Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I doubt any other Member has been more critical of the Department of Agriculture since 1992 in not doing what the gentleman is talking about. But I find it rather ironic that at the moment we are actually beginning to propose to put the money into doing what I have been criticizing them for, we are now going to cut it out and say we want them to do a better job without it. That is my problem. And again, fundamentally, the chairman of the committee a moment ago stated the absolute fact: This bill is within the caps according to the budget that passed this House, period. So let us not keep talking about we are doing all of this to save Social Security. If the gentleman wants to save Social Security, bring a Social Security bill to the floor and let us talk about Social Security. If he wants to make points on the agricultural bill, let us debate them. We can stay and debate them until the cows come home, but we will be talking specifically about what the gentleman is doing, and again, the gentleman is hurting farmers in these amendments when he passes them.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Again, I think it is important that we focus on the process which we are discussing today. Again, I quarrel not with the motives of the gentleman from Oklahoma. He has every right, as others have said, to bring the amendments before this body that he has brought today; and I have opposed them because I disagree with them. I think it is important, though, for everyone to understand the real quarrel apparently is with the leadership on the other side of the aisle. That is where the quarrel is. Because we are disagreeing with the numbers that have been given to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. That was given as a leadership decision. I happen to have supported a budget that protected Social Security, that paid off $88 billion more debt over the next 5 years than the budget we are talking about, provided a reasonable tax cut and improved the funding of five priority areas, one of which was agriculture of which I am prepared to say we are $450 million under what we need to be spending for American agriculture. Why do I say that? Because I am proud of our American agricultural system, from our farmers on up and down. We have the most abundant food supply in this Nation, we have the best quality of food, we have the safest food supply to our consumers of any country in the world, and we do it at the lowest cost, including all of this, quote, ``wasteful spending'' we are talking about today. Now, do I make this argument in saying that we cannot do better? Obviously we could do better. But we have ways of doing it better. It is called the House Committee on Agriculture and it is called the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies that spend the hours looking at these details and making those decisions. I put my trust in them, on the first part because I am one, but I do not quarrel at all with the gentleman who chooses to say that we have not done our jobs properly. Let me read this letter: The American Farm Bureau Federation is aware of a long list of amendments to be offered to H.R. 1906. In addition to the letter sent this morning, we are deeply concerned about these amendments and the approach being taken against general agriculture programs. Specifically, we are opposed to amendments that would prohibit funding to promote the sale or export of tobacco, decrease spending for the APHIS Boll Weevil Program and effectively eliminate the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. We oppose any cut in funding for agricultural research programs for wool, cotton, shrimp aquaculture, blueberries, specialty crops or precision agriculture. We oppose any attempts to decrease funding for agriculture market analysis, promotion and rural development. Further, we oppose cuts in funding for conservation programs, the peanut price support loan rate and any reductions in research or other cuts to peanut support programs. We also oppose any attempts to effectively eliminate any international or domestic marketing programs. Farm Bureau has worked closely with the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and supports the bill as reported by the committee. This is our largest farm organization that has looked at the work of the gentlewoman and the gentleman and others in saying, in their judgment, we cannot make these cuts without doing harm. Again, I specifically have objected to the previous two amendments and to this amendment for the reasons that were specified before, in pointing out that if we are going to be critical of inefficient operation in USDA, if we are going to be critical of those ``who have not been able to do their job,'' quote-unquote, then how do we justify coming in and saying we are going to deny them the tools to bring them into the modern century of technology which is what the committee suggested be done? That is the simple question. It deserves a simple ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, this week the Nation, and particularly the agricultural industry, lost one of its most important assets, Winston Wilson. Winston made a difference for his family, his community, his industry and for this country. I got to know Winston before either one of us moved to Washington. Following his service as Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture in the Carter Administration, Winston came to my Congressional office as Administrative Assistant. His time in my office was brief--just about a year from December 1980 to November 1981--but that was plenty of time