Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment, quite simply because it would allow the Census Bureau to continue preparation for the 2000 census without the risk of funding disruptions in the middle of their crucial planning process. We all remember the impossible situation the government shutdown of 3 years ago placed on the ability of government agencies to continue necessary work. I believe it is important that we not place the Census Bureau in that position again as it prepares for one of the most important government functions outlined by the Constitution: obtaining an accurate count of all Americans. I want to emphasize that accuracy is critical, in fact, the only relevant issue as we prepare for the 2000 census. We all acknowledge that millions of people were missed in the 1990 census. While much of the debate on correcting the undercount of the census is centered around the number of people not counted in urban areas, as one who represents a rural district I want to highlight the fact that people in rural areas of the country are missed as well. In fact, some rural areas are undercounted to a greater degree than the entire country. According to the Census Bureau, the net undercount for the Nation in 1990 was 1.6 percent, while renters in rural areas were undercounted at a rate of 5.9 percent. That means rural renters were undercounted nearly four times the national average. It is important that we give the Census Bureau the resources necessary to ensure an accurate count for all Americans in rural and urban areas. The Mollohan amendment ensures the Census Bureau will be able to obtain the most accurate count possible in a cost-efficient manner. In a time when we have such pressing budget needs like home health care, independent oil and gas needs, drought assistance and many other crucial areas, it is not responsible to restrict the Census Bureau from using a cost-efficient plan that utilizes sound science. The Census Bureau, under the direction of President George Bush appointee Barbara Bryant and the National Academy of Sciences, developed the Census Bureau's plan to use modern scientific methods to obtain the most accurate count possible; not all of the other allegations we have heard today. This came from that individual and that plan and that is the way it should be. This plan is supported by scientists and statistical experts in the field. The plan uses the same methods that determine the gross national product and the national unemployment rate. On Friday national figures on unemployment rates will be released. I cannot imagine that anyone will rise up in outrage questioning the validity of those numbers. Why is it that in so many other government functions, such as unemployment rates, that science is not questioned? Why should we abandon science for partisanship in this issue? I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan amendment so the Census Bureau can use its cost-efficient plan to obtain an accurate count in 2000.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. For over a decade now, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and I have worked to reform the Legal Services Corporation. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has offered considerable help to this effort as well. But tonight we are not debating whether or not to reform the LSC or change the delivery system for legal services altogether. We are simply setting a funding level where the Legal Services Corporation can continue to function and provide civil legal care for those in our country who cannot otherwise afford it. I fully understand the arguments for taking a hard look at changing our current delivery system for providing legal services to the poor. I intend to continue a careful examination of how we provide daily legal support for low-income individuals, and I hope to work with the authorizing committee to see if we can address this matter in the appropriate context. But until that happens, I support continuing to fund the Legal Services Corporation at $250 million for fiscal year 1999. This is exactly the funding level which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and I proposed in our LSC reauthorization bill of the 104th Congress. All of the arguments we might hear tonight come down to one fundamental question, whether we believe that the Federal Government has a role to play in ensuring that the poor have access to the courts. I believe that they do. I will be the first one to tell my colleagues that the LSC has had its share of problems over the years and I am sure we will hear about some of them tonight. And while I am not convinced that the current structure is the best way to deliver these services, I am not willing to demolish the LSC absent any other well-developed approach to caring for the people that depend on legal assistance in their daily lives. But that is precisely what we will do if we cut their funding to $141 million. As a lifelong supporter of a balanced budget, I understand budget realities and know we cannot fund every program at the level we want. That is why I commend the sponsors of this amendment who have worked extremely hard to find the offsets to pay for this amendment in a fair and reasonable manner. Finally, it is important to remember that we continue all of the restrictions agreed to on the Legal Services Corporation in the effort to make sure that this program works for its original purpose. And while LSC may not have been perfect over the past year, I do believe they have made sincere efforts to abide by these restrictions. In my State of Texas, it is very noticeable. I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Fox amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution that would end normal trade relations with China.