Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to do a little revising and extending of some of my own remarks here for just a moment. I was one of those that opposed the line item veto for many years because I believe giving any President one-third plus one minority override was too much power, and I argued that point. I argued it again this year, but a little bit differently. I came to believe several years ago that line item veto was a good thing and a very positive thing. But I still did not want to give a President one-third plus one. I wanted to give majority rule. In other words, if any President were to go in and veto Charlie Stenholm's favorite line item, that is, somebody else's definition of pork, he could do so. It would be my charge to get 50 percent plus one of my colleagues to agree with me. If the President got 50 percent to agree with him, it would go. I argued that this year, and we lost. Those who believe true line-item veto, one-third plus one won on the floor of the House. I have been looking at this and listening to this debate. Tomorrow you will get a chance to vote again for line item veto, H.R. 2. I will vote for it because I believe now those who have convinced me that giving a President one-third plus one is something that is very, very important. So I have changed my mind to the degree that I now believe it is time to do that, whoever the President is. But I find it very interesting in listening to some of the debate today saying we cannot do it because of the Senate. The Byrd rule is 60 votes. At any time two-thirds of the House or the Senate wish to give a President line item veto, it may be done. I think it is time to turn up the ratchet. I think it is time to turn up the heat bipartisanly and say to both bodies, to the conferees, let us agree on what we are going to give this President and the next President and let us do it now. Let us make it applicable to this year's reconciliation bill, this year's tax bill, this year's appropriation bills, because I think it will be very helpful to a lot of the other debate going on concerning the reconciliation bill and how we are going to get a balanced budget by the year 2002, which I totally agree with. So I have been listening very, very carefully to all of the debate that is going on and about a train wreck and how we can avoid it. I think it is extremely important for all of us now, both sides of the aisle, people like me that have had reservations about doing a line item veto, like some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been wanting to do; I have been putting a lot of time and effort into the thought processes, and I think now is the time for us to test this theory and do it the right way. Let us instruct the conferees in the House and send the message to the other body. Now is the time for us to do this because it will be very constructive to avoiding a train wreck and to getting us to make the tough decisions that are going to be required in getting to a balanced budget in the year 2002. So I encourage my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let us look at this issue as it is being portrayed today and support this motion.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it is important as we make the various statements, and my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, has just made an excellent statement regarding the political rhetoric to which I agree, but when we look back at the actual facts and go back to 1981, there is one thing that he conveniently leaves out. That is that we increased our national debt $3.9 trillion during the 10-year period that followed the decisions of 1981. Spending, and this is something we have been talking about today, spending, and spending in the 1993 budget agreement, there was one thing about the 1993 budget agreement that I would think most of us on both sides of the aisle would agree with. That is, when we look at spending. The 1993-based discretionary spending was $542 billion. In 1997, it was $553 billion that is a 2-percent increase since 1993 assumptions, baseline. In 1981, the base was $308 billion. In 1985, 4 years later, $416 billion, a 35-percent increase. Mr. Chairman, our point is the Coalition budget that we submit is better than, better than the majority's budget. It gets to balance in 2002. We do not quarrel about the spending. We agree. However, we say do the spending first. Let us not repeat the mistakes of 1981, when we did the tax cuts first and the deficit exploded. Let us do the spending cuts, and do not be as critical of the 1993 budget as many of the people are if they are concerned about spending, because it has done much better than we were able to do in the early 1980's.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, passing this measure simply makes good common sense. Think about it. Hazardous Occupation Order No. 12 has been on the books for 41 years. In 1954, heavy-duty industrial machinery, like the paper baler, was substantially more dangerous than today. Since that time, technology and concern for worker safety have helped create a much safer workplace. As a matter of fact, the Waste Equipment Technology Association's 7 year review of 8,000 compensation cases involving injuries could not identify a single injury attributable to a baler or compactor failing to meet acceptable standards. Unfortunately, H.O. 12 has never been updated to reflect the changes brought about by advances in workplace safety. It's time we updated this regulation. The economic effects of this measure have been substantial. Fines in excess of $250,000 have been levied against grocery store owners. Faced with this kind of punishment, is it any wonder that store owners are less likely to hire 16 and 17 year olds? Mr. Speaker, to put things in perspective, I was 16 when this regulation took effect. I remember needing extra money to pay the insurance on my car and to take care of other necessities. Young people today are no different and we should be doing everything we can to encourage employers to hire them. The bottom line is this: H.R. 1114 is a proemployer, prolabor, proyoung person, projobs bill. We don't see this kind of measure too often, and when we do, we ought to support it.