Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for his leadership in bringing us to this point today, and to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have participated in the many hours, weeks, months, yes, years in the development of this recommendation that we bring to the full House today. The policies contained in the bill represent a truly balanced consensus approach that reflects well on the process by which it was designed. While there remain amendments to be considered, the product before us represents a true bipartisan consensus, and I believe it has broad support. Mr. Chairman, the process for developing this bill and the one in which the 1996 farm bill was enacted are as different as night and day. The 1996 farm bill was a philosophical document written by the House leadership. There were no public hearings, no process for the Committee on Agriculture to build a consensus, and little optimism for its success. Many of us who voted for it did so because we had no other choice. Mr. Chairman, I will not be the first to say that the 1996 farm bill is an utter failure. It has failed our farmers. This failure was so obvious to everyone involved that Congress and the White House have repeatedly in this and each of the previous 3 years poured out billions of unbudgeted additional dollars in the form of direct payments to farmers. Mr. Chairman, much has been said about how difficult times have been for producers in those years. This point cannot be overstated, but it was the taxpayers of America who were most widely disserved as the emergency payments were spent without any repair being made to the underlying program. These payments were clear evidence that the 1996 farm bill was not working. Today's farm bill gives the House an opportunity to meet its responsibility to farmers, ranchers, and to the American taxpayers. Congress included sufficient funds in this year's budget to ensure the Committee on Agriculture had the tools to develop a farm policy that helps farmers when crop revenues are low, while providing the predictability for government expenditures that taxpayers deserve, and the predictability that our bankers are demanding. With all of its strength, Mr. Chairman, this bill is being considered under fiscal conditions that all of us had hoped to avoid. If there were any consensus in the Congress about budgetary matters as this year began, it was that we wanted to leave behind the era of deficit spending. To further that effort, many of us asked to be included in the process of developing our government's budget for fiscal year 2002 and beyond. The rhetoric that prevailed led us to believe that the budget was going to be developed in an inclusive, bipartisan manner. The Blue Dogs, in particular, were prepared to bring to the table a plan that would have allowed for a tax cut, for an increase in defense spending, for solutions for Social Security and Medicare problems, and for increases in programs for agriculture, education, veterans, and health care. At the same time, our proposal would have led to reduction in the Government's debt, and it provided a cushion sufficient to guard against unforeseen circumstances pushing us back into deficit spending. Mr. Chairman, our expectations for bipartisanship were not met; and whatever its other flaws, the Congressional budget clearly failed to prepare for the circumstances we now face. As a result, we are moving forward today with essentially no budget. Once again we will be adding to our Nation's debt. Mr. Chairman, for all practical purposes, we have no budget. We are approaching major spending decisions without a plan. In the confusion, however, there is an opportunity to develop this unity budget; and if my colleagues need a model for the development of a new budget, they need to look no further than the process used for developing the bill which we present today. The American people are asking us to be unified, and now more than ever we have a clear obligation to the taxpayers of this Nation to make the best of our resources. In that spirit, I urge our leadership and the administration to begin the process of developing a new budget so that discipline and some kind of rationale can guide our fiscal decision-making. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2646 is a good bill. It is good for America's farmers while providing predictability for our taxpayers. It would fit within the budget I have just described. It greatly expands USDA's conservation programs while extending and improving the food stamp program. In addition, it renews our emphasis on the importance of rural development and agricultural research. In closing, I would like to once again thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for his leadership and skill in developing a consensus product. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for passage of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila).