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution that would end normal trade relations with China. What we are considering today is whether we would continue giving China average treatment. With normal trade relations, our farmers and ranchers can sell their products in China on the same terms as their competitors from Australia, South America, and Europe. U.S. agricultural exports to China already exceed $3.3 billion a year, and China's economy is growing at a rate of about 7% each year. Our agricultural exports have nearly tripled in the past 5 years making China the fourth largest market in the world for U.S. agricultural products. China accounts for approximately 25 percent of total world cotton consumption. This year, China has become the leading importer of U.S. soybeans and products, estimated at over $1.4 billion. China is now the ninth largest market in the world for U.S. solid wood exports. U.S. solid wood exports to China totaled $152 million in 1997. During 1997, China's estimated poultry consumption reached 12.8 million tons, accounting for 25 percent of global demand. Poultry consumption in China grew from only 12 percent of total meat intake in 1990 to about 24 percent in 1997. China is by far the world's largest wheat consumer, and is second only to the United States in corn use. By 2005, China will be a net importer of 32 million tons of grain annually. WTO accession could expand those numbers dramatically--USDA estimates that China's net agricultural imports would increase by over $8 billion annually. Revocation of normal trade relations would undoubtedly set back progress towards a WTO accession agreement, and provide Europe, Australia, and Canada the opportunity to build long-term market share in China. Joining the WTO means bringing China into a rules-based trading system. China must make laws public, require judicial review of all trade actions, apply all trade laws equally, and submit to WTO dispute settlement to ensure compliance with WTO rules. All of these measures will enhance the rule of law and the application of international norms in China's trade regime, to the benefit of China and the United States. The rule of law in trade in turn spills over to benefit the rule of law elsewhere. We cannot afford to lose China as a market, just as we cannot in good conscience ignore our disagreements on social issues. This vote will determine whether United States values will continue to be of influence in China. Shutting down trade with China or making the terms of trade impossibly restrictive would put in place a policy of unilateral confrontation that would not change China's behavior. If we remove MFN from China, we disengage our government from a leadership role in the region and would remove the positive influence that our business community has in China. We must engage China if we are to persuade its leadership to deal with important social issues, and if we are to persuade China to open its markets to more U.S. agricultural products. Engagement of China has also helped maintain our agricultural markets in a very visible way in recent months--China has played an extremely helpful role in the Asia crisis. China has maintained the value of its currency despite pressure to devaluate. A Chinese devaluation would almost certainly set off a new round of competitive devaluation in the region the U.S. agriculture cannot afford. China has also participated actively in the Manila Framework and Willard Group processes, which are working to address problems identified by the crisis, and China has contributed directly to the international support package for Thailand. Until we can reach a commercially viable agreement with China on Accession to the WTO, we must maintain normal trading relations with China--and that means renewing MFN. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this disapproval resolution.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and would like to try to get the debate back on the facts. Let us remember for a moment that the original ESF statute deliberately provided the executive branch with the flexibility needed to respond expeditiously and effectively when justified by important national economic interests. That was done in 1934 for a very real purpose; it is just as valid today. Two nights ago we in this body in 40 minutes time deliberated a bill that was critical to making a multi-million-dollar sale of benefit to American agriculture, wheat-producer-specific, yesterday. Forty minutes we debated it. Thank goodness we did. We expeditiously handled it. That is something that is getting overlooked now. Many times, as we have heard the explanation of the international currency market, we do not have the time to respond. We can talk about our philosophical differences, which we are doing today, and I respect those. But since the law's enactment in 1934, this flexibility given to the President has served the United States well by enabling it to respond to emergencies. Consistent with this original purpose there is no need to amend the statute because the nature of financial crisis sometimes requires urgent action to stabilize markets and protect the United States economy. It is almost always necessary to act more quickly than is permitted