for Winston and his wife Mickie, and daughters Michelle and Missy, to endear themselves to us and to become a permanent part of our office family. In an era where the voices of agriculture are becoming fewer and fainter, Winston stood out as one of the most effective spokespersons for the wheat farmers from whom he came. His Daddy trained him well in the fields at Quanah, giving him the kind of Texas common sense that few possess at the national level. Winston never forgot his roots, even though he traveled the world over in promotion of U.S. Agriculture. When Winston left my office, he continued his advocacy of the industry at U.S. Wheat Associates, where he served as President until 1997. He also was Chairman of the U.S. Agricultural Export Development Council, founding member of the U.S. Grain Quality Workshop, a former President of the National Association of Wheat Growers, and a member of the U.S. Agriculture Department's Trade Advisory Committee. More than anything, Winston committed his life to the advocacy of American wheat. He spent a great portion of his life working hard to develop overseas markets for U.S. farmers, and he developed strategies and programs to build export demand for U.S. wheat. U.S. Wheat Associates, with whom Winston had such a long relationship, is a worldwide organization supported by wheat producers in Texas and 17 other states along with USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service. Under Winston's leadership, the organization has been successful in establishing and servicing markets for up to 60 percent of the wheat produced in the U.S. and up to 80 percent of the wheat produced in Texas. The farm economy is struggling at the present time but without Winston's efforts, our struggles would be far greater. Winston is survived by a lovely wife and daughters, who we will continue to hold in our prayers as they deal with this great loss. They and all of Winston's friends, not to be mentioning the entire wheat industry, are enormously proud of what Winston accomplished in his life. We have many fond--and often times amusing--memories of our time with Winston and we will always treasure those thoughts. For those of us who are left behind, even the longest life of a loved one seems too short. So, in instances such as this untimely death, it is impossible not to feel cheated out of many years which we had hoped to share. We feel a great loss this week but we also celebrate the life Winston Wilson lived. He will remain in our hearts, thoughts and prayers.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of this legislation. We are just 200 days now away from the turn of the century. A lot of concern is being brought about what happens then. But sadly there are some folks that are, I think, unfortunately looking for ways to make money off the turn of the century. Today this bill is designed to keep that from happening. This legislation we are voting on will reduce frivolous Y2K lawsuits by promoting remediation instead of litigation. In other words, it encourages people to work out their legitimate problems and claims outside of the courthouse, whenever possible, and still preserve the right of folks who suffer real injuries associated with the Y2K problem to file suits and to go through our judicial system when necessary. The bill also creates incentives to fix problems before they happen. This meets what I like to call the west Texas tractor seat, common sense approach to a very real problem. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. The gentleman said one other thing that prompts me to again just observe that it is precisely because we are going to have a rather ambitious appropriations schedule, and as we have seen today with the debate and all of the rhetoric that has gone on, I think it is a fairly good prophecy that we are not going to have a very smooth appropriations schedule and cycling this year, that therefore it would seem to me it would be prudent for us to move the campaign finance reform before we get into what obviously we are going to be getting into. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. STENHOLM. I would concur with everything that the gentleman said about the Speaker. There are about 191 Democrats and about 60 on the Republican side that I think would like to see it considered a little earlier, and I would respectfully ask that we take a look at the scheduling and see if we cannot find a way to bring it up a little bit before September.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a question, I do not believe that I heard that we would have the campaign finance reform legislation next week, or did I miss that? And if not, I would ask, it seems it is a very light week, it will be the second or third 3-day week that we have had in 2 or 3 weeks, and I was wondering when we might expect to have the campaign finance reform bill slipped into this rather busy agenda?

