Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Fort Chadbourne, which is located in Coke County, Texas. I commend local citizens, including Garland and Lana Richards, along with many others who have worked to preserve this important part of Texas history. A part of the Texas Fort Trails, Fort Chadbourne was established in 1852 as one of eight frontier posts set up to provide settlers protection while venturing into the Indian Territory. It also provided a stage stop for the Butterfield Overland Mail Route. The Fort, which is listed in the National Registry of Historic Places, is open to the public for the first time in 120 years. The Fort Chadbourne Foundation, established in 1999 to preserve and protect the Fort, is currently in the process of stabilizing the Fort ruins and also plans to restore four buildings. In addition, the Foundation has raised more than $1,000,000 and is pursuing funding through the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program in order to establish a visitors center and museum. The center will enable visitors to learn the history of the Fort and the area. I wish to include in the Record an excellent article by Preston Lewis, a free-lance writer based in San Angelo, that appeared in Sunday's edition of The Dallas Morning News. I know that many of my colleagues join me in recognizing the important historic preservation work at Fort Chadbourne. [From The Dallas Morning News, July 8, 2001] Pieces of the Past, Fort Chadbourne Preservation Work is Couple's Mission (By Preston Lewis) Fort Chadbourne, Texas.--Not until college did Garland Richards truly realize that not everyone grew up with a genuine frontier fort in the back yard. Today the 49-year-old, sixth-generation Coke County rancher is opening up his back yard so that all of Texas can share his fascination with the ruins that provided his imagination such a captivating playground during his youth. Mr. Richards' mission--or possibly his obsession--is to preserve the history of Fort Chadbourne and to stop the deterioration of the remaining structures. Ultimately, he and his wife, Lana, hope to build a visitors center where travelers on U.S. Highway 277 between San Angelo and Abilene can stop for a break and a history lesson. ``Fort Chadbourne has been good to our family,'' Mr. Richards said. ``It's been home. It's been shelter under the storms and a place where you could keep your saddles dry. The historical value of Fort Chadbourne, which I took for granted for so many years, belongs not just to our family but to everyone.'' Through his personal research of books and of original source materials in Texas repositories and the National Archives, Mr. Richards estimates that about 6,000 soldiers were stationed at the fort during its brief life. In addition to those and the various other men and women associated with frontier forts, hundreds if not thousands more traveling the Butterfield Trail stopped at the stage station adjacent to the fort. Established Oct. 28, 1852, by Companies A and K of the 8th U.S. Infantry, Fort Chadbourne was the midpoint of a line of U.S. military posts stretching from the Red River to the Rio Grande in pre-Civil War Texas. The fort was named for 2nd Lt. Theodore Lincoln Chadbourne, who had died in the Battle of Resaca de la Palma during the Mexican War. Though officially closed as a military post in 1867 in favor of the newly established Fort Concho about 45 miles to the southwest, the site and buildings continued to be used by the Army in West Texas through 1873). Three years after the Army left the site for good, T.L. Odom--Mr. Richards' great-great-greatgrandfather--purchased the half section encompassing the fort near Oak Creek and another half section where the Army cut its timber. Mr. Odom established the O-D Ranch headquarters at the fort site. That land and the fort have been in the family ever since. The property today is known as the Chadbourne Ranch, and it encompasses ``Back then, Fort Chadbourne didn't mean anything to them other than a place to stay, a roof to keep the rain off their heads and some place to get in out of the sun,'' Mr. Richards said. The roofs on all of the fort structures are gone now. During a 1957 West Texas windstorm, the last surviving roof was blown off a barracks building that was being used as a tool and tack shed. Today, that barracks's roofless sandstone walls, some with prickly pear growing out the top, are braced against collapse as they are being prepared for a stabilization project that should be completed by the end of the year. Father was inspiration Mr. Richards' father, the late Conda Richards, provided both the inspiration and the grubstake for him to revive Fort Chadbourne from gradual decay and to save its legacy from historical oblivion. ``He and I talked at length about preserving the fort,'' Mr. Richards said. ``He was excited and very supportive.'' When his father died in 1998, Mr. Richards used all of the money from his inheritance to start the Fort Chadbourne Foundation, a 501 (c)3 nonprofit charitable foundation. ``It has been a learning process from the word go,'' he said. ``I've run budgets on cattle and I've run budgets on wheat and everything else, but as far as me going in and making a seven-year projected budget on a fort and submitting it to the IRS for a 501 (c)3, I was pretty much at a loss.'' Mr. Richards majored in