by a deliberative procedure of this legislative branch. Now the slush fund language a moment ago, I wish we would not use terms like that unless colleagues are willing to say that the detailed monthly reports on ESF transactions which are submitted to our Committee on Banking and Financial Services monthly and the President's submission of an annual report to the Congress constitutes a slush fund. Do not use that kind of language unless searching for sound bites for 20-second commercials. It is not a slush fund. The appropriate committees are responsible for that. Mr. Chairman, I am not on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, but I trust those on both sides who are. U.S. pledges of second line of financial support during the Asian financial crisis have been an integral part of the international response to the region's financial instability. It mobilized billions of dollars in multilateral support, spreading the burden among many nations, not just us. Japan has committed well over twice what we have committed, for example, as the use of this ESF funding. As in all such emergencies, the U.S. must be ready to act quickly and nimbly to protect our interests. We have talked about Mexico for a moment. Let us talk again about Mexico. The use of the ESF during the Mexican financial crisis served critical U.S. national interests by containing a rapidly escalating financial meltdown that directly threatened the U.S. economy and the stability of international financial systems. The use of the ESF was not only instrumental in the ending of the crisis, but it resulted in a profit of $580 million for U.S. taxpayers. Now U.S. agriculture has benefited from the recovery in Mexico, and I am here speaking primarily on behalf of U.S. agriculture, but it affects all of our national interest. In the wake of the recent peso devaluation and its aftermath, U.S. agricultural exports dropped by only 11 percent, and they surged back with a 34 percent gain. And we have heard all the anti-NAFTA et cetera, et cetera, but from the standpoint of the facts, from fiscal year 1995 to 1996, U.S. farm and food exports to Mexico climbed by $1.3 billion. So to characterize ESF as somehow being a slush fund, a boondoggle, as a benefit to everybody but the United States, I say to my colleagues who are making this argument they are not dealing with the facts.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I am happy for the point the gentleman makes. I am here on behalf of American interests. What he is saying is what Mexico should or should not be doing. That was a question for their legislative body to, in fact, address. I am talking about what we ought to be doing, and I am making the argument it is in our best interests to provide the President of the United States with the flexibility needed whenever crises are involved and need to be addressed; that is all that I am saying today. And I believe the facts, as they have pertained to Southeast Asia, to Mexico and to Korea last December all bear out the wisdom of the original congressional act of 1934, and I hope we continue that.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2282. It is clear to me that the sanctions provisions of the Arms Export Control Act were never intended to limit the use of the Export Credit Guarantee Program. Nevertheless, I support clarification of the Act because of the uncertainty, as we have heard, of the U.S. wheat market. Indeed, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs has recently sent a letter to the Congress indicating the Administration's strong support for this clarifying provision. In plain English, what we are saying is that it really does not make any common sense for the United States to unilaterally impose sanctions upon our producers and allow our friends and allies to make a sale. As we have heard, the criticalness, the timeliness of this indicates we need to pass this and send this to the President for his signature very quickly.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let us summarize why this amendment should be strongly opposed. Why MAP? Why a Market Access Program? It is to help meet foreign competition. The European Union and other foreign competitors continue to enjoy a 10-to-1 advantage over the U.S. in terms of export subsidies. The European Union and other foreign competitors are moving aggressively in providing other forms of assistance to maintain and expand their share of the world market at the expense of U.S. farmers and ranchers. The naivete of Members of this body who believe that somehow, some way, unilaterally disarming our farmers is going to allow them to compete in an international marketplace that is controlled by other governments continues to amaze me. Member after Member has stood this morning and offered just that kind of amendment. Without U.S. policies and programs to help counter such subsidized competition, American farmers and ranchers will continue to be at a substantial disadvantage. In contrast to the high subsidies in Europe, the 1996 farm bill reduced income support to producers in this country over 7 years, making farm income and the economic well-being of American agriculture even more dependent on continued access to foreign markets. Now we hear again an effort to take away the remaining tools. The MAP represents a successful public-private partnership. MAP is specifically targeted to help small businesses, farm cooperatives, and trade associations meet subsidized competition. Market Access Program is administered