Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond by saying the Blue Dogs were in exactly the same place 2 years ago that we are today; that is, we should fix Social Security and Medicare first, pay down the debt, and we should not obligate 100 percent of the projected surpluses on a yet-projected surplus into a tax cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. I would correct the record, Mr. Chairman. I know the gentleman did not intend to misspeak, but the Blue Dog budget provides for a 5.4 percent increase in the first year, an average of 3.7 percent over the 5 years. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. I would respond to the gentleman by saying the Blue Dog budget guarantees the numbers. The budget that is before us in the House today is very speculative, and depending on contingency funds that may or may not be there. These charts are irrelevant if the money is not there. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), the co-chair of the Blue Dog Budget Task Force.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago I read a quote from a gentleman across the aisle who wondered why some of us got so exercised about having a budget put in place first. He said everyone knows the budget does not really mean anything because Congress will do whatever we want later on anyway. The Blue Dogs rise today to insist that the budget should mean something. It should provide the blueprint which carries enough integrity, realism and authority to force us to pound out our priorities and keep us in line through the subsequent appropriation and reconciliation steps. That is why the Blue Dogs put together a plan we can live with for the next 5 years. It prioritizes removing the taxpayers' debt off our children's shoulders. It maximizes the tax cuts we can afford while remaining fiscally conservative. It reflects the fact that taxpayers do want some of their dollars invested in things like Social Security, Medicare, veterans, education, prescription drugs, and agriculture. Today, we offer an honest, balanced plan that we can live with, both practically and politically. Even more importantly, it is a budget our constituents can live with. We ask support for the Blue Dog budget alternative.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for yielding me this time, and the gentlewoman is totally correct to raise the question about the adequacy of the reserve fund. The resolution before us provides for a strategic reserve fund for agriculture, defense and other appropriate legislation. In addition, the contingency fund has other reserves for additional prescription drug spending, special education and emergencies. The contingency fund approximates the on-budget surplus, which is $750 billion for 10 years. To preserve Medicare, this fund is partitioned into a Medicare contingency fund of about $240 billion and a general contingency fund of about $515 billion. It is at this point that the year-by-year amounts available for agriculture, defense, veterans, education, health care and other priorities become more critical. Although there appears to be ample resources for the $515 billion over 10 years, in reality there is little room to accommodate additional resources for agriculture. In fiscal year 2005 and 2006, the general contingency fund has only $12 billion and $15 billion available. These amounts are barely sufficient to cover the $12 billion requested by agricultural groups as was stated, not to mention additional defense and other appropriate spending. Increased defense expenditures, additional prescription drug coverage and additional tax proposals severely limit funding beyond 2005. Let me say, Madam Chairman, this budget resolution as it pertains to agriculture literally bets the farm and ranch after this year that the projected surpluses are going to materialize. Madam Chairman, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look at the Democratic substitute and the Blue Dog budget to see what is really going to be necessary for agriculture and to vote for that. If Members vote for the resolution before us, you are literally betting the farm and ranch on a shaky projected surplus.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is very straightforward. It simply requires that we do what the law requires us to do, what any family or small business has to do, put in place a budget before we make decisions that will affect our Nation's finances for the next decade and beyond. This debate is not about whether we should cut taxes. Everyone in this body agrees that the American people deserve tax relief. The Blue Dogs have repeatedly called for the largest tax cut we can afford that fits within the context of a fiscally responsible long-term budget framework. Within an honest and responsible budget, we can eliminate the marriage penalty, provide estate tax relief for small businesses, family farmers and ranchers, and provide tax relief for every family across the Nation. I wanted to provide tax relief through cuts in income taxes, but I also want to provide for cuts in our taxes for our children and grandchildren by eliminating the debt burden we have placed on them and leaving them with Social Security and Medicare programs that are financially sound. But the folks I represent at home told me that their top priority for the surplus is paying down our national debt and strengthening Social Security and Medicare. They understand that the best tax cut we can give them is lower interest rates on their credit cards, car loans and mortgages by paying down the debt. Last week, the President came to this very Chamber and spoke to us about his plans for our Nation's budget. I found myself in substantial agreement with most of what he had to say. I support many of the goals he outlined in his speech, including debt reduction, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and tax relief for all Americans. I particularly appreciated his call for cooperation and civility. Those of us in the Blue Dog Coalition have expressed our desire to work with the President, and we have given him our pledge to be honest brokers in dealing with the issues before this Nation. I deeply regret that this bill is being rushed to a vote under a process that contradicts the spirit of bipartisanship that the President spoke about so eloquently last week. Many of us spent many years working extremely hard in and casting many tough votes to eliminate the deficit and put us in the position to pay down the debt. I for one do not wish to squander the opportunity and return to the era when deficit spending placed a tremendous drag on our economy and ran up 5 trillion 700 billion dollars of national debt that is still with us today. The budget blueprint the President submitted last week is the first step of the budget process. Now, those of us who were elected to represent our constituents in Congress have a responsibility and an obligation to thoroughly examine the details of the President's budget and have a full debate on the overall priorities as part of the regular congressional budget process before we vote on any individual elements of the plan. The President's plan is an important voice in this process, but it is not the only voice. There are a lot of questions about how the priorities the President identified in his budget will add up without borrowing from the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds. Likewise, many questions have been raised about what his budget means for other priorities, such as debt reduction, protecting Social Security and Medicare and deal with the needs in the areas of defense, education, health care prescription drugs, agriculture, and energy policy. Some of us are concerned about enacting a tax cut based on projected surpluses, especially since over 70 percent of the projected surpluses will not even materialize until 2007 and beyond. USA Today reported that the President's budget would slow down the path of debt reduction by almost $600 billion over the next several years. Our insistence that Congress act on a budget resolution before voting on tax or spending legislation is not an argument about process or arcane budget rules; rather, it is about acting responsibly to balance priorities important to our constituents. Before we enact a tax cut, the American people deserve to know what the tax cut means for other priorities that are important to them. I was one of the Democrats who supported President Reagan in 1981 when Congress passed a large tax cut before agreeing on the spending cuts to pay for the tax cut. The result was $4 trillion in national debt increase and increased spending of $600 billion in the 1980s alone on interest. We cannot afford to repeat the mistake of rushing to cut taxes before considering how they will fit within a fiscally responsible budget. I lived through that experience where we allowed ourselves to believe words that sounded too good to be true. It pains me to think that we have learned nothing from our mistakes. No family would make a major financial decision such as buying a new home without first sitting down and working out a budget to figure out whether they will be able to afford the mortgage and still meet household expenses and leave flexibility to deal with family emergencies in the future. We owe it to our constituents to follow that common sense approach to the Nation's budget by agreeing on a budget. Mr. Speaker, Americans have become cynical of government because they are tired of politicians telling them one thing and doing another. By putting a budget in place first, Congress can ensure that it maintains fiscal discipline.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I most certainly am in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the Speaker for his clarification.