agriculture at Angelo State University, but over the last five years, he and his wife have probably earned the equivalent of a Ph.D. in history, grant-writing and nonprofit management in their efforts to preserve the fort and its heritage. Mrs. Richards said she has supported her husband in the project from the beginning. ``I'm not as knowledgeable a history buff as Garland is, but this is the kind of enterprise where he and I can use our strengths,'' she said. ``I told him if he wanted to go to grant-writing classes, I'd go with him. I'm not the writer he is, but I'm a better speller. What he can't come up with, I usually can.'' She has learned that the history can become fascinating. ``You never know what you are going to come up with,'' she said. ``Today I've been taking pictures where we uncovered some more stones with names carved on them. That is exciting, a real energizer.'' The creation of the foundation opened up the possibility of grant monies to support the work that the couple had been funding out of their own pockets. It was more money than Mr. Richards cares to admit, plus ``four years of our lives.'' To help cover the expenses, they started writing grant proposals. Through support from the Summerlee Foundation, the Dodge-Jones Foundation and the Texas Historical Commission, they have brought in an additional $414,000. Research project In addition to the stabilization project, the grants have helped fund a billboard on Highway 277 pointing to the turnoff to the ruins. A historical research project is in progress to identify documents and other primary source materials necessary to write the first history of Fort Chadbourne. Each fall, the foundation also has a fund-raiser for the preservation efforts. The event includes reenactors, programs on the fort, and skits reflecting stories and vignettes from the fort's past. Last year, for instance, Mr. Richards included in the program a newly discovered letter from the post surgeon to the War Department stating in the most formal language that he was unable to give his monthly meteorological report in full because the Comanches had stolen his rain gauge. This year's fund-raiser is scheduled for Sept. 22. ``We've looked every way we could look trying to figure out a way for Fort Chadbourne to pay for itself,'' Mr. Richards said. ``We've pretty much determined that Fort Chadbourne will never pay for itself or make an income. As far as the dollars Lana and I have invested in the fort, I don't think that anybody will ever recover those dollars. This is just something I wanted to do, and I convinced her that we needed to do it.'' If the site can be preserved and developed, Mr. Richards said he believes it can bring in significant revenue to the area. He said studies indicate that visitors to historic sites spend an average of $94 a day in the area. ``If we are capable of bringing in 80,000 visitors a year, which the numbers indicate to us we are capable of doing,'' Mr. Richards said, ``theoretically, that could put another $7.5 million into the economy of San Angelo, Abilene, Ballinger, Bronte and Winters.'' Even if the economics of the fort never reach that level, Mr. Richards said he's glad he made the effort to save Fort Chadbourne. ``It has been a lot of work, but it's been a lot of fun. I've met some neat people along the way and they are what keeps us going,'' he said. For example, an article on the Texas Forts Trail in the November issue of Texas Highways ran a photograph of a carved inscription in the barracks wall: Albert Haneman, Oct. 19, 1858, Co. B 2 Cav. Two days after the magazine appeared on newsstands, Mr. Richards received a call from John and Laura Haneman of Austin, indicating that Albert Haneman was his great- grandfather. Barely weeks after the photo appeared, Haneman family members from Austin and El Paso met at Fort Chadbourne for a family reunion and the chance to see in person the graffiti of their ancestor. ``I've got a cool job,'' Mr. Richards said. ``It doesn't pay well, but things like that are what makes what we are doing worthwhile.''

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, today the Blue Dog Democrats will unveil our version of what our national energy policy should look like and should be. We believe that most, if not all, of our colleagues will find tremendous interest in a program that creates a balanced approach, one that expands energy supplies, one that recognizes that energy production in the United States is equally important as that produced outside of the United States. In fact, more so. It enhances environmental standards. It promotes energy efficiency. It promotes research and development, and it provides reliable and affordable supplies. Mr. Speaker, it matches a very important truism: we cannot produce food and fiber in the United States without oil and gas, and we cannot produce oil and gas without food and fiber. We need to be a partnership in all aspects of producing the energy needs of this country. We encourage our colleagues to take a good look at our suggestion. We look forward to working with both sides of the aisle in developing this national energy policy, as well as with the administration.