understand that there was one vote this year, it was rollcall No. 177, in which a majority of my colleagues on this side of the aisle voted for a deficit reduction package that lowers the deficit, the total debt compared to what we will be voting on in a minute, by $150 billion less. Mr. Speaker, I too have a grandson, and I fail to understand how we are going to do more for the grandchildren by borrowing more money over the next 6 years than if we just bit the bullet and started having some honest discussions about how we are going to meet some of the differences that we have across the aisle and do it in a more rational way, but that seems to have escaped us tonight. But I think it is awfully important to understand that if we want the deficit to come down every year, not go up for the next 2, we do not vote for this resolution tonight; we vote ``no'' tonight. We go back to conference and we say let us get serious about deficit reduction.

Mr. STENHOLM. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. STENHOLM. No, sir. No, sir. I take back my time. Mr. Speaker, I take back my time. Mr. Speaker, I only have a minute remaining. I will answer the gentleman's question. What I am saying tonight is if my colleague is concerned about reducing the deficit, there is only one budget that has been before the House this year that will reduce the deficit by $150 billion more than what we are considering tonight. We were precluded because we do not have the votes; that is clear. And for anyone to stand on the floor tonight and to say that we are concerned about the deficit and then look at the CBO scoring for the budget and the comparison with the coalition, the Republican budget deficit goes up to $153 billion in 1997. The coalition budget stays the same. That is the bottom line and the fact.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I wish the chart were still up because I really get frustrated when I continue to see always talking about lines that do not represent the facts based on CBO. Let me remind my friend from Arizona, a majority of Democrats voted, rollcall 177, for a budget that balanced and has the line going down in a true and honest way. A majority on this side voted for that budget. And quit saying they did not.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the budget before us tonight and would like to remind my colleague from New Jersey there is a third budget that we all ought to be supporting. This rhetoric of talking only about the majority and the President reminds me that there was one budget that received bipartisan support that reduced the deficit over the next 6 years. The budget before us tonight increases the deficit by $63 billion over the next 2 years over the constructive alternative put forward by the minority side of the aisle. I do not know why we cannot bring ourselves to talk about the one budget that continues the 4 years of success of bringing down the deficit. As someone that was here in 1981 that worked in a bipartisan way to help my colleagues on this side when their President, my President from their side of the aisle, was in charge, I only say this: ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'' To buy into another budget that postpones 82 percent--82 percent of the budget deficit reduction is postponed until the year 2000, 2001 and 2002--how anyone can come to this floor tonight and say that they are serious about deficit reduction and talk about the President's budget that has been defeated, and the coalition budget that has been defeated, the only honest budget that reduces the deficit every single year starting this year and next year in an election year.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, that last exchange was truly amazing. If my colleagues would only stop for a moment; when we talk about the consumer, and I want my colleague from New York to listen very carefully, look at what has been happening in the marketplace for cereal in the last 2, 3, 4 weeks. The price of cereal has dropped from $4 a box to $3 a box while the price of grain has doubled to the farmer. Why? Because the manufacturing interests that the two sponsors of this amendment are carrying the water on today have decided that they do not need to take $2 from the consumer for advertising in order to sell more of their product, that by lowering the price they can sell more. That is what is happening in the marketplace, and the same is true for peanuts. You can find and document the exact same facts in the manufacturing side. There is more cost in the container of a jar of peanut butter than the value of the peanuts within the peanut butter. So the argument that was just made by the gentleman from New Jersey, better go back and check the facts. Let us review what the Committee on Agriculture did in the farm bill this year. We, much to the chagrin of the small producers that many of us represent, agreed to cut the price to the producer from $678 down to $610. Pretty good cut, folks, by anybody's definition of cut. And this is not cut from rate of increase. This is a cut in net farm income that does not seem to satisfy some folks around here today because they want to do more. Now, what is truly amazing to me about this amendment and this argument, which I do not believe the proponents of the amendment truly understand the peanut program or what they are proposing. Mr. Chairman, if, in fact, we want the market to work, by cutting the quota from 1.3 million tons to 1.1, we are allowing the market to work. We are reducing the amount of subsidized peanuts and allowing the probability of farmers who have no quota to produce peanuts for the market. Now, lo and behold, what the complaints are today is what? You cannot find a seller for $650 for peanuts. Farmers want more. If the marketplace says they should get more, then they will get more. If this says they will get less, they will get less. Because who now has an opportunity to sell peanuts? Anybody in the United States today can raise peanuts. There is no prohibition on who can raise peanuts. If you choose to raise them for this market that everybody is concerned about, you take a guarantee of $138 a ton. That is all you are guaranteed. You can produce for the international marketplace, get a contract perhaps for $400, but if you want to go for the market in the belief that there will be increased consumption, you may do so. But you also take a chance on losing. That is what the market is all about. Listening to this debate today, I am saying, am I living in a different world? All of the arguments being made are being made in direct opposition to the market. That is why I believe that those offering the amendment truly do not understand the intricacies of the peanut program. In conclusion, let me say this, please, to my colleagues: Understand what we have already done to the peanut program. We are doing it because we, too, recognize the market needs to work. We have moved the program in that direction. We have reduced the support price from $678 to $610. We are allowing people to produce peanuts. Yet we hear now those who are concerned that the consumer is being hurt, take a look at cereal. Take a look at the argument. Ask those people that are giving you the information of why you ought to come in here and do to the peanut farmer what you are doing, ask them what and why they are doing in the marketplace to the consumer other than trying to take it out of the farmer's pocket.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have listened attentively to much of the debate. I think that the proponent of this amendment is completely overlooking the reason why some of us believe that it is a good program. If you have ever talked to a rancher that has lost 200, 300, 400, or 500 kid goats, baby goats just born, if you have talked to ranchers that have lost 200 or 300 or 400 baby lambs that have just been born, then the 3-percent figure in the Nation makes no sense whatsoever to that individual. This program is designed to take care of a problem. When there is no problem, when you do not have an undue number of coyotes or other predator animals in an area, you do not have a program. But when you do have one, and it becomes a problem, then you have a need for a program, and it does not just benefit the rancher. Living in my part of the country today, as my friend and neighbor from San Antonio just pointed out, rabies, we have a serious problem that we are trying to contain and control. It is spread by coyotes and bobcats. And it is a problem that is now coming within the city limits of some of our towns in the southern part of Texas. This program, as it is designed, is designed to be a responsible way to deal with problems like this. So I would hope that my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, would not support this amendment. It does nothing other than create some tremendous economic problems for certain ranchers, and it is not just in the far west, it is in Texas, it is in Oklahoma, it is in New Mexico, in all areas in which you have for whatever reason a problem with predatory animals. I would hope that Members would not support this amendment. I think the committee has done a very responsible job. They have had a difficult time with the amount of moneys available. They have put the moneys where they believe is in the best and highest priority. I believe that it is something that almost every one of us can find a way to justify and support.