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in June 1955, 742 young men graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and received commissions in the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Air Force. Today the Class of 1955 returns to the Academy for its 40th reunion. The U.S. Naval Academy was founded in October 1845. In recognition of the Academy's 150th anniversary, this evening the president of the class of 1955 will formally present an 85' x 10' mural to the superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy. The mural is mounted in Alumni Hall and is described by the following text: Winning the Cold War On the occasion of our 40th reunion, the Class of 1955 proudly presents this mural to salute the 150th Anniversary of The United States Naval Academy. Conceived and commissioned by the class, the mural reminds today's midshipmen of the Cold War's scope and complexity. Through numerous examples, the mural illustrates the extensive efforts by our nation to win the longest war in our history. The mural makes the point that winning the war occurred in part as a result of values imparted to midshipmen of all the classes of the era by the Academy. The historical purpose of the mural is to portray the world as it evolved during the period of sustained tension between the free world and the Communist nations from the late 1940's to the early 1990's. This period generally coincides with the active duty service of the Class of '55. The images of historic events and Naval Academy activities are chosen to remind viewers that the national security environment during the Cold War was very different than today's, and that the Naval Academy environment was different in many ways as well. The Cold War is but one of many periods in our nation's history in which Naval Academy graduates made significant contributions to the preservation of our freedom. Despite the changing nature of the challenges, the Naval Academy prepares midshipmen to make these important contributions by emphasizing a traditional set of core values that provide the foundation for continued success by Academy graduates. These values are illustrated by the four themes in the mural: Leadership, Academics and Technology, Athletics, and Excellence and Professionalism. leadership The Naval Academy consistently produces high quality graduates who understand and practice the fundamental principles of leadership. Academy graduates of every rank lead men and women in training and battle, in the execution of supporting technical and administrative duties, and rise to the most senior positions in their services. During the Cold War, Naval Academy graduates (including many members of the Class of '55) commanded ships, planes, squadrons, companies, battalions and other fighting units in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. The two glass panels flanking the central world map present the insignia of all the services, the Department of Defense, and the Naval Academy. The central panel of the mural illustrates the enormous geographic size of the Communist Empire directed by the very large and powerful Soviet Union. The comparatively small United States mounted a sustained 40 year campaign of moral, military, economic, and technical superiority to defeat the Communist threat to our free existence. The hexagon shaped panels illustrate some of the significant events that collectively contributed to Winning The Cold War. Naval Academy graduates participated in these events that resulted in the total collapse of the Soviet Union and subordinate nations of the Communist Empire. The mural suggests the internal decay of that empire by the rusty steel and popped rivets around the borders of Communist countries. academics and technology The angled wall to the right of the map illustrates the role of the Naval Academy in preparing midshipmen for future intellectual challenges. Some of the most amazing technological advances in history occurred during the years spanned by the service of the Class of '55. As midshipmen, we used the slide rule for general calculations and analog computers for gun laying. A few years after graduation, the digital computer entered our professional careers and triggered an exponential technological explosion. The solid academic foundation provided by the Naval Academy enabled graduates to master emerging technologies and lead their subordinates through the challenges of the computer and nuclear age. The glass overlays on each end of the central panel, together with the adjacent painted scenes, illustrate representative ship, submarine and aircraft systems of steadily increasing complexity in which Naval Academy graduates served during the Cold War. The consistent ability of our nation to stay ahead of the former USSR in the development and application of technology forced a series of Communist leaders to recognize that they could not compete successfully in a military confrontation with the United States. athletics The angled wall to the left of the map illustrates the important contribution of the Naval Academy athletic programs in developing high quality graduates. Over the years, brilliant performances by individuals, combined with a unique Naval Academy emphasis on teamwork, resulted in significant victories over national colleges and universities with much stronger and heavily subsidized athletic programs. As an example, the ``team called DESIRE'', led by the Class of `55, overpowered favored Army and then defeated Mississippi, the Southeastern Conference Champions, 21-0 in the 1955 Sugar Bowl. Other teams and individuals represented on the panel won Olympic, National, Eastern Intercollegiate, and League Championships. A fierce competitiveness, the will to win, and a refusal to quit characterize the performance of Navy teams across a wide spectrum of collegiate sports. The special tolerance for pressure