Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to reiterate the cuts that are already being made as a result of the reorganization of last year is one-fourth of the headquarters staff in Washington in USDA. We talk about the Chief Financial Officer alone, and you look at the cuts: a 17-percent cut from last year's spending. We will have an amendment a little later by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] that will propose to add $200,000 to the account so that the Risk Assessment Office, which is awfully important to many of us in agriculture, can be adequately funded. The gentleman from Colorado would cut it $375,000 more. The gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] already says, and correctly so, he needs $200,000 to do the job. We are going to write a farm bill a little bit later on. There is going to be a request for a lot of information. The Chief Financial Officer will be required. We are not going to have the money to do it because we have already made the cuts. I wish the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] would have supported us last year in the Committee on Agriculture when we talked about this, when we had the reorganization bill up before the Committee on Agriculture. All of the things that we were talking about doing then, which are now cutting 1,170 county-based offices, are being cut as a result of actions that are already being taken. Please do not make an additional cut on top of that.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to commend all of the parties that have worked out a very satisfactory short-term compromise that gives this Member the hope for the first time in 8 years that we might actually be seeing a light at the end of the tunnel of dealing with our meat and poultry inspection system. As one who has authored legislation and passed legislation in 1986, only to have the frustration of seeing it torn apart by the 200-plus groups that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] spoke about a moment ago, each having their own idea about how best to improve upon the best food safety system the world has ever known, I see now the chance, thanks to the leadership of Secretary Glickman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], and the efforts that he has made and all of the other parties, I see the opportunity now through the House Committee on Agriculture and other interested parties working with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the chairman, and the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], I see the opportunity for us to finally come to an agreement by bringing all of the parties together, having the free and open debate in this House Chamber of how best to deal with meat and poultry inspection. I look forward to that day, because I believe it is far overdue. Many of the tragedies that have occurred should not have occurred and would not have occurred, as Mr. Roberts has said, from some of the simplistic ideas but also from the standpoint that we could in fact make the necessary changes if we would all come to the table. That is not what was happening, as the proposed rulemaking was occurring. Mr. Walsh pointed that out and correctly so. But now we have an agreement in which everyone will come together, work on a resolution. I hope it is a light at the end of the tunnel and not another train coming toward us. But I do believe today that it is truly a light at the end of the tunnel. I look forward to being a part of eventually resolving this very important issue.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like very much to be supportive of the gentleman's amendment today for the reasons of housing, but again it is not that simple, and, when we look at the work that the committee has done, they had a tough call to make, and they have made that call, and, when my colleague says in the area of the FSA office he is only bringing it down to freezing at last year's level, he is overlooking two rather significant facts, and that was what I tried to point out to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] a moment ago. As a result of the reauthorization we are reducing from 43 to 29 agencies in USDA. The FSA office on the same amount of money as last year is going to have to administer two additional programs. That is part of the reorganization. So what sounds like a very innocuous, simple amendment gets very complicated when it actually gets into how to implement it out there in the country. So this is one of those areas that we would all like to be very supportive of, but again, as a result of the reorganization ongoing and that we are plowing through ground that none of us really understand the true effects of as yet I, too, must reluctantly, but rather firmly, oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] today.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington for yielding this time to me, and I rise in support of her amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this is another one of these efforts in which we have to make priority decisions. I think this is a responsible amendment because it does not suggest shutting down what apparently is a very worthwhile organization. It cuts $1 million and suggests that it should go the private route, as many other similar-type institutions. I can concur that it is a worthwhile endeavor, but this is a time for prioritization, and it seems this is a very reasonable amendment to be taken at this time, and I urge its support. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith-Metcalf amendment to H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. First, I would like to commend my colleagues from Washington for identifying this amendment and for their hard work in ferreting out low-priority spending. This amendment reduces $1 million from the Woodrow Wilson International Center's current $6 million appropriation. While I believe that the Woodrow Wilson Center is a worthwhile organization, the Federal Government can no longer afford to fund every good idea. Therefore, organizations such as the Woodrow Wilson Center are finding themselves in competition with other worthwhile programs. As we are trying to set reasonable budget priorities, we should try to encourage more significant support from the private sector on programs where this type of relationship makes sense. Several other foundations similar to the Woodrow Wilson Center, such as the James Madison Memorial Fellowship and the Harry S. Truman Scholarship, do not rely on the Federal Government for their existence. They have sought, and found, significant outside support. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage the Woodrow Wilson Center to follow the example set by these other foundations and seek support from outside organizations as their primary source of funding. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Smith-Metcalf amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Neumann-Stenholm amendment to H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. First, I would be remiss if I did not commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for taking the lead on this issue. He is serious about deficit reduction and I am pleased to be a part of this small effort with him. Our amendment is simple; it is about budget priorities. Our Nation currently has a $4.8 trillion debt. Medicare, Medicaid, education, agriculture, and many other important programs are being forced to make painful cuts due to a significant reduction in their funding. Yet this bill proposes sending nearly $1 million to Africa and other countries for preservation of elephants, tigers, and rhinoceroses. The folks in my district tell me it is time that the Federal Government set reasonable budget priorities for their hard-earned tax dollars. While the preservation of exotic animals is a worthy goal, which I support wholeheartedly, I do not believe that sending $800,000 to Africa for this purpose meets the test of a reasonable budget priority. I certainly do not oppose the common sense protection of endangered species. Many species have been saved and some are even flourishing now due to protection of their habitats. Our amendment will not mark the end of financial support for the African elephant, rhinoceroses or tigers. Over the past 5 years, outside groups have donated money for preservation of these species and their habitats totaling over $4.5 million. Due to our current budgetary crisis, we are being forced to cut many, many good programs. The issue is not whether it is a good idea to preserve the habitats of elephants, rhinoceroses, and tigers in Africa and other countries. The issue is whether this is a current budget priority on which to spend American tax dollars. In this case, there is obviously significant interest and willingness to help from outside groups--they have done and are doing a great job of raising money for this purpose. To the extent possible, I believe we should encourage the private sector to provide funding for these types of projects. As a matter of fact, if those who are busy lobbying against this amendment spent the same amount of time, energy and money on fundraising-- everyone would win. Interestingly, the Federal Government does not currently compensate U.S. landowners whose use of their property is restricted due to the inhabitation of an endangered species. By law, these landowners cannot disturb an endangered species habitat even if it is on their private property. Therefore, the financial cost of protecting a domestic endangered species often falls on everyday U.S. citizens. Yet, at the same time, we send American tax dollars to foreign countries for the purpose of protecting an endangered species and its habitat. This simply does not make sense. The Neumann-Stenholm amendment makes good sense. I urge my colleagues to support this fiscally responsible amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the Texas State Senate recently passed resolutions honoring four of its native sons who reside in Big Spring, TX. Big Spring is in the 17th District of Texas which I am privileged to represent here in the House. Joseph ``Joe'' Pickle, a retired editor of the Big Spring Herald who, for more than 46 years, has chronicled the history of the Colorado River Municipal Water District. Joe has worked very hard on behalf of the water district, and has served as the only secretary-treasurer they have ever had. In addition, he has been a tireless advocate for the Big Spring community and plays an active role in civic affairs. Clyde McMahon, Sr., a long-time Big Spring resident who served as the operator of McMahon Concrete for more than 25 years. During Clyde's service with the Colorado Municipal Water District, no city under its jurisdiction ever had to curtail or ration the use of water. In addition to his invaluable service to the water district, he has donated his time and leadership skills to numerous civic and community activities. After 31 years of loyal service to the public, John L. Taylor is retiring as a member of the board of the Colorado River Municipal Water District. With John's guidance, the district underwent a $40 million expansion, and he provided outstanding leadership when he served as president during the completion of the Lake Ivie Reservoir and pipeline project. John has given generously of his time to other worthy community activities. Owen H. Ivie is a well-known engineer and public servant, and has garnered numerous awards relating to his profession. His leadership in obtaining a permit for a reservoir was so appreciated by the Colorado River Municipal Water District board of directors that they named the reservoir the ``O.H. Ivie Reservoir'' in his honor. His knowledge and expertise, as demonstrated by a long and successful career, have certainly made him worthy of legislative recognition. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that the Texas Senate resolutions honoring these four outstanding individuals be included in today's Congressional Record. I would also like to thank and commend them for their dedicated service to Big Spring and to the great State of Texas. Senate Resolution Whereas, The Senate of the State of Texas is proud to pay tribute to Owen H. Ivie on the auspicious occasion of his retirement from the position of general manager of the Colorado River Municipal Water District; and Whereas, The Colorado River Municipal Water District was created in 1949; since that time, with no local, state, or federal taxes involved in the funding of any district project, the Colorado River Municipal Water District has developed three reservoirs along the Colorado River in West Texas to help ensure a long-term water supply for the region; and Whereas, As a promising young man Owen Ivie joined the water district on January 1, 1953, after having served as project superintendent for Freese and Nichols on the Lake Thomas project; his talents and abilities were quickly recognized, and he rose rapidly through the ranks; and Whereas, He became assistant general manager in 1958; on April 22, 1965, this exemplary public servant was named general manager; and Whereas, Characteristics of his tenure are ability, responsiveness, and commitment to do what is best for the citizens of Texas; and Whereas, Noted for his honesty and integrity, Mr. Ivie has earned the respect and friendship of his colleagues; and Whereas, Well known in his profession, he has been honored several times: he was named Engineer of the Year by the Permian Basin Chapter of the Texas Society of Professional Engineers in 1964; Conservationist of the Year for 1986 by the Texas Water Conservation Association and Man of the Year in 1986 by the Big Spring Area Chamber of Commerce; and Whereas, This distinguished gentleman was presented the Service to the People Award by the Texas Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers in October, 1986, was named president of the Texas Water Conservation Association in 1988, and in 1990, was named Outstanding West Texan by the Texas Chamber of Commerce; and Whereas, Upon completion of the district's Stacy project in 1990, the Colorado River Municipal Water District's Board of Directors named the reservoir in honor of Mr. Ivie, who had overseen the arduous process relating to the permitting of what is now know as the O. H. Ivie Reservoir; and Whereas, Throughout his long and successful career, he has been supported and sustained by his lovely wife, Yvonne, and their three daughters; and Whereas, The State of Texas has benefited enormously from the wisdom and expertise of this illustrious public servant, and he is certainly deserving of legislative recognition; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate of the State of Texas, 74th Legislature, hereby commend the life of service of Owen H. Ivie and congratulate him on his well-deserved retirement; and, be it further Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be prepared for him as an expression of the highest esteem of the Texas Senate.