Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, this week a ruling by a committee of the WTO seems to have been interpreted by too many in the press that this was the end of farm programs in the United States. Furthest from the truth. Let me encourage everyone to be patient until the 400-something-page report is read and deciphered by the House Committee on Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture, and then let us see exactly what they have said. Do not panic. And let me remind everyone in the United States that we are truly blessed to live in a country that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply, at the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world. And to those who are critical of our farm programs that feed the American people in this way, take a good hard look and realize when you sit down at the dinner table tonight it is because of the American farmer and rancher.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic but this is a very straightforward motion. It simply says to this body that if Members want to take credit for cutting taxes we need to take the responsibility for the increased debt as well. Or I would put it in light of the last announcement, the three new little Rohrabachers I am concerned about today and I do not want us to add $95 billion additional debt to the three new little Rohrabachers that we just applauded. This debate is not about whether or not we should end the marriage tax penalty. Every Member of this body supports marriage penalty relief. The debate is whether we should do so with borrowed money, adding more debt on top of our $7.1 trillion national debt, or paying as we go. PAYGO worked in the nineties, 1990 and 1997. I believe it will work today if we can just start enforcing it. I do not believe we should pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future. That is why I supported the Rangel substitute, which would provide for a full and permanent elimination of the marriage penalty without increasing the deficit. Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make things fit within a budget just like families across the country do every day. Unfortunately, the leadership of this House seems to have forgotten that common sense principle. Since the Republican leadership refuses to pay for tax cuts by cutting spending or replacing the revenues, every dime of this bill will be added to the debt we leave for our children and grandchildren. I believe that at a time when our national debt is approaching $8 trillion and our Nation faces tremendous expenses for our troops overseas it is irresponsible to pass legislation that would put our Nation even deeper in debt. But if my Republican colleagues believe that deficits do not matter, they should have no problem borrowing the money openly and honestly to pay for it. I hope that all of the Members who have come to the floor today to brag about this bill will come to the floor with the same enthusiasm when it comes time to increase the national debt limit. But instead of taking the responsibility for the consequences of their economic policies, the Republican leadership is going to great lengths to avoid even having a discussion of the debt limit. The budget resolution that this body may consider next week would increase the national debt to over $8 trillion. All this motion does is ask the House to acknowledge that every dime of tax cuts would be added to our national debt. Perhaps if we take responsibility for the impact that our votes have on the national debt we will think twice before we vote to place more debt on our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, I am a strong believer in pay-as- you-go legislation. It worked in 1990 when, in a bipartisan way, we passed it in this House. It worked in 1997 when, in a bipartisan way, you could not have done it without Democratic votes. I wished we were doing that. But since we are not going to even allow us to pay for the tax cut that is on the table today, we are going to brag about all the things about it, it seems the least we can do is step up and acknowledge we are going to borrow it and say to the American people we are going to borrow $95 billion on our children's and grandchildren's future. That is all this amendment does. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 399, honoring the achievements of Melvin Jones and recognizing the contributions of Lions Club International. One of our Nation's great success stories began when Jones, then an insurance agent, looked around his business luncheon group and asked a question: ``What if these men, who are successful because of their drive, intelligence, and ambition, were to put their talents to work improving their communities?'' On June 7th, 1917, Lions Clubs International was born. Jones eventually left the insurance business to devote himself to the organization full-time. With his guidance, Lions Club International became one of the world's leading service associations. Jones's leadership was held in such high regard that he was recruited as a consultant during the organization of the United Nations. Today, almost 1.4 million Lions Club members in 193 countries tackle problems like blindness, drug abuse prevention, diabetes awareness, and disaster relief. Lions build parks, support hospitals and establish water treatment programs. The largest Lions Club in the United States meets in Lubbock, Texas, where they've served since 1929. The Lions have been with us for 85 years. Melvin Jones's philosophy that ``You can't get very far until you start doing something for somebody else'' has become the motto of service-minded folks the world over. Where there's need, they're there. Where there's work to do, they serve.