Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I have no further requests for time and, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), and I thank my chairman for the kind words. I do believe this is the last time that I will occupy this mike. I thought it was so a few weeks ago, but it was not; we had one more shot. But I do very much appreciate the kind words that have been said, and we will miss this place. Mr. Speaker, we will miss you. You do an excellent job of conducting House business. Every time you handle the gavel, you do it in a way that is very fair and very professionally done. Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure serving with you, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). I would be less than honest to not say that I would much rather have had the titles reversed, but that was not to be. And were it not to be, then I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has maintained the same bipartisan, nonpartisan activities on his part that has made the House Committee on Agriculture one of the few committees of this body that still works in the way in which I think our forefathers intended that it work: full consultation. Listening to some of the previous comments about staff and what have you, I can honestly say that we have never had that problem on the House Committee on Agriculture, to the best of my knowledge. Our staffs, both committee and subcommittee, have always worked together in a way in which we put forward the quality work that I believe this committee has put forward to this House in the 26 years that I have had the privilege of serving here. I want to thank my staff, those who are with me on the floor, and those who are not, who have worked and served with me, some of them my entire 26 years. We cannot do without staff. Many times they get the blame for things that go wrong, and we get the credit for things that go right. But day in and day out, this body cannot operate without the professional staff, and I want to thank my staff and thank the majority staff. Because I truly, truly mean it when I say what I already said a moment ago about the manner in which the House Committee on Agriculture has worked.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Conservation.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2856 and support its passage. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Lucas) for working with the leadership to schedule consideration of this bill today. This is an issue that has needed attention for some time, and I am pleased we are finally addressing it. The conservation title of the 2002 farm bill made a major investment of new funding in a variety of existing and new conservation programs. I was proud to have played a role in that effort to help our farmers and ranchers conserve and enhance the natural resources under their control. Many of us, as well as producers out in the field, were frustrated by the actions taken by USDA to try and address how to provide technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve and Wetland Reserve programs. Borrowing from some programs to pay for the technical assistance to carry out WRP and CRP was not a good solution. It was a solution forced upon them by OMB after dueling interpretations by this administration based on language included in the 2002 farm bill. We never intended such draconian measures, which required them to rob Peter to pay Paul. This bill corrects and guides the administration on the implementation of these vital conservation programs after several attempts made by Congress to fix this problem. There is currently a $3.4 billion backlog of applications in the various conservation programs that have not been funded, despite the infusion of new money from the 2002 farm bill. Passage of this legislation will be a small but important step in helping to address that backlog. It will also provide for some certainty for those landowners who are signing up for the CRP and WRP programs and allow us to fulfill our commitments made in the 2002 farm bill to conservation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my Republican colleagues for bringing this bill to the floor today, clean, up and down. There is a certain amount of justice to this because those who have built up these deficits should have the courage to vote to increase the debt ceiling for the policies of which they have been very successful, and that is commendable. I sincerely say that, even though my opposition to those policies help contributed to my defeat. Because I have stood on this floor many times, Mr. Speaker, asking that PAYGO be reinstated, but it was never the right time, and, according to the Committee on Rules, it is not the right time today to bring up pay-as-you-go. But we can talk about these deficits and debt and my friends on the majority side can continue to explain them as they really do not matter anymore. It does not matter that we have borrowed $570 billion in the last 12 months, that we borrowed $1.5 trillion in the last 3 years, that we are going to borrow who knows how much more, continuing to fund the same policies. Because I assume if one was elected on these policies they will continue them. That means, based on most economists, the deficit is going to explode into the next year, 2, 3, 5, 10 years. I hope I am wrong. I want to say here today to my friends on this side of the aisle, I sincerely hope they are right because our country will be so much better off if they are right than if they are wrong, because I detect in today's motion a reluctance to change anything. I have come to the conclusion now that politics are not going to change my colleagues' policies. They have got the majority in the House. They have got the majority in the Senate. They have got the White House. Therefore, they are going to do what they believe is in the best interest of our country. I just do not share the belief that deficits do not matter. I just do not share the belief, and I never dreamed I would be a member of the party of fiscal responsibility, which my party has become. Based on historical records, they talk about a trillion and a half is not much money, $800 billion, not much money. Well, it took our country 204 years to borrow the first $1 trillion. Today, we are going to make it possible to borrow another $800 billion, and it probably will occur in the next 12 to 18 months. It is not politics that