Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Not at our request, I would say to the gentleman. We preferred to have the nutrition programs in this bill, but it was at the request of a point of order of those that choose not to have them included that they were extracted.

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding and would point out again that we do repeal the assessments on our dairy farmers which gives some equivalence to the dairy industry as compared to the market transition program, as compared what we tried to do for the soybean producers and oil seeds.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. STENHOLM. I am, in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, a brief explanation of the amendment before us today. We propose in this amendment to fund the fund for rural America to the degree of $3.5 billion, to meet the rural development conservation research and extension priorities and needs of rural America that we believe are not and have not and will not be met in the funding as before us in H.R. 2854. I would hasten to point out, for budget reasons, the $3.5 billion additional spending conforms to the coalition budget that was offered last year that balances our budget in 7 years, Congressional Budget Office scoring. We believe and have consistently said that the current farm bill and the cuts as proposed in agriculture are too severe, particularly in the area of rural development. And we have suggested that additional funding must be made available, and that is what this amendment does. It also includes a provision for the oilseeds. In the transition market program that is in the base bill, the oilseeds are shortchanged. For too long, the oilseeds have been shortchanged and, as we had a discussion yesterday regarding the market loan for cotton, we believe that a similar oilseed marketing loan is also very applicable and very much needed. The CBO score on the oilseed cost is $103 million over 7 years, but I hasten to point out that soybeans represent the third largest United States crop with the second largest value. I think some additional investment to see that that industry remains a strong and viable industry is warranted, and that is why we offer that as a second part of our amendment. The third part to the amendment deals with continuation of permanent law. On this side we have been very, very nervous about the ending of farm programs under any shape, form or fashion. We understand that there is a commission that will be studying what we replace, if we replace, agricultural legislation. We think, though, that we should delete the base bill provision which repeals permanent law to give us a little extra added incentive just in case the commission or the Congress should be as hopelessly deadlocked in 2002, as we were in 1995. And, therefore, the three parts of our amendment: the fund for rural America, the oilseed marketing loan and the continuation of permanent law.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish that the chairman would listen for just a moment, because it is not the intention of this amendment to do any of what the gentleman was describing. The intention of this amendment is to recognize the tremendous pressures and the frustration that has occurred this year between the appropriators and the authorizers regarding the adequacy of funding for many of the programs in the agricultural function. I am perfectly willing to let the appropriators make that decision, if that were possible, but the gentleman and I both would agree that if we put this money into the discretionary pot, then it would be up to the appropriators as to whether the $3.5 billion would end up in the agriculture function or would end up somewhere else, meeting more appropriate needs. I do not argue with that process which we have to go through, the appropriators, and I am very sympathetic to that. But what we are trying to do in the same spirit of the transition market program, in which we are capping entitlements, this is one entitlement that is being capped. I believe the gentleman would agree with that. That is the strength of the Freedom To Farm Act. It is capping the expenditures at a fixed limit. It is reducing it by 46 percent as compared to the last 5 years. The gentleman and I would both agree that if every other entitlement was making that kind of a reduction, our budget would be balanced. But in doing that, in the debate, in the tremendous pressure that the Committee on Appropriations is undergoing, agriculture and rural America is getting squeezed, squeezed and squeezed, through no fault of the chairman. So all we can think of how we might help work the gentleman's problem and our problem in a cooperative way is to suggest that we increase the CCC funding and make it available specifically for the purpose of agriculture. If the gentleman could show me another way to do it, we would be glad to amend our budget to do it. As I said in my opening remarks, balancing the budget, there is no one that is more interested and more dedicated to doing that. We do it under our budget, not under the gentleman's budget. My difficulty with the majority in this is I believe that they are asking too much from agriculture and rural America, so we suggest putting some back and we try to control it. I am perfectly willing to let the gentleman have the partnership that we all would share in how we spend it.

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me. I do not believe the chairman intended to misspeak about our amendment. It is not outside the baseline. It is within the baseline. It is outside your suggested baseline on spending. But I would point out you have already broken your baseline today with the Boehlert amendment, with the Everglades. You have already busted your own. So our argument is we are within the baseline, as I have described it. I do not believe you intended to misspeak upon that.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], the leading advocate and worker in favor of the Rural Development Fund as it pertains to our rural communities, dealing particularly with the water, sewer, and housing needs.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time I believe that we have fully explained our original amendment. Nothing has changed other than we removed the onerous nutrition components to the bill. The rest of it is as was explained.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. AQI technical amendment?