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise to mark the 25th anniversary of the WIC program, the women, infants and children. I am proud to join my colleagues in support of this very valuable and extremely successful program. Several years ago when I served on the Committee on the Budget I had the opportunity to hear several CEOs of Fortune 500 companies testify in support of the WIC program. These executives talked about the difficulties they had in finding a qualified work force and the amount of money they had to spend to educate and retrain their employees. They told us that while improving our educational system was an important part of the solution, our educational system can only do so much if the child is not prepared to learn by the time they reach school age. These executives came to the conclusion that in order to find solutions to the problems they were facing and other problems facing society, we had to begin at the beginning and make sure children start out their lives with the nutrition they need to develop. That conclusion is what brought these CEOs to the Committee on the Budget, and it is what brings me to the floor today. We continue to learn more each day about the importance of the first 3 years of life in the development of the brain. Common sense tells us that ensuring that children have proper nutrition at this critical period in their lives will reap benefits for all of us as these children grow into adulthood. A child who has the proper nutrition at the beginning of his or her life in the womb through the first 3 years of its life is more likely to succeed in school, less likely to become involved in the criminal justice system, and more likely to become a productive member of society. There have been numerous studies showing the effectiveness of the WIC program in improving health of newborn children. From a fiscal standpoint, studies have found that Medicaid costs for women and children participating in WIC were reduced by between $1.77 and $3.13 for every dollar spent on WIC. But more important than any of these statistics or studies about the effectiveness of the WIC program is this: The WIC program helps give all children a fair start in life. That is why I am proud to support the WIC program, and encourage our colleagues to continue to support and expand upon this very valuable program.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I appreciate my colleague bringing this up and naming the Federal Building after J.J. Jake Pickle, a very appropriate honor for a man serving on the Committee on Ways and Means, and I think that all of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree with me when I say that there have been very few Members that have ever taken their job more diligently, more seriously, in looking at the questions from social security reform to any tax bill that has ever come before us. He also was a man of responsibility. One thing that I noted, and we try to emulate but cannot come close to Jake, when he says he is going to be at a dinner party for the Texas delegation or any other place, he is always there. Very seldom did he ever miss. When he said he was coming, he came. I think one appropriate remark that I have not heard, maybe it has been mentioned, but to me, this building could be better named if it were named the J.J. Jake and Beryl Pickle Building, because so many times those of us recognize our spouses do not nearly get the credit that they deserve when we get honored in ways in which we honor Jake today. I think of the story that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) was telling, and there was no better storyteller to ever occupy a seat in this House. He was great at it. But all of the times that Beryl listened to those stories, which were repeated not one, ten, one hundred, but for the thousandth time, and still laugh when her husband told that joke, I think Beryl ought to be somewhere in the name of this building. I know she will be in spirit by those of us who knew and loved her as well as Jake Pickle. Jake was born in my district. Therefore, I have always had to take somewhat responsibility for the actions that Jake has taken, and I have done it proudly.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it sounds like we might have been a little critical of the Speaker and the leadership in the House today. We have. I always believe if we are going to be critical, we ought to offer a suggestion of what should be done. Let me make one observation of what I think should be done. It should have been done today, but we cannot do it today. We are out until next Tuesday. Next Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Speaker would see fit to bring the Kosovo $6 billion emergency request from the administration to the floor of the House. It is an emergency, and a legitimate one. I would like to see the Speaker bring the Central American emergency funds in that same package. I would like to see the Speaker include the agricultural fund in that same package, and give this body an opportunity to vote on those as emergency spending, which they are, under the Rules of the House which we agreed to in the 1997 budget agreement. There is an additional request now for defense funds that I am supportive of, but not as an emergency. I think they ought to be considered in the due process of the appropriations process for this year, but if we see fit, because there might be a need to do it now, do it now, but do not affect the caps. Allow those to be counted against the caps, whether we do it next Tuesday or not. That would be just my personal suggestion to the leadership of what could be done that would resolve this issue, and do it in the way in which it ought to be done. Any other spending other than those associated with the agriculture request should not be declared an emergency. I would again point out that those of us who supported the Blue Dog budget, the majority of Democrats, we budget for this. This is not something that will break the budget, as visioned by the Blue Dog and a majority of the Democrats in this House. That is a suggestion. I hope the Speaker does it next Tuesday, because if we do, hopefully at that point can move quickly and before the end of next week we can resolve this question and avoid further inconveniencing so many family farmers that will be inconvenienced because we have been