Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). Marketing of Violence to Children by Entertainment Industry

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for that comment. Again, in that area, he and I are going to find that we agree a heck of a lot more than we disagree. But I wish he could stick around for the remaining hour because I would love to have a good honest discussion about where we might differ on some of how we get to that point. But maybe next time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). Reasons for Economic Prosperity in America

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the shortages that we allowed to happen in the defense needs of this country have originated in this House of Representatives, not the President. We both agree to that. Therefore, my concern about the current budget implications today is that, when my colleagues base their entire budget on a tax cut, and the newest one now that they have proposed, the gentleman's leadership has proposed, not the gentleman, there is no money left. If we take 90 percent of the total unified budget and apply it to the debt, there is no money left this year to increase defense spending in those areas where the gentleman from California and I would agree. That is my problem. If my colleagues take it out 10 years, there is no money. Let me go back. The gentleman from California mentioned the Reagan years. I happen to be a Member that served here during that period of time. I happen to be a Democrat on this side of the aisle that helped pass much of the Reagan revolution. But I think it is important that we set in proper perspective, when we start comparing total outlays in spending as a percent of gross domestic product during the Reagan years was 21\1/2\ percent. It increased to 22 percent in the Bush years. It has dropped to 20 percent in the Clinton years, which the gentleman's side of the aisle had deserved some credit for bringing down the spending. But when one counts administrations, it is not correct to say that government has grown in the last 8 years. It has not. Federal employment has dropped from 2.1 million Federal employees during the Reagan years, went up to 2.2 million in the Bush years, and dropped to 1.8 million in the Clinton years. I do not say that in defense, because I am much more interested in the future than I am in the past. I rejoice in the fact that we now have a surplus, that we are, in fact, discussing how we shall spend the surplus. During my hour, we are going to talk about this surplus is fictional. We cannot spend it like it is real money. It is projected. But discretionary spending, defense, defense spending, let me make this point to bear out what the gentleman has been saying as regards to defense. The Johnson years, oh, how we have heard about those. Discretionary spending as a percent of gross domestic product was 12 percent. The Reagan years, it dropped to 9.5. The Bush years, it dropped to 8.5. The Clinton years, 6.8. Nondefense, though, 3.7. Johnson. Reagan, 3.5.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, would my friend yield for a minute? Any minute that I take from the gentleman, any minute I take I will be happy to give to the gentleman afterwards.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like first to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks as he has discussed the defense needs of this country and the needs that we need to follow through. I certainly want to join with him. But by the same token, I think it is important, and I say this now, anytime one starts pointing fingers, I was reminded that anytime one points one's finger, there are always three pointing back at one. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has been doing a lot of finger pointing at this side of the aisle, talking about liberal leadership.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, Presidents do not spend money. Congress appropriates.

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for his compliments. I do not want to interrupt the gentleman now, but I would sincerely say, whatever time I take, I hope the gentleman would stick around and use a part of my hour, because I think a little dialogue between the two of us might be helpful. I know the gentleman does not mean to misrepresent. He believes what he is saying, just as I would believe what we are saying. I think we could clear up the record a little bit if we have a dialogue. I will yield some time to the gentleman when my hour comes in a moment, and hope the gentleman will stick around.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I can yield from my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a group of men and women who, throughout the history of this great nation, have served valiantly during times of wars and peace. The U.S. Merchant Marine fleet and the people who crew it, are a critical component of the economic strength and national security of America. From the earliest days of the Revolutionary War, when Merchant ships carried goods to Colonial outposts, through recent operations in Yugoslavia, merchant sailors have sailed into harms way to provide support to the Armed Forces by carrying the equipment, supplies, and personnel necessary to maintain war efforts. Numerous members of the United States Merchant Marine have made the ultimate sacrifice to help secure peace and freedom. During World War II the Merchant Marine had the greatest percentage of lives lost of any military service, with the exception of the Marine Corps. Included in that loss were 142 cadet-midshipmen from the United States Merchant Marine Academy. There are Merchant Mariners and Merchant Marine Veterans all across this great nation, even in the land-locked 17th District of Texas, and those of us who live there are safer because of their service and dedication. The Merchant Marine's role in the defense of this nation is under-recognized. Few people realize that in Operation Desert Storm, over 95 percent of the equipment, goods, and ammunition used were carried to the theater by the American Merchant Marine. This resolution serves as a means to honor their service, and I join my colleagues in applauding Rep. Kuykendall's work to bring this matter before this Body today. I also would like to take this time to pay tribute to Representative Bateman, who was one of the biggest supporters of the American Merchant Marine. His passing is a great loss to this Body and this Nation. At a time the people of the United States are benefitting more than ever before from the sacrifices made by so many to secure peace and prosperity, it is highly appropriate to recognize the service of the men and women of the United States Merchant Marine. I urge your support of this resolution.