is going to ultimately decide this question. It is the market that is going to decide this question, and I would encourage my friends on this side of the aisle to start paying attention to the market. It was not insignificant that 2 months ago the Japanese, for the first time since 2002, chose not to increase their holdings of United States Treasury notes. It is not of some insignificance that the European community is concerned about the fall of the dollar. Much of what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has said I agree with him on. I agree with Mr. Rubin, Secretary Rubin. I agree with him 100 percent. I am glad the gentleman repeated it twice for the Record because more Members of this body need to read that and understand that what he is talking about is exactly as he has restated it. This is not a budget vote. What we were talking about last night in asking my colleagues to make pay-as-you-go a part of this rule is changing the policy just a little bit in reinstating pay-as-you-go which worked in a bipartisan way in 1993 and 1997. But this bunch, those of my colleagues who control this House today, have said, nope, that is not any good anymore. We have got a new and better policy. Some of us disagree with that, and we just ask respectfully that we be allowed to vote on that today, but my colleagues said no, and this is their prerogative. That is their prerogative. To those of my colleagues who believe that the amount of deficits this country is running today and will run under the policies they advocate, if they are going to make the tax cuts permanent, if they are going to continue to have the reductions in the amount of revenue, if we are going to continue to fight to a successful culmination, which I hope we do, of the wars, if we are going to do that, I think there may be a little justice in this for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), and I hope you will be up to it. Going to the Committee on Ways and Means means the gentleman is going to be part of the ways and means of solving this problem, sooner or later, but not today, obviously. Sooner or later, the gentleman is going to have to be part of that, I believe. So, again, I conclude by congratulating my colleagues for bringing this bill up for a clean up and down vote. If they would have allowed pay-as-you-go, I would have been one of those votes, but I am not going to ratify a policy that I believe is going to drive this country to the brink of ruin, and the market will ultimately be the judge of this, not any vote in this body according to the majority today.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I most certainly am, in its current form.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking our leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) for their kind remarks about me. I want to say it is with a little bit of mixed emotion tonight that I address this body for the last time. I guess it kind of came to me in a real way just a moment ago when my grandson, who is sitting beside me, asked me a moment ago, ``What are you going to be doing?'' I said, ``I am going to offer a motion.'' ``Are you going to win this one?'' I said ``No, we are not.'' And he said, ``Why?'' Well, that is a question that a 9-year-old would ask. It is also a question a lot of 50- and 60-year-olds ought to be asking. Why is it those of us on this side who used to vote with my colleagues on that side on fiscal restraint have been losing every single vote for the last 4 years? What is it that has changed? I listened to some of the rhetoric tonight, and I want to say with great respect tonight I recognize the right to have disagreements on this floor. It is so important that we do and that we do it without being disagreeable. But for the life of me I cannot understand how the majority can march in lockstep on this side and build up the largest fiscal deficits in the history of our country and explain it away in saying deficits really do not matter anymore. Now, I know so many of my colleagues so well, and I appreciate everyone in this body. But when you come up to me privately and say, Charlie, you are right, but I cannot vote with you, I ask the simple question, why? Now, I understand there has been an election and I understand you won, and I commend you for winning. But that also means you now have the responsibility of your actions. It was amazing to me that some tonight tried to continue to blame it on Democrat spending. They know better than that. The minority cannot spend. Yes, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), we can take credit for some things within the budget because we are not for zero spending. I tried to offer an amendment to this bill to say pay-as-you-go, which worked, bipartisanly. It worked. Why did my colleagues choose to knock it out in 2002 and say we are not going to have pay-as-you-go anymore? Why do you insist on that when you know in your heart that it works? We tried to do this in the rule today, but we lost, because you said, no, we are going to increase the debt ceiling by $800 billion. So I assume that means you are going to continue with the same policies that you have been carrying for the last 4 years. Here I will say I hope and I pray you are right. Our country will do better if you are right. But you should be getting a little bit nervous tonight because, ultimately, politics and arguments across this side of the aisle in which you are going to in fact have 100 percent party loyalty is not going to cut it. The market is going to ultimately determine whether our fiscal policies for our Nation are correct or incorrect. You know that and I know that, and you should be getting nervous, as I am getting nervous. The Japanese, for the first time since 2002, did not buy the amount of debt that they had previously been buying. You should be a little bit worried about the Chinese beginning to become our bankers at the rate that they are becoming our bankers. That should bother you a little, but it does not seem to. Now, I hope you are right. Because for the good of the country, continuing down the economic path you are insisting on going down, in my judgment, is going to create a major problem. But that helped me lose an election, because the people in my district agree with you and, therefore, I respect the people of my district, and I hope and pray you are right. But, tonight, let me conclude by saying this: Yes, I