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I would love to see that information because that certainly is contrary to anything that I have seen. Marketing certificates, which I believe this is aimed at limiting, have been around for 14 years. They have been used for a very good purpose, and that is to avoid building up CCC stocks. The effect of the gentleman's amendment would simply be to build-up stocks, because to equate the loan with a price support cash payment is totally fallacious. This is not the way that marketing certificates work. What we try to do is avoid CCC build-up of stocks. If we are going to make it ineligible, if we want to make them ineligible for loans, that is one thing, but that is not what the gentleman is attempting to do. I do not believe that that is what his intent is; but the amendment before us does not do that, which I believe the gentleman is saying that it does. Market certificates avoid market disruptions caused by payment limits. When you run up against that payment limit, then we have one choice. We put it into the loan, and then the government pays us for it or we then market it. Under the theory of the Freedom to Farm Act of which as we held the hearings last year, farmers loved the Freedom to Farm, but they do not like the results, the price. This is a fundamental change in the direction of farm programs. Fundamental. If one wants to go down that route, then vote for the gentleman's amendment. I would think though that the gentleman would be better served by his intent if he went back through the committee process, looking ahead to another year, and saying that if we want to limit the size of operations, then let us do it in a predictable way, not in a retroactive way.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps). (Mr. PHELPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the legislation which it permits to be taken up later tonight. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which will provide necessary assistance to our airlines and protect this sector of our Nation's infrastructure. We must resolve ourselves to restore the financial stability of our airlines--for we do this not for the sake of the airlines alone, but for the sake of the millions of air travelers. Even with this assistance, Americans still will be asked to sacrifice, for our country has changed. And yet we know that our country has faced and conquered so many other challenges in its proud history and we will survive this as well. Thousands of workers in the travel industry have already lost or will lose their jobs, and citizens will be impacted by reduced options for air travel. My district has already felt the brunt of these airline cutbacks. Continental Express will discontinue service to Abilene and San Angelo Airports beginning October 1, and the sole remaining carrier, American Eagle, has announced that it will reduce the number of daily flights to Dallas-Fort Worth. I commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar for including language in this bill to protect rural communities and small airports. Each community that had service prior to September 11 must be assured of continuing air service, and I encourage Secretary Mineta to take steps to ensure this. It is also important for the airlines to realize that now is not the time to unreasonably raise fares on passengers--especially in rural areas that are served by only one or two carriers. We must make sure that airfare remains reasonable and affordable for all Americans. We must make our Nation's sky safe again, by increasing security at our airports and on the airplanes themselves, but tonight by ensuring the financial security of the airlines. This bill is not perfect. In fact there are many changes I would have made. But this bill is the best we can do tonight.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution condemning the terrorist attacks against the United States. Today, we in the House of Representatives feel the need to speak of the unspeakable: yesterday's evil, perpetrated by cowardly forces who cannot muster the courage even to reveal their faces. Evil is difficult to speak about and yet, as yesterday's events remind us, its horror calls forth responses which reveal even greater good, greater strength, greater wisdom than we knew possible. It has been said repeatedly in the past 24 hours that America has been changed forever. There is much truth in that statement. Just as the attack on Pearl Harbor altered the psyche of the American people nearly 60 years ago, we cannot deny the loss of innocence and carefree confidence created by yesterday's heinous deeds. Tragically, the horrendous loss of 2400 American lives in the Pacific may even be exceeded when the final toll is tallied in New York City, Washington, and Pennsylvania. How can we possibly comfort all those who grieve those deaths or thank those who died trying to make our Nation safer and stronger? But those dear losses are not the only changes which have been wrought in our Nation. Contrary to the terrorists' intentions, their acts have also borne a new unity among the American people, a renewed sense of solidarity and commitment to each other. Folks in Michigan waited hours in lines to donate vital blood for victims in New York City. School children in Texas dressed in red, white and blue to support the uniformed troops and civilians killed at the Pentagon in Washington. Here in Congress, we are changed. Each of us, regardless of party label or ideology, has set aside our differences to swear a unified commitment to supporting those most harmed, to relentlessly seeking the perpetrators of this act of war, and to bringing about a swift and just response. Both Democrat and Republican stand solidly behind our President as he leads us in all of those efforts. And around the world, there is also a change--a new understanding of the threat which exists to all civilized democracies. In expressions of support which could not have been imagined a few years ago, former enemies as well as long-time allies across the world have expressed their sympathy and their willingness to stand with the United States in fighting the perpetrators of this horror. Let us not forget, though, that while some things have changed, much remains the same. Our enemies stole American lives thinking that they could steal our American Spirit. They were wrong. Our hearts are indeed broken today but our spirits are not only intact, they are strengthened. Bricks and mortar may have been leveled but the American Spirit stands. The attempt to cut us down has only deepened our devotion to democracy, freedom and justice. The beloved Twenty-Third Psalm asserts, ``Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.'' These sacred words do not deny the existence of evil or pretend that we can be spared from facing it. But they remind us that we need not fear that evil. Why? Because God is with us, preparing the safe and proper way if we will follow. Our enemies and those who harbor our enemies should understand what they have done. The tragedy which they have caused already is being transformed into unity and that unity will become strength. Perhaps the giant was sleeping. We became too accustomed to choosing convenience over security. We have tilted towards privacy over prudence. We became over-confident in our impenetrable shield. But make no mistake; the giant is now awake. Americans may need to make the sacrifices which a state of war requires but we are committed to making those sacrifices. This is war. It is not a war for territory or possessions but it is a war for democracy and freedom. It is a war for security and peace. It is a war which the united and civilized nations of the world will relentlessly pursue and win. September 11 will live in infamy but it will not die in impotence. Evil may be unspeakable but it will not be victorious.