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, much less than a straightforward rule. I have been around here over 16 years now, and I have had a chance to see and to hear a lot of things, but this rule is truly an amazing document. I am having a hard time understanding how a conference report signed by the conferees of both bodies can be two different bills in the bodies when it is being considered. It first came to my attention when I realized that the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans seemed to be talking about two different bills, at least when it came to the treatment of the tax cuts. I understand how political spin works, how one person can talk about the trunk, the other about the tail, and both are talking about the elephant. But the differences here go beyond spin, and it all comes down to the rule we are considering. Initially I was encouraged when I heard that the conference committee had agreed to postpone consideration of tax cuts until CBO reviewed the spending cuts and certified that the reconciliation bill will result in a credible path toward a balanced budget in 2002. That was what I heard my friend, Senator Pete Domenici, talking about. Despite my reservation about his health, agriculture, and education cuts, I suspect that if I were in the other body today, Pete might persuade me to vote for this rule and this bill. But here in the House I read a different story, as I read this rule. This rule includes a self-executing provision that means it includes policy substance, not just procedure, which states, ``section 205 of the concurrent resolution on the budget shall not apply with respect to the House.'' Let me make sure everyone understands that. This rule starts our debate by saying, sure, we know we have a conference agreement, but even though the House agreed to it, we do not really have to abide by it. And just what is this section 205 that does not apply to the House? Well, it is the section that includes the requirement that CBO certify we put together a credible plan to balance the budget before we consider tax cuts. Instead, the House will be covered by a much weaker provision which allows tax cuts to be placed in the reconciliation bill before CBO has reviewed the package. Even more disturbing, CBO is ordered how to do its business. CBO must give the House credit for the full economic bonus that results from a legitimate, steady, balanced budget plan. CBO itself has warned that the estimates of this economic bonus assume that the budget would be balanced smoothly over the next 7 years and would occur only if reductions are deemed credible. Does this plan meet those requirements necessary to earn the bonus? Well, it does not even begin a downward path until the third year. All of these great and wonderful statements about this plan balancing the budget, oh, how I wish we were doing it credibly. But since CBO will be ordered to give the credit, the numbers will offer promises highly unlikely to be met. Unfortunately, I have to encourage a no vote on this rule. Bring back a straightforward rule.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 67, laying out the Federal budget for 1996. I have had high hopes all year long about the possibility of actually voting for a balanced budget this year. I did offer and vote for one balanced budget that I believed in a month ago and, with a sense of incurable optimism, I expect to vote for a balanced budget reconciliation bill before this year is over. But this conference agreement before us is not a budget I can vote for. First and foremost, I cannot vote for it because I am not convinced it will in fact reach balance. The deficit reduction does not even come until the third year out. The tax cuts, of course, come immediately and with the rule we passed just now, the budget doesn't even have to meet an honest CBO test as has been advertised. Second, I cannot vote for this budget because I honestly don't understand it. The conference report tells us what outlays, revenues and the deficit will be, but it does not tell us what reductions must be made. I will use Agriculture as an example because that is the subject I know best but still I cannot understand the requirements on ag in this conference agreement. The report instructs the Committee on Agriculture to ``report changes in laws within its jurisdiction'' such that outlays do not exceed $10.5 billion in fiscal year 1996, $44.7 billion from fiscal year 1996-2000, and $59.2 billion from fiscal year 1996-2002 for direct spending programs other than food stamps. Does this mean the Committee on Agriculture is to rewrite all direct spending legislation, whether it is being reduced or not? This is a tall--many would say impossible-- order to accomplish before September 22. Or, are we to infer some reduction from baseline spending--a reduction which cannot be calculated from this conference report? Or, is there a far greater reduction than the $1 billion reduction in fiscal year 1996 and $8.5 billion reduction over 5 years that we've been told this budget requires? Mandatory spending other than food stamps for the Agriculture Committee totals $26.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 and $136.4 billion through fiscal year 2002, according to Congressional Budget Office computer runs. That means this budget will force a reduction of $16.4 billion in fiscal year 1996 and $91.7 billion over 5 years--numbers which are wildly off from the cuts stated by Republicans. I would love to have clarification from the chairman about the task my committee will have before us, as I am sure all other committees would like as well. Third, I cannot vote for this budget because I cannot accept the level of reductions in Medicaid, Medicare, Education, and Agriculture which are required to meet the demands of the tax cut included. And finally, I cannot vote for this budget because I believe this budget is a political statement, not realistic policy. Absolutely everyone knows that a reconciliation bill which follows the guidelines included in this budget cannot possibly be signed into law. That means we are just here playing a political game, making a political statement to be used at the polls. Reconciliation will be passed, the President will veto it, the veto will be sustained, and then everyone, having made their political statements, will finally get down to business. Why do we have to play that game? Why can't we just get down to making policy for the good of our country from the start? If it takes a budget summit, let's get one started. But for the sake of our country, let us get beyond statements and into doing the right thing. Unfortunately, I must urge my colleagues to vote no on this budget so that we can get to work on the ultimate real budget that everyone knows must be agreed to.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in Texas several weeks ago, two B-1B bombers established new around-the-world records and made aviation history. I am proud to say this historic flight started and finished in Abilene, the city known as the star of Texas. On Saturday, June 3, 1995, at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, TX, two B-1B's landed at 3:23 and 3:24 p.m. completing a historic, nonstop, around-the-world flight. This occurred in conjunction with Dyess Big Country Appreciation Day, symbolizing both the 10-year anniversary of the B-1B at Dyess and the base's appreciation of the local community. The landing, greeted by cheers and applause, reflects the closeness and cooperation of the Abilene and Dyess Air Force Base community. More importantly to the American people, this performance demonstrates the B-1B's unique ability to meet our Nation's present and future defense challenges. When confirmed by the National Aeronautics Association, the planes will have officially made the fastest around-the-world flight using aerial refueling. This record-breaking event accomplished the practical purpose of demonstrating the long-range, power-projection capability of the B-1B. I am pleased to describe this successful mission, termed ``Coronet Bat.'' It challenged crews and maintainers to prepare for the launch of four B-1B's on June 2, at 3 a.m., with two scheduled to fly the unprecedented nonstop flight around the world. As planned, one B-1B recovered at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, another at Lajos Field in the Azores, while the primary two B-1B's successfully circumnavigated the globe and returned to Dyess Air Force Base in 36.4 hours. The flight routed B-1B crews over the North Atlantic, through the Strait of Gibraltar, across the Mediterranean Sea, south to the Indian