on a cost-share basis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture with farmers, ranchers, and other participants required to contribute up to 50 percent toward the programs cost. Every $1 invested by United States taxpayers has resulted in $16 in additional U.S. agricultural exports, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. MAP helps boost U.S. agriculture exports and meet foreign competition. Also, let me say, we have reform. We have listened to the valid criticisms of the MAP program. We are now providing for cost share, direct assistance to small businesses, farm cooperatives, and trade associations. This is what this body has told us to do. This is what the Committee on Agriculture has striven to do. Funds are to be used only to promote American-grown and produced agriculture commodities and related products. There is a prohibition on assistance to foreign firms and products. There is ongoing review and certification of use of funds and program graduation. When you have a successful program working we stop subsidizing, and we say go forward in the marketplace, but we continue to attempt to meet foreign competition. In conclusion, I strongly urge that this amendment be rejected. I hope that the committee, and when we get to conference, will find additional monies in this particular area. As a Nation, we can work to export our products or we can export our jobs. This amendment, if it passed, will be an export of United States jobs, make no mistake about it. USDA's export programs are a key part of an overall trade strategy that is pro-growth, pro-trade and pro-job. This amendment is anti- all of the above.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) on seeing that we maintain a domestic sugar industry. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would further reduce the farm price for sugar. Proponents of this amendment continue to claim they are offering this in the name of ``consumers''. Mr. Chairman, let us get the facts straight. There is no such thing as a world free market. No matter how many Members stand up and say it, there is not one. Right now the average world price we hear about is 9.46 cents. The average cost of producing sugar in the world is 18.04 cents. How can anyone in this country compete with the treasuries of governments in other countries? A lot has been said about the big sugar growers. Let me speak on behalf of 300 sugar farmers in the Rio Grande valley of Texas that depend upon the sugar program. They are the most efficient in the world. If the Miller amendment should pass, they are out of business. To those that say this concerns the consumer, how can it be in the consumer's best interest when you have wholesale refined sugar dropping by 12.1 cents since last year in the 1996 farm bill, while at the same time the retail price has gone up 1.2 percent; ice cream, 2.4 cents, cereal, 2.6 cents; candy, 3.7 cents, and cookies, 3.9? It is not the sugar growers' fault. Since the 1996 farm bill reforms went into effect, American sugar farmers have experienced a price drop of 15%--double the drop this amendment intends. As a result, how much have consumers benefited from this 12% drop in producer prices? To date, the answer is Zero, not a single bit. And the proponents of this amendment would have you believe a further drop in producer prices will help consumers? What about the prices for products that contain sugar--like ice cream, cereal, candy or cookies? While sugar has been dropping, the prices for these products have been going up. The manufacturers of these products have been paying farmers 12% less for the sugar they buy, but charging retail consumers 2%-4% more for ice cream, cereal, candy and cookies. Not even the price of sugar on the grocery store shelf has seen a similar reduction in price--in fact, the retail price in grocery stores has increased. Vote against the Miller-Schumer amendment. It's a blatant grab of $150 million from the pockets of struggling American sugar growers to further fatten the bottom line of already profitable multinational food and beverage manufacturing and retailing corporations.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that my two colleagues had the opportunity to correct their amendment from yesterday that would have cut $21 million or 53 percent of this program. We are now going to be discussing and revoting in the full House, the $10 million cut, which is 25 percent of the budget, of Wildlife Services. In spite of the assurances of the gentleman from New Hampshire, each of my colleagues now have a letter from Secretary Glickman who is responsible for administering this program all over the United States, stating that it makes no difference whether it is $10 million, a 25 percent cut, or $21 million, a 53 percent cut, it will have a very devastating effect on other than nonlethal predator control. It is much more than that. This is another example when Members attempt to do some very logical and, from their perspective, needed corrections to an agricultural appropriation bill. If you do not fully have knowledge of what is actually happening out in your various States, you will have unintended consequences. Wildlife Services is a cooperative program where local entities partner with USDA and APHIS to jointly pay for wildlife management. Cooperating groups at the local level expend over, in some cases, more than 50 percent of the cost of these programs. Slashing funding for Wildlife Services by 25 percent will result in across-the-board