Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I have read it. It has nothing to do with the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. It has everything to do with creating a little mischief on the bill before us today. That is all that it does. I am reminded at this time of the infamous words of Will Rogers when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much, it is them knowing so much that ain't so that is the problem.'' As you listen to the debate and discussion on this, I would challenge anyone to find anyone in this body more strongly in favor of the second amendment and/or the first amendment, and that is why I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment before us would create a tremendous loophole that would allow the flood of soft money from wealthy individuals, corporations and union dues to continue to unfairly dominate our electoral system. There is a lot of misinformation about what the Shays-Meehan bill actually does, and it is circulating all over my district today. The Shays-Meehan bill does not prohibit political advertisement by groups prior to an election. It does not prohibit using the name of any Member of Congress or other candidate in a group's political advertisement. It does not prohibit any group from providing its Members information about the records of elected officials through mailings or other communications. The bill simply requires that independent organizations who participate in the political process do so in the sunshine so voters know who is trying to influence their decision and make their own judgment about the ads. Under the bill before us, any organization could run ads right up to election day, mentioning names of candidates and their positions as they wish, so long as they comply with the rules that apply to everyone else, including Members of Congress. I have to comply with these rules, and I do not feel they restrict my speech in any way. I strongly support free speech. I strongly support the right of anyone to say whatever they want to about me or anyone else running for office. But I do not believe that the right to free speech is about the ability of someone to spend $1 million to influence elections without disclosing who they are or where they get their money. I do not believe that the first amendment offers individuals or groups to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence an election without disclosing who they are and where their money is coming from. This bill should not be a problem for groups such as the National Rifle Association and National Right-to-Life who have a large political action committee, and they can use that to finance whatever ads they want to. The folks who will be affected by this bill are those who are not willing to be open and aboveboard in their efforts to influence elections. The current campaign finance system gives a loudspeaker to wealthy individuals who can afford to make large political donations and gives the average working man and woman little voice in the political process. Our campaign rules have been abused by smart lawyers and political consultants who have found loopholes to get around the law. We need to put teeth back into laws long on the books preventing corporate treasury money, union dues, and unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals from being used for campaign ads. We need to be closing these loopholes, not creating new loopholes that can be abused to avoid sunshine. Vote against this amendment. This amendment will create a gigantic loophole that we are trying to close, those of us who support the Shays-Meehan. Oppose this amendment. It has nothing to do with the second amendment or the first amendment. It has everything to do with whether or not we are going to clean up our political system just a little bit.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yielded to the gentleman. Will the gentleman give me 30 seconds so that we can continue whatever point the gentleman was wanting to make?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) yield 30 seconds additional to me so that we can continue?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it does not take effect until 2004. The logic that the gentleman from Illinois is following today, that means that he voted for the largest single tax increase in history in 2010 when the bill the gentleman voted for last year expires. The gentleman voted for the biggest tax raise in history. That is what he did by his own logic. I do not understand that logic.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, no one is talking about repealing anything that has gone into effect. No one. The gentleman keeps saying this is a tax increase.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, this is an amazing debate. In listening to the gentlewoman from New Mexico talking about the recession, surely she does not mean that the economic game plan that was voted in last year is going to last us in a recession until 2004 or 2005. That is when the next part of the tax cuts that everybody is talking about is going to kick in. I believe we are going to be out of the recession before then, but obviously, the gentlewoman believes that we are not. What we are talking about today is, are we going to borrow $1.6 trillion of Social Security Trust Funds in order to finance an economic game plan that this side still thinks is a good one. I do not understand the logic there. I do not care how many times the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) stands on the floor and says we are raising taxes; no one on this side is raising taxes. In fact, I voted for more of a tax cut last year for the economy than the gentleman did. I did.