Ocean, north over the Pacific Ocean to the Aleutian Islands, southeast of the western coast of the United States and back to the Lone Star State's Dyess Air Force Base. The successful completion of the Coronet Bat demonstrates the immense capability of the B-1B and reinforces its position as a vital contributor to our conventional bomber force. Let me further emphasize the meticulous planning, requiring support across Air Force commands, that went into this highly successful mission. Global power missions, such as Coronet Bat, provide valuable training in peacetime for air crews and maintainers preparing for quick response to any major regional conflict. More importantly, this mission mirrored a realistic training scenario for wartime taskings by dropping practice bombs over the Pachino Range of Italy; in the Torishima Range, near Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan; and in the Utah Test and Training Range. Further proving the B-1B's ability to respond rapidly and decisively around the globe, this B-1B team overcame major obstacles. They encountered monsoon related thunderstorms over the Indian Ocean and a tropical depression associated with tropical storm Deanna near the Phillippines. Crews received regular updates via satellite and radio throughout the flight to apprise them of upcoming weather. Together with onboard systems, the B-1B crews were able to avoid potential weather related problems. A number of challenges were met by those people involved in this mission. It required a genuine team effort, designed to exercise the total force capabilities of our Nation's military. Lt. Col. Douglas Raaberg, who is the mission commander and 9th Bomb Squadron commander, credits maintainers, flyers and support personnel from all Air Force commands. He said, ``it was a true Air Force team effort from the youngest airman on the flightline to the Thule Greenland radio operator who helped with radio telephone patches, to all those at the tanker units and staffs at different headquarters and wings.'' He further remarks, ``It is global teamwork at its best.'' The planes required only minor routine maintenance upon completion of this 36-hour flight. This is a real tribute to the durability of the B- 1B. It reinforces the outstanding results of the recently completed congressionally mandated operational readiness assessment and highlights the Air Force plans for the B-1B conventional upgrade programs. Mr. President, by meeting a number of different challenges over the years, the B-1B has earned justifiably the designation as the backbone of the heavy bomber force. This global power mission once again demonstrated the capability of the B-1B to deliver weapons to any spot in the world and return nonstop to the United States. In this period of budget constraints, I urge my colleagues to consider carefully how the B-1B is uniquely suited to meeting our Nation's present and future defense challenges before casting their votes on any defense measure affecting our heavy bomber force. The B-1B is an efficient and effective long-range bomber, and it should be funded as the centerpiece of American air power projection.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this amendment, I learned early in life that the flag of the United States represents something very special and should be treated with respect. My parents, as descendants of Swedish immigrants who came to this great land in search of opportunity, taught me to respect the flag by their example. I learned to remove my hat when the flag passes by; to never let the flag touch the ground; and, with hand over heart, to be silent as the Star Spangled Banner is played and the flag is raised. Today, you can barely hear the national anthem above the noise at athletic games, school assemblies and other public events. People wear shirts and shorts made out of the U.S. flag, and receptions feature flag cakes--which will be cut--and flag napkins--which will wipe mouths. As those examples illustrate, flag desecration takes many forms. However, the worst abuse has occurred when some individuals have burned this cherished national symbol in protest. In 1989, the Supreme Court by a 5-to-4 margin struck down a Texas law--and all other State and Federal efforts--making flag desecration a crime, arguing that such a statute was inconsistent with freedom of expression as guaranteed by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In reviewing Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissenting opinion, I found myself in agreement with his perspective when he wrote: For more than 200 years, the American flag has occupied a unique position as the symbol of our Nation . . . The flag is not simply another `idea'' or ``point of view'' competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress and the laws of 48 out of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag. Justice Rehnquist went on to reference a unanimous 1942 Court decision which said: It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include insulting or ``fighting'' words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. This year, our own Texas Legislature commemorated the 50th anniversary of the raising of the U.S. flag on Iwo Jima by voting to ask Congress for a constitutional amendment to exempt flag desecration from first amendment protection. The grassroots support for such an amendment is so strong that 49 legislatures have pledged to ratify such an amendment. Amending the U.S. Constitution should be done only in rare circumstances. I still believe we must be very cautious about limiting the freedom of expression and speech as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. However, during the past 5 years I also have been deeply troubled by the increasing cynicism and negativism toward our Government. The culmination of these negative feelings resulted in the tragedy in Oklahoma City. While I will continue to defend the right of every citizen to petition the government for a redress of grievances, I am disturbed both by the violence of a few individuals and the nonviolent but pervasive cynicism many Americans feel towards their country. It is time for us to better encourage a respectful attitude toward the American ideals which our flag represents. I always have believed that physical desecration of the flag should be prohibited. At the same time, I sincerely have hoped that we could protect our flag without amending our beloved Constitution. After much deliberation, a review of recent court history, and a deep concern about a growing, negative and disrespectful national attitude, I have come to the conclusion that the way to honor the flag at this time is by amending the Constitution. I wish that recent circumstances were not dictating this course of action. However, with a somber attitude and a great love of the country for which our flag stands, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1817, and commend the chairwoman and the ranking member for their outstanding work.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to continue to support the Nunn-Lugar program that is helping to dismantle Russian nuclear weapons. While I have had concerns about how some of the funds were spent in this program, I believe that the National Security Committee bill has more properly constrained the program to those areas most directly connected to dismantling weapons. Money would not be spent on programs that I believe are extraneous to the central mission of Nunn-Lugar-- which is to destroy and end the threat of Russian nuclear weapons. This amendment that we will consider that would prevent this program from going forward is not in the best interest of our national security. Secretary Perry has made this program one of his highest priorities--precisely because it literally removes the threat posed by these Russian nuclear weapons. The Nunn-Lugar program are a small price to pay to protect the U.S. and our NATO allies from the threat posed by these weapons of mass destruction. We should not cut off our nose to spite our face. Let the President continue to help the Russians live up to their pledge to end their biological and chemical weapons programs. I urge my colleagues to support the committee position on Nunn-Lugar and to reject any killer amendment that will stop us from dismantling Russian nuclear weapons.