Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend, the gentleman from Texas, for clarification to see if I understood what I think I heard him say, that he meant to say regarding the debt ceiling: that we do have a crisis that has been ascertained by the Secretary of the Treasury; that June 28 seems to be the last day that they can juggle the books without us doing what we are supposed to do, and that is, raise the debt ceiling, June 28. I believe I heard the gentleman say that it would be his hope that he could add it to the supplemental so that there would not be an up-and- down clean vote on it; but if that were not able to be done, then he would entertain the possibility of bringing the Senate clean bill of $450 billion to the floor for an up-and-down vote.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I like the spirit of optimism that my friend, the gentleman from Texas, has taken. I would encourage him to look at the letter that a large number of Democrats have sent to the Speaker offering a considerable number of votes for a clean debt ceiling next week in order that we might avert a crisis and send unnecessary signals to the marketplace. What we ask in return is not a blank check, but that we have a debt ceiling, and we revisit our budget in September when we come back after we have seen the reestimates. As the gentleman knows, we are now currently estimating that the deficit this year is going to go over $200 billion. That is after we have used all the Social Security trust fund, all the Medicare, all the civil service, all the military retirement fund. I would hope the gentleman would agree and would accept the hand that is coming from this side of the aisle from the minority leader as well as the Blue Dogs of saying that we are ready to work with the gentleman in that endeavor, and I hope he puts that as a third option.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that comment. It is interesting how you can stand here on the floor and look me in the eye and say that the criticism of the exact language is not the same. Now, you make an argument on a separate issue, and this is the one that I take to the floor to oppose, because I think making tax cuts or spending increases permanent is not fiscally responsible.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is leaving the floor, but I see he is coming back now. I would just ask the chairman respectfully if the criticism that you just made of the Matsui amendment would not be equally applied to your bill on the floor, because it is the same language? Now, as far as the word ``raid'' is concerned, I would be perfectly willing to change that. We could say ``steal,'' we could say anything; but that does not help. But I want to yield to the gentleman. Is not the criticism that you made of the Matsui amendment equally applied to the bill that you are touting on the floor today?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that particularly my colleague from Illinois and others who might wish to engage me in debate on what I am about to say, I will gladly yield for purposes of debate and would hope that they would be generous with some time if they take most of my time, because I rise in strong support of providing marriage penalty relief and protecting the Social Security surplus. The only way you do both today is you vote for the Matsui amendment. If you are for marriage tax penalty relief, and I am, it is the same bill you have got. But if you are also concerned about the future of Social Security, the only way you do that is to vote for the substitute. It is kind of like last week I was for eliminating the estate tax on every estate up to $6 million effective immediately. But you said no, and you won and you lost and none of the small businesses get anything and again you are going to win on political points today if you prevail with 218 votes. In the end, nobody is going to get anything except our young people. I want to provide relief to the 57,000 couples in the 17th district who pay a marriage penalty. I am for it. But I also care about the 67,000 households in my district who depend upon Social Security and the 253,000 workers paying into the Social Security system now who are counting on us to make sure we can afford to meet our promises to them when they retire. I also am very concerned and care about the 250,000 children under the age of 18 who will face a crushing debt burden and higher taxes if we do not take action now to deal with Social Security and Medicare. I wish my colleague from California had brought that up last year instead of what got us into the debt position that we are in today. I do not know of any parent who would want us to give them a benefit today at the expense of leaving their children to pay the bill for a massive national debt and a legacy of deficit spending. I do not understand the philosophy of folks who do not have a problem with leaving our children and grandchildren with a large debt just so we can have a tax cut or more spending today. The government is on the verge of a financial crisis. The Treasury Department has told us that if we do not increase the debt limit in the next 2 weeks, the government may be forced to default on our debt. The Senate has acted. The House refuses to pay for that which you insist on coming to the floor and arguing again today for. Reducing the amount of revenue so that we default on our obligations, that is what you are for. Instead of figuring out how we are going to stop the tide of rocky red ink and stop spending Social Security surplus dollars, the majority leadership continues to bring to the floor legislation that will continue to add more debt and increased borrowing from the Social Security surplus. And let me say since somebody will stand up here and say spending, for the record, in the 12 years I was here with Republicans in the White House, the Reagan-Bush years, only 1 year did the Congress, the big-spending, liberal Democratic Congress we hear so much about, ever spend more than the President asked us to spend. In the 8 years of the Clinton administration, with majority Republican leadership in this body, you will find we spent, Congress, notice I say ``we,'' I am part of you, we spent more. It is time for you, us, to get honest with our debate and