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how quickly we dismiss the statements of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) regarding the trust funds and the desire of many of us to change the manner in which we have been addressing the trust funds. Today, again, we have a simple question; and I have a simple question to pose. If one believes that providing a tax cut as large as possible is more important than eliminating the national debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare, then vote to override the veto of this bill. However, if one agrees that eliminating the national debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare is more important than any new spending or tax cuts, then vote to sustain the veto. I am for marriage penalty relief. We could come to this floor this afternoon and in very short order develop a fiscally responsible compromise which would bring meaningful support and tax equity to millions of Americans. Sadly, we choose this morning to continue a charade. I continue to be amazed at the level of inconsistency in the leadership of this House reflected from one message of the day to the next. On one day this House loves to congratulate itself on its commitment to debt reduction. The next day it is tax relief for small businesses. Another day we swear our support for lockboxes for Social Security and Medicare and then we promise huge tax cuts not only for middle- and low-income married couples but we also sneak in wider tax brackets to benefit the higher-income folk. Now, I think most of these are worthy and, in fact, should be among our highest priorities; but it is just not possible to have ten different number one priorities. It takes leadership. The Blue Dogs looked at the whole picture early this year and realistically balanced each concern with the other. We decided that our number one priority should be eliminating our national debt so that we can meet our commitments to Social Security and Medicare in the future. We should talk about tax cuts after we have agreed on a long-term plan to set aside enough of the surpluses over the next 10 years to eliminate the debt and deal with the challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. I would congratulate my colleagues from the other side of the aisle for coming around to the Blue Dog position on debt reduction, at least in their rhetoric yesterday. Unfortunately, the leadership's conversion to the cause of debt reduction appears to have been a short-term plan of convenience and not a serious long-term commitment to paying off the debt. The fact that we are voting today on this fiscally inconsistent tax cut makes me seriously doubt the seriousness of the Republican leadership's rhetoric about debt reduction. If the leadership of this House were serious about debt reduction yesterday, they would not be coming to the floor today with this override. We should be working on a fiscally responsible tax cut. I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the veto so we can get to work on a fiscally responsible marriage tax penalty relief.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and I thank the gentleman for pointing out that the best tax cut that this Congress can give the American people is that which keeps interest rates down, something that gets overlooked in the rhetoric around here so often. The gentleman gave the numbers, I was using a little smaller number, a $50,000 home mortgage, a reduction of 1 percent in the interest is $500 per year. That is real money that working families would darned sure appreciate. By now, I would hope that folks have begun to realize some of the fallacies of those who suggest a $1,300,000,000,000 tax cut is what this economy needs. Review for just a moment as I think out loud, what has the Federal Reserve done I believe six times in the last year? Increased interest rates. Why have they done that? Concern of the Federal Reserve that the economy may be overheating and inflation may be taking off; one of the cruelest taxes that occurs, particularly to those who live on fixed incomes. Why do we have a tax cut? To stimulate the economy. If we should have a large immediate tax cut that stimulates the economy, why would we not suppose the Federal Reserve may take it away in interest rate increases? It is something that has bothered me a great deal, and it is one of those things that has influenced the Blue Dog budget and the proposal. Let me again as I close remind everyone that this Blue Dog framework that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and I have been talking about, and I am rather disappointed that we have not been joined by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle who have agreed with us, 33 voted with us earlier this year, in agreeing that this framework that would pay down the debt would be fiscally responsible on spending and tax cuts, and would be a pretty good plan. It is not too late. We still have 18 working days left now in the 106th Congress if we adjourn at our scheduled time. In order for us to get through with our work, we are going to have to find an agreement that can be supported by a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, and the President concurring. It is not a bad blueprint for us to be thinking about now. It is 50/ 25/25. We all agree we are not going to touch social security and Medicare trust funds. That is half of the $4.6 trillion. Everyone agrees to that. Why not set aside half of the remaining to pay down debt, and then let us, in a bipartisan way, decide how much we are going to spend on health care; on pharmaceutical drugs; on the defense needs of this country; on water, as it pertains to my district. The Speaker pro tempore has had some pretty severe disasters out in his part of the country. I have witnessed that and the tremendous devastation that has occurred to forests and ranchers and all. I suspect there are going to be some legitimate needs there where we probably are going to find some agreement. So let us stop this complete total partisan bickering and realize it is going to take some bipartisan action. Here, I want to make another comment about Social Security. Because if I had one prevailing reason for encouraging the President to veto the death tax bill that was presented to him, it was because of Social Security. I continue to say, as my colleagues have heard me say several times on the floor, I have two reasons for my vote today, and their names are Chase and Kohl, who are my wife Cindy's and my 5- and 3-year old