unable to deal in a rational way with this situation. If I might, just for a moment, switch subjects and talk about another very important happening this week for agriculture, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I about a year ago requested a meeting with the Vice President of the United States to express our concern of the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act, something that deals with the technology that is used by our farmers and ranchers that allows us to always say to the American people and to the world that, are we not blessed to live in a country that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply to our people at the lowest cost of any other country in the world? And we do this because of the utilization of technology. In our visit with the Vice President, we pointed out that there were some at EPA that were interpreting the law as passed by the Congress in ways that was going to be very detrimental to production agriculture. He agreed, and for the last year we have seen continuous improvement. We have seen EPA and USDA begin to work together, which the Vice President suggested should be done. It is amazing to me that we would have to have a Vice President of the United States instructing two agencies of the United States government to work together. But he did, they did, they are, and it is working. There was a track committee put together, a committee of about 54 men and women, producers, chemical companies, environmentalists, consumers, all who have a vested interest in seeing that these decisions are made based on sound science and in the best interests of consumers. This committee has been working until last week, when for some strange reason the environmental community and the consumer community decided to pull out of the discussion. I encourage them to come back to the table, come back to the table and continue to do as they were doing over the last year, working in a constructive way in order that we might in fact continue to have this most abundant, safe food supply. Please, do not be, as some are accusing you of, of saying because you cannot have your way, I am going to take my bat and ball and go home. Please come back to the table. Please come back to the discussions, and let us make sure that all decisions, though, are based on sound science, not on an individual interpretation of what is good and bad. There are those among us who believe that pesticides, those things that kill insects, should not be used because if used improperly, they will kill humans. Everyone agrees to that. But everyone does not agree that we ought to eliminate pesticides, because if we would eliminate the technology, we would not have the best-fed Nation. In fact, we would have a starving world in a very short period of time. One of the things the Vice President instructed us all to do is to have these discussions in the open, in sunshine, in transparency, as the word is called. Let everyone present their views. This seems to be what is bugging some folks in the environmental community. They do not want to have to honestly debate their views with others in the scientific community who may have a different view. I know the gentleman from Arkansas has been a real leader in this effort, for which I have commended him. I was glad to work with him all of last year, and I know he shares this frustration. But it is something that we need to talk about over and over and as openly as we can to make sure that more of the American people understand we cannot have this abundant food supply without using technology. Both the gentleman from Arkansas and I are farmers in real life. We do not wish to use any product that will do harm to ourselves, our families, those who work for us, and certainly not to those who consume the products which we produce. It is in our best interest that we use sound science. We were making great progress. I do not understand why some now decide that they do not want to even play anymore, but I hope that they will reconsider that decision. If not, then I certainly hope that the process will go forward without them. But if it goes forward without them, it will not work nearly as smoothly and good for the Nation as a whole as if they come back to the table and work together.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and would amplify a little more on what he has just said regarding the conference that should be going on between the House and the Senate regarding the emergency agriculture appropriation, a request sent here to this body 62 days ago from the Secretary of Agriculture, acknowledging that we were going to have some credit problems, that the amount budgeted for credit was not going to be sufficient, and, therefore, an emergency supplemental was going to be required. Everyone knows this. The House Committee on Agriculture, both sides of the aisle, are in agreement that these monies are needed and must be forthcoming, but it is very frustrating when we have already had to have two stopgap proposals in order to just get us to the next point, that we have had to have the Secretary of Agriculture juggling various accounts just to continue to be able to provide the service in our various FSA offices. But we are now kind of at the end of our rope. The Secretary this morning informed us that at the end of the close of business today there would no longer be the ability to accept applications for loans. This week we have averaged 150 applications per day. This is four times the normal demand for FSA loans. It is really inexcusable that, for whatever reasons, the conferees have not been able to come up with an acceptable