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct conferees, encouraging a budget conference agreement that does not allow for the tax cuts included in the House-passed budget but does include the House position on the earned income tax credit provisions. I think there should be no doubt in anyone's mind how strongly I fee about balancing our budget. I am committed to finding a bipartisan answer, a bipartisan solution to our deficit problem, a reasonable and responsible path toward a balanced budget. In my opinion, today the biggest obstacle to these goals is an immediate and enormous tax cut. I am personally committed to the spending cuts required to get to a balanced budget by the year 2002. I am not prepared at this time to vote for the additional spending cuts until I know more about that they are going to do to programs like Medicare and Medicaid, until we know more about the resolve of 218 Members of this body on the policies required before we vote the tax cuts, the easy part of it. The additional spending cut burden created by the loss of current revenues assumed in the House-passed budget resolution fails to meet the test of being reasonable and responsible. I am extremely concerned by the strains which would be created in the areas of agriculture, health care, and education, as a result of paying for the immediate tax cuts. I give credit to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] because his budget is very credible in specifying where these cuts could come. What I am afraid is, he does not have the troops behind him. I fear that as the reality of spending cuts of the magnitude required to pay for these tax cuts become more evident over the next few years, commitment to deficit reduction will be abandoned. Meanwhile the politically easy policy changes, the tax cuts already will have been made. Once again, future generations forced to bear even greater debt burdens will be the victims of our irresponsibility. This dismal scenario is not what inevitably must happen. We have the opportunity to redeem ourselves with those future generations. The conference committee should start by making the difficult spending choices in a responsible way, postponing tax cuts until a balanced budget is first achieved. If such as approach is pursued, I believe there is a much greater likelihood of bipartisan support both of the budget resolution and ultimately of reconciliation. We have a great opportunity to pass the first balanced budget this Congress has approved for decades. Let us do it the right way. Support the motion to instruct. Let us get the conference off on the right foot.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. Like many of my colleagues in the coalition and some beyond in my party, I believe in many of the rescissions included in this conference report. I am absolutely dead set, however, against taking these spending cuts and using them for a tax cut or for other spending. We had a way to guarantee that the cuts would go to deficit reduction. The Brewster-Minge lock box sealed up $66.2 billion over the next 5 years. I am not only willing to make that sort of cut, I am eager to do so. But I am not going to give up Rural Health grants, AHEC money, Safe & Drug Free School money, funds for Vocational Education--and much more, just so that money can be used for tax cuts. There has been a weakening of trust over the way the lock box in this bill was handled. An early understanding of $66 billion in savings disintegrated into something much smaller, $15.5 billion in this conference report. I would love to vote for a rescission bill--but not for the sake of tax cuts. If the President vetoes this bill, I intend to support him in that veto for purposes of restoring the lock box.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in extremely good conscience in support of the coalition balanced budget bill amendment before us today. There has been a lot of good, in fact, excellent debate during the past few days and few weeks, and in those cases of elevated debate, my respect for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has grown considerably, and I consider them two of the most conscientious and philosophically honest leaders in this body. There has also been some less-than-excellent or honorable debate during the past 2 days and some of which I have heard in the past 1 hour; much fuzzing the truth around the edges, much exaggeration, much failing to treat the opinion of others with respect. That is why I want to reiterate a few simple facts about the amendment we are about to vote upon. These facts imply an undergirding philosophy as pertains to people, real people, from the philosophy of the committee resolution. These are honest differences of priority. And they should be dealt with honestly. First, this budget not only reaches a surplus in the year 2002, but it does so on a glide path that means we will borrow $160 billion less over the next 7 years than the committee resolution, $160 billion less. No one needs to convince this Member of the urgency of reducing our debt and deficit. To those Members on the other side who have focused their message on the gospel of debt reduction, I urge you to consider that this substitute is the one which provides the greatest debt reduction. Second, I have heard many on the other side say we Democrats cannot ever bring ourselves to support spending cuts. Let me point out this substitute cuts $18.2 billion more in the first 2 years, coincidentally, 2 years before the next election. Granted, the committee bill makes many more cuts from rates of increase, most notably $109 billion more in Medicare and $50 billion more in Medicaid over these 7 years. Those and other cuts are necessary to balance out the tax cut. Make no mistake, our cuts are there, but they are there in a way, we believe, that avoids the possible destruction of critically important programs to many people of America. The third and final fact is that our substitute will not encourage us to repeat the mistakes of the early 1980's. We understand that making the Medicare reforms the right way will take some time, and I am not criticizing the motives of the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], for establishing two reconciliation bills. Motives aside, however, I have tremendous fear the results will be yet one more example of enacting the easy things, the popular things, like cutting tough 218-vote decisions that are going to be required. We have a great opportunity today to pass the first balanced budget this House has approved in decades. Let us do it the right way. Support the coalition balanced budget amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise today in a moment that I did not think would ever come, that we would be debating not whether to balance the budget, but how to do it. I commend the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], my ex- chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and others who have demonstrated quite an amount of sincerity in their different approaches. My chief regret today is that, I say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], I have not been able to stand shoulder to shoulder with you in the argument today as we have in the past. But we have some sincere differences with the budget that you present today. I sincerely believe that the cuts that you have proposed, cuts in the rate of increase that you have proposed in the Medicare and Medicaid area, are too severe for my rural district. I believe that sincerely. I believe that you believe that is not. But I think it is a big problem. But that is not what I choose to talk about today. What I choose to talk about today is the misrepresentation that is occurring at home in my district, that is occurring by the so-called Americans for a Balanced Budget, who are circulating radio advertisements and other statements in which they say Congressmen who claim to support a balanced budget amendment and vote against the Kasich plan will lose all claim to the title of being pro-balanced budget, and also saying in this news release that the Democrats in Congress have not even offered a budget of their own. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that is not a true statement. The Congressional Black Caucus has offered a budget, and the coalition has offered a budget that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] will be proposing tomorrow. Misrepresentation is occurring on all sides, and that should not be happening. I wonder why our coalition budget is not credible when we cut spending $18.2 billion more in the first 2 years, in which you have to vote those cuts before you run for reelection. Why are we not credible? I wish that you in your budget had done more up front than what you have done. We do. We propose the spending cuts now, not later. It was interesting, when we debated in the Committee on the Budget, we were saying early on 7-year budget, you said you could not do it. You had to do it in a 5-year budget. Now we are saying we are going to do it in a 7-year budget, but you take $18 billion more spending in the first 2 years when we can not assume it. I really worry about this one: Having been here in 1981, when we voted tax cuts, promising spending cuts that we never got to, here we go again. We are doing two reconciliations. We are going to reconcile the tax cuts. We are going to have the first reconciliation with the tax cuts and the so-called easier spending cuts, which there is no such thing. We are going to do that one first. Then we are going to postpone the tough spending cuts for September. We have been down that road before. And the budget that we propose that will be voted on tomorrow, I submit to you, is more credible in another way, because we will have at the end of our 7 years in the coalition budget $160 billion less debt for those children and grandchildren that we have been talking about. Why does that make us less credible than you? Let us conduct the debate in such a manner in which we recognize there is a difference of priorities. We will argue ours tomorrow. We think we have a better set, and we believe the American people also agree that we should cut spending first and then cut taxes after we have shown that we have got 218 votes, 51 votes, in the House and Senate, to do that which we say we are going to do.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, one of my colleagues was quoted in this morning's paper saying, ``How can anyone today vote against cutting taxes?'' It should be very easy for all of us when we are doing it with borrowed money. Another colleague stood in the well too long ago and said, ``Imagine $500 laying on this table. Shall we have a family spend it, or shall we have the government spend it?'' Obviously the family, with one small problem. It has already been spent, and to spend that 500 again they have got to borrow it again. We all know the quote about those who refuse to study history being doomed to repeat its mistakes. Well, I not only studied the congressional history of the early 1980's--I helped to make it. I did it in good faith. I did it with the encouragement of my constituents. But I am determined not to repeat its mistakes again in 1995. Contrary to my usual optimism, it is hard for me not to agree with the quote: ``What experience and history teach in this--that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.'' Think what we are doing, friends. We have a debt which will break $5 trillion by the end of the year. We have annual deficits which are scheduled to continue rising in the foreseeable future. We have a Medicare program which will be insolvent just around the corner, and a Social Security program which will go from having a surplus to running deficits within the next generation. Our dollar hit a new low today; how can we even be thinking about cutting taxes right now? I feel particularly sick about seeing history repeat itself in terms of back-loaded costs, disingenuous baselines, and a ``spend now/pay later'' attitude which is in the current resolution which is before us today, and I also get very upset and disturbed by the frequent comment on the floor that Democrats have not put a serious deficit reduction plan up for a vote. I have noted that every Member that has stood up and made that comment today who was here last year when we had the opportunity voted against the entitlement cap when we put it on the floor and had a serious effort, every single one that criticized that were here in the last Congress. Vote ``no.'' Let us stop making the hole deeper.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of a long and exhausting 100 days to take up this final piece of the Contract With America, which I have supported 70 to 80 percent thereof. Unfortunately, though, what we have before us today is not a crown jewel but, rather, fool's gold. You know, it was about 2 years ago at this time that we were on the floor trying to pass the rule for another high-profile, highly controversial piece of deficit-reduction legislation. As seems to be my destiny, my role leading up to that vote was to provide better assurance of true deficit reduction. We wanted to try to start to get some sort of handle on the entitlement spending which is increasingly driving our deficits. Let me tell you about the reaction I received for my efforts when we reached the floor from this side of the aisle. I heard about skepticism, cynicism, I was lectured about meaningless guarantees which had no teeth. I was considered gullible for accepting promises of what would happen tomorrow rather than demanding the deal be closed today. Now we come to today's vote when I hear I do not need to worry about deficit reduction in this bill. I am told the guarantee is already there. I am assured that we can have the promised land, both massive tax cuts and a balanced budge with borrowed money. Well, the tax cut promises could not be any clearer. But just how does today's deficit-reduction guarantee stack up against the agreement I worked for 2 years ago, the guarantee which was deemed so inadequate, so toothless, so meaningless? Well, we had proposed laying out specific, numeric entitlement targets. If those targets were exceeded, we would have required the House Committee on the Budget to report a budget resolution which brought us back in line with spending cuts. Now, does today's guarantee have such a requirement? No, it does not. We said that if the budget resolution or budget conference report breached the targets, the bills could not even be considered on the House floor. No such prohibition in today's bill. We said, if the Congress decided to increase those targets, in other words, they chose to spend more money, a separate vote had to bring that provision into the political sunshine. No such sunshine in today's bill. As one who has been criticized for alleged weaknesses in spending discipline proposals, which were 100 times stronger than the rule we have today, would somebody please tell me why I should accept this ``trust me'' language before us today? I refuse to trust anything other than an honest, enforceable guarantee that these tax cuts will not come at the expense of my children and grandchildren. I refuse to adorn myself with the jewels of political slogans and then hand to my children and grandchildren