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, my friend from California was exactly right when he said a moment ago that Social Security is not on the floor today, but it should be. The reason I rise to strongly oppose this rule and strongly oppose the previous question is that I believe that we ought to have an amendment allowed that would preserve the lockbox for Social Security. What our friends on this side of the aisle are saying clearly to the American people today, it is much more important to preserve the tax cuts in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 than it is to protect Social Security and the ability of our young people and the baby boomers to draw it in 2007. That is the choice today, and do I mind voting on this? Not at all. To those that continue to say we are talking about raising taxes on this side of the aisle, no one on this side of the aisle has said one word about raising taxes on anybody in the past several days or in the days ahead. My friends on the other side of the aisle will point out the primary reason we face a deficit this year is because of the war on terrorism and the economic downturn, and they are right, this year, but we are talking about a 10-year proposal. We are talking about setting into concrete a budget resolution that was passed before the war, before September 11, and saying we cannot touch any of that. We are going to borrow all of the Social Security Trust Fund moneys for the next 10 years. That is what my colleagues are saying. When they vote for this rule and for the previous question, they are saying absolutely unequivocally we are going to go back into Social Security, and we are going to justify it. What I would ask my friends, those who have said, as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) said a moment ago, we are going to cut spending, bring your budget out, give us a chance to work with you. You will find there will be considerable support on this side of the aisle for cutting spending. Bring it out. You will have a chance to do that. Last year the Blue Dogs warned it was dangerous to make long-term budgetary commitments based on 10-year surplus projections when 70 percent of the projected surplus was in year 2006 to 2010. We suggested it would be much more responsible to make budget decisions based on 5- year projections. Now I read that the Office of Management and Budget has proposed using 5-year budget projections because they have decided that 10-year projections are not reliable, yet here we are arguing on the 10-year projection. The OMB says, no, we should not do that. If it was a mistake to make budget decisions based on 10-year projections, as the administration is telling us now, then why are we blindly making decisions based on a 10-year budget forecast that turned out to be $5 trillion wrong? What bothers me about the game plan we are now in is what it means to the future of Social Security and Medicare. We should be saving the Social Security and Medicare surpluses to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation and working on reforms to strengthen Social Security and Medicare for our children and grandchildren. That is what we should be debating on this floor today, tomorrow and the days ahead. I would say to my colleagues that if they are looking forward to voting to increase the limit on our national debt to $6.7 trillion to borrow the money that they are insisting in their economic game plan, that they voted on, that they are insisting on, if they are looking forward to that, then vote for this previous question and rule, because they are going to get a chance to vote to borrow, and the American people are soon to begin to understand that we are talking about borrowing the money to spend. We are fighting a war, and we are borrowing on our children and grandchildren's future in order to satisfy a theoretic game plan that is already shown to be off by $5 trillion within 12 months. If we look at the massive increases in the national debt and the budget that was submitted this week, and the tremendous unfunded liabilities facing the Social Security system and the Medicare system, and worry about the legacy we are leaving for our grandchildren, then perhaps this resolution does not feel so good. I hope there is a few of my colleagues on that side that share that commitment because I certainly do. It is time to set aside these pure partisan comments and start working on the real problem, and that is solving the Social Security problem before it is too late.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I apologize for being a little bit late. I want to commend the gentleman for beginning this discussion, one which I predict we will see day after day after day now talking about the economic situation facing our country. The gentleman has joined me, as I joined him last year, in pointing out that there were perhaps some better ways to go about our economic planning, that we should have first, last year, fixed Social Security for the future. We should have fixed Medicare and Medicaid. We should have sat down and had open and honest discussions and debate and then votes on the floor of the House as to how we should provide for the future of Social Security, and how we should provide for the current future of Medicare and Medicaid. Most of our rural hospitals and now urban hospitals are facing the problems that we have created by nonaction or by passing an economic game plan that has now got us into the predicament we are now in less than 12 months after we stood on this floor. I stood where the gentleman now stands and I looked at my friends on the other side of the aisle and said I disagree with you, but I hope you are right. And I sincerely did hope they were right, because the country would have been much better off had they been right. But then September 11 comes along and we had an unforeseen circumstance. We also now know we are in