elimination of many important programs that protect human health. Much of this funding is also spent on efforts to develop nonlethal methods for livestock control. Wildlife Services is much more than predator control. USDA's Wildlife Services Program provides critical assistance to public health and safety programs in every State. That is the reason why we have been hearing from our local States. People are concerned because this is a program in which they multiply these dollars for local concern. The program provides help at more than 340 airports to prevent flocks of birds from interfering with passenger aircraft flights. That is serious. It controls the spread of rabies in the North, East, Midwest, and the South. We have a very successful program going in all of these regions using bait in order to control rabies; coyote bait. It is a successful program. We cannot have this amendment pass and continue that program, because the people that administer it have other duties. When we start making a 25 percent cut in a budget that is already as lean as the agricultural budget is, we will have additional nonintended consequences. This program controls damage to fruit crops, grain, and fish farms by migratory birds such as blackbirds, saving American farmers hundreds of millions of dollars. It conducts research on humane control of animal populations that spread diseases, such as deer and rats. It works to protect endangered species such as the Louisiana black bear and the Aleutian Canada goose, and I can go on and on. The important thing for my colleagues to understand when we do revote this, this is not a program that can afford a 25 percent cut. The intention of the gentleman from new Hampshire and the gentleman from Oregon are really good. But it will have the unintended consequences. I hope when we revote this in the full House that my colleagues will overwhelmingly vote no and look to another date in order to accomplish the goal which these two people are proposing with their amendment time.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for that response. I assure him that I will work with him and with OMB to see that they may reexamine those decisions. Second colloquy, I know the chairman is aware, again, of the tremendous regulatory burdens facing many of our Nation's livestock producers. In light of these burdens, there is a tremendous need to develop innovative, market-based solutions for livestock-related water quality concerns. A project to do just that has been proposed by a broad coalition of dairy producers, local governments and researchers in the Bosque watershed of central Texas. This project would facilitate evaluation of promising waste utilization technologies and would work to develop markets in order to enhance the value of these by-products. Unfortunately, because their project necessarily involves both research and actual market development, they have found it rather complicated to secure funding under either the research or the rural development categories. I believe this is a worthy project deserving funding from USDA rural development and hope the gentleman from New Mexico would look at this as we go to conference.

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for that response.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me, and as someone else said a moment ago, here we go again. It seems like every year at this time the manufacturers are never satisfied until the peanut program is eliminated. But I just did a fascinating amount of research right here in this body. I have in my hand M&M peanuts, which I like both products very well. One has peanuts, one does not. I went into the Democratic cloakroom, and I asked how much are these, and they said 60 cents each, and I said I will take two. Now my colleagues can go out in the store and buy it for 55 cents, but roughly that is the same amount that we were paying for these products last year. What was fascinating, though, is when I went over into the Republican cloakroom and I said I would like to buy the same M&M peanuts, well, I hate to tell my colleagues on this side of the aisle, but they need to start buying their products over on this side because it costs you 75 cents for the same two M&M peanut packages. So I think we are going to have a run on business over on our side. But this just proves the point. With all due respect to my colleagues who are offering this amendment again, this has nothing to do with what consumers are going to pay for peanut products, even the peanut butter argument. It is fascinating. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) made the argument on peanut butter. The best bargain prices for peanut butter in the world are in the United States, and yet some people, and we can go anywhere in the world and we will pay more for our peanut butter. We can go to Mexico and we will pay $2.55. Here in the United States it is $2.10. What they are trying to do with this amendment today is once again destroy peanut farmers in America. That is what they are trying to do, and they are using philosophical arguments that have no standing whatsoever with fact. When we can take these two products here and see the differences, we should not kid ourselves that we are going to do the consumer any favor by adopting this amendment. We will not.