those worthless minerals passed off as gold. Tax cuts with borrowed money is no bargain. Vote ``no'' on this rule and vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit could not be more clear. It is the exact same motion that I wished to give as part of the regular bill, but was denied under the rule. It says simply reductions in outlays resulting from this act shall be used to reduce the deficit. Proponents of H.R. 4 have claimed impressive savings from their welfare reform, trusting that the public will hear the word ``savings'' and interpret that to mean deficit reduction. I want to make it perfectly clear, on this vote there is not 1 cent of the Republican welfare reform guaranteed to go for deficit reduction, unless we approve this motion to recommit. Do not be fooled into believing anything to the contrary. I am appalled that organizations which have claimed to be for deficit reduction have now chosen to key vote in opposition to recommittal. It is one thing to say you support the reforms in this bill, which many do, and that is an honest position to hold. It is entirely different to say that you do not want to guarantee deficit reduction. My friends who have always claimed that deficit reduction is of the highest priority, vote yes on this motion to recommit, and be for deficit reduction. We may not have many more opportunities.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I again want to come with one set of figures, only to hear what I believe to be true is totally wrong. It makes me very confused. But I do commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, because in my opinion, she makes a very badly flawed bill a little bit better. But I still believe very strongly the Deal substitute is much better, and I believe the debate will show this. I want to quickly recount a little conversation that I had with a pastor in a church in my district. He said to me, ``Charlie, if you just do one thing for me, I have five unwed mothers, teenage mothers, in my church. If you do just one thing for me, give me the child care money so that I can provide child care while I tell that young mother, go back to school and get an education. I will tell her you get that education, you make your grades, if you will just help me get the money to take care of her child when we do it.'' That is what the Deal substitute is proposing, a workable--a workable substitute, not what we are being offered in H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for seeking to make improvements in the base bill. Unfortunately, I fear that even were her amendment to pass, the child care provisions would be inadequate. Therefore, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment which falls far short of the child care provisions contained in Mr. Deal's substitute. The Deal substitute provides sufficient funding for child care to meet the increased needs under the plan's aggressive work requirements. H.R. 4, on the other hand, reduces child care funding $1.4 billion below levels provided for under current law and does not ensure that child care will be available to individuals who need it. This amendment restores only slightly more than half of the funding needed to maintain current law. In addition, it still does not guarantee that funding will be available for welfare recipients who need child care assistance to move into work. This lack of funding for child care assistance could mean that either welfare recipients won't move into work, or parents will be forced to leave their children in unsafe or substandard care if they do get work. CBO estimates that the Deal substitute will provide $3.7 billion in child care spending to meet the increased demand for child care as more individuals move into work. The substitute also increases child care assistance for the working poor by $424 million over 5 years above the baseline projections. The Deal proposal also consolidates child care programs under a uniform set of rules and regulations, rather than having to comply with a patchwork of rules under different programs. The primary source of child care assistance under the Deal consolidated block grant would be in the form of vouchers that would be used by parents with the child care provider of their choice. Having worked on child care in past Congresses, I strongly believe we must continue to support parental choice as we have in the Deal substitute. In addition, the Deal substitute contains the most aggressive work requirements of any bill we will consider today. We also support these work requirements with funding for the transitional tools recipients need to make the move from welfare to work. Child care is one of the most important tools available for working mothers and I believe we must provide the necessary funding to see that they are able to work. Reluctantly, I urge opposition to the Johnson amendment and enthusiastic support for the Deal substitute.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I am constantly shocked by what I hear on the floor and what I see being put out. Deal taxes welfare moms' benefits. Thirty-three percent of the kids in America do not even qualify for a tax cut, and yet we have a wonderful yellow sheet put together by a political consultant designed for a 20-second spot on TV. Now let us talk about Deal raises taxes on the middle class. I am surprised to hear that coming from this side of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, I ask my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], ``Do you remember March 29, 1990, roll call 57? We lost that day on the ABC bill. We lost 195 to 225, but you did a heck of a job rounding up Republican votes. All but 14 voted for the same language today that you criticized.'' Now we talk about Medicaid spending. Let us talk about Medicaid spending in the Deal bill compared to H.R. 4. Let us talk about that welfare mother that has a child, and takes a job, and earns $1 more than the law allows, and then has to lose her Medicaid coverage. There is not a man or woman on this floor that would take a job under those circumstances, and I say to the gentleman, ``You're got the gall to criticize the Deal bill for being inadequate?'' I cannot believe some of the stuff. We have talked about differences that we have got, but some of the criticisms, taxes, Medicaid spending, welfare moms, taxing benefits, absolutely ridiculous. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to debate this important issue and particularly, the Deal substitute. I rise in strong support of Mr. Deal's substitute and commend him for his leadership in this effort. I believe that we have put together a real, workable reform package that achieves the goal we are all striving for--changing the face of our welfare system. The Deal substitute people off welfare and into work and it provides the funding to do so. By maintaining the funding necessary to carry out our program, the Deal substitute avoids unfunded mandates and increased state and local burdens. In contrast, the National Conference of State Legislatures says that ``H.R. 4 contains many un- and underfunded mandates including a federal work requirement with hefty participation rates''. The United States Conference of Mayors also says of H.R. 4 that ``in addition to the significant negative impact the proposal would have on low income people, it will also further strain local budgets.'' As you can see from the chart, the savings from H.R. 4 are much more drastic than the savings in the Deal substitute. In other words, states will receive $18.8 billion less to care for the needy and help get individuals into jobs under the base bill than they would receive under the Deal substitute. More importantly, the Deal substitute directs all of our savings--approximately $7.5 billion--to deficit reduction, not tax cuts for the wealthy. This substitute is the only proposal that can claim any deficit