a recession, all of which had a major effect on the short-term implications of the budget. But the economic game plan we are under for the next 10 years also has had a major implication, and one in which we are now going to have to have serious and open and honest discussion about where do we go. We cannot undo what we have not done. We should have dealt with Social Security first, we should have dealt with Medicare and Medicaid first. The leaders of this House on that side of the aisle chose not to do that. They chose to put in place an economic game plan that will now require us, this House, to increase the national debt limit from $5.95 trillion to $6.7 trillion sometime next month or the month after. We cannot escape from that. Mr. Speaker, I will yield back at this point. I look forward to participating in the future with the gentleman and others as we talk about and hopefully can have some more honest debate on this subject.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. I rise in even stronger opposition to the basic bill. I want to commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted against the previous Martial law, making it true bipartisan opposition. There is an old Blue Dog adage that says, ``Select carefully your words today for tomorrow you may eat them.'' Mr. Speaker, when the House debated the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the bill enacting the $1.35 trillion tax cut, I came to this well to warn that this budget bets the ranch that the surpluses that everybody talks about are going to be there. If they are not, we are going to have a difficult time governing in this body in a bipartisan way. In response to those who dismissed my warnings, I said, I hope I am wrong, as I hope I am wrong tonight, and if I am wrong, I hope I will be able to eat the crow you dish out to me a year from now if I am wrong, but if I am right, get your knives and forks out. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be eating turkey on Christmas day, and for the sake of my colleagues who argued that we could afford to enact the tax cut and still do everything else they promised, I hope they find some crow that tastes like turkey. We were told the President's tax cut would provide stimulus to prevent this country from going into recession. Today, we are being told the $1.35 trillion was not enough; we need another $150 billion in tax cuts plus another $120 billion in spending. To those who stand up tonight and say if we do not pass this bill we will fail to do anything to stimulate the economy, I have to ask was not that what the tax cut was supposed to do we passed this spring? When Congress first began discussing options for providing economic stimulus, the bipartisan leader of the Committee on the Budget in this body, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) agreed on a couple of basic principles for a responsible, effective stimulus package; that the package be temporary in nature, focused on economic stimulus and paid for over the long term so we did not worsen the long-term fiscal situation. The legislation before us tonight completely ignores these common sense principles and they know it. The Blue Dogs made a simple proposition to the leaders of this House, take what our leaders of the Committee on the Budget recommended that we do, make it temporary, pay for it. The leadership said thanks but no thanks, we do not want any part of that. Okay. We understand. I understand, I am in the minority, you win. You have won on issue after issue after issue. You are going to win again tonight, but I remind my colleagues again, next February and March when you must come to this floor and ask that the debt ceiling be increased to $6.7 trillion, I hope the enthusiasm will be there to borrow that money, borrow it on the future of our grandchildren because that is what you are doing. Why they refuse to pay for this particular package tonight defies my understanding. It would be so simple, so simple, Mr. Speaker, I see Mr. Speaker in the House audience tonight, so simple if we just agreed to pay for it, paygo. What happened to the fiscally responsible proposition of paygo? Mr. Speaker, when the House debated the ``Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act'', the bill implementing the $1.35 trillion tax cut, I came to the House floor to warn ``this budget bets the ranch that surpluses that everybody talks about are going to be there. If they are not, we are going to have a difficult time governing in this body in a bipartisan way.'' In response to those who dismissed my warnings, I said ``I hope I am wrong. I hope I will be able to eat the crow you will dish out to me in a year from now, if I am wrong. But if I am right, get your knives and forks out.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be eating turkey on Christmas day. For the sake of my colleagues who argued that we could afford to enact the tax cut and still do everything else you promised, I hope you can find some crow that tastes like turkey. And we were told that the President's tax cut would provide stimulus to prevent this country from going into a recession. Today we are being told that the $1.35 trillion tax cut the President signed into law wasn't enough to stimulate the economy. Now the same folks who told us that everything would be wonderful if we enacted the President's tax cut proposal are telling us that we can solve all of our problems if we just enact another $150 billion in tax cuts. To those who stand up and say that if we don't pass this bill, we will have failed to do anything to stimulate the economy, I have to ask: Wasn't that what the tax cut we passed this spring was supposed to do. When Congress first began discussing options for providing economic stimulus, the bipartisan leaders of the Budget Committees