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things to set the record straight. There are no licenses required to grow peanuts. Anyone can grow peanuts. In fact, 120,000 tons of non-quota peanuts found itself into the domestic market over each of the last 2 years. Here is a list I will put in the record of 10 reforms that were put into the peanut program in the 1996 farm bill, just as the previous speaker was talking about, that have had the result of reducing peanut farmer income by as much as 30 percent. But that is not enough for our colleagues today on the floor. All commodities have a loan. All commodities have a loan. That is what we are talking about for peanuts today, the loan price for peanuts. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the list of 10 points related to the peanut program.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, looking at this amendment, I know that the drafters of the amendment have been arguing against lethal control. But if we carefully examine their amendment, we will see that they are going to cut 53 percent, or a total of $21 million from the Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service for the wildlife services program. All of this talk about the lethal methods is really immaterial to what this amendment will do. They are going to destroy the opportunity of the Fish and Wildlife Service to control predatory animal problems in almost each of our 50 States if we allow this amendment to pass. We can make arguments about the different amount of control all day. But the fact is that there are various damages to the tune of estimated up to $3 billion annually that occur and this is going to continue to grow. We as a society will continue to encroach on wildlife. We as a society will continue to have to promote and support wildlife conservation and we will continue to have to learn to allow the wildlife to live with humans and vice versa. That costs money and it costs money from the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I do this for purposes of entering into two colloquies with the chairman. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the reason for the inclusion of report language directing that the cost of providing technical assistance to the EQIP program will be fully funded within the EQIP, as provided in the Federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 1996, was to help ensure that other areas of technical assistance, such as grazing land improvement and ensuring water quality would not suffer.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for that response. The chairman is aware that the Office of Management and Budget has directed that the agency will only receive a reimbursement of 10 percent for carrying out the EQIP program in fiscal year 1999 as opposed to the 19 percent level received in 1998. Would the chairman agree that the OMB should reexamine this decision? I ask this question, particularly in light of the greatly increasing work the NRCS is doing with livestock producers and water supply districts to protect the quality of our water supply. As the gentleman is aware, the Environmental Protection Agency is going to be placing increasing regulatory demands on livestock producers. I would hope that we could do more to help install the best management practices available to stave off enforcement actions that may come about because of these proposed regulatory actions.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear to everyone that we are completely and totally ignoring the rules of the budget process. That is a given. There is no problem with the military construction bill we will take up. It is an open rule, a fair rule, and one that can be discussed. My problem today, as the ranking member of the House Committee on Agriculture, I have some very strong concerns about the allocation that the leadership of the House, written in the Speaker's office, has given to agriculture. I am sure others will have the same. I have no problem with the total amount of spending. We have made that very, very clear. The Blue Dog budget, what we have before us today, is a cap on spending. I have no problems with that. But I have a problem with prioritization. Because, in my opinion, there are some real needs in agricultural research, in rural housing, in conservation programs, numerous cooperative State research, education, extension, that are being cut, that are not as high a priority as the legislative branch of government. Why we are increasing $100 million on the House of Representatives and then cutting in these areas of extreme importance, I do not understand, and we will have more to talk about that later.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, we have had a fascinating discussion, and I want to emphasize, too, I have no problem with the rule on military construction. That is not the issue that has me upset and concerned today. I am glad to see the chairman of the Committee on Rules has stayed on the floor, because, with all of the statements that have been made about fair rules, I would like to take the opportunity now to ask him: Why did the gentleman deny the opportunity of the Blue Dogs to have our budget voted upon on this floor so that some of this might not have occurred today? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).

Mr. STENHOLM. I must reclaim my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Okay.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, with all do respect, and I want to continue to yield to the gentleman, because he did see fit to give the CATs a vote. So what he just said is a little bit disingenuous because he allowed a Republican substitute but he chose not to let the Blue Dogs.