compromise that would allow the House to work its will. I know that there are budget considerations, and I remind everyone, including myself, when we are talking about expenditure of emergency funds, whether it be for agriculture, for Kosovo, or for any other purpose, for Central America, the emergency that has already been created there and which is also pending, something which needs to be taken care of, all of these dollars are Social Security Trust Fund dollars. I see we have been joined by our friend from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and he and I and others have been working and trying to come up with proposals in which we might deal with the Social Security problem. I welcome his efforts there, and I appreciate his welcoming of mine. But when we talk about this particular proposal today and the state of agriculture, we go into it with our eyes open. That is why the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I, and I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) joined us in this, in support of the Blue Dog budget, if memory serves me correctly, and recognizing that there were going to be some additional needs, and we proposed to budget for them. The good news was that we had a majority of Democrat supporters, 26 Republican supporters; the bad news is it takes 218 votes to do it. I understand that. But having said all of this, that gets us right back to what the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) was saying a moment ago. We have a crisis, it is really inexcusable, and it is one of the reasons the American people get so frustrated with all of us, because of our seeming inability to make timely decisions. One of the decisions that could be is that we do not want to fund this. That would be one of the decisions. If a majority of the House say these are monies we should not expend, these are loans we should not make, therefore let us not approve it, I can accept that. Mr. Speaker, a 218-vote decision by this body saying these loans should not be made would be a perfectly logical, legitimate decision of this body to be made. But what is inexcusable is to not make the decision because somebody is not able to please somebody within somebody's conference or caucus, and that is what is going on. We would like to see this come forward, deal with it in an open and honest way. I yield back now to the gentleman from Arkansas, and if there is any time additionally I will have a few other comments to be made.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to use these 5 minutes for purposes of commending the administration's announcement of yesterday in which they are exempting food and medicine from unilateral trade sanctions. This has a possible immediate and positive impact on agriculture exports of wheat, rice and corn. The United States agricultural producers, and we will hear a little bit more about that in the next hour, have faced a lot of problems with trade barriers imposed by other countries; but United States sanctions, when we and some who believe that our own policies can be put forward by denying shipment of food and medicine to countries, that too becomes a sanction or a trade barrier. We have clearly proven, I think, over the last several years that sanctions do not work; they hurt producers, and they hurt those that we do not intend to hurt. I think that we can find much more effective ways to implement foreign policy. Therefore, the new policy, which is part of the administration's long-term review of sanctions, which is intended to ensure effectiveness of economic sanctions, is designed to minimize the cost to United States' producers of anything and maintain the reputation of the United States as a reliable supplier, something that often gets overlooked by some who believe that these actions, as they result in what is perceived to be in the best interests of the United States, often do not accomplish that which was intended. A recent report from the President's Export Council showed that more than 75 countries may be subject to sanctions. In 1995, sanctions cost America $15 billion to $19 billion and affected 200,000 to 250,000 export-related jobs. Speaking specifically of agriculture, United States agriculture exports account for 30 percent of all U.S. farm cash receipts and 40 percent of all agricultural production. Sanctions and embargoes make it more and more difficult for farmers and ranchers to expand agricultural markets, particularly when the 95-96 farm bill was designed to make us more reliant on foreign markets. It absolutely makes no sense then to deny the market opportunity for our producers. The Departments of Commerce and Treasury will issue new regulations with regard to Iran, Libya and Sudan. The Departments of State and Treasury must review the pending applications for agricultural sales to Iran. On January 5, policy changes were made to authorize case-by-case licensing of food and agricultural imports to Cuba. Congress would have to amend current law to change this policy, and it is my sincere hope that Congress will take up through the committee process and hopefully through action on this floor, a sincere and open debate as to whether or not our policy that we have toward Cuba should in fact be revised along the same lines of which we are talking of other countries. So here today I take this minute, and I will soon yield back if I have any balance of time, to just say let us use this new policy to help our producers, in this case, move wheat, corn and rice and other commodities to our customers overseas, in whatever area is affected by these sanctions. It is important for this body and for the administration to think long and hard before we impose unilateral sanctions. Unilateral trade sanctions have never proven effective. When we sanction, when we deny markets and our friends take those markets, it only hurts producers and workers in America.