and for leadership under stress developed by participation in Navy sports enabled Academy graduates to withstand the physically demanding requirements of combat operations, space flight and in some cases prolonged detention as a prisoner of war. The Naval Academy athletic programs also motivate graduates to remain physically fit and apply the same winning habits to their professional careers. excellence and professionalism The plebe at the left end of the mural represents all midshipmen entering the Naval Academy. Each new plebe class contains individuals from every state, a few foreign nations, and some with previous military service. These fledgling midshipmen represent a wide range of value systems, family backgrounds and ethnic cultures. During their four years at the Academy, these young people grow in their sense of ethics, truthfulness and honor, and learn to respect the need for spiritual guidance. The first class midshipman at the right end of the mural is about to graduate, well prepared for commissioning as an officer in one of the armed services. The habit of excellence developed as midshipmen is transformed into the professionalism that distinguishes Naval Academy graduates as they lead military organizations, work on the frontiers of technology, and participate in programs of national importance. The Cold War is over. Our national ability to remain strong and unyielding for over 40 [[Page E 1981]] years in the face of a hostile and persistent Communist threat to our freedom was due in significant part to dedicated service by Naval Academy graduates. Unfortunately, the world is still a dangerous place and our country will continue to call upon the armed services to preserve our freedom. The men and women in the service uniform of their choice will continue to answer the call and will add new chapters to the proud history of the Naval Academy developed over the past 150 years.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, yesterday a very alarming happening occurred in the House Agriculture Committee. For the first time in recollection, the leadership of this House took away the prerogative of the Agriculture Committee for doing its work, in this case on a reconciliation bill. It was not that the Agriculture Committee was not trying to do its work, and I take great exception to a statement that was made by the chairman that says, ``This situation, which has caused the differences of opinion, has been made more difficult because our Democratic colleagues have opted for a destructive role in the process.'' I do not see how anyone could make that statement with a clear conscience. Mr. Speaker, we had a Democratic alternative, we have a Democratic alternative, and we will fight for that alternative, and that alternative for the budget reconciliation process says that basically we think $400 billion in cuts from Medicare and Medicaid are excessive, that the additional cuts in education being proposed are excessive, and that the $13.4 billion in cuts from agricultural programs are excessive when they are used for purposes of granting a tax cut. We will show on this floor that there is an alternative and we hope that there will be 21 votes for that alternative. However, yesterday the leadership of this body decided that unless the Agriculture Committee reports a politically correct solution, we do not want to see it. That is disturbing. No witnesses have ever been called on the Freedom to Farm Act. I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities. I was never informed that there were ever considered to be hearings on the Freedom to Farm Act. The only time we heard about it is when it came from the leadership of this body in suggesting that that is the way we ought to go to the reconciliation committee. We have a Democratic alternative. It was voted on in the Ag Committee and it was voted down predictably because we do not have the votes and I understand that. But I think it stretches the point when we say when there were 2 Republicans who offered an alternative and some of us who even disagreed with the 13.4, the majority of Democrats voted for a bipartisan substitute, but we were unable to get votes from the Republicans for that. It stretches the imagination and it stretches the truth when we read and we hear what is going on. It bothers me greatly when the leadership of this House suggests to the Committee on Agriculture that unless you do our will, our bidding, we may even consider eliminating the Committee on Agriculture, and put it in writing. Now, I do not know what is going on, but as a Member of this body who has traditionally participated in bipartisan action, who shares the frustration of the American people that we are constantly fighting Democrats and Republicans, I do not know what is happening in this body now when the hand of bipartisanship is not being offered, in fact it is being cut off regularly. When we look at what happened yesterday in the Committee on Agriculture, it is a very disturbing trend. I hope that as we proceed now to the budget reconciliation that the general public will begin to understand there are alternatives out there, there are ways to balance the budget by the year 2002, and it does not require gutting rural America, health care, it does not require an absolute total change in philosophy of farm programs. Let us never forget for a moment, are we not all blessed to live in a country that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost of any other country in the world, warts and all? All of the criticism we are hearing from the editorial boards that agree with the Freedom to Farm Act because they want to eliminate farm policy, should we the American people not stop for just a moment and say, maybe just maybe American agriculture is doing a few things right? And not have to follow blindly a philosophical leadership of this House that does not have a clue about farm policy and agriculture but has a great philosophical belief that somehow, someway by eliminating farm programs we are going to do better? It is not a budget question, it is a philosophical question. The sooner we start debating these things on this floor and in the Committee on Agriculture and not getting mad and taking our bat and going home, the sooner we will get on with the kind of policies required for this country to see that we continue to have this abundant food supply.