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It is not a fair and it is not a good rule. I know that my friends on this side of the aisle are getting a little tired of Members on this side standing up and talking about that we are not paying for the legislation that we proposed. I certainly recognize and support the right of the majority to do as you wish regarding legislation, as you are proving day after day. But for the last several years, I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle speak with passion and conviction about their commitment to putting an end to the practice of raiding the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund surpluses to cover deficits in the rest of the budget. I believe that all Members of this body who have voted time and time again to protect those trust funds are sincere in their desire to honor that commitment. Unfortunately, the manner in which we continue to consider legislation is making it impossible to keep that commitment. The $1.35 trillion tax cut recently signed into law, whether acknowledged or not, has taken up the available surplus. It is becoming increasingly clear that CBO and OMB when they offer their revised budget forecasts next month will show the facts. No point in debating whether it is or it is not; either it is or it is not. Those of us that believe that it is, those that say it is not, we are going to know. But let me point out a few facts. Last week, this House voted to break the spending limits on the VA-HUD bill. There is a reasonably good chance that this body is going to break those limits on defense and on education. Last week, it was 8 billion additional dollars for the faith-based initiative. This week it was $18 billion for the railroad retirement fund. Yesterday it was $32 billion for the energy bill. Today it is at least 20, probably as much as $30 billion for this bill. I heard my colleague from Arkansas say a moment ago, ``It's not paid for.'' I respect the right of the majority to bring legislation to this floor and not pay for it if that is what you wish. But why and how can you continue to come to the floor and say it is a fair rule when you do not allow the minority side the opportunity to pay for the bill in the legislation that we are for? What is it that would let anyone stand on the floor and say it is a fair rule when you deny the opportunity of the other side of the aisle to work their will regarding the legislation as they see it and let you work the will of the body as you see it? I really think we ought to defeat this rule, and we ought to send it back to committee with at least allowing our side of the aisle the opportunity to pay for that legislation that we propose. And if you wish to raid the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, I respect your right to do it.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I was not personally aware of that. Nobody ever called me.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, all we were asking was that it be pay-for. Did the gentleman allow pay-fors in this bill?

Mr. STENHOLM. I certainly do.

Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time because the gentleman has misspoken what I intend to say. Look me straight in the eye: I believe we are doing that. Mr. Speaker, what we should have done in this body, we should have started with the reform of the Social Security system first before we had a $1.350 trillion tax cut which is expanded to $2 trillion. The gentleman sits on the Committee on Ways and Means. He knows that we are going to have to face some tough choices. We are not doing that when we continue to tell the people we are going to eat dessert before we eat spinach. There is much in the bill that I support, but the leadership of this House is misleading the American people when they say we can pass this energy bill today and have additional tax cuts that do not come out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds; and it will take until next month and next year until I am proven right. The gentleman will soon find that I am right.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of disappointment that I come to the floor today opposing the rule and opposing a fiscally irresponsible bill. I did not want to be here. I have been very supportive of the work my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), has done in the areas of energy. But I have been here for 22 years, and I remember when this body used to act like a legislative body. I remember the last time we debated a national energy policy it took weeks, not one day. I remember when we used to allow those who had a difference of opinion an opportunity to come to the floor on their issues and to vote on those issues and let the will of the House, not the will of the leadership, make the determination. We continue day after day after day to have rules coming out of the Committee on Rules that do not allow those who have a different opinion to bring their ideas to the floor of the House. We had a Democratic alternative. It was put together by the Blue Dogs, and it was then run through our caucus, in which we got not unanimous opinion but we got enough agreement that we wanted to bring it to the floor and perfect the work of the majority; but more significantly, we wanted to pay for it. To my colleagues in this House on both sides of the aisle who vote for this rule and for this bill, they will be voting to take additional money out of Social Security, which we have said time and time again we are not going to do. Now, my colleague is shaking his head back there now saying that is not true; wait until September when the new estimates are in; wait until we get the letter from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) saying we are going to have to cut spending, we are going to have to defense more than we are already cutting defense. There is not enough money left in the budget to take care of the needed defense.