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Nebraska for yielding me time. I also thank the ranking member for his acceptance of this amendment and also the chairman of the committee. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment for agriculture, the agriculture exemption for truck drivers. Without this exemption, drivers employed by agriculture retailers and farmers during the busy planting and growing season would have to comply with the same stringent rules that apply to long-haul drivers. U.S. agriculture depends heavily on this limited relief. We have a great opportunity with this amendment to develop a uniform set of regulations that haulers of agriculture commodities will use.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would again point out, this motion is based on a simple philosophy that when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to quit digging. Take the shovels away from Congress and the President. The budget enforcement rules Congress and the President enacted in 1990 were an important part of getting a handle on the deficits in the early 1990s and getting the budget back into balance. They have been tested and they have worked. There is no question that they significantly improve the responsibility and accountability of the budget process and were instrumental in going from large deficits in the 1980s to surpluses in the 1990s. The principle of PAYGO, if we want to reduce our revenues or increase our spending, we need to say how we would pay for it within our budget, something all families have to do, because they understand it. If a family wants to give up a second job, they must first cut spending of what the second job is providing income for. That is so simple. Why is it so difficult for the majority to understand that? If we want to reduce our revenues, we need to say what spending we will do without. If we want to increase spending, we need to say where it will come from. If we want to decrease revenues, where will it come from? If we are truly serious about restoring fiscal discipline, budget rules must apply to all legislation which would increase the deficit, both increased spending or reductions in revenues. All parts of the budget must be on the table. Applying pay-as-you-go rules to tax cuts do not prevent Congress from passing more tax cuts, just the opposite. All it says is that if we are going to reduce our revenues, we need to reduce our spending by the same amount, just like families do. Those who want to extend expiring tax cuts or make the tax cuts personal should be willing to put forward the spending cuts or other offsets necessary to pay for them. My Republican colleagues continue to argue that budget rules should not apply to tax cuts because tax cuts will not increase the deficit. I wish they would actually look at the facts of what is happening. To paraphrase Will Rogers, it is not what my Republican colleagues, particularly the budget chairman, do not know about the budget, because he knows a lot, that bothers me; it is them knowing so much that ain't so and continuing to come to this floor and saying it. We have enacted now three tax cuts based on the theory that tax cuts will stimulate the economy and pay for themselves as a result of economic growth, and yet the deficit continues to grow. That is what we are here talking about: the deficit. The budget written by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) that Congress passed last year said that revenues would be $1.9 trillion in 2004. The President's budget came forward and said $1.8. That is $100 billion difference in estimates. That is all we are saying, that what do we do with that $100 billion? We borrow it. We continue to pass on all of these debt and deficits to our children and grandchildren. If my Republican colleagues actually mean what they say about controlling spending, they should have no problem with applying pay-as- you-go to tax cuts. Because it would force Congress to control spending when we pass the tax cuts instead of just promising to do so in the future. The problem is, the actions of my Republican colleagues have not matched their rhetoric. If they match their rhetoric and actions, they will find significant bipartisan support to get our fiscal house back in order. That is what they are not doing. That is why we should support this motion to instruct.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the budget chairman, again continues to listen to only part of what I say. The revenue is not meeting the estimates of what he is saying in his budget, therefore, we had to borrow another $110 billion in order to make up for it because his guesstimates are not, in fact, doing what is being said on this floor. And spending is not my fault. The majority is the one that is spending all of this money they are talking about. It is time they take the responsibility for their own record on spending. They are spending it, not the minority.