have one of Cindy's and my three grandchildren on the floor. And a lot of people have asked why I have been so involved in Social Security. I wish we had spent a part of the last 4 years dealing with the future of Social Security, because everyone in this room knows that we are 4 years closer to D-Day on Social Security, but we have done nothing on that. We tried. That got me opposition from my opponent in this race. But we are going to have to face up to it. You are. Well, our grandchildren do not have a vote tonight. And to those of you who believe we can fight two wars, win the war on homeland security and do it with continued borrowed money and believe that our country is going to profit, then vote against the motion to commit. It is pretty simple. All we are saying tonight is, increase the debt ceiling until next April 15 and give the new Congress a chance to go in and reexamine the economic policy that we are following and, as many of you have said, you like pay-as-you-go. All we are saying with this motion to commit is, let us do it in the new Congress. That is all we are saying. You have already said you did not want pay-as-you-go, but you said you might want it next year. All we are saying is, reduce the amount we can borrow and force bipartisan cooperation. Allow the Democratic Party and those on this side who believe, as many of you say you do, allow us the chance in the next Congress to do it. That is what this motion to commit is all about tonight. It is increasing the debt ceiling just enough to get to April 15 so the 109th Congress can do everything that both sides are saying need to be done. Please vote for the motion to commit.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Ranking Member Edwards) for the work they did on the base bill that we are talking about today, from the standpoint of Dyess Air Force Base in my district, and fire crash station being funded, a refueling vehicle maintenance shop, and then in Goodfellow and at Dyess, the 127 housing units which are extremely important to the troops back home. We appreciate taking care of those needs. I want to concentrate the remainder of my remarks, though, on the disappointment that I share in the manner in which the leadership of this House has chosen to deal with the emergency funding. Again, I point out I am for everything that Florida is receiving. They deserve every penny of it. I share the frustrations of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) in that, seemingly, the leadership of this body, not the chairman of the committee, but the leadership of this body has chosen to do things a little bit differently. I particularly am sorry to see that the bipartisan legislative process that worked so well between Larry Combest and I on the Committee on Agriculture has been sacrificed for craven political considerations. I think it is highly regrettable the President chose to help Florida producers only, and then the leadership of this body made sure that that was to be the way that we would proceed with this legislation. We are reopening the farm bill. And I understand the gimmicks that are being used and all today, but those of us that have been around a little while know that when you do some of the things that have been done in this body over the last few days, there will be another year and it will not be good for agriculture in America. Just a reminder. In the early morning hours of this past Wednesday, the leadership of this House told our Nation's producers to forget about assistance for drought. They made it clear there would be no assistance for crops lost to devastating weather. By 10 a.m., however, they finally understood the message that should have been evident long before. As a result, we have a drought assistance package today and we are extending a helping hand to farmers and ranchers outside of Florida. But make no mistake about it, we are also cutting the farm bill. If the 17 Members on the other side of the aisle, who had been original cosponsors of the good policy, had stayed with their conscience and not bent to the political will of their leadership, we would have had a victory for American agriculture, a victory for the process that is so important to this House that the chairman of the full committee has expressed his own frustrations about. But the leadership of this House had another agenda, and it turned the screws and singled out agriculture. There are no offsets in this bill for the aid that will go to Florida, but there are offsets of aid that will go to farmers and ranchers in other parts of the country. The message to this House is clear: the folks who provide the Nation's food and fiber who happen to live outside of politically important Florida are in a separate and lower class. Mr. Speaker, those of us who worked on the 2002 farm bill and those in the agriculture communities know how important it was to build a consensus. We developed a consensus policy that meets the needs of farmers and ranchers, that preserves natural resources and ensures the provision of food for those in need. While we need the drought aid in this package, and I support this package, the cut that will ultimately be made in farm conservation will have dire consequences for the future of this consensus. Mr. Speaker, it did not have to be this way. We did not have to be here on Saturday afternoon doing what the chairman and the ranking member and this committee have had to do. We did not have to do it this way. But this is another perfectly live, living example of the lack of leadership in this body to allow this House to work its will based on what the Members of this House want done, and not what a small group in a leadership room somewhere in the House determine should be done, and usually for political purposes, not in the best interest of our country.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the bill provides financial assistance for producers in return for the termination of tobacco marketing quotas and related price support. For kinds of tobacco other than flue-cured and burley tobacco, the payments to producers will reflect ``the basic tobacco farm acreage allotment for the 2002 marketing year established by the Secretary for quota tobacco produced on the farm.'' My understanding is that for this calculation, the Secretary will take into account nondisaster transfer of allotments that were made for the 2002 marketing year. Is that correct?