stop this politicizing and sending out the press releases that you send in to my district. Let me repeat, if you really want to do away with the marriage tax penalty and protect Social Security today, there is only one honest vote you can cast, and that is to vote for the Matsui substitute. It is the only one that says we can only do these things that feel good, sound good, make good press releases if you pay for it. Yesterday we voted on the energy bill, an energy bill that is a great bill. I commend the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) did a great job. Yesterday we voted unanimously to pay for it. We voted to pay for it. Some were saying, well, we really did not mean it. Some of us meant it. I would like to get the tone of the debate back now. As I said in the beginning, I am willing to engage in debate. I wish somebody would stand up on this side and say what is it that I have said that is not true, what is it about the fact when I state very clearly if you want to do away with the marriage tax penalty, exactly like everybody on this side, all of my friends, it is the same bill. It is the same marriage tax penalty bill. But what it does not do, it does not increase the deficit on the Social Security system in the second 10 years that your amendment, pure like you want it voted on, does. That is the issue. I wish you had the same courage now to stand up and say we are going to borrow the $750 billion in order to give you that tax cut, and we are going to send the bill to your grandchildren. That is what you are doing. That is exactly what you are doing. Why are we doing this? What is it that makes this such a great political issue? I do not understand. Vote for the Matsui amendment, vote down the base bill; and then let us get civility back in the House and start working together, before we undo a lot of good things for our grandchildren.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I think making tax cuts or spending increases permanent in the climate which we are now under, in which we have seen a $5.6 trillion surplus evaporate and we are now into a $300 billion deficit, I do not believe it is fiscally responsible on our grandchildren to have votes like this day after day after day. I do not. I respectfully differ. And on the spending, one thing that really grates on me, when we attempted to have a vote on a substitute budget this year that would have made this argument in the budget, you on the majority side denied us the opportunity to have that debate on the floor of the House during the budget. That is what grates on me.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a previous ruling the Chair made today concerning the question that was asked as to whether a Member on either side might mischaracterize the other Member's voting record on this floor should be settled in debate.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate my friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for acknowledging at the last part of his comments that there was an attempt to offer a second amendment or budget this year, but we were denied. The gentleman is entirely correct; it was your budget on spending, but it was not your budget on borrowing money from the Social Security trust fund. We wanted a trigger. We wanted to avoid discussions like we are having today. I also want to remind my chairman, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, that we did present, the Democratic party, did present an alternative budget last year, the Blue Dog Democrats led and were followed by the overwhelming majority of Democrats on this side, that said we should not allocate all of the $5.6 trillion projected surplus into spending and tax bills because they might not happen and there might be an emergency. We lost. We were in the minority. I am used to losing when I am in the minority. What we are not used to doing is having the majority win and not assume the responsibility for your actions. The debt ceiling is going to have to be increased, and yet you want to duck that. But the gentleman is absolutely correct, and I appreciate his kindness and his remarks.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that now more than ever, America needs a balanced, forward-looking energy policy that will infuse our energy sector with both efficiency and competition, formulated to protect America against emergencies in the energy market. This bill does that. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). I appreciate the spirit with which he has accepted this amendment to instruct. This amendment is not aimed at the committee. This amendment is aimed at the leadership of this House which continues to borrow on our Social Security trust funds in order to pay for those things that we need. This is a good energy bill. I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his participation in this, and I see the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) is here. They have worked very well to put together a bill which has many good features. We no longer can rely on the same old policy, and I am pleased to see that we are on the verge of having a national energy policy that will achieve many of these goals. There are many provisions in H.R. 4, as well as in the legislation passed by the Senate, that I have been a long-time supporter of, including access to capital for domestic oil and natural gas production; increased research in alternative fuels such as nuclear energy; advanced clean coal technology; a sound commitment to renewable energy; and improved energy efficiency and environmental standards. Yet when the House considered H.R. 4, I was disappointed that the tax incentives, again that I have supported for many years, were not considered within the context of the budget process. Last year, the President promised that we could have it all. He argued that the projected $5.6 trillion in surpluses within 10 years was enough for a large tax cut, a decent Medicare prescription drug benefit, increases in education spending, a national energy policy, and increases in defense spending. This Congress could have taken time to look comprehensively at using the Tax Code to accomplish many goals, including some much-needed improvement to our energy policy. Regrettably, we made it considerably more