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I would like to say that the situation the gentleman has described is accurate, but here are the facts to date: Seven producers affected, 10 elevator operators affected, 17 fields tested positive, 1.4 million bushels contaminated, and 21 bushels yet to be tested. An elevator operator in my district first discovered the fungus and bunted kernels in a load of grain delivered to his facility. For these and many other reasons, I join my colleagues in working with USDA to contain this outbreak and ensuring the critical assistance provided to producers, elevator operators, and others in agribusiness who have seen their livelihoods put on hold. So we look forward to working with my colleague, with the chairman, and with USDA, who are on top of this, and APHIS, to make sure that we contain it. It is extremely important to our industry.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I associate myself with all of the remarks saying we should do more; but I would also point out that this amount of money today is within the budget that was passed that we have agreed to live under this year. I think that is a significant point. And also, as the chairman pointed out in his opening remarks, time is of the essence. Mr. Speaker, we must have this bill to the President for his signature by August 1 if we are to have any hope of dealing with the multitude of problems that this bill is designed to help. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to pass this bill today and move the process forward, and encourage the other body to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill even though I, too, wished we could do more. At the outset, let me recognize the work of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) and state for the record that I agree with him that American agriculture is in need of immediate assistance, and that producers of our food and fiber are at risk. Last year crop prices were at a 27-year low for soybeans, a 25-year low for cotton, a 14-year low for wheat and corn and an 8-year low for rice. Very little recovery has occurred since that time. The need for the $5.5 billion in assistance provided by this bill is so great that a doubling of this amount could easily be utilized. Because this is the fourth year in a row that we have provided ad hoc assistance to compensate for low commodity prices, however, I consider it crucial that we provide aid with a view toward the long term. While the budget should provide us the authority to improve our commodity programs, there are a couple of reasons why the amount made available in the budget will soon appear insufficient. First, aside from amounts in the bill before us, the budget provides $73.4 billion to add to our baseline over 10 years. During the course of the Committee on Agriculture's hearings, however, representatives of agriculture have responsibly argued for several times that amount. Second, the budget is not ironclad. The Committee on Agriculture has a budget allocation for fiscal year 2002, but not for the succeeding fiscal years. The remaining $66 billion is only available to the extent that the on-budget surplus is greater than the Medicare surplus. Our ability to address agriculture's long-term need is now very sensitive to any deterioration in the overall budget surplus. The reality of the tight budget situation we faced was recently made abundantly clear by a letter from the administration. Prior to the markup of this economic assistance, the OMB Director advised that, if the committee surpassed the $5.5 billion, he would recommend the President not sign the bill. A bare majority of my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture agreed with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and me that we needed to save every penny we could to draft a responsible long-term farm bill. I am proud to say that, by adopting our amendment, the Committee on Agriculture has faced its responsibility to prioritize agriculture's needs within the budget. Our chairman presided over a full debate with the utmost fairness. For those of us who were strong advocates for agriculture, we arrived at a difficult decision. The bill before the House today provides a reasonable response to our producers who are suffering from the continued slump in the farm economy. Assistance is provided in a very clear way. Take the aid provided for the most recent crop and prorate the payments to equal $5.5 billion. I repeat, assistance is provided in a very clear way. Take the aid provided in the most recent crop and prorate the payments to equal $5.5 billion. Funds will be disbursed to producers quickly and simply. While I would have preferred alternative ways to deliver this assistance, we are constrained in this manner because the assistance must be provided by September 30. We also need to analyze all fiscal year 2002 options at the same time in order to provide the right long- and short-term policy mix. Many specialty crops that desire additional assistance over that provided in the bill can only be assisted in fiscal year 2002 money. We can provide such assistance, but it must be provided fairly and consistently in keeping with our long-term strategy. Mr. Speaker, I cannot disagree with those who say that the $5.5 billion is inadequate; however, this is all we can afford at the moment. As we pass this bill, it is crucial that we immediately move toward an improved and reliable long-term policy that benefits farmers and taxpayers alike. I urge the passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill even though I wish we could do more. At the outset, let me recognize the work of Chairman Combest and state for the record that I agree with him that American agriculture is in need of immediate assistance and that the producers of our food and fiber are at risk. Last year, crop prices were at a 27-year low for soybeans, a 25-year low for cotton, a 14-year low for wheat and corn and an 8-year low for rice. Very little recovery has occurred since that time. The need for the $5.5 billion in assistance provided by this bill is so great that a doubling of this amount could easily be utilized. Because this is the fourth year in a row that we have provided ad hoc assistance to compensate for low commodity prices, however, I consider it crucial that we provide aid with a view toward the long term. While the Budget should provide us the authority to improve our commodity programs, there are a couple of reasons why the amount made available will soon appear insufficient: First, aside from amounts in the bill before us, the Budget provides $73.4 billion to add to our baseline over ten years. During the course of the Agriculture Committee's hearings, however, representatives of agriculture have responsibly argued for several times that amount. Second, the Budget is not ironclad. The Agriculture Committee has a budget allocation for FY 2002 but not for the succeeding fiscal years. The remaining $66 billion is only available to the extent that the on- budget surplus is greater than the Medicare surplus. Our ability to address agriculture's long-term need is now very sensitive to ANY deterioration in the overall budget surplus. The reality of the tight budget situation we face was recently made abundantly clear by a letter from the Administration. Prior to the markup of this economic assistance, the OMB Director advised that if the Committee surpassed the $5.5 billion, he would recommend that the President not sign the bill. A bare majority of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee agreed with Mr. Boehner and me that we needed to save every penny we could to draft a responsible long-term farm bill. I am proud to say that by adopting our amendment, the Agriculture Committee has faced its responsibility to prioritize agriculture's needs within the budget. Our Chairman presided over a full debate with the utmost fairness and, for those of us who are strong advocates for agriculture we arrived at a difficult result. The bill before the House today provides a reasonable response to our producers who are suffering from the continued slump in the farm economy. Assistance is provided in a very clear way: take the aid provided for the most recent crop and prorate the payments to equal $5.5 billion. Funds will be disbursed to producers quickly and simply. While I would have preferred alternative ways to deliver this assistance, we are constrained to this manner because the assistance must be provided by September 30. We also need to analyze all FY 2002 options at the same time in order to provide the right long and short-term policy mix. Many specialty crops that desire additional assistance over that provided in the bill can only be assisted with FY 2002 money. We can provide such assistance, but it must be provided fairly and consistently in keeping with our long-term strategy. Mr. Speaker, I cannot disagree with those who say that $5.5 billion is inadequate, however this is all we can afford at the moment. As we pass this bill, it is crucial that we immediately move toward an improved and reliable long-term policy that benefits farmers and taxpayers alike. I urge the passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to choose my words very carefully today, because tomorrow I may eat them, just as I have heard many statements made on this floor today that I think are going to be eaten. When you govern this country based on political promises and polls rather than sound economics and good policy, the market will correct us. Let me remind everyone to start looking at what is happening to long- term interest rates as we have been debating this tax cut. They have gone up 4 percent, which means a tax increase on all soon-to-be homeowners. Now, 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. Social Security has been mentioned, and my number one disappointment in this budget is the fact that there is no money left for us to do the kind of bipartisan Social Security reform that I wanted to work with my President for. My colleagues have spent it all. Then my colleagues come in and sunset in 2011. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to do something for estate taxes. I wanted to have an immediate $4 million exemption for small businesses owners all over the country effective now. This one does not survive the laugh test. It does not even deserve the laugh test. We heard defense mentioned a moment ago. I know that the die is cast. I was here in 1981. I have heard a little revisionist history on the floor this morning. The facts, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) spoke of, were the result of the 1981 vote; and we are in danger of repeating it. 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.