grandsons. When they were born, the first one 5 years ago, I resolved that I did not want them to look back 65 years from that date and say, if only my granddad would have done what in his heart he knew he should have been doing when he was in the Congress, we would not be in the mess we are in today. That is kind of the guiding light, I guess, for me insisting that a backend loaded tax cut on the death tax that repeals it in 2010 at the cost of $50 billion at the exact same time baby boomers are retiring. That Congress, now I will not be here at that time, my body will not take this job that much longer, but there will be a Congress that will be there, and it is grossly fiscally irresponsible to pass on to future Congresses and to our grandchildren those unanswered questions of where they are going to get that revenue. I think we ought to first make the decisions here on Social Security and Medicare. Obviously we are not going to do that in the 106th Congress. It is going to take the 107th Congress to do that and a new administration. I look forward to working with them, hopefully, in a bipartisan way. Just as this year I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) who stood alone arguing some fiscal responsibility on the Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement Act that passed overwhelmingly. I voted with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). I appreciate the point he was making even though it did fall on deaf ears, because any time we can find some bipartisan consensus on spending additional money or cutting taxes, it is very popular, very difficult to stand in the way. But the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my colleague from the other side of the aisle, and I have worked on a Social Security reform bill that we know that is going to cost some money over the next 10 years to implement it. That is why I have said that, before we start spending surpluses that are not there, let us fix Social Security. Let us have that open, honest debate. Well, it will take us next year to do that unfortunately. Here a little bit of other history. Many times today I have heard that it was only after the majority changed in the House of Representatives that the budget got balanced. Well, I think that is taking a few liberties. I am perfectly willing and openly acknowledge the contribution of many of my friends on the other side of the aisle. But I think it is important for us from time to time when we start talking about budget to review some history on votes of the budget. Let us go back to 1991. Remember that one. That was the Bush budget, President Bush. Well, it passed, but only 37 Republicans voted for it. I happen to have voted for it because I thought it was the right thing to do. But President Bush paid dearly with it because he got unelected in 1992, and one of the big issues was the budget of 1991. Now let us go on to 1993. Remember that one. The Clinton budget. Well, I voted for parts of that and voted against parts of that, but I got the blame for all of that. In hindsight, the blame was not all that bad. But zero Republicans voted for that budget. It took all Democrats to vote for it. Then let us fast forward to 1997, the Balanced Budget Agreement in 1997 that many give credit for the current fiscal situation. Well, here again 187 Republicans voted for it. It took a few of us Democrats, we Democrats to vote for it, too. My point here is saying that we have always had, in most cases, bipartisan cooperation, sometimes bigger than others. But we seem to have wanted to get away from that. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that our colleagues that have been observing this today and perhaps others who may be a little bit puzzled maybe will have a few answers today of why some of us believe that the veto of the bill on the floor today was the right vote. We sustained it, just as some of us feel that the President's veto of the so-called marriage tax penalty is the right vote. I am one of those. I will say openly and honestly right now I will sustain that veto also. Why do I say that? First off, I agree that we should not have a penalty on the marriage. Any two men and women married should not be penalized for being married. But it does not take $292 billion to repeal the marriage tax penalty. Most economists and accountants will say, no matter how hard we try, we cannot eliminate the penalty, but we can do the best job we possibly can with $82 billion. That is in the Blue Dog budget. That is what we will support, but not $292 billion. I am saying this to alert, to just say to the leadership, if they insist, and I think they will, on continuing to have as the real centerpiece of their economic platform for November of a $1.3 trillion dollar tax cut, but they also believe that we have to increase defense spending and they also believe we have got to fix health care and they also believe we have got to take care of agriculture's problems and they also believe that we have got to fix Social Security. They cannot do all of those things unless they take a more fiscally responsible position. Mr. Speaker, that is why we take this hour today. I will say again so that there shall be no misunderstanding by anyone observing or interpreting the vote today. The alternative that the President would have signed and will still sign, as he has stated, would have exempted all small businesses, all small businesses, farmers and ranchers included, up to $4 million from even having to consider paying the death tax. What is wrong with that? Effective January 1, 2001, not 2010. If we really and truly want to deal with it in a fiscally responsible way, let us know that the partisan politics is over on this vote, let us roll up our sleeves, then let us see if we cannot put together some, as I said earlier, if the Democratic version is not perfect, let us roll up our sleeves and, for a change on the Committee on Ways and Means, work, Democrat and Republican, to make a better one. But let us make sure it fits within the budget restraints. To get my vote on any compromise, it cannot be a backend loaded tax cut for death taxes, for marriage tax penalty, for any other tax. It is fiscally irresponsible, in my humble opinion, for this Congress to pass tax cuts that explode in 2010 and afterwards. If we want to do it, do it now. Have that open debate. But do not, do not backend load without first coming to this floor with the Social Security reform bill. My colleagues will find that there will be bipartisan support, bipartisan support for a lot of the ideas kicking around as long as we are willing to openly and honestly pay for them. The bill that was vetoed today was not openly and honestly paid for. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I thank my colleagues for joining with me today, and we look forward to the continuing of this discussion next week and hopefully getting an agreement that will get 218 votes, 51 votes and a Presidential signature, ideally 435 and 100, but that will never happen, Mr. Speaker. But I suspect that we might find one that you and I will agree on.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank those making this period of time available today to further the discussion of the bill that was vetoed and then sustained earlier today. I would gather that anyone listening to the debate today was rather confused about what was in the bills or what was not in the bills or what the effect would be. But to do this, to set the stage for this, I think it is important for us to go back and to review the budget debates earlier this year. And I want to speak on behalf again of the Blue Dog budget, the Blue Dog Coalition, that proposed a budget that got 171 votes, a majority of the Democrats, and 33 Republicans, joined with us when we were debating. And we thought this year's budget debates should be built around a framework that would put our government on a path of retiring and entirely eliminating our public debt by 2010. We thought it was important to save 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. And we thought it important to allow a net tax cut, net tax cut of $387 billion over 10 years targeted to small businesses and middle-income families and make investments in priority programs of $387 billion over the same 10-year period. That became known as the 50/25/25 plan, taking any non-Social Security surpluses and taking 50 percent of that to pay down the debt. Because I have found in my district at home, and I notice the polls bear this out, that the American people by and large, by 70 percent plus, want to see the Congress fix Social Security for the future, because every one knows that beginning in 2010 we are going to have some difficult times delivering on our promises of Social Security particularly at the exact same time that the baby boomers will be retiring. No one disputes that. We felt like that that was important, but the majority party felt like the most important thing that they could do this year was to deliver a 1.3, 1.6, pick the number, $1 trillion tax cut of which every one agrees that many of those components are very, very, very popular. But the Blue Dogs have said first off when we hear people talk about the $4.6 trillion surplus, we know, and I hope the majority of the American people will soon know, those are projected surpluses. My colleague will hear in a moment from the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), in which he will show there are no surpluses, and he will be right, 100 percent right. When we disregard the trust funds, not only the Social Security, but Medicare and military and civil service retirement and now railroad retirement, there are no surpluses, but yet we keep hearing this. And then we hear the rhetoric that says $4.6 trillion, it is your money, and we are going to return a part of it to you. This kind of prompted me to say that even young school children know to complete the phase I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As common as that phrase is, we sometimes forget that. In the courthouse, it is rather important. I would wish that it was also important here in the U.S. House, because just this afternoon, as we have heard many times, the truth is, yes, the marriage tax penalty is unfair and in many cases two married individuals currently are taxed at a higher rate than they would be had they remained single, and that is not fair. It is true that family farms and ranchers and other small businesses somtimes have a difficult time paying the current death tax, that is true. But then let us talk about the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, the $4.6 trillion that we hear so much about, most of us understand and I hope the American people will soon understand, those are projected surpluses, not a single American family tonight will go out and spend projected income without a risk. If we get an extra bonus of $5,000 and we owe our bank $10,000, we do not go out and spend it on a vacation, unless we are willing to take a chance on digging our family into a deeper hole. Why should our country be different? That was the argument that many of us were making this afternoon as pertained to the so-called death tax. I personally feel very strongly that the bill the President vetoed should have been vetoed. In fact, I personally recommended that he do veto the bill, and here is why. When we look at the effect of a bill that is phased in, in 2010, 10 short years from today, that creates a hole in our budget of $50 billion that will expand over the next 10 years to $750 billion, without a plan of how we are going to be dealing with that or just passing on to future Congresses, really, we are passing it on to our grandchildren. It seemed to me that the first bill that ought to have come to the floor of the House should have been a Social Security reform bill. That should have been the first bill, followed quickly by the Medicare and Medicaid reform bill. Back home I have numerous hospitals that, unless we put together a balanced budget fix again this year, we will have to close their doors, and this is no exaggeration. Now, to those that talk about spending, if we do not wish to spend some additional money to keep rural hospitals and inner-city hospitals open, that is a fair position for anyone to take, and we will have that discussion. But that is the one we ought to have first, how do we provide for the minimal needs? As we heard the gentlewoman from Michigan talking about the pharmaceutical bill needs, all that is well established, but yet today we had a bill, the first one to be vetoed. And now I hope the message is sunk in to the leadership of the House, that the next bill also will be vetoed and will be sustained, because I suspect now that most people are beginning to see that the Blue Dogs might have had something right when they said let us not spend projected surpluses, let us use this opportunity in case these surpluses are real, let us pay down our debt. Let us not forget the $5.6 trillion that we still owe, $700 billion now which I was corrected earlier, because contrary to the rhetoric in this body, our debt is going up, not down. We are paying down publicly- held debt, which is good, but we are increasing the debt to our trust funds, which eventually will have to be paid. Let us not forget so