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the chairman for that clarification.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and not because I disagree with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and his eloquent defense of the need for assistance for Florida. I support that. I do not know of anyone that does not support that. But I rise to point out to my colleagues today that there should be an element of fairness associated with how we respond to the disaster in Florida. The President called for crop loss assistance. His emergency legislation was not offset, what the President asked us to do. But unfortunately he only asked for victims of 2004 hurricanes and tropical storms. Now, again, we all agree that we should help Florida. But, as Senator Pat Roberts said so eloquently, How on Earth can you provide disaster assistance to people who have suffered gravely over hurricanes and then deny assistance to people who have not had any rain for 3 years? We have other disasters, and what I and 41 of my colleagues joined in co-sponsoring a bill yesterday have said, let us treat all disasters fairly. Let us not for the first time in a long time differentiate between various kinds of disasters. Let us look at the disasters and let us fund them, as the President asked us to do. Now, there will be an argument saying that we should offset the additional agricultural disasters. I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle who may lean towards that position, why? Why make a differentiation between a disaster in Nebraska and one in Florida or Pennsylvania when the farmer has been affected the same way? To those who suggest that there is an easy offset by reopening the farm bill which we will hear in just a moment an amendment offered that reopens the farm bill not by what I say, but what 25 farm organizations are saying to us tonight and 15 conservation groups are saying for us to think long and hard before we undo the delicate balance that puts together the 2002 farm bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and I and many of my colleagues still in this body worked so hard to put together. Do not be deceived for one half second that if you get into the conservation title in paying for this disaster for other farmers, you are not reopening the farm bill because you are, not by what I say, but by what 25 farm organizations all around the country are saying. Be careful before we go there. Now, to those that suggest there is some fiscal responsibility about this let me make it very clear. Whatever amount of money the President of the United States designates for disaster assistance, that is what we offered in our amendment. Whatever the President said. And if he says it is going to be less, then we will prorate it out to all farmers and disasters all over. That is the way we have always done things. We treat everyone fairly. The bill before us and the proposed amendment does not treat everyone fairly. I ask my colleagues, before you join in a move that reopens the farm bill, think it out twice because there will be repercussions that will affect producers, and there is going to be a lot of other needs that we are going to have to address. But once we begin to tear up the coalition that was put together when we stood on this floor and we made agreements with the conservation crowd, the environmental groups, we made deals. This farm bill, the 2002 farm bill, we had a partnership. It was the greenest farm bill in the history that I have been here, in the history of this body, and now all of a sudden we have an amendment that is going to tear that coalition up, and folks are going to stand on this floor and say it is not going to have any effect on anything. I urge my colleagues, the 14 of my friends on this side of the aisle that cosponsored the bill we introduced yesterday, stick with me on this one. We have got the votes to pass it; and it is my understanding I am not arguing differently what the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who made an offer some time last week to deal with this disaster within committee, and the leadership of the House chose not to accept it, and I am sorry they did not because we could have avoided a lot of this problem that we are about to get into. So, again, in summation, how do we separate a disaster from Nebraska from a disaster from Pennsylvania from a disaster from Texas? Do not separate the two. Let us deal with it in one package. Oppose this rule. Particularly, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the gentleman from Florida a simple question. When we are talking about offsets, the President did not request offsets. The bill before us today, the President's request, did not require offsets for the Florida disasters. I just think making a differentiation between disasters in Nebraska and South Dakota and Texas from those disasters in Florida, which I concur are very serious and should be addressed, but it really makes no real sense for us to set a precedent of deciding some disasters are worse than others. You were making that point. I just wanted to say, we are not arguing that point. We are saying a disaster is a disaster, and the President in his request to this body did not require offsets of the disasters which you are defending and supporting, which I concur with you. What I do not understand is why the leadership on your side has suddenly decided we want a separate rule for other disasters. That makes no sense.

Mr. STENHOLM. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STENHOLM. Am I to understand that we now have an amendment to the rule that we were considering and does this amendment also provide for 1 hour of debate as to the nature of the amendment?