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this simple motion calling for some truth in advertising and fiscal honesty in the tax bill. While we can have honest differences of opinion about the size and structure of the tax cut, we should all be able to shoot straight with the American people about the cost. Unfortunately, it appears that this tax bill will use every budget gimmick in the book, and possibly invent a few more, in order to hide its true cost. This motion very reasonably asserts that the cost of all tax cuts should be shown honestly and be phased in within 5 years so the costs do not increase dramatically and surreptitiously in later years. The tax bill passed by the other body would delay full implementation of the five most expensive components until 2009 and 2011. More than 70 percent of these costs occur in the second 5 years. Even worse, the cost of this bill would explode to $4.1 trillion in the next decade, at the very time that the Social Security and Medicare programs will begin to face severe financial challenges with the retirement of the baby boom generation. This tax bill bets the ranch on surplus projections continuing to grow. If those projections are off just a bit, we will be forced to dip into Medicare trust funds before we even start dealing with the increases for defense or other needs as yet not addressed. By passing a large backend-loaded gimmick-filled tax cut, we risk returning to the era when deficit spending placed a tremendous drag on our economy and ran up $5.7 trillion worth of debt. Even though I would be delighted to be wrong, I fear we are also squandering our opportunity to strengthen Social Security and Medicare and pay down our national debt. I do not want my grandchildren to look back 20 years from now and ask why I left them with the tab for tax cutting we will politically enjoy today. I used to think no one else in this body would want to do that either, but I was wrong. The least we owe our grandchildren and the rest of our constituents is a little honesty, and that is what this motion to recommit is all about.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill that deals with two, separate, animal health issues facing our nation. While Foot and Mouth Disease and BSE, commonly called ``Mad Cow'' disease, are not related, they are both concerns to agricultural producers and citizens of this Nation. We are thankful that our efforts have successfully prevented the introduction of either of these diseases into the United States and we all want to work to maintain our disease-free status. I am hopeful that reports and the coordination encouraged by this bill will help to keep us free from both these diseases. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has done an excellent job thus far, but I hope that increased thought and coordination will help to make our efforts even better. The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget today, but with a sense of disappointment. I am disappointed because I do recognize the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) made an outreach, but his leadership chose not to abide by it. In the spirit of compromise, we in the Blue Dogs were prepared to support a tax cut higher than the budget we proposed, providing there was a strong enforceable commitment to debt reduction. This budget we vote on today does nothing for debt reduction, and I defy anyone to show how it does. This resolution we vote on today literally bets the ranch that the surpluses will continue to grow. If they do not grow, or if they are off just a little bit, we will be forced to dip into the Medicare Trust Fund before we even start dealing with increases for defense or other needs the resolution does not address. This resolution sets an unrealistic spending level. Based on the history of the majority over the last 6 years, I predict we will have another train wreck. But that is up to the majority. I rise in the strongest opposition to this budget resolution today because it does not accommodate Social Security reform. I sent a letter to our President commending him for the Social Security Commission. I have worked for the last 5 years with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) on the other side and others in a bipartisan way in setting the groundwork for Social Security reform. This resolution provides zero funding for Social Security reform. If I need one reason to strongly oppose this and why I am so proud of the Blue Dog Democrats for voting to oppose it, as it takes a two- thirds vote for us to oppose anything, to take any position, we took that position, and I am so proud of our Blue Dogs because we are still standing for the same principles of debt reduction, saving Social Security and Medicare first, providing for the needed spending in the area of defense, health care, education, our veterans. I agree on the agriculture numbers, they are much better. This is a borrow-and-spend resolution. It borrows from our children and grandchildren in order to pay the political needs of today. I suggest you select carefully your words, my friends on the majority, because tomorrow you will either enjoy them, or you will eat them.