reduction because it is the only proposal which locks those savings away from being spent again. In addition, the Deal substitute maintains the current federal nutrition programs, such as school lunch and WIC. Rather than being driven by spending cuts, our proposal focuses on moving people from welfare to work. School lunch programs, therefore, should not be, and are not, part of our welfare reform proposal. We have heard a great deal of talk about nutrition programs, particularly school lunch programs. The talk that really caught my attention, however, was the input I received from the school superintendents in the 17th District. They couldn't understand why we would want to change our school lunch program, when they don't see anything wrong with the way it is now. Because they work in the program at the local level, I trust that they know how well the program is working. The Deal substitute also follows a responsible approach to changes in the Food Stamp Program, including strong provisions to cut Center [FRAC] has endorsed the Deal substitute as a ``far better approach toward meeting the nutrition needs of families, children, and elderly.'' I strongly urge your support for real, workable welfare reform. Support the Deal substitute.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman, the ranking member, and say that on the Hostettler amendment, I cannot believe that he would offer an amendment that reduces the work requirements. In a bill in which we have talked about work, this amendment would require recipients to work only 32 hours. The Deal substitute would require an average of 20 hours of work per week. With all of the rhetoric going on on this floor, how we would have entered in an amendment that was defeated 37 to 5 in the Committee on Agriculture, I cannot believe. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Hostettler's amendment to block grant the Food Stamp Program and to freeze the spending level through fiscal year 2000. I believe it is very important that we maintain a very basic food safety net to ensure that children do not go hungry. The fact is that 82 percent of food stamp households contain children and 16 percent have elderly members. In addition, 92 percent of food stamp households have gross incomes at or below the Federal poverty level. Freezing the funding levels, therefore, will most heavily impact poor children and the elderly and will not account for major shifts in the economy. Not only does Mr. Hostettler's amendment threaten this safety net, it also weakens the current work requirement in the base bill. This amendment would require recipients to work only 32 hours in a calendar month, whereas, the Deal substitute would require an average of 20 hours of work per week. The Deal substitute also provides funding for additional employment and training to help move people off welfare and into work. Finally, I would like to remind my colleagues of the discussion we had yesterday regarding the deficit reduction issue. Members from the other side of the aisle pointed out to me that the committees had spoken on deficit reduction provisions during the markup process. I resent that characterization since my substantive deficit reduction amendments were not allowed to be voted on. However, the sense-of-the- committee resolution which stated savings should go to deficit reduction did unanimously pass the Agriculture Committee. On the other hand, I would like to point out that by a vote of 37 to 5, Members from both sides of the aisle in the Agriculture Committee rejected the Hostettler amendment. The committee has, in fact, spoken clearly on this issue. I urge the defeat of this amendment and support of a food safety net for children and the elderly.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. Last week I took two amendments to the Rules Committee which would guarantee that any net reduction in outlays resulting from this act would be used for deficit reduction, not spent for tax cuts. I felt fairly cynical and redundant then as I did so, because my understanding of the base bill, H.R. 1214, was that deficit reduction would be the highest priority when it came to net savings. But I had a gnawing suspicion that an effort would be made to remove this fiscally responsible provision. Indeed, we now see that Chairman Archer will be offering a routine technical amendment which does precisely what I feared, striking section 801(a) of the base bill. This, coming on top of the admission last week the Republicans had no intention to maintain the lock box in the rescission bill that passed by a vote of over 400 to 15, is nothing but outrageous. It now appears the will of the overwhelming majority of the House counts for nothing when it comes to savings being dedicated to deficit reduction. In fact, today we do not even have an opportunity to vote the will of the House regarding how the deficit savings should go, for cuts or for deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule allowing for the consideration of H.R. 1214, the Personal Responsibility Act. I do so for numerous reasons, including the rejection of my amendments ensuring deficit reduction, the rejection of two pro-life amendments, and the inclusion of a highly confusing procedure which, rather than laying out a predictable order for consideration of amendments, seems to permit Chairman Archer to move at any time to bring up the Deal substitute. Mr. Speaker, last week I took two amendments to the Rules Committee which would guarantee that any net reductions in outlays resulting from this act would be used for deficit reduction, not spent for tax cuts or other increased spending. I felt fairly cynical and redundant as I did so because my understanding of the base bill, H.R. 1214, was that deficit reduction would be the highest priority when it came to net savings. But I had a gnawing suspicion that an effort would be made to remove this fiscally responsible provision. Indeed, we now see that Chairman Archer will be offering a ``routine technical amendment'' which does precisely what I feared, striking section 801(a) of the base bill. This, coming on top of the admission last week that Republicans had no intention to maintain the lock box in the rescissions bill, even though it had passed 400-15 is nothing less than outrageous. It now appears the will of the overwhelming majority of the House count for nothing when it comes to savings being dedicated to deficit reduction. In fact today we cannot even vote on it. I urge opposition to the rule. Second, as a pro-life Member, I have noted that the National Right to Life Committee stands in opposition to this rule which prevents any consideration of either the Bunn amendment or the Stark-Volkmer amendment. Like the committee, I am opposed to having our welfare reform efforts lead to a greater number of abortions. Third, I see no reason for allowing the unusual order of business by which Chairman Archer can randomly bring up for consideration the Deal substitute, the Mink substitute, and then the Republican substitute. I understand there is confusion about interpreting the language of the rule but to my reading, it certainly seems that Chairman Archer could have such an option. This closed rule outlines the specific amendments made in order and sets the boundaries for time consideration. There is no reason to set up unpredictability when it comes to the three substitutes. I am pleased that the rule made in order the Deal substitute and I have every intention of supporting this amendment. I believe that this substitute is far more reasonable in its reform of welfare programs, balances compassion with fiscal imperatives, does a better job of reinforcing individual responsibility, and is far more honest when it comes to deficit reduction. Inclusion of the Deal substitute, however, is insufficient to rectify the other shortcomings of this rule and I urge its defeat.