agreed on a couple of basic principles for a responsible, effective stimulus package--that the package be temporary in nature, focused on economic stimulus, and paid for over the long term so that we did not worsen the long-term fiscal situation.The legislation before us today completely ignores these common sense principles. The Blue Dogs made the simple suggestion that the costs of providing economic stimulus in the short term be offset by postponing some of the tax cuts for upper income individuals that are scheduled to take effect several years into the future. That would allow us to provide stimulus in the short term without digging us deeper into debt and undermining the fiscal discipline that is essential to the long-term health of our economy. But the majority told us that they would not even consider this common-sense proposal. The proposal before us is purported to be a centrist deal because it combines the tax cuts advocated by Republicans with much of the spending proposed by Democrats. While that may be described by some as bipartisanship and centrist policies, it does not represent responsible legislating.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to throw another category in the debate tonight that has not been mentioned, and that is the grandkids. We can all agree tonight that we need to do something for the workers. I certainly agree with most of the components of the tax cut, that it does something to provide jobs. But I hope the enthusiasm that I hear tonight from this side of the aisle will be here in February and March when we have to increase the debt ceiling from $5.95 trillion to $6.7 trillion. I look for the same enthusiasm as Members are showing tonight for spending this money, I look for it in February and March when we have to increase the debt ceiling. I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), it is not much fun being in the minority. I agree that the majority can do anything that it wishes to do, and the majority are doing it again tonight, as the majority has done time and time again this year, and then claim to have bipartisanship; but that dog will not hunt. The majority can do it, and I respect their right to do it. But I also expect the majority to come to the floor and be just as enthusiastic when they raise the debt ceiling. I want the majority to be just as responsible when they say to the people out there that we are trying to help tonight, the Social Security trust fund dollars are being spent for these purposes. What I ask for, and the Blue Dogs have asked for, is to please pay for it. What happened to the conservative principles of this body when we used to stand on this floor and argue, pay for government, pay as we go. There is not one word about that, but we are going to have to pay next year. We ought to think about the grandkids as well as the unemployed, as well as those who need the incentive to provide the jobs. We are completely ignoring that. The chickens are going to come home to roost next year, and I hope the enthusiasm will be there. Mr. Speaker, I hope Members are ready to increase the debt ceiling and borrow the money in order to return it for the purposes. I pray that the gentleman is right; I disagree with the gentleman, but the majority has every right to do what they are doing. Ramp it through, and then pay the consequences next year.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong disappointment with the rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle on this resolution. We do a disservice to our constituents and to future generations when we bury our heads in the sand and ignore the very real financial challenges facing the Social Security system. Everyone who has examined the financial outlook of the Social Security system understands that we need to take action to make sure that Social Security remains strong for future generations. The Commission to Strengthen Social Security is to be commended for presenting proposals which deal with the financial deficits facing the Social Security system in a responsible and forthright manner. Those who cry foul on the Commission's recommendations have a moral obligation to tell the American people how they would address these challenges. While it is easy to criticize those who try to deal with this issue, it is far more difficult to put together a plan that can hold up under a thorough actuarial and budgetary analysis. I would say to my colleagues who have come to the floor to criticize the efforts of the Commission that I look forward to seeing your plan to strengthen Social Security. There is no way to eliminate the $20 trillion unfunded liability facing Social Security without making some tough choices somewhere. Folks who insist that we must preserve benefits exactly as promised under current law must explain where the money will come from to fund these promises. We can either make some tough choices today to honestly deal with the challenges facing Social Security or we can leave a fiscal time bomb for our children and grandchildren. I, for one, do not want my grandchildren to look back sixty-five years from now and say that if only our granddad had done what he knew in his heart had to be done when he had the chance, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Trade Promotion Authority and the bill before us today. The truth about trade is that there always are both successes and failures, winners and losers. But for our Nation as a whole, the indisputable fact is trade is a net positive. When it comes to agriculture, the successes have outweighed the failures. American farmers and ranchers now make a quarter of our sales to overseas markets. Next year, agriculture exports are expected to exceed $54.5 billion, making a net trade surplus of $14.5 billion. That is just a fraction of what could be possible if we had freer and fairer markets. For workers who have lost in trade in the past, I sincerely believe that the best and perhaps only way to fix what has failed is through new negotiations that level the playing field. We must speak and act with a united voice and a unified voice that is forged through a close partnership between Congress and the executive branch. That is the vision of the compromise bill before us today. There is a dear price to be paid for delay. American farmers and ranchers cannot afford for us to stand by and watch the rest of the world unite behind trade. We need to participate. Support this bill today.