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I do so with a great deal of disappointment; disappointment in the procedure that is being followed. But I understand why, and I appreciate very much that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has been the lone exception of trying to seek some kind of bipartisanship on this budget. Obviously, he has been overruled by the leadership, the same leadership that brings this rule today that has to have martial law to pass the budget. Martial law to pass the budget, after we spent 16\1/2\ hours on this floor last Thursday waiting on the majority to come up with their idea of what the budget should look like. Now, I can give my colleagues 10 solid reasons why they ought to vote against the budget, but that is not what we are talking about today. What we are talking about today is the rule. I do not know how much longer the majority is going to be in lockstep with breaking every rule and precedent of the House that they used to criticize us on this side of the aisle for doing, only I do not believe we ever did as good a job at it as they are doing tonight and as they did last week. This is ridiculous. As one who would like to see some semblance of bipartisanship on the budget, I came to the conclusion that was impossible, and I understand why. And as a member of the minority, I understand why we are not going to win any. But at some point in time, I would hope there would be just a tinge of conscience as to the procedures of the House and as to how we might get a little better comity in working on things like defense and education and health care and agriculture, other than the manner in which this particular budget that this rule makes in order will do. I will guarantee my colleagues there will be bipartisanship when we start dealing with the specifics. So many of my colleagues on the majority have chosen under their leadership to ignore that to bring this rule to the floor. I urge a vote ``no,'' and let us go back and do it right.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, as the 4-H program prepares to celebrate its 100th anniversary as a national organization, I rise today to honor them and to congratulate the individuals who have made this program a tremendous national success. Let me also add that 4-H has also passed another significant milestone in my own home state of Texas: For the first time in its history, over one million young people are enrolled in the various Texas 4-H programs. Young people are the future leaders of our country and the lessons they learn in 4-H programs, in any state or U.S. territory, help them to be responsible, energetic, and committed individuals who make an important contribution to our nation. I commend 4-H for the positive impact it has on cultivating the head, heart, hands, and health of our young people. The positive educational experiences 4-H affords young people allows them to imagine unlimited possibilities and to take them in new and exciting directions. I would also like to recognize the efforts of 4-H adult volunteers; it is their continuing efforts that allow this great organization to grow. 4-H leaders say they work to make the best better. For almost 100 years they have done just that, and our country is clearly the better for it.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I join with all of my colleagues in expressing our sincere regret at the passing of Norm. I never had an opportunity to serve with him on a committee, but I enjoyed the replay of many of the committee sessions on the Committee on National Security and hearing what had gone on and the tremendous role that Norm played. One thing I never heard was anything that came from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He respected that committee a great deal and respected the precedents of that committee. I never sat with him on a committee, but I sat with him on ``redneck row'' in this House and enjoyed many of his comments as I would sit and listen to his commentary of going on with what various Members of this body do and say on this floor, including myself. There is no greater criticism that can come, and then come from the heart of Norm Sisisky, and you take it that way. I always appreciated his concern of the Virginia peanut farmers. He always was asking me as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, Are we taking care of my peanut farmers. He had a deep-seated interest in his constituency. He was truly a Member's Member. There are few of us that can reach the standard that Norm did in bringing a true love for this institution and a true love for the armed services of this country. I know that words cannot truly express our feelings about Norm today. We will miss him. This body will miss him, but this Member, too. As so many others have said, our hearts and prayers go out to the family of Norm and say we appreciate you sharing him with us. The 16 years that I have had the privilege of knowing and working with him, he has made my life richer for it, and he has made this body richer for it. And we truly, Norm, will miss you.