Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. No, sir; if I can reclaim my time, only if the market drops and it is required to maintain a competitive position in the international marketplace, which no one foresees for this year and, in fact, into next year.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is difficult to sit here on the floor and to truly understand what it is that who is amending and for what purpose. This is not a newly created program. In 1985, we had seen the cotton industry in the United States deteriorate to an alarmingly low level, and it was recognized that unless we found a way to be competitive in the international marketplace, that it was going to continue to deteriorate, and therefore the market loan was put into place. And it has been very, very successful, so successful that the gentleman from Massachusetts was correct a moment ago when he said it was going to cost zero this year. That has been one of the things that has puzzled me about why we are changing such a successful cotton program to the degree that we are. But the bottom line here is if we have something in place that is working, why would we want to change it?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would say I have to smile every time I hear the consumer argument made, because in this country, everyone knows that we are blessed with the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost to our consumer of any other country in the world. No one comes close to us. Today, our dairymen need a raise. In 1984, dairy farmers received $13.61 a hundred, and a half gallon of milk cost $1.13. In 1994, the farmers received $13.02 a hundred, and a half gallon of milk cost $1.44. The Solomon amendment will reduce dairy farm income over the next 7 years by $4 billion. The committee bill that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] and others have worked hard in numerous hearings will add $3.4 billion. It is not an unreasonable raise. I hear a lot about how much it is going to cost. The true figure is 6 cents per week. We hear a lot about the additives that are going to be added to our milk. Solids, not fat, are primarily protein and calcium. Read the health concerns of so many men and women today. Current Federal standards for class 1 milk requires less protein and calcium than the average cow produces. California has had it right for all of these years. What we are suggesting now is let the cow do her work. Let the people consume the milk that the cow produces, or at least a little closer than what we have been used to. We hear all of this about the Federal regulations. That was laughable. As the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] pointed out, we have not done it yet. But what he is doing in this amendment, we are taking 33 Federal orders and reducing it down to 13. That is 20 less regulatory bodies. If that is not deregulation, if that is not dealing with the cost. Now, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] pointed out rightfully there are some problems with some of the feeding programs. But this bill saves $770 million. Dairy farmers have always been willing to share with those less fortunate.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] legislation introduced today by Congressman Burr, which would provide some regulatory relief for health professionals. The legislation would allow the holder of an approved new drug application to provide health professionals a reprint of a medical journal article which includes information about the drug that is not in the FDA-approved package insert. While I certainly support the basic health and safety mission of the FDA, I have heard numerous concerns from my constituents about the FDA approved process and the frustrations they have in dealing with the Federal bureaucracy in general. As a representative of a rural district, I am very aware of the feeling of isolation that rural providers experience. Many times, rural providers find themselves with limited access to information they are unable to find someone to cover their practices so that they can attend conferences or meetings at which new medical technology is discussed. I believe Representative Burr's legislation is a good first step in addressing some of my constituents' frustrations. Current law allows doctors to prescribe drugs for the users they feel most appropriately meet their patients' needs. For instance, if a doctor reads a journal article showing the effectiveness of a particular drug treating an illness for which it was not originally approved, the doctor is not prohibited from prescribing the drug for that use. However, current FDA regulations prohibit drug manufacturers from providing doctors with information about any use of the drug that has not been previously approved by the FDA. Therefore, while studies might have shown the safety and effectiveness of the drug for additional uses, manufacturers are not allowed to share this information with doctors. Representative Burr's legislation attempts to address this issue in a fair way that will maintain the FDA's mission of protecting consumers from unsafe, ineffective drugs. I believe it is important for the committees of jurisdiction to consider this legislation and all of its ramifications, particularly with regard to consumer safety. I feel very confident that liability responsibilities shouldered by physicians more than adequately ensure that they will not carelessly prescribe inadequately proven drugs. Many agree that the FDA approval process, while attempting to ensure consumers have safe and efficient drugs, may actually delay the availability of some breakthrough drugs. This bill may not contain all of the answers, but it is a productive first step and it should receive a hearing in the regular committee process, so that interests on all sides of the issue can be heard and considered. It is important that we reform the FDA with an awareness of the agency's responsibility, which is to see that the medicines we use are safe and effective.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would address my comments to the words ``dignity'' and ``integrity'' of the proceedings of the House of Representatives, as stated in rule IX of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the second statement that says, ``those affecting the rights and the reputation and conduct of Members individually in their representative capacity only.'' When we had this resolution before you last week, Mr. Speaker, you ruled against this as a question of privilege, but I am asking you to take another look at the rules of the House and the questions of privilege that shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, its dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the integrity of the proceedings of the 104th Congress, 1st session just adjourned, and the beginning of the 2d session, the integrity of the proceedings of the House of Representatives is being called into question by the procedure in which we are being asked to follow without allowing a vote of the will of the majority as to whether or not the issue in question shall be put to the body of the House of Representatives. It seems to me that we have been guilty, in the conduct of our proceedings, of mixing apples and oranges, of mixing an appropriation process with a budget process, of which a further reading of the Rules of the House of Representatives will clearly show that they are two separate issues and should not be commingled. But it is my argument in behalf of the minority leader's motion of privilege that a careful examination of the Rules of the House, the integrity of our proceedings will be called into question unless you find it to rule in favor of those who wish to have a simple, up and down vote as to whether or not the work of the Congress, the work of our Government shall proceed as we follow the regular order. No Member of this body is more in favor of balancing the budget. I would rather do it in the regular order, and it seems to me that having the continued impasse is not in the best interests of the integrity of this body. Certainly as an individual Member, I am receiving the calls from people whose service is being denied because of these actions. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you find in favor of this motion of privilege. Basically it is to do one thing, to preserve the dignity and integrity of the House of Representatives in one simple aspect, allowing a vote. Let us now express ourselves as to the merits of the issue before us. That is all that we are asking for.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, going directly to the question that the Chair has posed, as I read questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings. It seems to me that the situation that we have before us today, in which we collectively have shut down a portion of our Government without having due legislative process followed in preparing a CR under whatever stipulations that the Chair might wish to stipulate, having it sent to the President and the President vetoing that versus a unilateral decision that has been made by the Speaker to say, without any action thereof, unilaterally closing down the Government does reflect on the dignity and the integrity of this body. Also, second, those affecting the rights, reputation and conduct of Members individually. I would submit, as a Member, that the reputation of this Member is being categorized by those on the majority side who seem to have decided it is in the best interest of the Congress to shut down a portion of our Government, to have, in fact, some individual employees of our Government denied their rights of employment. I would submit to the Chair that a careful reading of rule IX, No. 1, questions of privilege, is, indeed, is, indeed, a proper decision for the Chair to say it is reflecting on the dignity of the House, because I cannot for a moment conceive of any way we are helping anybody, anything, any way by the actions of the House collectively as has been demonstrated by the Speaker in preparing this unilateral decision of a shutdown. So I would say, read that carefully, Mr. Speaker. Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings and, second, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members. All we are saying with this resolution is that we believe that there is a way to cast a better reflection on the House and its dignity by allowing this to come forward. That is the argument the gentleman from Mississippi is making. That is the argument I am making to the Chair as the Speaker and why we believe that this is truly a question of privilege, because the reputation of the House and its dignity is being brought into disrepute, and I would hope that any Speaker would be worried about that.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the first budget the President submitted this year and stated so in the Committee on the Budget because it did not do what I want done, and that is balance the budget in 7 years. I opposed his second budget but applauded him for moving into the 10- year balanced budget frame. I applauded the President when he moved again a week ago, not as far as I would like to see, and I certainly will vote against this so-called budget today, which really is not a budget. It is an opportunity to talk about whatever it is we have been talking about. But I also voted against the Republican budget. We hear a lot about the deficit. And I have a lot of agreements with the Republican budget. I think we will find whenever we can start negotiating that we will have some agreements. I have a lot of strong disagreements. The biggest one is I do not believe it makes sense to borrow 53 billion more dollars over the next 3 years in order to give ourselves a tax cut. If my colleagues are concerned about deficits, it seems to me that the good-faith first effort ought to be reduce the deficit, not cut taxes. We talk about negotiations. I have not seen any movement on this as yet. Does it really make sense to borrow 53 billion more dollars when we are talking about reducing the deficit? I ask my colleagues to justify that one. We have heard a lot about honest numbers. Again let me repeat, honest numbers, real numbers, CBO, all of this that I support, but CBO adjusted their real, honest numbers 135 billion since we started the fussing. I am on the nonnegotiating team. I hope today as our leaders have met, I hope that later today we will hear that the negotiators can sit down and start working out the differences between the various ideas and that we come to an agreement, and that budget agreement will be signed by the President because he has said, I will sign a 7-year CBO- scored budget. But we will not get there with what we are doing this afternoon.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery]. (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge.].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln]. (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, at first glance today I thought that this was not going to be a very helpful exercise, and with some of the tone, I think that was proven right. But let us get back to taking a lemon and let us try to make some lemonade out of it. I am on the nonnegotiating team. We have spent the last 2 weeks plus trying to get to the table and discuss the policy differences, and we have been denied that day after day after day. We have been denied the opportunity to sit down and talk about the honest policy differences. So I look at this as an opportunity. I ask every Member of this body to oppose the previous question. Oppose the previous question and let us spend the next 3 hours discussing the coalition budget under an open rule in which any Member of this body on either side of the House can sit down and talk about what we like and dislike about the policy that has been presented by the coalition. If we defeat this previous question, we can do that, and I say in the spirit of Christmas and fairness, instead of spending the next 3 hours debating a budget which really has never been presented, which will get no votes, and that is what it should, let us spend the next 3 hours dealing with policy differences where we have some agreement on both sides of the aisle and some disagreement. You know, this budget agreement and why we have been unable to negotiate has been painful to me because I read and re-read the President has agreed to support a 7-year balanced budget CBO scored. What he has not agreed was to present this final offer in the beginning of the negotiating process. What the President has argued for is let us have consultation and negotiation, and that is something that I sense because I have talked to enough friends on the Republican side of the aisle as well as my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle that we would love to get to doing. But the rule before us does not allow that. It is not helpful, and it is not constructive. It certainly is not in keeping with the Christmas spirit. Let us defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, we will put the coalition budget on the floor under an open rule, not a closed rule, and we can spend 3 hours of constructive discussions and see whether we might not be able to bridge some of the differences before us. Our Government is shut down for no good reason. There is no good reason for us to have our employees out on the streets before Christmas. We cannot bring ourselves to sit down as intelligent men and women and discuss the policy differences when we have already agreed in the end there will be a balanced budget CBO scored, 7 years, that will, in fact, be passed and certified. I ask the defeat of the previous question, and let us have a productive 3 hours of discussion.