Mr. STENHOLM. As floor, as a floor. But it is the same in corn. I suppose the next thing we will have an amendment to put a cap on is corn. Put a cap on wheat, put a cap on cotton. Control the price. Control. Let us have price fixing, which is what you are proposing right here with this amendment. Let us fix the price on the up side. As we all know, what we have tried to do with farm programs is to put some bottom-side protection to growers; bottom-side protection, because we are in the international marketplace in all of agriculture. And in peanuts it is a unique program, I concede that. It is very unique. But I wish my colleague would give credit to the Committee on Agriculture for doing that which we recognize we had to do, and that is move the program more into the market orientation side. And we did that. But it is never enough for those that want to kill the program. Those that want to go in and eliminate the total program and would love to pay $400 a ton for peanuts and buy all the peanuts for 1 year until you break the farmers, I understand that. It makes good sense.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her question, but follow this very carefully. There is no prohibition on anyone raising any number of peanuts. Last year, I believe the domestic market for peanuts was 937,010 tons. That was the domestic market last year. The administration has reduced from 1.3 to 1.1; 1.1, the last time, I checked, was more than 937. So really, you cannot make an argument that even the reduced quota is going to short the market. But the important thing to understand is that anybody can raise any number of peanuts. If there is a shorting of the market because there are not enough peanuts to go around, anybody can go into the pools that we have, pools in which peanut farmers sell their peanuts into a joint pool. If the market price is greater, they share in the benefits and, if it is not greater, they lose. So the argument that we, by reducing from 1.3 to 1.1 is unduly influencing the market, it might be right now when some folks are trying to contract. And if I were a buyer right now, I would be doing everything in my power to do, to get somebody to come on the floor and to put a cap on what farmers can receive. That is good business. I understand that. That makes eminent good sense, put a cap on, which is what this amendment would do. No farmer may ever get more than $640 a ton for their peanuts.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I only want to point out again, which I think is the most relevant counter-argument to the amendment being offered: There is no restraint on production of peanuts. The market is the one that has to react. If the market chooses to pay $800 a ton, peanut farmers will be happy. If they choose to pay $610, they will not be so happy. Some will be very happy with $610. I have got growers that make good money at $500, $400 a ton. I have got others that struggle to make it at $610. We tried to balance that constituent interest because I happen to represent both quota and nonquota. I happen to represent some of the theory that the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is trying to put forward here.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 63, which is nearly identical to the legislation passed by this body last week, House Concurrent Resolution 181, introduced by my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Emerson, and cosponsored by a number of other Members. As was noted last week, the Clinton administration has been working on a similar effort to make Government-owned feed grain stocks available to hard-pressed livestock producers. Secretary Glickman transmitted to the President a request last week for the declaration of a state of emergency to allow the Department of Agriculture to dispose of the feed grain stocks under USDA's control. There is no doubt that there is a need to alleviate the stress facing producers in many parts of this country due to the severe drought in the Southern Plains and flooding and excessive rainfall in the Northern Plains and eastern Corn Belt. These natural disasters come at a time when grain stocks are at their lowest levels in decades causing record market prices and cattle producers are receiving even less for their animals than during the Great Depression based on inflation-adjusted dollars. The release of this grain would be in addition to the actions already taken by the Clinton administration to help alleviate the stress in the livestock sector. These actions include: Release of Conservation Reserve Program acres for haying and grazing, extension of noninsured crop disaster assistance program coverage, extension of the Livestock Feed Program, the release of additional funds for emergency loans, advance purchases of beef for the school lunch program, and export credit guarantees for meat. In my own State of Texas we are facing losses in the livestock and crop sectors in the billions of dollars. Sixty-two percent of our rangeland is rated as being in poor to very poor condition and dairy producers in Texas are facing a possible doubling of their normal feed costs due to the increases in the cost of feed and hay they must utilize to produce milk each day. I would encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. The livestock sector in our country contributes billions of dollars to our economy and if we do not take actions to help stem the liquidation of herds now, we will pay the price later for rebuilding that infrastructure.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his explanation. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object, and I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] for an explanation of the Senate concurrent resolution.