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of this bill, I am pleased to speak in support of H.R. 743 the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act. When my colleague from across the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], asked me to sign on this bill, I quickly agreed because I knew the gentleman was sincere in his desire to address this issue in a fair and constructive manner. The ability of our country's work force to successfully compete in the international arena is too important an issue to fall victim to the partisan politics of business as usual. My own experience as the manager of a rural electrical cooperative in west Texas convinced me of the wisdom of this legislation. Nothing should restrict employers and employees from talking about their workplace and making plans to improve the product or services they offer. The cooperative I managed was far more effective because the employees and I enjoyed open dialog on all matters. We can argue in this Chamber about the necessity of this measure, but we cannot argue with what we are hearing from the folks working in the factories, shops, and other small businesses back home. Mr. Chairman, employees from the 3M plant in Brownwood, TX, and the Goodyear Proving Grounds in San Angelo, TX, support this measure. It is with these workers in mind that I plan to cast my vote for the future of the American work force and vote for the TEAM Act. They want this legislation. It all comes down to this: This is not a bill for employers. It is not a bill for employees. It is a bill for employees and employers. In the modern international marketplace, people all across the country are losing their jobs because their employers are trying to stay competitive. We read every week about another 2,000 or 4,000 or 8,500 who have been laid off. Are employees interested in keeping their company's competitive? Absolutely they are. They have the mortgage and the car payments and the child care and the health care and the groceries to think of. Keeping their company strong means keeping food on their tables. Employees have a vested interest in the passage of this legislation. They want to be part of their future. Mr. Chairman, confrontation is destroying jobs in America. I urge Members to support this legislation.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I learned a long time ago when you have your amendment passed, you do not talk too much, so I will take all the persuasive arguments that I was going to use with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and insert them into the Record, and accept this in the spirit of bipartisan, something we have not seen nearly as much of over the last several months. But I hope this is a sign of better things to come. This is an idea that I have no doubts whatever can be worked out. All of the technical points that the gentleman from Florida has mentioned are very real, but they can be worked out in the spirit of cooperation that has been indicated today. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time and insert the persuasive arguments that are no longer necessary into the Record. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the Rules Committee both for bringing H.R. 1162 to the floor with an open rule and for the committee's substantive, legislative activity on the bill. Like so many others who have spoken on the floor today, this is an issue I have spent many hours over the past several years working towards and I am pleased to see this day finally come. My colleagues, Mike Crapo, Jane Harman, Mike Castle, Bill Brewster, John Kasich, Chet Edwards, and others have done a terrific job in leading this bipartisan effort and I want to thank them for that leadership. I intend to vote in support of final passage of this bill, not because I think it is a perfect bill, or even as strong a bill as we have had proposed over the past several years. But I support it in a spirit of legislative compromise which has been noticeably lacking in recent months. Contrary to much of the rhetoric which has been circulating, not so much around this issue but around some of the currently relevant larger issues, I refuse to become part of the army which seems to think the political process can move forward without compromise. I would like to see this bill come a little closer to provisions included in the Kasich-Stenholm-Penny common cents reform of last year. In my opinion, the ways in which this bill differs from that earlier proposal result in undesirable consequences for the budget deficit. But I accept that other people had other ideas and so I am willing to continue as a foot soldier to improve the status quo, even if it's not everything I would like. I hope others might get the hang of that concept as the next few months proceed. I do intend to support final passage of this bill, but I also want to join in one more effort to improve what I believe is the most serious shortcoming of this bill before it leaves the House of Representatives. Therefore, I rise enthusiastically at this point to speak in behalf of the amendment by my colleague from California, my leader in this effort, Jane Harman. This amendment will ensure that the full effect of spending cuts on appropriations bills are locked into deficit reduction. H.R. 1162 as it is before us currently affects only allocations of spending and discretionary caps for the fiscal year covered by the appropriations bill. Thus, the measure would not lock-in the outyear savings resulting from spending reduction amendments. At first blush, one might assume this criticism is worthy of little more than nitpicking from a budget nerd. Nothing could be further from the truth. For anyone whose support of this