difficult to provide for the needed spending in the area of energy as well as other top priority issues that are facing this country. Instead of figuring out how are we going to stop the tide of red ink and stop spending Social Security surplus dollars, the House leadership continues to push irresponsible tax cuts. Just a few weeks ago, the majority leadership passed the supplemental appropriation that also makes room for a $750 billion increase in the debt limit. Those of us who said that we ought to sit down and figure out how to get our budget back in order before we approve another $750 billion in debt were ignored. This week is no different. We are considering a permanent extension of marriage penalty relief. Permanent extension. Again, motherhood and the flag, everybody is for it; except our grandchildren should not be for it, but they do not have a vote. We will also vote in a moment on another great-sounding issue, and that is requiring a two-thirds vote in order to raise taxes. But yet my friend from Tennessee was denied an opportunity to have an amendment on the floor that would suggest that we ought to have a three-fifths vote to borrow money. It is easier to borrow money because our grandchildren do not have a vote on that issue. It is tough to raise taxes. In fact, show me one Member of this body who stands up and says, ``I am going to raise taxes,'' and I will show my colleagues a Member that is about to get unelected in November. But here we are. As a result, we are experiencing trust fund raids and deficit for the foreseeable future, instead of large projected surpluses, all to pay for this reckless economic plan. Mr. Speaker, all we are asking is let us get back on a plan to balance the budget without using Social Security. The current estimates for this year's unified budget deficit are between $150 billion and $250 billion. That is deficits, and not all of it has to do with September 11. Not all of it has to do with the economy. As Members read in the Wall Street Journal today, Mitch Daniels, director of OMB, is finally coming around and beginning to have a moment of honesty: ``At this rate, there are not sufficient resources for a decent Medicare drug benefit, education spending, or energy policy.'' I do not understand the philosophy of folks who do not have a problem with leaving our children and grandchildren with a large debt just so we can have a tax cut or more spending today. I want our children and grandchildren to inherit a strong economy and a Federal Government that can meet its commitments for Social Security and Medicare. I definitely do not want them to inherit a massive national debt and legacy of deficit spending. The motion to instruct conferees is very straightforward and reflects a principle that every Member of this body has solemnly vowed to protect. The motion simply states the conferees, to the extent possible, within the scope of conference, ensure that no provision of bill create a deficit in the non-Social Security portion of the Federal budget during the duration of the bill, unless there are sufficient offsets under the bill, thereby ensuring that it does not raid Social Security surpluses. Until we deal with the long-term financial problems facing Social Security, we need to be very careful about any tax or spending bills that would place a greater burden on the budget in the next decade. If Members believe that more tax cuts and increased spending are more important than eliminating the national debt and protecting the integrity of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds, vote against this motion. I am glad nobody is going to vote against it. I believe Members should support it. Mr. Speaker, I support the spirit of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for agreeing to this, and I do know that the spirit of the conferees will somehow find it in their hearts to talk to the leadership and get the leadership to go along with this excellent proposal.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want the children of small business men and women to be able to inherit the family business that their parents worked to build. I want the children of farmers and ranchers to be able to inherit the farms and ranches that their family has farmed and ranched for years. That is why I voted for the Pomeroy-Thurman substitute, which would repeal the estate tax for virtually all small businesses and family farms immediately. However, I also want our children and grandchildren to inherit a strong economy and a Federal Government that can meet its commitments for Social Security and Medicare, and I definitely do not want them to inherit a massive national debt and legacy of deficit spending. I do not understand the philosophy of folks who do not have a problem with leaving our children and grandchildren with a large debt just so we can have a tax cut or more spending today. Just 2 weeks ago, the majority leadership tried to slip through a $750 billion increase in the debt limit, and completely ignored those of us who said that we ought to sit down and figure out how to get our budget back in order before we approve another $750 billion in debt. Instead of figuring out how we are going to stop the tide of red ink and stop spending Social Security surplus dollars, the majority leadership today has brought to the floor legislation that will add another $100 billion in debt borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. This motion to recommit is very simple and very straightforward and reflects a principle that every Member of this body has solemnly vowed to protect, in fact, has voted on numerous times. The motion to recommit simply states that we should not fund the permanent repeal of the estate tax with Social Security surplus dollars. The motion to recommit will allow the estate tax repeal to take effect if we are able to afford it without using Social Security surplus dollars. The cost of this bill in the second 10 years should give pause to everyone who is concerned about the challenges facing the Social Security system in the next decade: $1 trillion. Until we deal with the long-term financial problems facing Social Security, we need to be very careful about any tax or spending bills that would place a greater burden on the budget in the next