Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to the Boehlert amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose any efforts to delete provisions which provide access to the Federal courts for property owners pursuing takings claims against local governments. Currently, property owners do not have the option of directly pursuing a fifth amendment claim in Federal court. They must exhaust all possible State and local administrative remedies first, which is an expensive and time consuming process that may leave owners in administrative limbo for years. On average, it takes 8 to 10 years for property owners to get a hearing on facts of their cases. That is just not right. I am a strong advocate of the traditional and historic rights and responsibilities of State and local governments. I support the position that decisions affecting local communities are best made at the local level. However, individual private property owners seem to have no recourse in land-use disputes currently. Federal involvement is outlined in H.R. 2372 and constitutionally is needed to protect their rights. I want to make sure individual property owners are heard regardless of whether there disagreement is with local, State or Federal governments. The Boehlert amendment would gut significant protections when the taking was made by State and local governments. The base bill should be left intact to remedy this situation by defining issue when a government's agency decision is final so that owners do not encounter an infinite cycle of appeals. The bill does not change the way local, State, or Federal agencies resolve disputes with property owners. H.R. 2372 is not targeted at local government, nor does it take away control of local zoning decisions from local officials. If anything, it is targeted at Federal courts for wasting time and money by delaying consideration of these very important cases. By simply providing clearer language for Federal courts on when a final agency action has taken place, the courts have no reason not to hear the case on its merits. Furthermore, H.R. 2372 does not permit Federal courts to get involved in the land use decision-making process, nor does it change the way agencies resolve disputes. Property owners can get into Federal court only after local government has reached a final decision. A final decision is reached only after the property owner makes a series of applications and appeals through the local planning and zoning process. The legislation requires a property owner to pursue only Federal constitutional issues in Federal court, a function our Federal court system has always performed. H.R. 2372 does not give the Federal judiciary any more or less power than it currently has. The Federal contract now has and always has had the responsibility to review the constitutionality of actions taken by all levels of government. Property owners do not want centralized authority over land-use decisions. Indeed, that is more often the position of those opposed to property rights legislation. H.R. 2372 neither defines for a court when an unconstitutional taking has occurred, nor does it weaken any environmental statute. While I have a great deal of respect for the advocates of the substitute, the Boehlert amendment is far more sweeping and has a far greater effect than acknowledged by its sponsors. This amendment would not only render the bill useless but also set back property rights protections for the current already challenged status. This amendment protects the rights of the bureaucracy over the rights of the individual. This reform is simply about fairness. For the sake of property owners, I hope H.R. 2372 will become law. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Boehlert amendment, pass H.R. 2372 ensuring meaningful access to Federal courts for Americans whose Federal constitutional rights may have been violated.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank him for bringing up this valid Unfunded Mandate point of order. Earlier today, we voted on a rule that waived the 1974 budget rule saying that we should have a budget before we pass a tax cut. I voted against that rule because I believe that we ought to live by the very rules that we pass in this House. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has correctly pointed out what happened 5 years ago. It is important that we consider the costs when we are imposing on local governments, as well as small business men and women, it is important that we recognize that cost and that it is an unfunded mandate when we vote a cost without providing the money to pay for it. I remember so well the speeches that were made on this legislation 5 years ago. This problem could have been addressed earlier today by the DeMint- Stenholm State flexibility proposal. The approach in the DeMint- Stenholm amendment would have given States flexibility to debate the minimum wage as part of an overall policy to deal with poverty, low- income families, and welfare reform. I would much rather do it that way than the way in which we are proposing to do it today. Some States may choose to have a lower minimum wage but offset this with State assistance to low-income families for health care, child care, job training, education or other programs. States may decide that it may be better to target assistance to low-income families in need through State programs instead of a minimum-wage increase. Some States may decide that the lower cost of living in their State make a lower minimum wage reasonable. Other States may decide that a higher cost of living justifies a higher minimum wage. States are in the best position to make these judgments. These decisions should be made in a public debate in the State legislatures where these trade-offs can be debated, not on the floor of the House tonight. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote to sustain this point of order and let us live by those bills that we pass.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 111th Engineer Battalion, based in Abilene, Texas. This group of soldiers has been mobilized to serve our Nation in Bosnia to enforce provisions of the Dayton Peace Accords. I include for the Record a copy of a resolution that I offered the Battalion as they prepared to leave for Bosnia. I know all of my colleagues would join me in wishing these men and women our best wishes and hopes for a successful mission and a safe return home to their families. Resolution Whereas, The 111th Engineer Battalion has been mobilized to serve our nation in Bosnia; and Whereas, Their mission will serve to enforce the provisions of the Dayton Peace Accords, as well as, to serve as representatives of the United States to many citizens abroad; and Whereas, The soldiers who serve in the 111th Engineer Battalion, based in Abilene, Texas, represent communities from across the Big Country and this Nation with great pride and distinction; and Whereas, Not only have these brave individuals made tremendous sacrifices to serve their nation, but so have their families and employers; and Whereas, We understand the growing unrest in our world today and the importance our military plays in the world scene, be it Resolved, That I, Charles W. Stenholm, as Congressman for the 17th District of Texas, do officially recognize and extend my best wishes to the 111th Engineer Battalion, their successful mission, and their safe return home, and present this flag flown over the United States Capitol as a symbol of my pride in these distinguished military personnel. Charles W. Stenholm, Member of Congress.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker was right. Not all of us are happy with this rule. I believe it deals fairly with the minimum wage question. But I continue to not understand why the majority party continues to refuse to allow a substitute tax bill when there are sufficient Members on both sides of the aisle who I believe would like our version better than the version that is put before us. But here again, the fundamental question is why not allow a simple vote? Why not allow the package put together by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) to have the opportunity to have the will of the House worked? The bill that we will be voting on today continues the fiscal irresponsible pattern of legislation coming from the majority side that, once again, will squander our national surplus and our opportunity to deal with Social Security and Medicare. This, when one adds up this $122 billion unpaid for, will amount to something over $400 billion now voted by the House and by the Senate in spending the surplus that is not yet real. The tax bill that this rule will allow is the latest in the series of tax bills that will drain the projected budget surplus drip by drip without regard for the consequences. If we pass this bill today, it will be fiscally reckless for this body to continue to rush down this path of passing tax cuts and spending bills without a road map. Why do we continue to casually waive the budget rules? Why do we just continue to come to this floor of the House without first bringing a road map so we can deal with how we are going to spend money and cut taxes this year? The tax bill before us is simply a political document that will never become law. We know this. It appears the majority wants a political issue rather than dealing with the estates of family farmers and small businessmen and women. If my colleagues are truly concerned about estate tax relief, which I am and have been, I very much appreciate what could have been an opportunity to vote on an immediate exemption exclusion of $4 million estates immediately. But, yet, the bill that we have before us pays more attention to estates over $10 million. I do not understand this. The President has promised that he will sign into law the Democratic tax package. The fact the leadership will not allow the House to vote on this amendment suggests they are more interested in keeping a political issue, which I fail to understand, than they are on actually providing tax relief to small businesses. This rule is unfair to our children and grandchildren who will face the consequences of our fiscal irresponsibility if this bill should become law, which it will not. What I do not understand is why we never allow the House of Representatives to work our will so that we might send something to the President that the President will actually sign. Mr. Speaker, I ask that simple question. Why not let the House be the House?

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I need to remind my colleague from Arizona that it is the House's responsibility to deal with the House's business. The gentleman from Mississippi was talking about what we do, not what the President does, and that needs to be taken into account. What we are about to do today is add-to. When we add up all of the tax cuts that have now been proposed by the majority in the House and the Senate, it is $500 billion. This is money that is saying our debt continues to go up and the risk to Social Security increases with every bill that is passed like the one before us today. Mr. Speaker, we do not with small businesses any favors or family farmers any favors by enacting a tax cut which brings them minimal relief, minimal relief at the same time it undermines the fiscal discipline that has produced the longest economic expansion period in the