easily as is so often done, and again this afternoon, let us not forgot that we have an unfunded liability in the Social Security trust fund as of today of $7.9 trillion which is going to have to be paid off. And that is why the Blue Dogs in our budget with the 50/25/25 of saying put maximum interest on paying down the debt, and let us equally divide increased spending on priority areas, and those are defense, veterans, education, health care and agriculture, that is it. Then let us deal with tax cuts. And that is where, before I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, (Mr. Taylor), I would make this point again, we would have thought this afternoon that the bill that was vetoed and then sustained was going to do great things for small businesses immediately. Well, if we listen carefully, we will understand that the reductions in the tax rate on estates under the death tax would not take effect until 2010. The bill that I supported, continue to support and believe that if we can somehow revive some bipartisan action in this action, I believe we can put together a tax component as it pertains to death taxes that would, in fact, repeal all death taxes on all estates up to $4 million immediately, effective January 1, 2001, to those family farms that I heard, and I have numerous of those in my own district. I want to make it very clear, unless your estate is more than $4 million the Democratic substitute that I and others and I hope will revive itself now that this one has been vetoed, that we can in fact have a $4 trillion exemption so no business, no individual family will ever have to worry about the death tax now. Now, the argument will be why do we not eliminate it just for everybody. Show me how we are going to fix the Social Security program. Show me how we are going to deal with these surpluses that are not real, which my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) will be showing absolutely that we are talking in terms of fictitious numbers. Show me how we are going to deal with the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid problems, then let us come and have an honest, open debate about how far we go on estate taxes. I think a $4 million exemption effective January 1 beats the heck out of an estate tax phased out in 2010. My colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) showed so eloquently earlier today the exact numbers of what we are talking about, and I think once that is understood and folks will get back off of the budget plans that are now showing are going nowhere, that we can come together, we can emphasize what the American people want, and that is pay down the debt, take care of Social Security, so it will be as good for our children and grandchildren as it is for those on it today. Take care of Medicare and Medicaid and pharmaceutical drug needs. Be prudent. Debate your spending, hold the spending down as much as you possibly can in a bipartisan way. And with those opening comments, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Mississippi for his contribution and would remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that this is the left side of the aisle speaking. These are the same voices that have been encouraging the current majority to take a look at these surpluses that everyone talks about and deal with them as they are. What the gentleman has just stated is a fact. It is not made up. The only response we sometimes hear from them is ``you Democrats were in charge for 40 years and you did it, so we are going to do it too.'' Well, that really does not make sense. I do not think the majority of the American people want us to continue making the same mistakes that others have made. That is why we in the Blue Dog Coalition have said all year, let us be fiscally responsible with our tax cuts and let us be fiscally responsible with any additional spending. Let us seek out a bipartisan agreement on all of the above. Again, that is why I want to, before I yield to my friend from East Texas (Mr. Turner), I want to again reiterate today's vote on the death tax. Most of us who opposed it and supported the President did so because we believe there is a better alternative. I would hope that now that the veto has been sustained and that the people will begin asking the question, what next, we will take a look at the Democratic alternative. Maybe it is not perfect, and I would be the first one to say it is not perfect. If it can be improved, let us work in a bipartisan way to improve it. To do what? To eliminate the unfair punitive penalties that occur on small businesses when the death of parents occurs. We agree to that. Our proposal was that we ought to exempt $4 million estates. Now, back home where I come from, those are not small businesses. But in the big picture they are small businesses. When you start picking a number, it is always difficult to do. Where is the $4 million coming from? It is something that would cost $22 billion over the next 10 years, rather than $105 billion. And the $4 million figure as proposed and supported by many of us on our side of the aisle would be signed by the President. In fact, I would not be surprised if it could not be improved. I keep hearing some say why not go to a $4 million exemption, and then tax all estates over and above that at the capital gains tax rate? I am for that, Mr. Speaker. I think that makes eminent good sense. I would like to see CBO and OMB seriously look at that and see if that would not be a better proposal. But the bill that was vetoed just cut it off in 2010. The Democratic substitute that I worked so hard on said let us not cut it off at 2010; let us continue the same cost into the next 10 years, at least until we fix Social Security for our children and grandchildren. That is why I have become such a bull dog on all programs, including the one that we just passed overwhelmingly, the Railroad Retirement Act that passed overwhelmingly awhile ago. I have no doubt it is a good bill. I was contacted by many of my constituents saying support it. A lot of it I could support. But the cost, getting into Social Security, reducing the retirement age precisely at the time that we are increasing the retirement age on Social Security, under current law, from 65 to 67, that is currently going on, I had some questions. I really questioned us taking out of context various bills, even the good ones, even those which I may in the end say I voted wrong today. But until we can put into context how we are going to deal with these non-surpluses, as we now have heard from the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), I really think we have to question what is fiscally responsible and what is not, and remind again when you hear about trust funds, when you hear about surpluses, they are projected. None of this is real. Most families do not spend projected surpluses without getting in trouble if they do not occur. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if we believe that repeal of the estate tax is more important than eliminating the national debt and protecting the integrity of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds, vote to override the veto of this bill. However, if we agree that eliminating the national debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare is a more important priority than any new spending or tax cuts, then vote to sustain this veto. Let me tell my colleagues what I am for. I am for estate tax relief for all estates up to $4 million effective January 1, 2001. The Democratic alternative that could have been signed into law would have immediately repealed the estate tax for all family-owned small businesses, farms, and ranches under $4 million and reduced rates on all other estates. It would provide immediate relief, instead of delaying relief for 9 years as the bill before us would do. Now, we hear a lot today about the $4.6 trillion surplus, but I would remind our colleagues in this body, these are just projections, and we know it. Budget projections that have changed repeatedly for the good over the past 3 years, they could just as easily change for the worse in the next 3 years. What happens then if we have already pocketed and spent these surpluses? It is easy to get applause in a town hall meeting by repeating the line ``you deserve the tax cut because the surplus is your money'' and that is the truth. But that line does not tell the whole truth. What it leaves out is that we still have a $5.6 trillion national debt, $7.9 trillion unfunded liability on Social Security and trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities in Medicare and other retirement programs. Those who justify massive tax cuts first by saying that the surplus belongs to the American people and should be returned to them forget to mention that these debts also belong to the American people. The cost of this bill before us that has been vetoed would keep growing and growing just at the time Social Security and Medicare began to face financial problems in 2010. Until we deal with the long-term financial problems of facing Social Security, we need to be fiscally responsible about any tax or spending bills that would place a greater burden on the budget in the next decade. If my friends on the other side of the aisle who have been making speeches as we already heard about small business owners and ranchers are serious about helping these folks, I hope they will take the President up on his offer to sign legislation that would provide immediate and fiscally responsible estate tax relief for small businesses and family farms. The folks I represent back home want a meaningful estate tax that is enacted into law, not more political speeches about whose fault it is that we did not accomplish anything. I want folks who have a farm and a ranch and a small business just like my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) to be able to leave the fruits of their labor to their children, but I do not want to leave future generations with a massive national debt and unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare because we want to do the politically popular thing in the year 2000.

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, according to the scores of Social Security by CBO, both of our plans require the very same dollars that the gentleman proposed to give back today in the long term. We would not disagree on that. I would just say, we are consistent. What the gentleman has said about our plan is correct, and what I have said about the Republican plan is correct. Let us not split hairs. We need that money. If the gentleman gives it back today, as he proposes, he is going to do damage to Medicare unless we somehow find the magic money somewhere else. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida was correct a moment ago when he said, this is all about who is going to get a tax cut, and that is precisely why I oppose both the substitute and, even more strongly, the base bill. Because the gentleman from Florida knows that the Archer-Shaw bill, for the future of Social Security, requires this $116 billion in order to fund it. Therefore, the tax cut they are perfectly willing to give back today will jeopardize the very plan my Republican colleagues have worked very hard for. The gentleman from Florida also knows that this gentleman is ready to reach out and to work with my colleagues on the other side on a meaningful Social Security fix. However, I would submit to my colleagues, and why I so strongly oppose this so-called tax cut, is because we are misleading the senior citizens of this country. Because no matter how many times the gentleman from Florida stands on the floor and says nothing in his bill will jeopardize Medicare, how can he say that, when the removal of that will require $14 trillion over the next 75 years to replace it. Now, the gentleman will say that he is going to replace it, and both bills replace it, but let me point out legislating general revenue transfers to the Medicare trust fund simply to tread water in terms of solvency is a dangerous precedent. I have joined with the gentleman from Florida on his side of the aisle for criticizing our President for proposing that, but now the gentleman brings a bill that transfers $4 billion more than the President has proposed, the gentleman criticizes him, but suddenly today, because this is being advertised as a tax cut, he is for it. Now, it is time for us to get serious about legislating. I wish we could do this, but not before political conventions. I understand that, because the short-term political appeal of this legislation is so great. But anyone that looks at the results and anyone that looks at the facts knows better. We remember the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) standing here just a moment ago and showing all of us, there is no surplus; when we consider all of the trust funds, there is no surplus. While I understand the short-term political appeal of this legislation, before you cast your vote I would ask my colleagues to consider the long-term ramifications this bill will have for Social Security and Medicare. Although we are currently in an era of surpluses, we should not forget that Medicare's financial future is troubled. The legislation before us would weaken, rather than strengthen