Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise admittedly rather confused in some instances regarding what is in 801(a) and what is not. I still believe I am right. I will not argue the point with the chairman of the Committee on the Budget today. But once again I have to take strong exception to a statement the chairman of the Committee on the Budget just made a moment ago by saying that if we do everything in this contract we are, in fact, going to reduce taxes and reduce the deficit $60 billion, completely ignoring the fact that last Thursday night we voted to cut $55 billion which was double-counted on Friday. Now, that, again, is something we should not be doing and saying on this floor. Just as the previous speaker has said, I want to reduce the deficit. This argument and why you should vote against this technical amendment, this is your clear expression of whether you want to take any spending cuts, as the Deal substitute does. The only honest deficit-reduction package we will vote on today is the Deal substitute. If you are for reducing the deficit, you vote for Deal. If you want to keep playing these confusing games about definitions, then support this technical amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong support of Mr. Deal's alternative welfare reform proposal. Like most Americans, I feel that the time has come to seriously evaluate the structure of our system and provide constructive solutions to problems within it. Our current system is broken. It must be fixed. I come before you today in strong support of a plan that transforms our current system into the type of program that it should be--a temporary helping hand for those who need a chance to get back on their feet again. I think we all agree that the focus of welfare reform should be getting people off of the welfare rolls and into work. It has become very obvious, however, that while we may agree on the goal, it is not as easy to agree on how to get there. Having said that, I feel that the welfare reform proposal we have developed provides a centrist approach to intelligently reforming our welfare system, without hurting those who need a helping hand. We must not take the more limited view that welfare reform simply means cutting the cost of welfare. Welfare reform is not simply cutting services and denying benefits in order to find a budgetary fix. Welfare reform involves real people with real needs, which do not just disappear once the funds are cut. Their needs will continue, the same as before, unless we provide some of the necessary assistance to move them off of welfare into jobs. The welfare reform proposal that we have developed addresses these basic problems by, first, emphasizing work over welfare. One of the basic tenets of the proposal is the establishment of the Work First Program, which fundamentally reforms the JOBS Program of our current welfare system. The new Work First Program requires participants to begin job activities as soon as they enter the program, providing individuals with the opportunity to immediately begin working their way toward self-sufficiency. Second, we change the focus of welfare from a seemingly endless hand- out to a temporary hand up. The perception of our welfare system as a permanent way of life has evolved through years of providing benefits to recipients without a sensible plan for moving them off of the welfare system. Therefore, we propose a time limited assistance program that would empower individuals to move from welfare to work. As an incentive to work, the plan would provide transitional assistance to make work pay more than welfare. We extend the transitional medical assistance from 1 year to 2 years so that individuals do not have to fear losing health coverage if they take a job. We also provide child care assistance for moms so that they are able to take a job and begin working toward self-sufficiency. After 2 years in a work program, States also would be allowed to deny AFDC benefits to recipients who do not have jobs. Third, we propose changing the perception that Government bears all of the responsibility for those in need. Individuals also must accept their share of responsibility in providing for their families. In order to do this, we require recipients to develop an individual plan for self-sufficiency, which would include the tools needed to get the individual off of welfare and into work. We also strengthen child support enforcement and hold the parents of minor mothers and fathers liable for financial support of their children. The proposal allows States to deny increases in AFDC funding to mothers who have additional children while receiving these benefits and requires minor mothers to live with a parent or a responsible adult. Finally, we realize that a one-size-fits-all approach to welfare reform is impractical, if not impossible, because it does not take into account the wide range of needs and programs that exist. Therefore, we have provided States with the flexibility necessary to develop effective programs that meet their own specific needs. While the Federal Government has a role to play in setting broad guidelines in order to maintain a level playing field, State In addition, I believe it is very important to include local communities in the process, as well. To that end, we have provided Federal grant assistance to community-based organizations for coordination of services. The one-stop shop idea is already being explored in many communities and many others could streamline services with some additional assistance. As a participant in the current welfare reform discussion, I have heard many times that we should get rid of fraud and abuse in our