legislation is driven by concern about deficit reduction, which I assume is virtually everyone supporting this bill, this outyear factor is no small matter. In fact, we're talking about this bill cutting in half the potential deficit reduction. On average, 48 percent of funds appropriated in any year do not result in outlays until the second year or later. Therefore, in the rhetoric that has surrounded this concept from its beginning, this bill doesn't really guarantee that a cut is a cut. What it does is say that a cut is half a cut at best. I say it is half a cut at best because there is a split-the- difference formula in the base bill which says that the amount placed in the lockbox should be equal to one-half the sum of the amounts in the House lockbox and the Senate lockbox. If we assume that current trends will continue and the House will typically cut more than the Senate, it means that the optimum deficit reduction will never be achieved. Putting that formula aside, however, I believe that this outyear matter is of even greater [[Page H 8850]] importance. The Harman amendment will capture all of the outyear savings for deficit reduction. Because the Federal budget process is such a complicated one, I would like to give an example of what this outyear matter really means. Let's assume that this year the Congress appropriates $1 billion for a given highway project. Because building a highway takes some time, the Department of Transportation may obligate only $100 million of the money during the next year. That doesn't mean that the project loses the other $900 million; it just means that money will be obligated in subsequent years as the highway continues to be built. Eventually, that full $1 billion will be spent by the Federal Government on the highway. Now, let's say that as part of an across-the-board cut, that highway appropriation was cut in the House by 5 percent. Does that mean that $50 million will be going to reduce the deficit? Absolutely not. It means that $5 million, or 5 percent of the first year's spending can go into the House's account. Of course even that amount might be reduced if the Senate cuts less, but we won't get into that here. Clearly, if you are trying not only to maximize the deficit reduction but also are trying to accomplish what the average citizen assumes you have done, you need to capture the outyear savings. In today's environment, I would say that the trust/credibility aspect of following through on what we imply we are doing is just as important as the deficit reduction aspect of capturing the outyear savings. I believe that Ms. Harman has focused on an absolutely critical element of the bill with her amendment. I believe that anyone who cares about getting the biggest bang for our deficit-reduction buck, as well as anyone who is concerned about rebuilding public confidence in Congress, should support this amendment. I urge passage of the Harman amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] on his commendation of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the other statements that he made about priorities. It is not necessary for us to have had to do what the gentleman has had to do in bringing the bill before us today. There was an alternative budget that was out, but I want to speak just briefly to the area of rural health, something that is a minor portion of this bill but is a major portion to my district, appropriations for rural health. I want to just say I am confused, because it seems to me that the committee report states that big government is better and small government is not preferable, and I talk specifically about the Office of Rural Health, and I would like to submit for the Record what I have received from the Texas Rural Health Association and the Texas State Grange in support of the good work done by the Federal office. These folks do not talk about some distant bureaucratic wasteful Federal office. They talk about a friendly face, an advocate in Government which rolls up its sleeves and provides support and advice and administers small but vital programs. It helps them communicate with other rural programs across the country. These are the kinds of things that are working in our Government and should not be left out. Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk briefly about something which is a very minor portion of this bill but which is of huge importance to my district and my State--appropriations for rural health. I do want to thank my Texas colleague, Mr. Bonilla, for his good work in promoting a number of rural health programs in this bill and I also want to thank Chairman Porter and the committee for recognizing the importance of programs such as the National Health Service Corps and outreach grants. I do have to day, however, that I am confused by one decision the committee made and confused by the committee report language which explained that decision. The committee report stated: [[Page H 8327]] The [Federal Office of Rural Health Policy's] size and location at HRSA limit its impact on Federal health reimbursement policies and other concerns of rural areas. What I am unclear about is whether the committee is suggesting that small government can not be effective, that big government is preferable? It's true that the office is tiny, especially in government standards. It employs only 15 people out of a total of 60,000 HHS. The funding is tiny as well. Very few Federal offices can operate effectively with less than $10 million. But the Office represents the best concentration of expertise on rural health in the Federal Government. Even with their David status, they have taken on the Goliath of HHS and frequently been victorious. The Office has been instrumental in raising the awareness that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work in rural America. For example, they have helped to win victories on hospital reimbursements and small laboratory regulation. Or, is the committee arguing that the Federal Office should be enlarged and raised in the Department structure? As one who was