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, let me follow in the same footsteps of my colleague from Maryland. Last week, the House passed a budget, a very bitterly debated and very close decision on the final outcome as to which budget we should pass. A lot of speeches were made, a lot of promises were made, but one of the things that was not a part of the budget resolution last week was pay-as-you-go. Now, our friends on the other side of the Capitol, the other body, in passing their budget they suggested that pay-as-you-go would be a good policy; and they included everything. In my opinion, unless we have everything on the table, spending and revenue, pay-as-you-go will not work as well in 2004 as it did in the 1990s. There are those that believe there should be a difference. They are the same ones that have succeeded in passing three budgets now in the last 3 years that have given this country the largest fiscal deficits in the history of our country. They are the same ones that are arguing now that pay-as-you-go should only include spending, not revenue. But they are the ones also that should accept the responsibility for their ideas, having, as I said, given this country the largest amount of fiscal deficits in the history of our country. We borrowed $1 trillion in the last 2\1/2\ years. We are going to borrow another trillion dollars in the next year and a half. And yet they argue, and will argue this afternoon on the motion to recommit, that we should only include spending. Well, the pay-as-you-go resolution that I supported, and it was in the Blue Dog budget, was in the Democratic party alternative, was put everything on the table. If you want to spend more for any purpose, then you have to cut spending somewhere else. If you want to cut taxes, then you have got to cut spending somewhere to make room for them or raise taxes in some other area that will be more proficient, more efficient, and accomplish what needs to be done for the job creation in this country but also for getting our fiscal house in order. We are not going to wish deficits away. We can argue about this, and we did last week. We can argue about what trade policy we should have. But one thing we cannot argue about, and no one does argue about, is the baby boom generation reaching age 62 in 2008, 65 in 2011, 67 in 2013. That is when the greatest economic pressure that this country has ever known is going to hit us, and that is why it is so important for this Congress and this administration to get real about fiscal responsibility. Philosophy alone will not cut it. To those that argue that cutting taxes was going to produce more revenue, it didn't. It did not. It came up over $100 billion short. Those of us that believe in pay-as-you-go say that when you advocate a policy, whether it be spending or revenue, and it does not do what you said it was going to do, then you should step up to the plate and pay for it. But, no, those who argue on the other side say we are not going to ask those fortunate to be alive today to pay for it, we are going to send the bill to our grandchildren. We are going to send the bill to them because they cannot vote in November. Pay-as-you-go is a pretty simple philosophy. Every family in the United States has to adopt pay-as-you-go. Most families do not have the luxury, in fact, they would not even think about one of the solutions to the family problems is to reduce mom's or dad's paycheck and yet reduce that paycheck and live within that means. One would not think about doing that, but that is what the leadership of this House is suggesting. That is what they did even though a very large, I think plurality, maybe majority on the other side of the aisle agrees with those of us that says pay-as-you-go is something that should be part of the budget resolution, and it should be implemented, and it should be implemented with everything on the table. That is what the motion to instruct conferees tomorrow will be about, and I would encourage my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, to vote for it and put some muscle into the speechifying on budgets in this body.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Blue Dog budget that we offer at this time is designed and based entirely on the simple philosophy that when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to quit digging. Our country has a massive problem with fiscal deficits today. Our budget is built around the simple concept of pay as you go. If we want to pass a tax cut, cut spending to make room for it or raise some other tax to keep it from going to the bottom-line deficit. In other words, we are suggesting taking the shovels away from Congress and the President. Our plan would cut the deficit in half in 2 years and put the budget on a path back towards budget surpluses in 2012 and balance in 2010. Our budget has $210 billion less debt over the next 5 years than the resolution reported by the Committee on the Budget. The Blue Dog budget includes the pay-as-you-go rules that were adopted by a bipartisan vote in the Senate, as well as enforceable limits on discretionary spending. The Blue Dog budget adopts the tough spending limits by adopting the President's overall spending levels, but reallocates funding to put more resources into veterans, education, health care, and other priorities, and keeps from reopening the farm bill and also providing assistance to small businesses, manufacturers, firemen and policemen, the first