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment tonight, and I am deeply troubled by some of the rhetoric that I have heard from some of my colleagues criticizing the commission report for highlighting the fiscal challenges facing the system and suggesting that reform is not necessary. If we listen carefully, we will find many of my colleagues have suggested reform, but they have a preconceived notion of what is going to be voted on ultimately on this House floor. Now, I began to get very involved in Social Security reform about 6 years ago when the first of our two grandsons, Cindy's and mine, were born. Cole will be celebrating his sixth birthday this month; Chase will be celebrating his fourth birthday. And I resolved at that time that I did not want them, my two grandsons, to look back 67 years from their birth and say if only my granddad would have done what in his heart he knew he should have done when he was in the Congress, we would not be in the trouble we are in today. Take a look at the commission report, the interim commission report. I want my colleagues to see if they really disagree with the numbers the gentleman from Florida did an excellent job of outlining. Everyone knows in this body that beginning in 2016 we are going to have a difficult time funding the benefits. It can be done, but it is going to take some reform. Listen carefully to the discussion tonight. Most of the responsible rhetoric tonight has suggested that there needs to be a correction, there needs to be some corrective measures taken, but they just do not like what they believe is going to be forthcoming. Well, be careful about that, because there are some other ideas that will be circulating. Please be careful when talking about a stacked deck. Do my colleagues really believe that Senator Pat Moynihan is going to be part of a stacked deck that is going to do something that is going to be harmful to the elderly of this country? Do my colleagues really believe that? If my colleagues really believe that, then they are perfectly willing to come to this floor and say so, but I am not. I am not. Take a look at the numbers. Look at the numbers and, for Heaven's sake, do not be as critical of something that has not yet happened as some are being tonight and recognize that we do need to move forward in a responsible way and in a bipartisan way.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation today, and I do so to answer the question that the gentleman from California raised a moment ago when he held up an empty glass. I concede it is almost empty, but the question is how do we fill it? And I submit to my colleagues that we do not fill it in exactly the same way that we have been trying to do with the little island off the tip of Florida in which we have now for 40 years refused to trade with Cuba in the belief that somehow, some way that will cause Fidel Castro to change his ways. It has failed. The only people it has hurt are the Cuban people and those in the United States that could have benefited from selling, other than those who have continued to sell. That is what it is all about. Now, normal trade relations with China is not going to solve all our farmers' problems. No, in fact, I think we have oversold a lot of trade issues. But I believe that the benefits of normal trade relations for U.S. agriculture will be significant, and I am in no small company in saying so. Nine Secretaries of agriculture have served since John F. Kennedy supported normal trade relations with China. China has 21 percent of the world's population, 7 percent of the world's arable land. There are those that argue that China does not need us. They say China exports more agricultural products than it imports. But this ignores the fact that significant agricultural imports enter China through Hong Kong. In fact, China and Hong Kong annually import about $6.9 billion more in agricultural products than they export. There will be those that stand up and say, there you go again, you are only talking about profit. Well, the question is, whom do we want to profit and whom do we think we are going to punish if we deny American jobs providing that which might be sold to China? We are not talking about Most Favored Nation; we are talking about normal trade relations. This is what sends a message to the people out there that somehow we are doing something special. I do not want to do anything special for those commie pinkos that do the bad things that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) talked about their doing. I do not want to see these things continue. I want China to change. They are not doing good things. They are bad people, their leaders. Their people are good people. That is the significant question for us to answer today, How do we as a country begin to change those that do things that we do not like? And again I just point to that little island off the tip of Florida. We tried it by doing it my colleagues' way, those that suggest that somehow we can by not trading with China and allowing all our ``friends'' to trade with China that we will force them to do things. If it has not worked with a little island off the tip of Florida, how can it possibly work with a country of 1.2 billion Chinese people, most of whom like America, most of whom will like us better once they get to know us? And the only way they will get to know us is for us to treat them like the rest of the world treats them.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Again I reclaim my time because the gentleman is stating something that is completely erroneous. I conclude my remarks to my colleagues today by saying, please oppose this amendment. It should not even be on this bill. The money he is talking about is in the other bill. That is where we ought to be discussing this. But when you start looking at what we are trying to do, and we will have plenty to say about that when the farm bill comes up, what we are trying to do with the money he is trying to eliminate is to stand and give a helping hand to the remaining wool and mohair producers, trying to come up with some new ideas in the marketplace in which we can survive. The gentleman from New York would just say, Adios. We don't give a rip about that. We just think you ought to compete in the international marketplace. I ask you again: How could any wool producer in the United States with $16.9 million total support that the Congress is giving them compete with the European Union that is putting in $2 billion? Let us talk about Australia. He pooh-poohed a minute ago the idea that the value of dollar and currency values had anything to do with this. The Australians have an advantage in cotton and in wool of 50 percent because the value of the Australian dollar is 50 percent of the United States dollar. I ask you a simple question: if you are selling wool, and we are selling it for 33 cents today, way below what it costs to produce. The Australians are getting twice that much, 66 cents, just the value of their currency. That to me is a justification for the expenditure of $16.9 million of our taxpayer money attempting to help our wool producers, exactly like we are doing it for apples and exactly like we are doing it for wheat and corn and soybeans and rice and all of the other commodities. That is why I ask and I commend the chairman of the committee and others who have participated today, I believe that this is clearly an amendment that needs to be soundly defeated and let us get on with the passing of this bill that the committee has worked so diligently on.