Mr. STENHOLM. The gentleman from Florida is entitled to 1 hour of debate and anyone who might be in opposition is entitled to no time for discussion of the amendment?

Mr. STENHOLM. Further requesting or asking for a parliamentary inquiry so that I and my colleagues might further understand this most unusual procedure that we are going through tonight. I do not recall a situation like this. There is 1 hour of debate, but it is controlled by the majority who have the right to offer an amendment to the rule under the rule that we were just debating?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the majority should so choose to move the previous question on it without further discussion, they have every right to do so?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for his explanation.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I first want to commend the chairman and the committee for the manner in which they have attempted to deal with a very serious problem, and not just in his State. I repeat again, the devastation that has occurred in Florida I recognize, and I recognize the need for this body to step forward and to help, as the gentleman from Wisconsin just expressed. We have some disasters in west Texas, drought, excessive rain, some of it produced by the same storm system that hit Florida. My frustration, not with the chairman but with the leadership on the Chairman's side of the aisle, is what I expressed by offering the amendment and asking that the previous question be struck. Because, yesterday, we had 44 Members of this body, including 14 on the Republican side of the aisle, that supported the best policy way of dealing with the problems that we are having all over the United States. The President did not say our bill was bad. The President, in his proposal, said that we should treat disasters just like we have always treated them, as an emergency. The moment we begin to treat disasters as nonemergency and begin to budget for them, we have problems, and we have understood that in this body with the rule over the years, with the budget. Now, all of a sudden, once again, the leadership on the Republican side waves their magic wand, and all of a sudden, everyone falls into line. And no matter how many times some try to explain we are not reopening the farm bill, we are reopening the farm bill in ways that it will take a few months perhaps to fully understand and appreciate. Because once we begin to tamper with the farm bill, just once, for short-term political benefit, then get ready for what happens next. I have been around here a few years, and I know what happens. I guess the point I want to make, though, is, what happened between yesterday and today? What is it that yesterday had everyone from non- Florida States saying the best way to deal with this disaster is to treat everyone alike and fairly, 2003 to 2004, declare it an emergency, which is what this whole debate and discussion is about; then, all of a sudden we say, no, we are going to treat agriculture different? Of all of the appropriation bills, of all of the authorization bills, of anything that we have done in this body, we are now saying, treat agriculture different. In fact, we now have a Member of the House Ag Committee, and to my chagrin, the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, who has adopted this now. Why? Because the leadership of this House said we have to do it this way. Well, 14 Members, and you can start taking a look, there are many Members who voted for the previous question who when they wake up tomorrow will find out that their district has benefitted from the conservation security program and that they have voted now to cut out a program that many of their producers have said is a good program and should be carried forward. But because they have followed their leadership, not the policymakers of this body, they have decided that that is the way to go. Well, I understand. It takes 218 votes. We lost on the previous question. Fourteen Members who yesterday said treat everybody alike today said, no, we are going to follow the leadership of this body. Take a good look at the leadership of this body and their opinion of what farm policy should be. That is what they are doing on their side of the aisle. But as long as they have got 218 votes, they can do it. I conclude my remarks by again commending the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Of all of the people on their side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, I constantly marvel at his demeanor, his patience, the manner in which he accepts his frustrations from time to time and deals with a very difficult job, but he does it well. I know a little bit about what has gone on within his committee, and I want to thank him publicly for what he has tried to do. I hope that when they get to conference and work with the other body that he does what he said a moment ago, and we will put together a bill that deals with all of the problems in a fair and equitable way. And I will stand with him on that, as I do tonight.