responders in the war on terrorism. We strongly support the President in the war on terrorism. Our budget provides the President with everything he requested for defense and homeland security and sets aside a reserve fund for additional funding for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as we did last year. Our budget provides tax relief for all taxpayers by extending the expansion of the 10 percent bracket, the marriage penalty relief, and the child tax credit. We also provide for immediate and permanent estate tax relief for small businesses, family farms and ranches. We offset the costs of extending tax relief, pay as you go, for middle- income families and pay for the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by asking those with incomes over $200,000 to have a little less of a tax cut until the costs of the war are paid and the budget is put back on a path towards balance. Most importantly, our budget would reduce the debt tax that all American families, as well as our children and grandchildren would have to pay, in order to pay interest on our national debt. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, only 2 percent of the small businesses are affected by the tremendous rhetoric that the gentleman from Iowa just put forward on taxes. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to my friend. I was getting my hopes up because he gave all the reasons why he should support the budget; but the idea of a slush fund, it is the same thing that is in the majority Budget Committee's report that comes before the House. We only say you can spend more if you pay for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, that is a total misrepresentation of our budget and the gentleman knows it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the chairman. The cuts in Medicare that he mentioned are the advertising dollars that are being spent to justify the Medicare prescription drug bill that I was told by the same chairman and the Budget Committee was going to cost $400 billion. I was misled as everyone else in this body was misled because the cost was $530 billion. That is the cuts we are proposing. You do not need to advertise false numbers, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. I yield to the chairman for a simple request. Does the Blue Dog budget reduce the deficit more than the chairman's budget? Yes or no? I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. STENHOLM. Okay, Mr. Chairman. He does not want to respond. I was just asking him because I really dislike the kind of rejoinders that we are getting into now because it is ``he said, you said, I said,'' and it means nothing. But since we are into this now, let me talk about the chairman's budget as it affects agriculture, both in mandatory and discretionary spending. And this is not about agriculture not being willing to take our share of the cuts, as the gentleman from Connecticut said yesterday. Agriculture has always been fiscally responsible and will continue to be. However, the Chairman's budget will result in a disproportionate amount of cuts from agriculture. Keep in mind that in order to keep agriculture at last year's spending level, the appropriators will have to cut $650 million out of the farm bill as they did in the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. If we assume that in the chairman's budget the discretionary cuts will be proportionately divided among the appropriation bills, then this number will rise another $1.6 billion. That is correct. That is the chairman's budget. And I want to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to read their own budget, what they are being asked to support today and how it is going to affect rural districts in conservation, water issues, rural development, environmental issues, research, because this is real. And I commend the chairman because he honestly and sincerely is trying to do what his party has asked him to do. And it is real. His budget is real in what he proposes to do, including increasing the deficit $260 billion over the next 5 years. That is real. But he does it openly and honestly as he is defining it. What I resent is his defining our budget as not being honest. His is honest. His will reopen the farm bill. Reopening the farm bill, which is what we will do under the reconciliation instructions that, if his budget passes, it will occur. And there are some on that side of the aisle and some on this side of the aisle that might want to do that. But I do not think a majority of this body want to go down that path. So we want to talk about numbers, and we want to go through the little game we have been playing. Let us go through that little game. This is not a game. In the agriculture function, this is real. The chairman is honest in bringing it to the floor and saying, this is what we will do if we pass their budget. Think about that before voting for this budget on final passage. Vote for the Blue Dog budget. It avoids that kind of a problem.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. The Blue Dog budget assumes that we need a change. The gentleman's budget and economic game plan that he has been so proud of since 2001 has given us the largest deficits in the history of this country. We have borrowed $1 trillion in the last 2\1/2\ years. We are going to borrow another $1 trillion in the next 1\1/2\ years, and yet he comes and says his numbers are better than our numbers. We simply propose a change, and it ought to be a bipartisan change and it ought to be one that adopts pay-as-you-go so that we get back on a fiscally responsible direction for this country. We thought we had a bipartisan support for that. It passed the Senate in a bipartisan way. What happened in this body? Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me just say in the function 050 defense, the gentleman was correct in the spreadsheet that he looked at that in the resolution, we do not cut defense. We had an error in the numbers. We could not cut defense. We adopt the President's numbers on defense. That is the way our resolution states. We also do not cut Medicare benefits for seniors by one dime. We use the CBO numbers for its prescription drug benefit, and all we say is if it turns out that that cuts, we are using the same numbers that the majority is saying. That is all. It is factual to say, though, that this will reopen the farm bill, because I know that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and I recognize that if you are instructed to reconcile $2.2 billion out of discretionary spending, that is tough to do. What are you going to cut out? The Farm Service Agency, $1.4 billion? Agricultural research, $1.2 billion? Conservation spending? Where are you going to go? It will reopen the farm bill. If the majority succeeds in passing their budget, then we will do so; and it will not be pretty. Everybody talks about taxes. We have been talking about the debt tax. In 2004, the average family will pay $4,391 in interest under the game plan that the chairman has just so eloquently defended. I have never heard anyone stand on this floor and defend losing jobs, as he just did. But $4,391 will go to $7,000 per year in a debt tax increase, and you cannot repeal that tax. We have borrowed $1 trillion in the last 2\1/2\ years. We are going to borrow another $1 trillion in the next year and a half following the game plan that the chairman has eloquently defended at the behest of his leadership in this House. We respectfully differ on this side of the aisle. We think it is time to quit digging. The budget plan that you have before you will not do it. The only one that will do that on the floor of the House today is the Blue Dog plan, and perhaps the Democratic alternative.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who brought up the farm bill. I want to remind my colleagues that we passed the farm bill within the budget that was set by the majority party. I am often reminded, particularly with my Texas colleague just speaking, of the words of Will Rogers when he said, It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much; it's them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem. Members talk about what the Committee on Agriculture was instructed to do under the budget: 1 percent. We have a 7 percent cut from that bloated agricultural budget this year because it is working. We are not spending $5 billion that we would have spent had we not changed the policy that a two-thirds majority on both sides of the aisle voted for. I want to make it clear to my colleagues, if you pass the Republican budget, you are going to reopen that farm bill, which the gentleman from Connecticut honestly wants to do, and I think probably my friend from Texas wants to do, reopen the farm bill, go back in and take another chunk of cuts out of it; and you heard me say I will do that with a budget that goes back to balance. But with a budget that increases the deficit as far as the eye can see, I do not see the percentage in that considering the harm we are going to do to the food production factories of this country, the family farms around this country. Where are we going to cut? Where are you going to tell us to cut? Are we going to cut out of crop insurance, or cut out of conservation, like we did last year, as the appropriators were instructed to find $647 billion in cuts? This year it will be that $647 billion plus another $1.1 billion. Are you going to cut the Farm Service Agency, agricultural research, Cooperative State Research, Education Extension Service, animal plants? Are you going to get into the farm bill, into the dairy direct payments? It is easy to stand up here and make these speeches, but when you have a budget that continues to borrow at the rate you are borrowing and stand here and say I am doing something, and then you have the guts to stand up and say to the Committee on Agriculture, you are the ones causing the problem, well, one-third of that side of the aisle and one- third of this side of the aisle agree on that, but two-thirds said, no, we have a food policy that is working for us. It is not a free shot. We are playing with real bullets now. This deficit is not anybody's imagination. When we propose the cuts, as you propose in your budget, and you propose to continuing borrowing at the rate you are doing, as you propose to increase the debt ceiling to over $8 trillion so we can continue to borrow and spend, which, as the gentleman from Kansas reminded Members, the Republicans are in control. For 20-something years of my career here, it has always been the Democrats' fault; but today the Republican Party is in charge, and if you want to pass the budget and enforce that budget and continue to borrow and spend, be my guest, but not with my vote.