welfare system and I agree. As the former chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition, I have worked tirelessly to correct deficiencies in the Food Stamp Program and I am well aware of the need for continued improvement. That is why I am pleased to say that we have incorporated a very tough food stamp fraud and abuse provision in our proposal. We have also made additional improvements to the current Food Stamp Program while maintaining the basic food safety net for people in need. Finally, I strongly believe that we should not fund tax cuts with welfare reform, particularly considering the enormous deficit problem we are currently facing. Our substitute, therefore, specifically designates any additional savings from the welfare system for deficit reduction purposes. We are already threatening the future of our children with the unbelievable responsibility of financing our current spending behavior. I cannot justify adding additional responsibility to our children by requiring them to finance a tax cut before we control our deficit.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster]. (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, status quo is not acceptable. This debate today is about changing the status quo. Everyone agrees that patients must be reasonably protected against malpractice and against undue harm for medical devices, drugs and other medical products. Unfortunately, our current system is not working, and to all of those who have spoken so eloquently against all of the faults of this amendment, none of those comments have been addressed to changing the status quo. As one Member who has wanted to have hearings last year, the year before, the year before, of reasonably getting into debating this question, we were denied. We were never able to bring this discussion to the floor as we are doing today. I wished we had not brought that point up, because that is a sore point to this man. Patients and physicians all are losing under our current system. That is what some of us want to change tonight, the status quo. Numerous reforms must be enacted if we are going to control health care costs. My colleague from California, a classmate from the 96th Congress, said it very eloquently and very truthfully and very factually. If we want to reform our health care system, we must start with malpractice reform. We must begin to honestly deal with the problems of health system reform by changing first the malpractice system. That alone will not solve it. It is ironic that in one of our largest States, what we are now saying will not work has been working. This is puzzling to me. The case for medical liability relief is overwhelming. Lawsuit abuse is driving up the cost of health care for all of us. As one who represents a rural district in which we can no longer get doctors to come to our rural hospitals to deliver babies, how in the world can anyone stand here today and say the current system is adequate, the current system cannot be changed, we cannot dare to try something new, that we have to preserve that which we are doing today? I strongly urge the support of the Cox-Geren amendment. Change the status quo. Let us make our system better.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] for his generosity with time. I rise in strong support of the amendment. This is an attempt to put some common sense back into our public liability system, and to allow technology in America to move forward. Most of the criticisms of this amendment have to be balanced with a commonsense statement of saying that our current system is broken. Perhaps there are weaknesses by moving forward, but in my judgment, adopting this amendment, allowing technology to move forward, and saying to any individual company that if you in fact have a product that is approved under the best technology possibly available, and then something goes wrong because Charles Stenholm uses it, at that time no punitive damages should be allowed because you have followed the rules. If we cannot bring ourselves to adopt this kind of legal law, we are going to have a difficult time competing in the future marketplace. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Oxley-Burr-Coburn- Tauzin-Brewster-Stenholm amendment to H.R. 956, the Common Sense Product Liability and Legal Reform Act. Our amendment offers a limited exemption from punitive damages for Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approved products. Manufacturers of drugs and medical devices are already subject to the agonizing delays and costly bureaucratic scrutiny of the FDA approval process, in order to determine if the benefits of a product outweigh the risks--not to assert that the use of a product carries no risk, or that all uses, under any circumstances are completely safe. In doing so, the FDA and medical community decide if the risks that a product poses are socially acceptable. Under our current liability system, a jury second guesses this scientific evaluation done by the medical community and can punish manufacturers because their products are inherently risky. seller of a drug or medical device which caused the claimants harm was pre-market approved by the FDA, punitive damages shall not be awarded. Opponents of this measure have said that it will prevent plaintiffs from suing drug and device manufacturers, and that it will hurt the consumer. This is simply not true. Punitive damages can still be sought in appropriate cases--those where the manufacturer was at fault, either by withholding or misrepresenting information or through participation in fraudulent activities. More importantly, injured parties will still be able to sue for compensatory damages. This amendment in no way limits compensation for loss, damages, pain and suffering. The Oxley-Burr-Coburn-Tauzin-Brewster-Stenholm amendment makes good sense. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, about 2 hours ago, I came to the floor very angry. I had received what I perceived to be a very threatening phone call as a result of my support of this legislation from what I consider the primary reason why we are there today, and the gentleman from California was just speaking to the fact that most of us would like to see a reasonableness applied to the laws that affected our land, whether it be the environment, whether it be the Endangered Species Act, whether it be the rights of private property owners. We would like to see a reasonableness. But that is not what we have been seeing. Just as I listened, with a great amount of interest and certain support of the eloquence in regard to the protection of the American eagle or the salmon, all very good stories and certainly not the intent of this Member in being part of seeing something that would undo those laws that have protected in a commonsense way, if that is the way it has been done, but I, too, could sit up and stand up today and talk about some unreasonable acts. An act in my district that cost taxpayers over $3.5 million in the protection of a water snake when all we were trying to do was build him a lake. These are the kinds of dumb things that we have had imposed upon us by the elitists of the environmental community who choose to overlook the fundamental reason why we are here today. That is the fifth amendment of the Constitution. If you are going to take someone's property, the Constitution guarantees compensation, period. But we have had an interpretation of current laws to such a degree that there are those among us who believe their cause, and that cause often is a snake or a fish or a bird or some individual very important cause to an individual or a group of individuals, that believe that their opinion supersedes the right of an individual property owner. That is why we are here today. We have heard a lot of talk about the budget. I am very interested in that. This bill will not cost one dime. It will not cost one dime, because what it will do, it will cause us to begin to look realistically at the cost of that which we are about to impose by the various agencies. And I suspect that the reasonableness that the gentleman from California just spoke about, and this Member certainly believes in, that we will find reasonable solutions, because I find that it will be the rare exception of a property owner that will deny a reasonable application of protection for the environment or protection for an endangered species that is reasonable and can be arrived at in the same manner in which those on the other side continue to argue we will not do under this law. This bill does not pay polluters to pollute. This legislation, in fact, it specifically says, regarding the health and safety of this country, ``no compensation shall be made under this Act with respect to an agency action, the primary purpose of which is to prevent an identifiable hazard to public health or safety.'' There is a lot of red herrings out here, and that perhaps is a bad example to use today. But basically and simply, what we are talking about is returning to the actual application of the Constitution of the United States in saying that for whatever cause you are going to take my property, you saying it is in the public interest that we do certain things and have reasonable discussions and we would never even be here today. I rise, again, in strong support of the Tauzin amendment. I believe that it will actually do what the opponents say it will not do, it will actually protect the environment and protect the endangered species in a way in which no one has even thought of as yet.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Well, I do not know that to be a fact. In fact, regardless of the numbers that we might talk about, et cetera, we are still only going to be providing for what percent of the children?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have spent all of my life in the food processing end of the business. I have spent the last 16 years of my life learning more about the consuming side our food industry. In the last few days I have spent a lot of time talking to the school lunch room administrators, school superintendents back home in my district, and they confirmed a belief that I already had, that our school lunch and breakfast programs are not broken, and I am puzzled why some seek to fix them. But tonight I want to spend a few minutes talking about a program that I have become very supportive of, and that is the WIC Program. When I first heard of it, Mr. Speaker, I was supportive because it did one thing that was sort of important. It fed children. But 4 years ago in the House Committee on the Budget I had an experience of sitting and listening to four CEOs of four of the larger corporations of America who had come before the Committee on the Budget for one purpose that day, and that was to convince us in the Congress to fully fund the WIC Program, not just 40 percent or, at that time, 30 percent, but to fully fund it, and I listened with quite a bit of attention and some considerable interest. I listened to those CEOs first say that they hire tens of thousands of young men and women every year to work for them in their respective businesses, and they had to retain 70 percent of all of those who came to them, and they said, and I paraphrase what they basically told us that morning, but it was that at first we looked at our school system, we