Mr. STENHOLM. Further extending my parliamentary inquiry to make sure that I understand what the Speaker has said, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make adjustments to the budget without action of the House of Representatives regarding the budget for the fiscal year 2001 of which we are now operating under which is being used, I believe technically correct, to justify bringing this bill before the House today?

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Do I understand the Speaker to say that this rule is waiving this particular Federal law, or are there some technical definitions that we will hear in which technically that we are still within this law?

Mr. STENHOLM. So that I might understand, it is the decision of the Speaker that this bill that we will soon take up shall come to the floor of the House under a rule that waives technically all points of order? My opposition, I guess, to this if that is the Chair's ruling, this centers around the fact that I thought that we got away from technically defining words on January 20, but it seems that we are going to continue that in the House for a few more days.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, briefly continuing on my parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, under what rules of the House is the rule that we are about to consider being brought to the floor when Section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act says that until the concurrent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year has been agreed to, it shall not be in order in the House of Representatives, with respect to the first fiscal year covered by that resolution, or the Senate, with respect to any fiscal year covered by that resolution, to consider any bill, any bill or joint resolution, amendment or motion thereto, or conference report thereon that; one, first provides new budget authority for that fiscal year; two, first provides an increase or decrease in revenues during the fiscal year; three, provides an increase or decrease in the public debt limit to become effective during the fiscal year; and, four, in the Senate only, first provides new entitlement authority for that fiscal year? Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is, under what rule of the House are we bringing this rule and this resolution today before this body?

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STENHOLM. In light of the statement the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means made a moment ago, and which I agree he is technically correct regarding the budget, my parliamentary inquiry is, is the concurrent resolution on the budget that the House adopted last year still valid, even if the majority in this body voted last year to exceed the spending levels in that resolution by at least $33 billion in the current fiscal year alone?

Mr. STENHOLM. Further extending my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget filed a report adjusting the revenue level set in the budget resolution last year to make room for the bill before us today. Does the chairman of the Committee on the Budget have the authority to change the revenue and spending levels set by the budget resolution without a debate or vote in the full House of Representatives?