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Trade Promotion Authority. As a lifelong supporter of improved trade opportunities for American producers, my inclination always is to begin with a favorable disposition toward trade bills which come before Congress. I am convinced that American producers can, and do, win with freer and fairer trade. Certainly, not every conceivable trade bill deserves support but, in general, I am strongly persuaded that increased trade opportunities improve the lives and pocketbooks of American workers. I also believe that enhanced trade is a potent mechanism for America to export our values, practices and democracy along with our products. Unfortunately, early messages from the current administration forced me to question whether enhanced trade authority would be prudently used if granted this year. In particular, I was sorely disappointed by statements by the current Administration which made me doubt their understanding of both domestic and international farm policies and, particularly, the impact of those policies on the producers of our Nation's food and fiber. I am not going to be party to a unilateral disarmament of our farmers and ranchers for someone else's partisan philosophical reasons. Furthermore, the early handling of this issue by both the Administration and the House leadership confirmed what has appeared to me throughout the year as legislative arrogance. While it may be numerically possible to pass bills with Republican-only votes, ultimately there is a price to be paid for this sort of shortsighted partisanship by either party. Successful trade legislation always has required bipartisan support; when the well of good will has been drained by earlier legislative battles fought entirely on partisan grounds, issues like trade arrive with inadequate troops supporting the effort. All of that being said, I am reassured both by several conversations I personally have had and by those which have been reported to me from colleagues who share some of my concerns. As a naturally optimistic person, I am willing to hope that this experience might signal an awakening to political and legislative realities by some important players in both the executive and legislative branches. With my chairman on the Agriculture Committee, I am supporting the trade promotion authority legislation before us today. I do believe that the enhanced congressional consultation and oversight in the current bill are vital for ensuring that our constituents' views and needs are respected by our trade negotiators. I highly commend this and other improvements made by my colleagues John Tanner, Bill Jefferson, and Carl Dooley. The truth about trade is that there always are both successes and failures, winners and losers. But for the Nation as a whole, trade is a net positive. When it comes to agriculture, the successes have outweighed the failures. American farmers and ranchers now make a quarter of their sales to overseas markets; U.S. agriculture consistently enjoys a trade surplus; and next year agricultural exports are expected to reach $54.5 billion, producing a trade surplus of $14.5 billion. But that is just a fraction of what could be possible with freer and fairer markets. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, NAFTA, and the Uruguay Round have resulted in higher incomes and lower prices for goods, with benefits amounting to $1,300 to $2,000 a year for an average American family of four, NAFTA has also produced a dramatic increase in trade between the United States and Mexico. In 1993, United States-Mexico trade totaled $81 billion. Last year, our trade hit $247 billion-- nearly half a million dollars per minute. U.S. exports to our NAFTA partners increased 104 percent between 1993 and 2000; U.S. trade with the rest of the world grew only half as fast. Increased trade supports good jobs. In the five years following the implementation of NAFTA, employment grew 22 percent in Mexico, and generated 2.2 million jobs. In Canada, employment grew 10 percent, and generated 1.3 million jobs. And in the United States, employment grew more than 7 percent, and generated about 13 million jobs. But as I said before, I acknowledge that there are those who do not win in the short run under certain trade situations. For workers who have lost in trade in the past, I also believe that the best--and perhaps only--way to fix what has failed is through new negotiations, which level the playing field. We must speak with a unified voice that is forged through a close partnership between Congress and the executive branches. That is envisioned in the compromise bill. We in agriculture have only begun to reap the benefits of a half century of trade negotiations under GAIT and the WTO, which have reduced the average tariff on industrial goods to about 4 percent. That is a fraction if the 62 percent tariff that is imposed on our exports of agricultural products. Indeed, reform of agricultural trade policies begun in the Uruguay Round provided not only additional market access for agriculture but, perhaps more importantly, it provided the necessary framework to improve market access in future negotiations. Now is the time