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing, listening to my colleague saying that the bill that he cosponsored yesterday would not be accepted. Why? Fourteen Republicans signed onto the bill yesterday. All of my Democratic colleagues indicated their support on a vote. Therefore, if my colleague from west Texas would have chosen to vote his conscience, it would have passed. He can say all he wants to that it would not have passed, but the only reason is that once again when the leadership speaks, folks on that side jump. On September 27, the President proposed the disaster assistance before the House today. His request included agriculture assistance for hurricane and tropical storm disaster victims. On Monday, I introduced H.R. 5203, which is cosponsored by 42 Members, 16 of them Republicans. This morning at 7 a.m., the leadership of this House, through the Rules Committee, said very clearly, no fairness is required. Disaster aid without offsets was okay for Florida producers, but not producers elsewhere who are hurting just as much. The cosponsors of my bill, as well as the organizations, 25 farm groups, agree with me and disagree with my friend from Texas. Instead of taking up this bill at 10 a.m., the leadership took a few hours to see the error of its ways and to at least allow some drought assistance, a flawed one, but drought assistance to be considered. But that leadership has demanded that agriculture disasters be treated differently than other disasters which are alleviated by the bill and that we reopen the farm bill. The President has not required offsets for the agriculture disaster assistance that he requested. It was the leadership in this House that made that request. The President understands the unpredictable nature of disasters and requested emergency spending appropriately. In following the leadership and choosing this path of reopening the farm bill, this House and the Members of it who are concerned for agriculture will surely come to regret it. But the House has spoken. I notice that the leadership has spoken. And when the leadership of this body on the other side of the aisle says, this is the way it is going to be, everybody falls in line. I have never operated that way in 26 years. When I disagreed with my leadership in what I believed was right, not just for west Texas in this concern, but with the other States who have just as much interest in this as we do, we said ``no'' to the leadership. I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle's consciences are bothering them a little bit right now because deep down in their hearts they know that what we are about to do and the reasons for which we are about to do it are not in the best interests of American agriculture. They know that, but they have chosen to follow a leadership that has put politics ahead of policy and interjected policy and politics into an appropriations process that should never have gotten to this point. I repeat, the President did not request offsets for agricultural disasters. The only people that have requested this are the leadership of this House. Sixteen Members on the other side of the aisle yesterday were doing the right thing. Today, they are doing the wrong thing for American agriculture, and 25 agricultural groups have said this is wrong and have sent a letter to every Member of this House. Fifteen conservation groups have said this is wrong. And some of you have voted not in the best interest of your districts because the Conservation Security Program is already working within your districts and you have been for it.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), I greatly admire, respect, and appreciate the job that he has done and is doing; but it is curious he would make a fiscally responsible argument for my amendment when he does not make the same one for the $12 billion that we have all agreed is emergency spending. Why would you come to the floor and defend one small part that does bad policy for agriculture, and you know it? But just as the chairman has expressed his concern about the procedure and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has echoed the procedure, and everybody knows what the procedure is in this, the sad thing about this is that the policy that is going to be interjected because of the misuse of procedure in this body is going to be devastating to American agriculture. It is going to be bad. And that is why 25 groups agree with me and disagree with the gentleman from West Texas. The chairman has said it more eloquently. The procedure lacks a little bit in common sense.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And one point I want to make: I will not accept for one-half second the fiscal responsibility comment that was made. For a majority party that has presided over the largest deficits in the history of our country, I will not accept any charge that tonight we get fiscally responsible by choosing to treat agriculture different from any other disaster. Do not make the fiscally responsible argument. That dog will not hunt. We are talking about policy. Twenty-five agricultural groups are agreeing with me. The majority is agreeing with the leadership of the House and are deciding, for some strange reason, this is a political point that needs to be made. The President did not ask for offsets. Why did their leadership suddenly ask for offsets for agriculture when we are not offsetting any other part of this bill? If they want to get fiscal responsibility, I will join with them and we will treat agriculture just like every other aspect, but I will not allow agriculture to be singled out, which this amendment is doing tonight.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my colleagues know, there are over 250 specialty crops produced throughout the United States, from blueberries in Maine to pineapples in Hawaii, potatoes in Idaho to pecans in Texas. In 2003, fruits, vegetables and tree nuts earned U.S. farmers close to $30 billion in sales at the farm gate alone. As markets for fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops become more global, it is becoming increasingly difficult for U.S. growers to compete against heavily subsidized foreign producers in both domestic and foreign markets. H.R. 3242 has been a long-time coming and serves as a good first step towards addressing the needs of the specialty crop grower through Federal policy changes in both domestic and international trade issues. These issues will no doubt continue to be discussed and debated as we prepare for the 2007 farm bill. Writing a farm bill is truly an exercise in balancing the equities between all commodity groups, and when the committee begins its deliberations on the next farm bill, this will provide a solid foundation upon which to construct the provisions dealing with specialty crops. Let me take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) for his thoroughness and hard work to ensure that the unique products from his State are included within the scope of this bill. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for their hard work and attention with this endeavor. They have worked closely with the U.S. specialty crop growers to identify various areas of Federal agricultural policy that should be improved to promote the competitiveness of this diverse industry throughout the United States. It is important that we have a strong domestic specialty crop industry. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3242. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).