Mr. STENHOLM. Wrong.

Mr. STENHOLM. Sure it is. Absolutely. I reclaim my time. Twenty-five thousand less wool producers. The gentleman is not listening. In 1995, we had 5,000 mohair producers. In the year 2001, we had 1,400. That is a 70 percent reduction. They are gone.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. In light of the last exchange, I am often reminded but never more so than this afternoon on this amendment of the late Will Rogers' quote when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much, it's them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.'' That is the problem with this amendment. The gentleman from New York and the gentleman from California are still attacking a program that was eliminated in 1994. They keep referring and all of these letters that we get from various groups keep talking about the wool and mohair program like it is still here. It was eliminated in 1994. Even the money the gentleman is talking about for striking is not even in the bill we are discussing today. It is in the emergency bill that passed the House Committee on Agriculture and this body to provide assistance to wool and mohair producers. Now, this gentleman stood on this floor in 1994 and opposed the elimination of the wool and mohair program because we believed it would do damage to an industry that we did not believe was ready to be eliminated because of unfair foreign competition. We lost. I lost. The gentleman from New York and the gentleman from California won that amendment. We predicted the demise of the wool and mohair industry. And, guess what? Here in 2001, we have 25,000 less wool producers in the United States. They are gone. The gentleman from New York said there is no supply reduction. I would guarantee you there has been a supply reduction. Production has gone down in the United States; 25,000 producers are gone. We have eliminated 70 percent of the mohair producers. They are gone, thanks to the philosophy of the gentleman from New York. Now, we might say, Well, that is the way it should be. Well, in April of 1999, the United States International Trade Commission determined that the domestic lamb industry suffered from extremely low prices and a flood of imports which constitutes a substantial cause of threat of serious injury to the domestic lamb industry. In July of 1999 because of the commission's finding, President Clinton issued Presidential Proclamation 7208 establishing a tariff rate quota on lamb meat for a 3-year adjustment period. The 3-year adjustment period was established so the domestic sheep industry could recover from unfair trade. Unfair trade. Now, we have accomplished what this body wanted to accomplish with the elimination of the wool and mohair program. It is gone. Now what some of us are interested in doing is trying to assist those wool and mohair producers that believe that they can compete in the international marketplace if their government would stand shoulder to shoulder with them as just this year the European Union will spend $2 billion, that is with a B, subsidizing their wool industry. Now, I would ask anyone in this body that represents any interest, whether it be agricultural, airplanes, anything that you are manufacturing in this country, if your competitor is spending $2 billion and we are spending $16.9 million, why is that excessive? What is it that we are doing that has brought this amendment to the floor today to suggest that by trying to stand with an industry that is trying to survive in the marketplace, in the marketplace now, not with subsidies. The old program cost $200 million a year. We are providing $16.9 million, exactly like we are doing for apples, for cotton, for wheat. That is all that is being done. Not in this bill, but in some other bill. Since 1999, depressed wool prices. In 1995 wool was selling for $1 a pound. Today it is 33 cents a pound. That is in constant dollars. Real dollars. Yet you stand on the floor today and say there has been no market reaction, that somehow we are doing something that is unfairly subsidizing the wool producers? Come on. We have a letter from the American Textile Manufacturers Institute saying, ``Please do not be misled into thinking that the money for wool and mohair producers is actually a continuation or revival of funding provided by the Wool Act which Congress eliminated in the 1990s.'' That is the truth. The gentleman from New York and the gentleman from California have taken some other individuals who have no knowledge whatsoever of the industry and have suggested that somehow we are putting the wool and mohair back into place. All we are trying to do, in another bill, at another time, in another place, is saying to those wool and mohair producers who have survived the elimination of the Wool and Mohair Act that we want to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and we want to give you a little assistance, and it is a very little assistance, and we are struggling now in the Committee on Agriculture to come up with a program that will hopefully give them the opportunity to compete in the marketplace, as the gentleman from New York's rhetoric has suggested; but his facts are so far off base that I know the gentleman did not mean to misstate to this House what he has stated over and over again today. But I believe he has been misled. For that reason, I state the Weiner-Royce amendment is misguided, inconsistent with the commission's findings, the commission's findings, not the House Committee on Agriculture. The International Trade Commission in looking at the results of the elimination of the wool and mohair program suggested that we ought to do something to stand with our producers, and we have been doing that and the Committee on Agriculture and others who have a little more knowledge about the industry, and I say this respectfully because I know the gentleman did not mean to misstate.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.