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. If I could reclaim my time, the gentleman admitted a moment ago he did not know much about agriculture and farming, and I respect that because I do not pretend to know a lot about other areas of programs that come before this body. But I do know something about the cotton industry, and the purpose of this program was to see that our cotton industry can compete in the international marketplace. If I were to stand here today and say I have a bill before the House that will enable a $122 billion industry in the United States to set records for production, consumption, export, price, investment, and job creation over the next 5 years, we both would be supporting it. I do not understand why you are opposing it. We have the most successful program for cotton in the history of the cotton program because it allowed us to do the one thing that we need to do, and that is, compete with subsidies from other countries.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, again this is a no-net-cost program. The arguments that are being made on behalf of the consumer cannot be justified by any arithmetic that anybody can put forward. This one pound of peanut butter, the farmers' price is 48 cents, the manufacturer price is $1.87. I do not see how anyone can get 33 additional cents in this little bottle of peanut butter at the farmers' expense. The bottom line is this, and the survey done in my district--and I happen to represent both quota and nonquota growers; I have got both sides. All of them agree that the program as reformed under the committee bill is definitely a step in the right direction that we need to go. They object to the 610 price support cut, cutting 10 percent of the gross income. Ask anyone watching or listening or in this audience right now if his pay was cut 10 percent, how would he feel? That is the argument before us today, an additional 10 percent on top of another 10 percent will be very disruptive to a very important industry to this country.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would say in the beginning that I agree with those that have characterized the bill before us as not a perfect bill. I would also agree with those that have characterized the process which brings us today as being deficient in many, many areas. But we are here. Now I would say, I think it is time to put in a good word for agriculture. There were some 74 amendments that were to be offered today, but under the moderately closed rule we only have 14. Many of those 14 are very harmful, extremely harmful to an already deficient bill. I would hope that my colleagues could rally and to keep some of these additional bills from passing or the amendments to the bill. Much has been said about market orientation. Let me point out to the House that since 1981, the 1981, 1985, and 1990 farm bills have moved us into the international marketplace. We have been quite successful because this year the expected exports of agriculture commodities are running at $60 billion. The trade surplus is running at $22 to $24 billion. We are told that for every $1 billion there are 20,000 jobs that are created, so this bill today is a giant job creator. We will hear a lot about subsidies and expenditures and budgets today. Let us make sure we start the debate with a solid base, not the baseline but a solid base. The 1990 farm bill spent $56.9 billion. The bill before us proposes to spend $42.96 billion over 7 years. The previous was 5 years. The bill before us cuts not rate of increase but cuts expenditure on agriculture by 46 percent. Some of us feel that is too extreme for an industry as important as agriculture is. We fought that fight, but we have lost because we are a minority voice. There will be a lot said, as my previous speaker, my colleague from Louisiana did an excellent job of talking about the sugar industry. We can say the same about almost any industry. The only justification that any of us can stand on this floor and suggest that subsidies for agriculture or any other business are justified, is to provide a level playing field for our producers in the international marketplace. That is the only justification that we can have today. Let me point out that the European Union will spend $40 billion this year and $40 billion next year and $40 billion the year after, and yet we expect our producers to compete with that kind of subsidy. We are being outspent six to one. Yet it seems that the majority wants to see us phase those out and have our producers go cold turkey in this international marketplace. That is why some of us believe that is not the best policy. We had this a few years ago, three to be exact, those that suggested that the elimination of farm programs should be the direction we have already succeeded in wool and mohair. And everybody rejoiced. The editorial boards, the TV commentators, everyone rejoiced that we killed the wool and mohair program. What has been the result for the United States? U.S. sheep breeding herds have dropped 21.6 percent. Sixteen thousand American families have quit the sheep industry. Lamb imports have increased by 50 percent, wool imports by 11 percent. Four of the Nation's lamb packing plants have closed, including the only plants in Texas, the only plant in Minnesota, and the only producer-owned plant in California. The Nation's largest wool textile company has filed for bankruptcy. I chose to use my 5 minutes to talk about the state of agriculture as it is and the importance of taking a bill that many of us believe is extremely deficient in many, many areas. But for heaven's sake, let us not make it worse by pursuing the idea that somehow, some way our producers can compete in the international marketplace with our Government not standing shoulder to shoulder with them, and that is foolish. That is the debate that we have heard, and I want to concur with the ranking member who said when we talk about hearings on freedom to farm, there have been no hearings on freedom to farm, and my colleagues know it. We have had hearings on the farm program and the direction it ought to go; that is true. But at no time did we ever have any discussions of the specifics of what this particular legislation will do for us, to us, or any other way. So as we go into this debate now, in many areas I hope that we can concentrate on the fact that agriculture is a rather important industry and needs to be supported to the best of our ability.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, again, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] made the most relevant argument. This amendment goes at exactly the wrong target. The market loan has worked very, very well. It is not a guaranteed payment. To hear that this is a guaranteed payment, there are no projected costs for the market loan program this year, because the price of world cotton is way above the loan. Therefore, there are no projected costs. But it is the purpose of having the program in place, like a few years ago with the collapse of the former Soviet Union; when that collapsed, there was a tremendous increased volume of cotton on the market. At that point in time, had it not been for the market loan, we would have seen depression prices in the cotton market in the United States. But because the market loan was there, yes, it cost some money. It cost some money, but it worked for the purposes of an industry that is providing tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs in the United States. This amendment is targeted, the rhetoric at least that I have heard today, is targeted at the wrong area. If you are concerned about the National Taxpayer Union and spending, this bill that we are talking about today cuts 50 percent from what was spent over the last 5 years. That is a pretty good record for any program I know. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, when I came here, we had a 16 million bale carryover. The world was in complete disarray. Mexico was afraid we were going to dump. We had tremendous problems. Then we came up with this type of program. I was in Korea about that time when they told me with very much pride, ``Look, this is Texas cotton, Texas cotton.'' We started losing that market, then this program came along. It has doing what it was intended to do. Unfortunately, many of our colleagues only aim at areas outside their area for market cuts. But this has been a good program. It has helped, and I can attest to that fact.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. STENHOLM. If I can reclaim my time, the only way there will be an expenditure for any other amount of money is if the world market price collapses and we need again to maintain the industry in a competitive position in the world marketplace.

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

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to respond to the gentleman. The gentleman from Ohio made some of the most outlandish statements regarding the costs and the aspects of this that I could possibly hear. If we are concerned about fiscal responsibility of the cotton program, let us look at the record from the 1990 farm bill. From 1991 to 1995, we have expended a total of $5.9 billion, an average of $1.2 billion per year. Under the proposal that we are now looking at for the next 7 years, it is proposed to cap that spending. It was not capped in 1992 to 1995, but we will cap that spending at $4.1 billion, or an average of $600 million per year. Now, that is a 50-percent cut.

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