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their action and hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. I rise today to speak in favor of this legislation. I do it as the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, but also to make my colleagues aware of a rather ironic situation. Section 501 would mandate that the Army Corps of Engineers would take control of some of the projects of the USDA's Natural Resources and Conservation Service. This would be done because of a $1.5 billion backlog in the USDA's small watershed program. Local residents who have sponsored these projects have lost confidence in USDA's ability to provide funding, and they are now looking at other sources of funding. This situation is indicative of the lack of resources and support currently being provided to agriculture. Funding for the NRCS's Small Watershed Program is no greater today than it was in the 1950s. In fact, the program has been virtually cut in half in the last 5 years. As a result, projects typically sit on the backlog list for more than a decade. We cannot blame the sponsors. In essence, they are shopping for the most available source of funding. There simply is not enough funding in the USDA program to live up to existing responsibilities and commitments. In 1937, the United States invested 6 percent of the Federal budget in USDA conservation programs. This is in stark contrast to the .16 percent included in the 1999 Federal budget. In 1937, Congress appropriated $440 million for financial assistance, and $23 million in technical assistance. In 1999 dollars, that would be $5.3 billion. In 1999, the estimated appropriation for USDA conservation financial and technical assistance programs is $1.2 billion. These numbers speak for themselves. I would challenge my colleagues to make conservation spending a priority in order to meet the pressing needs in rural America. Again, I thank the sponsors of this legislation for, in another way, dealing with a part of the problem for many areas, of which this was the only available opportunity that they had.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct, and I would hope that the chairman of the committee would be listening to this discussion because the major point of this resolution is to make sure that we do preserve and protect Social Security before we have a tax cut that literally explodes in the year 2010 to 2015. The estimates of the budgets that we are now discussing in the conference between the House and the Senate position, if the tax cuts as currently being discussed go into place, it will mean that there will be a drain on the Treasury in 2010 to 2015 of some $1.7 trillion at exactly the same time that Social Security will be running out of money. That is a point that is being overlooked in this exuberance for a tax cut, and I would sincerely ask the majority to take another look. We all agree with preserving and protecting by taking the Social Security trust funds and applying them to the debt. That is great policy and everyone agrees to that. But when we have a tax cut that starts small and expands to $1.7 trillion by 2015, exactly the same time that the monies paid into Social Security will no longer be adequate to pay out to the beneficiaries at that time, that is the point of this amendment. I would much rather, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has said, have had a more straightforward motion, but this is an excellent motion to set in the general principle that we will fix Social Security before we do anything else to spend any more of the Social Security trust funds than what we have already done. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is correct when he says we have been doing this for the last umpteen years. What some of us would like to see now, and I know the Speaker agrees with this point, what some of us would like to do is change that, would change that right now. That is the point of this motion to instruct, and I hope that Members will pay particular attention to it because if we really and truly want to preserve and protect Social Security, this motion must be not only passed but accomplished in the conference and voted through the House.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, let me sum up the Blue Dog budget this way: First, let me say that for the 21st consecutive year I have been allowed to oppose and vote against a President's budget because it spends too much, nine times with Democrats, 12 times with Republican presidents. The Blue Dog budget before us cuts taxes over the next 5 years by $41.2 billion. Anyone that suggests anything else is not being factual. The Blue Dog budget maintains the spending caps until we balance the budget without counting the Social Security surplus. To those who choose to criticize us because we spend too much on defense in 2001 and 2002, be prepared to live with those numbers within my colleagues' own caucus because they will find it is going to be very difficult to do it. Also with agriculture, be prepared to live with those numbers my colleagues advocate in criticizing our budget. If my colleagues are, they are honest, and I respect that. Be prepared to live with the veterans numbers and stay with them all the way through, if my colleagues criticize our budget for recognizing those priorities. Now, let us talk about our main priority, debt reduction. Our