decade when we baby-boomers begin to retire. If Members believe that repeal of the estate tax is more important than reducing the national debt and protecting the integrity of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds, vote against this motion to recommit. However, if Members agree with the principle that reducing the national debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare is more important than any new spending or tax cuts, then vote for this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Pomeroy- Thurman substitute, which would increase the exemption for all small business estates immediately upon enactment to $6 million. I cannot believe there is anyone who believes that that is not better than the base bill today, that gives the rhetoric of ending the death tax when everyone knows there will be at least three Congresses that will be in session before we get to 2010. My strongest opposition to the base bill today is in the fiscal area. I do not understand how my friends on this side of the aisle can constantly and consistently come to this floor and totally ignore the fiscal condition of our country today. In spite of my friend from Oklahoma saying the debt has come down, the debt has gone up. The administration is asking that we borrow $750 billion, and that is just the beginning. And my colleagues know it. It is important for us to start speaking honestly. There is so much my friends over here say about the death tax that I agree with that that is why I support the substitute. I would rather we not be debating this today, because today it is fiscally irresponsible. We are at war. We ought to be dealing with making sure we do not increase the additional debt on those young men and women over there fighting. But, instead, we have an argument here that is pure political rhetoric that will give a political issue so that we can say ``he said,'' ``you said.'' I want to make it very clear: I support immediately exempting all estates of $6 million and less from ever having to worry about the death tax again. And I have yet to meet the first farmer, the first rancher, the small businessman or woman, the first independent oil producer that says, when they understand what we are offering, that would not take that. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It really is. But, instead, we are sitting here arguing about repeal. Instead, we are going to deny small businessmen and women who are unfortunate enough to die in the next 6 months or 9 months, they are going to be unfortunate and have to pay that onerous tax that I happen to agree with my colleagues we should be eliminating.

Mr. STENHOLM. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, is it not correct that under the rules of the House that we are operating under today that we did attempt to have a pay-for? And I would also state to my friends on the other side that I would have offered this amendment to the Pomeroy amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. STENHOLM. In its current form, I am.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, finally, after 16 hours of debate, we get an opportunity for a clean up-and-down vote on whether we should increase our national debt ceiling by $750 billion. This motion to recommit reaffirms our support for the President and our men and women in uniform and the war on terrorism. Every one of us supports providing whatever funding is necessary to fund the war on terrorism. This motion is about the financial condition of our Nation and whether we will continue piling on more and more debt on our children and grandchildren. We should not be delaying action on funding the war on terrorism by trying to use it to hide the second largest increase in the statutory debt limit in the history of our country. The war on terrorism should be too important for political games. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle were very willing to stand up and take credit for the tax and spending legislation they passed last year that has put us back into debt. They should be willing to stand up and be counted now that the time has come to pay the bills by raising the national debt limit. We are not threatening to default on the good faith and credit of the U.S. Government. We have repeatedly extended the hand of bipartisan cooperation by offering to support a temporary increase in the debt limit to meet the expenses of the war and allow government to meet its obligations while Congress and the President work together on a plan to again balance our budget. All we are saying with this motion is hold off on the administration's request for a $750 billion increase in the debt until we have a plan in place to return the budget to balance without borrowing from Social Security. It is fiscally irresponsible, I repeat, it is fiscally irresponsible to provide a blank check for increasing borrowing authority without requiring Congress and the President to come up with a plan to get us out of red ink and return to saving the Social Security surplus. Vote for the motion to recommit by striking the effort to hide the increase in the debt ceiling in this motion.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. It is a good time to be speaking because the spirit of the last exchange is something that I am very much in favor of. The sooner that we put the charade that this is an open rule behind us, the better off we will all be. Because yesterday we did debate the rule and some of us felt very strongly that it was not a fair rule and we objected very strenuously. My fellow colleague from Texas kept calling this an open rule when everyone knows that if you were to do as the normal appropriation process around here does, if you object to the spending in a particular appropriation bill, you may stand up under an open rule and strike it. I want to make it very clear. I support the $27.1 billion that the President requested in order to fund the war on terrorism. I and every Member on this side of the aisle support that. But we get the trivializing of this debate regarding that we are unpatriotic because we object to the process that we have been subjected to, not by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the ranking member but by the leadership of this House that has added $2.4 billion in extraneous spending and also has tried to hide an increase of the debt ceiling in this particular bill, which will be in it once we pass the bill, which is one of the reasons why I will oppose the bill very strongly. It is very frustrating to me to stand on the floor and to have to object to things that I used to support my friends on the other side when they were in the minority and I voted with them on improving the budget process. Sometimes we won. We took the minority and added with some on this side and we actually won. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) yesterday spoke of that. I appreciate him giving credit to me for being a part of that. I give credit to him. I see the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, someone that I believe I could and would work with on this floor on the budget, but his leadership has precluded that at every turn. Why all of a sudden did we decide to waive the rule that provides that extraneous matters should not be added to an emergency spending bill? We passed it in 1994 with 322 votes, of which all but 4 Republicans joined it. Yet yesterday all of you, 166 of you still here, voted to waive that rule. We can get out of here in 1 hour by agreeing by unanimous consent that we will appropriate the money for the war and strike all of the extraneous matters. It can pass by unanimous consent. The Senate can take it up. It can be on the President's desk by Saturday. Everyone in this body knows that can happen. But why do we insist on spending more and then cooking the books on paying for it, which you have done in this resolution? And yet my friends on the other side that I used to vote with, and you used to vote with me, are going along with that because your leadership has said that is what we ought to do. I do not understand that. We can get out of here in a heartbeat and do what this is all about, fund the war on terrorism. You can do it by unanimous consent if the leadership will take the gentleman from Wisconsin's request and the gentleman from Florida and the folks on his side of the aisle will go to their leadership and say, ``Let's quit this charade.'' To those that believe somehow you are going to hide the debt limit, this is what is so funny about us having this. If you believe in a heartbeat that the Senate is going to go along with a $750 billion increase in the debt ceiling in a conference on this bill, you are living in a dream world. All the Blue Dogs have been asking now for the last several weeks, months, just have a clean up-and-down vote on the debt ceiling. Do not jeopardize the faith and good credit of the United States on a political argument that we are having today that you blame us and we blame you and who gives a hoot who is at fault. The fact is that it is happening and at fault in this body is the majority. Not the minority. We cannot do all the bad things you say that we are doing. We are in the minority. But we will gladly join with you in unanimous consent if you will listen to what the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Florida would like to do. We will do it in a heartbeat and we can go home for Memorial Day. But please, please, let us stop insisting that this is a patriotic vote. The patriotic vote is a clean vote, not the one that you are asking us to vote on, not the one that you shoved the rule down our throat yesterday on a pure party line vote in which I know a large number of my colleagues on this side did not like to vote for that rule. You can undo it by unanimous consent. I hope you will go along with us in doing that.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully rise to appeal the decision of the Chair.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I have taken the time to review, as best I could, the rules on which the Chair made the decision yesterday, in ruling in favor of the rule, that allowed this rather unusual procedure. I take it that our Parliamentarians and everyone in this body recognize the seriousness of making a precedent ruling. That is what this is, I believe. I do not believe that we can research the rules of this House from the very beginning of this House and find a ruling made by the Chair that indicates an amendment is not deemed to be in play until it has been voted on in the Committee of the Whole. And this is where I make my appeal to the decision of the Chair. It seems to me that in making that determination, that denies the opportunity to strike something that is not in the bill, was not in the rule, but was deemed to be passed after we vote in the Committee of the Whole. This is, at best, confusing; but it also, if the decision of the Chair holds that this type of parliamentary procedure shall become the precedent and the ruling of the House, that you might put into a rule language that says, in this case the debt ceiling, hidden in a rather innocuous way, will be considered passed after we vote on the bill; but until you vote on the bill it is never in play. The minority leader has asked that it be stricken. The gentleman has quoted from the rules in saying it cannot be stricken because it is not in the bill. It was not in the rule. And it was not in the rule because it could not be in the rule until it was passed by the House, and the House has not acted as yet. That is rather confusing to this cotton farmer from Jones County. I conclude my appeal on the ruling, Mr. Chairman. We are getting on very thin ice in this body when we use sleight of hand and attempting to hide the true intentions of what we do behind a rule, and now a ruling of the Chair that not once but twice has now been held that this will now be perfectly the order of the day. This is not the spirit in which we were all elected to this body, Mr. Chairman. This was not the spirit in which we were elected. So I would respectfully ask that you reconsider your agreement with the point of order, because this is setting a precedent that I do not think either side will want to go, if you in fact should make that ruling. And I urge you, in fact I implore you, to not sustain the point of order, to allow this vote to proceed, to allow an up-and-down vote on the issue, the issue of whether the debt ceiling should be hidden in the way in which it was hidden.

Mr. STENHOLM. I do, Mr. Chairman.