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address again some of the misperceptions that I think surround the basic resolution today. I am particularly disturbed by assertions contained in letters of support from various agricultural groups. Ostensibly their support hinges on agriculture being guaranteed priority status out of the $517 billion reserve fund. I have examined and continue to examine the legislative language that establishes this reserve, and nowhere do I find a priority given to agriculture. The resolution provides for a strategic reserve fund for agriculture, defense, and other appropriate legislation. While the legislation does include the reference to agriculture, it is treated the same way as all other legislation that spends money from the reserve. Indeed, the reference to ``other appropriate legislation'' includes any other spending increases that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget wishes to accommodate, because he alone is given the ability to increase allocations in order to meet increased spending. The chairman may increase the allocation. He is not required to do so. In addition, the money guaranteed to agriculture in fiscal year 2001 is provided under essentially the same terms. These are not priorities. This is merely the ability to compete for funding. This is no different from what occurs every year when we consider increased spending. It is rumored that many groups have been pointed towards this strategic reserve fund as the answer to their funding request. While $517 billion over 10 years appears to be an ample amount, in reality there is little room in some years to accommodate additional spending for agriculture. In fiscal year 2005 and 2006, for example, the general contingency fund has only $12 billion and $15 billion available. These amounts are barely sufficient to cover the agricultural request, not to mention the additional defense and other appropriate spending that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget wishes to squeeze out of this account. In addition, increased defense expenditures, additional funding for prescription drug coverage, or additional tax provisions severely limit funding. Unfortunately, the only budget that would have addressed this, the Blue Dog budget, it lost. This budget does even less for agriculture.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, if I were a constituent sitting back home in West Texas watching this budget debate, I would be mighty confused by all the assertions and counterassertions which have already been made. Each of the budgets offered obviously has merits and political benefits, but the bottom line is how those strengths compare to the weaknesses? What was left out? It has been interesting to hear our budget criticized on defense when we provide more funds for defense. It has been interesting to hear speaker after speaker say our budget was weak on education when we provide more for education. It has been interesting to see how our budget is weak on agriculture, when we budget for agricultural matters, not depend on a contingency fund. The weakness of the Republican budget which I find the most troubling is that the promises do not match honest numbers. First, the oft-repeated myth that we are precariously close to retiring too much debt is laughable. Trust me, Congress will find a way to swerve if we find ourselves on the brink of that precipice. Secondly, as the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, I find it frightening that we are asked to bet the ranch on a contingency fund which has been promised not only to us, but to defense, prescription drugs, business groups wanting additional tax cuts, and I would point out the majority has already spent, spent the $500 billion contingency fund on additional tax cuts with the rhetoric and the votes that they are forcing on this House. The contingency fund is gone. That already overstretched contingency fund will not even be around if the projected surpluses fail to materialize its promise. As a real-life farmer, I know that agriculture always entails some degree of risk, but given the economic depression we have been through lately, I find no security and an oversubscribed, undefined contingency fund. Likewise, seniors are being asked to literally bet their farm when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. The alleged protection for those two programs disappears with just the slightest change in economic growth because the tax cuts already will have consumed any cushion those programs might need. The promise of Medicare reform will be achieved only through deficit spending. Additional cuts on already stressed hospitals and nursing homes are significantly reduced by program solvency under the scenario created by the majority budget. It will be impossible to match my friend's rhetoric on Social Security modernization. Since their budget fails to set aside any on-budget surpluses to finance the transition reform to Social Security, and that is one of my most disappointing aspects of the Republican budget. In contrast, the Blue Dog budget does not make promises it cannot keep or rely on numbers that are unrealistic or downright deceptive. We know that even 5-year projections much less 10-year projections are no reason to bet the farm. We know that Americans have a variety of priorities which all must be balanced. We know that they want tax cuts, but not at the expense of their children and grandchildren. We know that our veterans deserve fulfillment of the promises made to them. Seniors need health care and retirement security. Children need a good education. I hope Members and constituents alike will look beyond the gloss of how a budget is advertised and consider what and who gets left behind. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Blue Dog budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) is ready to close?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).