budget, at the end of 5 years, produces $85 billion less debt than the Republican budget. If we take it for 10 years, it is $450 billion. I submit to my colleagues, the Blue Dog budget is better for our country by reducing debt than the Republican budget. Finally, in summation, let me say the Blue Dogs give first priority to reducing the $5 trillion plus national debt. As a result, the Blue Dog budget is not able to provide as much spending as some would like to see on both sides of the aisle. So I ask my colleagues to join in thanking the leadership for allowing us to have this vote today. I appreciate the kind remarks that have been made by the other side recognizing the credibility. I believe what I have stated is factual and should warrant some overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I then would ask unanimous consent that these rules that have been objected to, that I have readily conceded, might be in order; that we might expeditiously proceed.

Mr. STENHOLM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I concede all of the points that the gentleman has raised. I will at the conclusion of being heard on the point of order ask unanimous consent that these rules be stricken today and that they be waived in order that we might expeditiously handle this bill before us today, because I believe it would be a lot more expeditious to deal with a one-time vote on the differences that some of us have regarding how we shall pay for these emergency declarations. I am just trying to be expedient and try to speed up the work of the House today. But if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) insists on his point of order, or there will be an objection, then we must do it according to the rules, which I certainly intend to pay strict attention to all the rules of the House. But we are just saying that already in the debate we are hearing what the differences are, and my objection to the bill is how it is being paid for. That is what we want to strike. Basically what we are saying is we would rather have an across-the- board sequestration cut than to have two or three of these more egregious cuts. If by unanimous consent we can have a one-time or have my amendment carried, we could have a good debate on this issue and settle it and not take up as much time of the House. So I ask unanimous consent of the gentleman might consider waiving the rules of the House in order that we might expeditiously consider the amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us today in light particularly of the offsets that are being suggested and what they, in my opinion, will do to agriculture in this country. Chairman Alan Greenspan made a speech last week in which he talked about the problems of agriculture, and I appreciated very much hearing his analysis and rationalization of what is happening to American agriculture. The point that he made over and over is our problems are that the rest of the world that we depend on for markets to buy that which we produce is having credit problems. This bill cuts the commitments we have already made to back lending by international financial institutions such as the Asian Development Bank, laying groundwork for another year of dismal farm prices. Secretary Rubin pointed out in a letter to the Congress the bill would increase borrowing costs and hinder growth in developing countries, the part of the world that before this crisis absorbed 40 percent of our agricultural exports. In many States now we have a need for the credit. The first chapter in this bill is something that everyone agrees is needed to be done, but not at any cost. If the cost of having this particular emergency declaration or this particular spending is the offset that is in mind, it is not worth the price we will pay in agriculture and farm country. This seems to come as an annual occurrence now, and I do not understand this. In 1996, the most dramatic change in our farm policy in a generation was held hostage by a leadership that did not trust the Committee on Agriculture, forced to vote on the bill or to have nothing for American farmers after we had already entered the planting season in parts of our Nation. Last year, again, as farmers were making fundamental decisions, House leadership meddling in bipartisan consensus over a bill to secure delivery costs for crop insurance delayed final adoption of a bill reported from conference. In that case, a sound bipartisan majority defeated the leadership's rule that would have undone a carefully crafted and responsible compromise. Now farmers in dire straits, in the need of these lending programs, will have to wait even longer. I am going to ask the majority to seriously consider an amendment that I will offer, and I will ask for unanimous consent that the emergency declarations in this bill be stricken and that instead of using the offsets in question for agriculture in the development bank and also the offsets dealing with nuclear, one of the most irresponsible decisions this body could possibly consider doing at this time with all of the problems in the world, Kosovo we are talking about today, how we could possibly do that I do not know. I will offer, and hopefully by unanimous consent, that we strike it and pay for these emergency declarations with an across-the-board cut on every account. I believe that would make a lot more sense at this time and certainly avoid what could otherwise be a catastrophic happening for agriculture, that no one on this side of the aisle wants to see done any more than I do.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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