around when the bipartisan Rural Health Coalition first called for the creation of this office, I can tell you that it was intentionally established outside of Department headquarters to ensure that it would serve as a quasi-independent office to look out for the concerns of rural health. It functions as a broker, not a bureaucracy. In fact, you might say it was intended to be a thorn in the side of Federal bureaucracy. Today, the Office is the Federal voice bringing attention to obstacles in the path of rural telemedicine and rural managed care. It is also the Government's only official rural voice in the debate over restructuring Medicaid and Medicare. We would be happy for it to be bigger or higher if the committee wishes to finance such stature, but absent that, let's make sure we support its current role rather than eliminating it, as this bill does. I would like to submit for the record letters I have received from the Texas Rural Health Association and the Texas State Grange in support of the good work done by the Federal Office. These folks do not talk about some distant, bureaucratic, wasteful Federal office. They talk about a friendly face and advocate in the Government which rolls up its sleeves, provides support and advice, administers small but vital programs, helps them communicate with other rural programs across the country, and assists them in avoiding mistakes and duplication. In these days when so few people speak of positive experiences with the Federal Government, why would we want to eliminate one of the bright lights that exists? Like my constituents, I certainly hope that before this appropriation bill is signed into law, funding for these valuable services will be restored. Texas State Grange, San Antonio, TX, July 31, 1995. Hon. Charles W. Stenholm, 17th Congressional District of Texas. Dear Representative Stenholm: The Texas State Grange is very concerned with the cuts/elimination of funding for the rural health care programs contained in the FY'96 appropriation bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. If passed, this bill will eliminate the following essential rural health care programs: Federal Office of Rural Health, State offices of rural health, rural health research, telemedicine, new rural health grants, trauma care, and essential access community hospitals. The Federal Office of Rural Health is the only office that provides a voice for rural health care in Washington, D.C. It is also a crucial link in the federal-state-local health care provider chain. This office needs to be maintained, not eliminated. While we understand that when originally authorized, funding for the State Offices of Rural Health was to be eventually phased out, not all states have made an investment in their State Offices of Rural Health. Ten to fifteen of the offices predict they will close if funding is eliminated now. Rural residents comprise approximately 22% of our population. In addition, farmers have the highest percentage of injuries and/or deaths per industry. Eliminating funds for trauma care (and EACH is shortsighted) and as more rural hospitals are forced to close, funds for telemedicine become a necessity for those communities. The Texas State Grange recognizes and appreciates the 104th Congress' attempts to be fiscally-minded in its appropriations. However, zeroing out funds for essential services to rural health care programs is not a ``fair share'' cut. We ask that if floor amendments are brought up dealing with reinstating funds for rural health care programs, you will vote ``yes''! Thank you. Sincerely, Archie D. Knight.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I shall not object, but I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] for an explanation of the bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his explanation, and urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] for the purpose of explanation. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] to explain the amendments.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Crapo amendment. I commend the gentleman, and also the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] for the bulldogged work that they have provided this year to see that we have a chance to vote on this tonight. I have had an interest in the lockbox idea for several years myself. In fact, Tim Penny, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and I included in our commonsense budget reform bill last year, but this provision was one of only four of our provisions that the House did not approve. This amendment would simply guarantee that spending cuts we approve as part of any appropriation bills could be designated for deficit reduction, a novel idea. Having watched year after year after year spending cuts voted in the House never ever, ever becoming true spending cuts, to say that we are a little bit excited about the possibility this time in spite of the fact that this is the second time this year we have done this, perhaps this time we are going serious and that this will not only pass tonight but that it will receive the full and complete support which it deserves and see that it in fact becomes the law of this House. This is a commonsense legislative effort. When Congress votes for cuts, we should not deceive the American public or ourselves about what those cuts mean. Citizens assume a cut means a reduction in the deficit, not just a reshuffling of funds as has always been the case. With this change, budget savings will be placed in the lockbox, locked in for deficit reduction, without loopholes. These spending cuts should be initiated automatically unless otherwise specifically designated or transferred, which can be done. I commend the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], and the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] for the effort, the leadership that they have shown in seeing that we have an opportunity tonight to vote for this amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I shall not object, but I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] for an explanation of the bill. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I shall not object, but I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] for an explanation of the bill.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his explanation, and urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] for the purpose of explanation. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] to explain the amendments.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I shall not object, but I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] for an explanation of the bill. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to be reminded here in this body of some of the facts of what we are talking about today. We are talking about reducing this appropriation bill. The $110 million is not in the bill we are considering today. It is in the farm bill, and that is why many of us are suggesting that we ought to take a look at the farm bill for this purpose, not this amendment today. When we talk about this, I do not take a back seat to anyone on balancing the budget. Since 1981, the Committee on Agriculture has cut $50 billion from our function of the budget. Under the budget reconciliation bill, we will have to cut another 23 percent, and not from an inflated baseline but from a real baseline. This discretionary bill is down 3.1 percent from last year, but it is completely overlooking we cut 14 percent. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] presided over that last year when there was a different chairman and minority member. So let us keep our facts straight when we are talking about budget cuts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Zimmer amendment calling for the elimination of funding in general or that would limit funding for salaries and expenses associated with the MPP program. The United States must compete for world export markets. The new GATT trading rules are opening markets throughout the world, and U.S. agricultural producers must compete for shares of these newly opened markets. The European Union is expected in 1995 to spend over $54 billion--$6 billion more than last year--under its common agricultural policy to support its farmers, including over $9 billion for export subsidies alone. The MPP is a value enhancing program that gives U.S. agribusinesses the added edge to be aggressive in markets that they otherwise would not. A new national food and agriculture policy project study has shown a $5 return on each $1 spent in MPP funds for certain horticultural products and products derived from them. According to USDA, every dollar spent through MPP results in an additional $16 in U.S. agricultural exports. Currently, the United States spends less--$85.5 million--on MPP for all commodities than the European Union spends on wine exports--$89 million. The European Union, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and other major foreign competitors are aggressively working with their agricultural producers and exporters in support of market development and promotion efforts. Such expenditures total nearly $500 million more than similar efforts by the United States. MPP is vital to U.S. agriculture's ability to develop, maintain, and expand export markets in the new post-GATT environment, especially to some 20,000 family farms, that are members of agricultural cooperatives. As members of cooperatives that benefit from MPP, these families are able to engage in international markets that would otherwise be unavailable to them. Our agricultural industry is the most competitive in the world, but it cannot compete against foreign governments alone. Therefore, we need to keep the Market Promotion Program as it is, and allow the authorizing committee to address the concerns and criticisms of MPP in the farm bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against any amendments reducing funding for the MPP.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this well- intended but having an entirely different effect amendment than the gentlewoman proposes. It is true, several years ago, in fact, 1981, this Congress decided to move farm policy in a market-oriented direction and away from subsidization. And we have proceeded steadily in that direction and we will continue so in this year, the 1995 farm bill. Applying an income test fundamentally modifies the function of agricultural programs and breaks the link between the programs and the accomplishments of national objectives under the current law. Producers would be excluded on the basis of a randomly selected income test. Listen again to the answers of the gentlewoman from New York as she attempted to answer the questions of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]. She could not and would not for a very good reason. There are no good answers. If she did answer them, there would in fact have been a point of order logically applied to this amendment, because we ought not to be dealing with these kind of matters on an appropriation bill. We ought to be debating them as we change the direction of farm policy. If we want to go back to a fully subsidized, away from market- oriented direction, then let us do that in the 1995 farm bill. But to fundamentally change tonight by means testing, you simply will move away from market orientation. The unintended consequences are many. Means testing could cause a decline in the number of producers who participate. We know what will happen with means testing. The 2 percent that we are talking about tonight will immediately cash rent their farms to their tenants. When you cash rent, that will have an obvious effect on that tenant farmer. The tenant farmer will have to go to the bank, will have to borrow the money to put it up. That is the rules of the FSA office today. There are so many reasons to oppose this amendment tonight. I could go on, but time is limited. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment, and would urge the gentlewoman to seriously consider withdrawing the amendment.