Medicare financing by depriving the program of roughly $14 trillion in dedicated revenues over the next seventy-five years. This will not only threaten the viability of the Medicare program for future generations, but it will force an even greater squeeze on hospitals and other health care providers dependent upon Medicare payments. While the revenue loss to the Medicare trust fund is guaranteed, the budget surplus that is supposed to replace the lost revenues exists only in projections and faces many other competing demands. Once the projected surpluses run out, the Medicare trust fund will be left with a large hole unless a future Congress is willing to raise taxes or cut other programs. Legislating general revenue transfers to the Medicare Trust Fund simply to tread water in terms of solvency is a dangerous precedent that will significantly affect our ability to enact fiscally responsible Social Security and Medicare reform. I have joined with many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle criticizing the President for proposing general revenue transfers to prop up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds without reforming those programs. I would point out to my Republican colleagues that the general revenue transfers in this bill are nearly $4 trillion more than the total general revenue transfers to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds combined under the President's budget. We should be working to address the long-term financial problems facing Social Security and Medicare instead of voting on the tax cut of the week. Unfortunately, the majority's plan to use all of the surplus on tax cuts will take away the resources that we will need to finance Social Security reform plans such as the Archer-Shaw bill. I urge my colleagues to preserve the integrity of the Medicare program and vote against this bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4285, ``Texas National Forest Improvement Act of 1999.'' Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to sell or exchange nine parcels of land located in the state of Texas. The parcels listed in this legislation cost the National Forest Service thousands of dollars to maintain and would be better utilized if transferred to private ownership. More specifically Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to convey 57 acres of land located within the Sam Houston National Forest to the New Waverly Gulf Coast Trades Center. The trade center is doing a great job of training at-risk youth in various construction related occupations. The trade center is using the existing forest service work site as a job-training center, which provides these youth an opportunity to gain a useful skill. Mr. Speaker, this transfer is supported by the USDA and would comply with all environmental regulations as required by law. In addition, this transfer will be transacted at fair market value. I want to commend my colleague, Mr. Turner, for his work on this legislation. And I ask all of my colleagues to support passage. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, today I draw my colleagues' attention to the years of service that Mr. Frank Puckett has provided to the city of Abilene and I congratulate Frank upon his retirement from the Abilene Reporter-News, the largest newspaper in the 17th Congressional District where he was employed for 19 years. Both with the newspaper and in the community, Frank's leadership has been tireless and productive. It took Frank awhile to find his way to us out in West Texas. Having begun his life in Indiana, he journeyed through the wilderness of Ohio and Illinois before making it to the Promised Land of Abilene in 1981. We're glad he persevered. Frank joined the Reporter-News in 1981 as executive vice president and general manager. It took him only two years to be promoted to the position of president and then in 1995 he assumed the publisher's mantle. While his role with the newspaper has been significant, it may be that his involvement with the city of Abilene has been even more far- reaching. During the 1980s when the Texas economy presented numerous challenges to local residents, Frank was instrumental in providing the leadership necessary to move towards greater economic development and security. He chaired ACT-NOW, which successfully orchestrated Abilene's economic recovery. He also served on the boards of the Chamber of Commerce, the West Texas Rehabilitation Center, Abilene Industrial Foundation, Hendrick Home for Children, Tax Increment Financing District, Abilene Improvement Corp and Abilene Community Foundation. With Dyess Air Force Base fulfilling such a significant role in Abilene's economy, Frank took on a major responsibility when he became chairman of the Military Affairs Committee for Abilene's Chamber of Commerce. In that capacity, he has focused on helping the base secure new missions and update current facilities. With Frank, I share a fond hope that Dyess will one day house the Air Borne Laser program. In recognition of his contributions, Frank has been named Outstanding Citizen by both the Strategic Air Command and the Air Mobility Command. While all of us in Abilene join in wishing Frank the very best in his retirement from the newspaper, none of us expect or hope to see Frank's retirement from all of the other many activities which have made his presence in Abilene so valuable. We know that he has much yet to contribute and we look forward to our continued mutual efforts to strengthen our beloved community and District.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. STENHOLM. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I believe that, based on all precedents within the House concerning appropriations bills and limitation of spending thereon, the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) meets all of the criteria as established under due precedence of this House. It is not that complicated. It is simply saying that none of the funds may be made available under this act to implement any sanction imposed. It is something that the Parliamentarian has upheld, the Speaker has upheld many times, and I would urge the upholding and the ruling against this particular appealing of the Chair or the rule.