to press forward with additional trade reforms that will improve market access for our agricultural products. In addition to tariff barriers, U.S. agricultural exports must compete with subsidies from foreign governments. Europe alone spends 75 times more in agricultural export subsidies than does the United States. In fact, Europe spent $91 billion last year to support agriculture, almost twice the $49 billion spent by the United States. Europe is aggressively pursuing trade agreements with other countries, already securing free-trade or special customs agreements with 27 countries, 20 of which it completed in the last 10 years. And the EU is negotiating another 15 accords right now. Last year, the European Union and Mexico--the second-largest market for American exports--entered into a free trade agreement. Japan is negotiating a free-trade agreement with Singapore, and is exploring free trade agreements with Mexico, Korea, and Chile. There is a price to pay for our delay in negotiating new trade agreements. For example, U.S. exports to Chile face an 8-percent tariff, but Canada exports to Chile without the tariff because of the Canada-Chile trade agreement. As a result, United States wheat and potato farmers are now losing market share in Chile to Canadian exports. American farmers and ranchers can't afford for us to stand by and watch the world write new trade rules. The United States needs to lead a new round of negotiations, and we need trade promotion authority to do it. I encourage my colleague to support the compromise bill today and you will be supporting American farmers and ranchers as well as other business men and women who have the capacity to strengthen our economy as well as their own livelihoods if they are just given the chance. With millions of jobs and billions of dollars at stake, we cannot afford to be partisan or cavalier with this vote. My hope is that this week we will produce not only a legislative victory on Trade Promotion Authority but also a blueprint for greater respect and improved working relations between the parties on substantive national policy.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, the approach that we are taking to financing the war on terrorism is penny wise and pound foolish. Everyone acknowledges that meeting all of our challenges in the war on terrorism will require substantially more resources than this bill provides. In fact, the President's chief of homeland security has said that he will recommend significant increases in funding for agencies involved in the war on terrorism. Yet today we are being asked to pretend that those costs do not exist so that we can make the budget look better artificially. Deferring a full discussion on the costs of combating terrorism at home and abroad until next year will result in higher spending levels and budget deficits than would be the case if we honestly accounted for these costs up front. Failing to honestly budget for the costs of the war on terrorism will allow us to pretend that we can afford other tax cuts or spending proposals that are unrelated to the war on terrorism. When we are presented with the inevitable supplemental early next year to finance the needs not addressed in this bill--which will in all likelihood have a higher price tag than it would if we addressed those needs now--we will find that we need to use borrowed money to pay for the war because we have spent all of our resources. Our objective must be winning the war against terrorism without jeopardizing the economy. Congress will be required to prioritize our efforts to strengthen domestic security, fight the war on terrorism, provide assistance to dislocated workers and spur our economy. These needs will then have to be balanced with our obligation to protect against long-term economic and fiscal harm. Congress and the administration must work together to identify the needs of the various agencies involved in domestic security, law enforcement, intelligence, military and other activities in the fight against terrorism and reach a bipartisan agreement on the amount of funding required to meet these needs. Any tax cuts or spending increases unrelated to the war on terrorism must be considered in the context of an overall budget framework which sets aside the resources which will be needed to meet the challenges in the war against terrorism. All members who care about honesty in budgeting and maintaining fiscal discipline should oppose this rule and insist that the administration and leadership in Congress get together to develop a responsible budget framework that honestly addresses all of our priorities.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida and commend him for the way he and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have had this discussion this morning, and say in that spirit that there are some things that are a little bit disturbing and puzzling to some of us on this side of the aisle as we not only strive to, but hopefully perform, in 110 percent of support of our President and the bipartisan dedication of the United States in winning the war on terrorism internationally, as well as domestically. Many of us were puzzled at the bringing of yesterday's tax bill to the floor and the discussion and the debate that ensued around it because, to some of us, it did not fit the spirit of the times and we respectfully disagreed. Why some folks's blood pressure went up as high as it did, I do not know. But here is my concern, and I say this for the benefit of both sides of the aisle. The day before yesterday, Mitch Daniels, Director of OMB, stressed, ``There are very, very few things more important to President Bush than the State of American agriculture. But at the moment, there are at least two things more important. One is concerning international terrorism; the