looked at our kindergartens, our grade schools, our middle schools, our high schools, our colleges, where we were fumbling the ball, but the more we looked, the more we came to the conclusion that we were really fumbling the ball by not giving every child born in America a healthy start. They came to us that morning and suggested that, if we had to cut anywhere, even in feeding programs, to cut anywhere other than the WIC program because unless a child has a healthy start from the womb through the first 3 or 4 years of its life, that child will be a health problem the rest of its life. With all odds it will be an educational problem. Eventually it will become a crime problem, and we only have to remember the discussions we have had in this body not too long ago about how much we are spending on crime. Mr. Speaker, those were the words of four CEOs, and those words should be listened to with a great deal of interest as we debate the priority settings that are going to be necessary. As my colleagues know, I, too, lament the fact that we failed to pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment today. But even if we were spending only that amount of money that we have today provided for us, not borrowing $200 billion, I would still be here tonight saying of the 1,300,000,000 we will spend that we have that the WIC program is one that we should, in fact, be prioritizing, certainly not cutting. We perhaps ought to be looking for ways in which we could increase that program because it is one of the better investments we could make. We have already heard that every dollar we spend on WIC provides from $1.92 to $4.21 in Medicaid savings. Those are demonstrated factual savings that have been confirmed and reconfirmed by so many who also believe in this program. So I commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] for getting us together tonight and talking about the need of taking another look, and I would encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take another look at the feeding program reductions, particularly though to take a look at the idea or the suggestion that WIC should be cut. I believe that, if my colleagues will look at the facts and not listen to only the whims of the current desires, that they will find, as I have done, and those four CEOs came to the conclusion 4 years ago, the WIC program is a good program, it is working, it needs to be increased in funding if we possibly can find it, but it certainly does not need to be cut. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].

Mr. STENHOLM. But we are only feeding 40 percent of the possible children, so it would seem to me rather than making that cut we ought to be looking for ways to make the program work better and reach out to the other 60 percent of the children that we are not feeding.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, as a long-time supporter of small business, I rise in support of H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost- Benefit Act. It's simple: Risk anlaysis is good for small business. Small business has had to contend with a literal blizzard of Government regulation in virtually every aspect of their operations. It is not just one or two big or major impacts from regulations, it is also death by a thousand cuts. It is the cumulative burden of paperwork, planning, and other compliance requirements that are often overlooked in the process of creating Federal regulations that are especially burdensome to smaller businesses. Mechanisms like those contained in H.R. 1022 will help to ensure that Government considers the total impact of the cumulative regulatory burden. The small businesses impacted by many new regulations, especially in the environmental and worker safety area, do not have the resources to challenge or assess the increasingly scientific methods or exposure assumptions used by Federal agencies to justify new regulations. Discussion and provision of regulatory options and risk scenarios early in the regulation development process will help small business by focusing resources and providing at least some assistance in an analysis process they cannot hope to shoulder on their own behalf. In short, small business needs H.R. 1022 so that Federal agencies will be compelled to develop cost-effective regulations that will allow small businesses to both comply and remain economically viable.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barton-Tauzin-Crapo amendment. Too often we hear about how Washington works in a vacuum. Too often, when the American public thinks of Washington, they think of government bureaucrats sitting behind a desk doing their own thing. To often they see a government which thinks it has all the answers. Too often they also see a government that is afraid to admit when it is wrong. Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe we do not have all the answers. Maybe we did make some mistakes in the past. Maybe someone else knows something we do not. And maybe, just maybe, it is time we started listening and then acting. This amendment establishes a process for agencies to update old regulations using the most current scientific data. The public would be able to submit scientific data to Federal agencies and have those agencies check the findings of old rules against new information. Right now, when a private party asks a Federal agency, particularly EPA, to review new data and possibly modify the current understanding of a particular substance or activity, there is no guarantee that the study will even be looked at. And often it isn't. This amendment simply requires agencies to consider and respond to new information in an open and timely manner. It keeps the scientific underpinnings of regulations evergreen. This amendment is really about continuous improvement. It is about making government respond to scientific changes and advancements. Mr. Chairman, it's about common sense--regulations should be based on the best available information. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Barton-Tauzin-Crapo amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Condit- bipartisan amendment to H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act. The Condit-bipartisan amendment would extend the regulatory moratorium for new listings of endangered species or designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. Therefore, there could not be any new listings until Congress reauthorizes the ESA or until December 31, 1996. The lack of common sense exercised under the ESA in designating critical habitat was clearly illustrated in the State of Texas last year when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 33 counties in Texas as critical habitat for the golden cheeked warbler. The Fish and Wildlife Service regulations in designating this critical habitat fly in the face of common sense. Property owners in the habitat area have been prohibited from making even the most limited alterations on their land, such as building fences or trimming hedgerows. The critical habitat designation is intended to prevent activities that harass the warblers. However, the activities that are considered harassment include ``chasing away a warbler that took up residence on the front porch of a farmhouse,'' according to a Fish and Wildlife official interviewed in the Wall Street Journal. This same official considered the Agency's enforcement of its policies ``reasonable and prudent.'' Reasonable and prudent enforcement of the warbler's critical habitat should not mean that private property owners are stripped of their rights to manage their own holdings. Reasonable and prudent enforcement should mean that concern for the environment and endangered species is tempered with common sense to protect the rights of landowners. The only reasonable and prudent course is for Congress to unite to see that common sense drives changes in the current regulations. We can do that today by supporting the Condit-bipartisan amendment to H.R. 450.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 729, the Effective Death Penalty Act. H.R. 729 establishes new and greatly needed restrictions on the use of habeas corpus petitions. This bill would limit the endless appeals process and set fair time limits for the filing of habeas appeals. Not only does this bill place time limits on filing habeas petitions, but also on complete consideration of habeas petitions in death penalty cases by the Federal courts. Furthermore, this bill would generally limit State prisoners under a sentence of death to a single Federal habeas petition. In order to file another petition, the prisoner would need to show through clear and convincing evidence that, without the constitutional error, the defendant would not be found guilty by a reasonable jury. This provision will help close the loopholes that have allowed prisoners to have their cases reviewed time and time again. The abuse of habeas appeals has had a significant effect on the enforcement of the death penalty in States, and this bill appropriately addresses these abuses. This bill also simplifies the process of imposing the Federal death penalty by reducing the discretion of the jury in deciding whether to recommend the death penalty. This bill not only eliminates life imprisonment without parole as a possible sentence for the specified Federal crimes subject to the death penalty, but it requires that juries in Federal courts be instructed to recommend a death sentence if the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors. For far too long now the American taxpayer has footed the bill while death row prisoners have filed appeal after meaningless appeal. It is time for Congress to provide sound guidelines to the appeals process. Those who have been victimized by violent criminals have a right to expect timely justice, and this bill will help to ensure that they receive nothing less. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 729.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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 yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the coauthor of the amendment today. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his generosity. But this, I think, is very important. Furthermore, OMB could continue to withhold the funds from obligation until the President's plan was voted on, as required by the legislation regardless of any attempts by Congress to waive its internal rules. If Congress used its constitutional authority to set its own rules to avoid a vote on the President's rescissions, it would give the President the ability to withhold indefinity the funds in question. So, Mr. Chairman, we are really strengthening the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for yielding; he brings up a very good point on the rule. I say to my colleague, ``But if you will read more carefully our substitute, the substitute specifically states that it shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider any rescission bill introduced pursuant to the provisions of this section under a special rule. Furthermore, OMB would continue to withhold the funds from obligation until the President's plan was voted on, as required by this legislation----

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM

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