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas. To those that have argued previously and will argue again that this is not the time and the place, I would agree. It would have been much better to have had this issue freely and openly debated on the floor of the House months ago. But having not done that, it would have been next better to have had it dealt with on the Agriculture appropriations bill; but it was not to be. No way now do I, though, endorse the type of government that has existed in Cuba for 5 decades. But it should be obvious to all that sanctions, unilaterally applied, do not work; cannot work. And the reason they cannot work, or as a previous speaker said today, what we ought to be doing is tightening the screws down on Mr. Castro. That is impossible to do when we have unilateral sanctions. When we unilaterally deny the sale of food and medicine to the Cuban people from the United States and our ``friends'' from Canada, from Europe, from Asia, from all over the world sell to that market, who are we kidding when we say we are hurting anyone other than the people of Cuba, who still like Americans; and producers in America, who otherwise would have the opportunity to compete for those sales? Sanctions do not work unilaterally applied. How many years is it going to take for this body to understand they cannot possibly work if they are unilaterally applied? If they are multilaterally applied, in which all countries of the world decide this is what we should do, whether it be to any country of the world, then we have a chance. Tonight we have a clear shot, up and down, for every Member of this body to express themselves as to whether or not we should lift the sanctions on Cuba on food and medicine. That is what this vote is about.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ross Wilson, former manager of the Southwestern Peanut Growers' Association. Widely regarded as the Nation's most knowledgeable person on the subject of the U.S. peanut industry, Ross has retired after spending the last 44 years of his life working for the betterment of the American farmer. Ross is a native of Brownwood, Texas and a graduate of Daniel Baker College and Southwest Texas State University. He began his career as a teacher and a coach in Gorman, Texas where he eventually served as principal and superintendent. In 1956, Ross was hired as the manager of the Southwestern Peanut Growers' Association where he oversaw the administration of the peanut program in the Southwest. In addition to serving on numerous boards and committees, he chaired the National Peanut Council Board of Directors, the Peanut Administrative Committee, and the Southwest Peanut Research and Education Advisory Committee. In 1973, the Texas Agricultural Agents Association gave him their Man of the Year in Agriculture award, and in 1974, the Progressive Farmer magazine named him Man of the Year in Texas agriculture. Ross has been active in civic affairs, helping to organize the Gorman Chamber of Commerce and serving as Gorman's mayor. He also served as chairman of the Upper Leon River Municipal Water District.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 728, the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000. This bill amends the Watershed Protection and Flood Control Protection Act, also known as P.L. 566 program, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide financial assistance to eligible local organizations to cover a portion of the total cost for the rehabilitation of structural measures originally constructed as part of the Department of Agriculture's USDA water resource project. Under current law, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Natural Resources Conservation Service, is authorized to provide technical and financial assistance to local organizations in planning and carrying out small watershed projects for flood protection, agriculture and water management, recreation, municipal and industrial water supply, and wildlife enhancement. Many of the 10,000-plus dams built under this program are reaching the end of their 50-year design life and are in need of rehabilitation. In fact, some now pose a threat to public health and safety. During the Committee on Agriculture's markup of this legislation, I offered an amendment to protect the privacy of information provided to USDA by the farmers and ranchers participating in the Department's voluntary programs or receiving technical assistance. My amendment, which was accepted by the committee, was designed to protect the trust established between the USDA and America's farmers and ranchers resulting in the high level of participation we currently enjoy in our voluntary conservation programs. When landowners come in on a voluntary basis to work on their local NRCS, Farm Service Agency, or conservation district office to implement conservation measures on their farms and ranches, they need to be assured that the information they provide remains confidential. Concerns have been raised that if this information was transferred to other agencies or entities, it would lose its confidential nature and could be made public. The provision I offered would not have prevented other Federal agencies from collecting data under their own statutory authority. It would merely protect from disclosure to other Federal regulatory entities the confidential information provided to USDA, local conservation districts, or RC&D councils by a farmer, rancher, or landowner who has participated in the USDA conservation program. Without this protection, the billions of dollars in technical and financial assistance spent every year by the taxpayers to help the Nation's landowners protect our soil and water resources could be jeopardized because of the unwillingness of producers to participate in our voluntary programs. In short, my amendment would have ensured that our voluntary, incentive-based programs are kept separate from the regulatory efforts of other agencies. If Members doubt the callous disregard that some Federal agencies have for the American farmer, rancher, and the average citizen in general, look no further than EPA's persistence with the total maximum daily load (TMDL) regulations. After a dozen congressional hearings, 35,000 written comments, and clear intent from Congress via the military construction conference report that the proposed TMDL regulations needed to be withdrawn and thoroughly re-examined, the EPA persisted in their policy to put forth these tainted regulations. We need to send a strong message that information provided on a voluntary basis for purposes of receiving assistance from USDA should remain confidential to all parties working in cooperation with USDA. While it is unfortunate that this could not be accomplished here today on this worthy bill, this issue must be addressed by Congress. I want to applaud and thank my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), for his hard work in working to draft and pass this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 728. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.