other is protecting Americans here at home. The President deserves the chance to work on those and then he will turn his attention to the other more important issues such as farm policy and a new farm bill.'' Now, this request was being made to the Senate, in saying please do not bring the farm bill up now, deal with it next year. As my colleagues know, we passed the farm bill in the House bipartisanly, equal support, 290 to 130 votes, indicating that the will of the House, the wisdom of the House, in the same spirit as the budget that the gentleman from Florida talked about, where the budget numbers came from, it was the budget that passed the House. Well, it seems to me that yesterday, at least in the House and the House leadership, tax policy became more important than winning the war, or certainly more important than passing a farm bill. Now, I hope I am wrong on that, because I do believe that it is still critically important to us and our food policy that we deal with this issue this year. But it is a little bit puzzling when we have messages that seem to contradict each other being sent at the same time most of us, if not all of us, and I would say all of us, bipartisanly are sincerely interested in doing everything we can to back our President in his excellent conduct of this terrible situation we find ourselves in. But somehow, we have to find a way to communicate on domestic policy and seemingly, right now, we have a mixed message going on concerning agriculture that bothers some of us greatly. I hope in our discussions we will be able to plug that back in and get back on track.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I again reluctantly rise in opposition. The speech of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), I happen to totally agree with everything that he said, with the one exception. We did not provide for the resources. We keep talking about the commodities and that element of the bill. I would like to remind our colleagues again, the guaranteed price level that we are talking about for the commodities for the farmers proposed in those commodities is 1990 levels. I will submit tonight, yes, we are not doing nearly what we should for drinking water, but we are doing considerably more than what we are doing under baseline. Value added and strategic planning, I am excited about that one, but I still believe that we ought to start slow because we are limited under the budget implications for this bill, in spite of what some would like to say about it. So I again ask for a no vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is the third good amendment that we have had tonight, each of which said if we just take a little bit from the base bill, we can do many more good things. All of them have been good: $20 billion for conservation, $1 billion for research, and now $1 billion for rural development. I feel compelled again, though, to observe to the body, especially when I hear it referred to as the administration position, there is still no administration position on anything regarding this bill, other than asking us to defer action; no specific recommendations, nothing that we can do, other than suggest that we agree with them. But no one has ever, including the Secretary of State today, said specifically what they are for or against. I wish it was not that way, because we perhaps could have had a much, much better bill, but we do not. To those who talk about the lack of money today, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) have every right to stand up and say ``additional money'' because they voted for the Blue Dog budget. They provided in the vote for the budget the amount of money they are asking for tonight. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) did not vote for it, and therefore I do not see how he can ask for additional money in the same way. I understand how the gentleman can, because I would like to support the gentleman. I happen to agree on water. I do not agree on the strategic planning. That was my idea. I think we ought to be slow on new programs. We put $15 million into this as a pilot project because this is a new program. I think we ought to be a little conservative and cautious before we head out on a new program and we ought to try it and that is what we do. We put $15 million. They suggest an additional $45 million. On the water we put 30. They suggest an additional 45. On the value added, this was the chairman's proposal, he put 50. They add an additional 10. All of which are good and valid requests. But the problem we have again is as we have said over and over, we struck a very delicate balance between all competing interests, between our commodities, between conservation, between research, between rural development, between trade, between all of those competing interests in putting together the bill that comes from the committee. So again, I must add my reluctant opposition to what no one can say is not worthwhile. But we had to live under a budget that was imposed on us by this body, $73.5 billion, and that means we have to make some very tough allocation decisions. I feel compelled to stay with that decision we made and ask the body to reluctantly but firmly join in rejecting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, also. My analysis of this is if this provision were imposed, it would result in the forfeiture to CCC of commodities placed under loan when a person reaches the $150,000 limit. CCC would subsequently sell these commodities to minimize carrying costs and to move them to the market as quickly as possible. CCC is expected to incur expenditures equal to the LDP and MLG cost. Consequently, no savings are expected. Therefore, I join with the chairman in his opposition and his explanation as well as this point that I believe is relevant.