history of our country. The Democratic alternative would provide an immediate $4 million exclusion for estate tax that would exempt more than 90 percent of the family farms from paying any estate tax at all. I would welcome the opportunity today on this floor to debate between the bill of the majority and the bill of the minority on a line-by-line basis. Then the rhetoric would stop, I say to my friend from Arizona, and we could have an honest discussion. Why would you not permit an honest discussion of these issues? Why do you pass over the fact that the statement of the gentleman from Mississippi was 100 percent true? Why do you continue to do that with rhetoric? Why is it so important to continue to discuss tax cuts when we ought to be debating the very issues that we seem to all be agreed to. Vote against this bill and vote for the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this fiscally irresponsible tax bill and in strong support of the Democratic alternative which will be offered as the motion to recommit. I said on many occasions that the tax bill that this body passed and the President vetoed last year was the most fiscally irresponsible legislation in my 21 years in Congress. We are well on our way to replicating that dubious achievement this year. If we pass this bill today, the total cost of tax bills passed by the House or the Senate to date will total nearly $500 billion when the interest costs are taken into account. More costly tax bills stand in line to follow. The tax bill before us is simply a political document that never will become law. Worse, this tax bill put forward by the Majority does not provide meaningful relief from the estate taxes for small businesses and farmers. It may be a good deal for wealthy individuals with estates of $10 million or more, but it doesn't do much for the vast majority of small businesses and family farmers in my district. We do small businesses, family farmers and ranchers no favor by enacting a tax cut which brings them minimal relief at the same time it undermines the fiscal discipline which has produced the longest economic expansion period in the history of our country. The Democratic alternative developed by Charlie Rangel and John Tanner is a fiscally responsible tax proposal which would provide real and meaningful tax relief for the largest number of small businesses. Incidentally, it also could be signed into law. The Democratic alternative would provide an immediate $4 million exclusion for the estate tax which would exempt more than 90% of family owned farms from paying any estate tax at all. There are 193,024 family farmers in the State of Texas with farms valued at less than 5 million dollars who would benefit from the estate tax relief in the Democratic substitute. The bill before us does very little for these family farms. The Democratic alternative contains several other important tax breaks for small businesses that I have long supported. It immediately implements the 100% deduction of health insurance for the self- employed. It makes permanent both the Work Opportunity Credit and the Welfare-to-Work Credit for businesses which hire disadvantaged workers. It increases the business meal deduction and the first-year 100% deduction for investment expenses. And, importantly, the Democratic alternative will maintain the fiscal discipline that has produced our strong economy because the tax cuts in the Democratic alternative are paid for. No wonder the small business community has been so impressed with this proposal. The President has promised that he will sign into law the Democratic tax package. The fact that the leadership left only a procedural vote to indicate support of this amendment raises the question of what is more important to them: actually providing tax relief to small businesses or keeping a political issue alive. Vote against this bill and vote for the motion to recommit so we can pass business tax relief which genuinely has been targeted towards small businesses and which can be signed into law.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments. I would also point out that we have a $5.6 trillion debt that needs to be addressed. That is what we are talking about on this side. Pay down the debt first, and then let us deal with tax cuts and other priorities.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, and I will conclude by this observation. I would very muchly associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida. He has been a true worker in this endeavor. He points out some of the pitfalls and the difficulties that we would have this year. But by the same token, and I will have more to say about this in the 2 hours of general debate, I would hope that everybody would recognize that there are those on this side of the aisle that are prepared to reach out in the hands of friendship and bipartisan work to deal with the tough questions and that how we handle this debate politically on both sides of the aisle can again do the kind of damage to the process of which I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) do not wish to see happen. So I would hope that we could cushion and caution and soften our words as we debate today about this issue since there is unanimous agreement that this issue needs to happen. It is the context in which we bring this reservation up. Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I encourage Members to unanimously support this very good piece of legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object. I strongly support repeal of the Social Security earnings limit and do not intend to unduly delay action on this bill. In fact, repeal of the earnings limit has been part of the comprehensive Social Security reform legislation that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I have introduced in the last two Congresses. However, I rise in reservation to this unanimous consent request to express my disappointment that we are considering legislation that will increase Social Security benefits without even discussing the long-term financial challenges facing Social Security. We should have spent the last year working on a comprehensive plan to strengthen Social Security that would restore solvency, reduce unfunded liabilities, give workers greater control of their retirement income, improve the safety net, and reward work; but we, both the President and Congress, have ignored our opportunity to deal with the long-term challenges facing Social Security. If we are going to pass this legislation increasing costs outside of the context of reform, we should at least be talking about ways to bring more attention to the challenges that remain. The gentleman from Arizona and I had hoped to offer an amendment regarding the recent recommendations of the Social Security advisory board which would more directly confront Congress with the true scope of Social Security's financing challenges. Our amendment would have made a modest step in advancing the discussion about the challenges facing Social Security among policymakers and the public. Last November, the Social Security Advisory Board Technical Panel released a report outlining a variety of recommendations about how we measure the problems facing the Social Security trust fund, how we talk about those problems and criteria for evaluating reform proposals. Our amendment would have taken the good work of the Technical Panel to encourage a more honest and accurate discussion of the challenges facing Social Security. The Technical Panel report suggested that the challenges facing Social Security may be even greater than reported. While there has been a lot of discussion about the possibility that a stronger economy will reduce the shortfalls facing Social Security, the Technical Panel warned us that the projected shortfall could increase as life expectancy increases faster than expected. The panel also made a variety of useful recommendations about additional information that should be included in the trustees' report regarding the size of the unfunded liability and other information illustrating the nature of the problem in greater detail. This type of information would improve the quality of the Social Security debate tremendously, because the facts of the debate would be more clearly established and stated. Finally, the panel made several recommendations for the evaluation of Social Security reform proposals. In particular the panel suggested that we should look beyond simply determining whether or not a plan restores trust fund solvency and consider other criteria that are as important as, if not more important than restoring solvency over the 75-year period such as the effect on the rest of the budget. Unfortunately, today we do not have time to discuss any of these issues. I would respectfully encourage the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the subcommittee on Social Security to conduct hearings on these recommendations so that they may receive the attention they deserve. I also hope the Social Security trustees seriously consider all of the recommendations of the technical panel. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) with whom I have worked closely on strengthening the future of Social Security, a Member who has been a leading advocate of comprehensive Social Security reform legislation that repeals the earnings limit and ensures that Social Security will be strong for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with Social Security.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and encourage all of my colleagues to support it. I have been a strong supporter of legislation to repeal the earnings limit for several years. In fact, repeal of the earnings limit was part of the comprehensive Social Security reform package that I introduced, along with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in 1998. Our legislation though contained several other provisions that rewarded individuals who continued to work after retirement age. While I am disappointed that Congress is not acting on the other parts of our proposal to strengthen Social Security, I am very pleased that this part of our legislation is going to be enacted today. Senior citizens are some of our most valued workers, contributing a wealth of experience that can be gained only through years of dedicated service. For this reason, I agree wholeheartedly with the statement of former Senator Bentsen that discouraging seniors citizen from working is ``like keeping your best hitters on the bench.'' Our society should not overlook the contribution of our seniors. Unfortunately, press reports suggest that some in the Republican party intend to use this vote on the earnings limit for partisan political purposes. I would ask a reconsideration of those who choose to do that. As Democrats who have worked in a bipartisan way on comprehensive Social Security reform, I am extremely disappointed by these reports and hope that the Republican leadership will repudiate these tactics. The suggestions that Democrats have opposed repeal of the Social Security earnings limit are completely false. Democrats have supported repeal of the Social Security earnings limit as part of a comprehensive legislation that keeps Social Security strong for those currently retired or close to it, and everyone knows that. In fact, the reported line of criticism being suggested by some actually raises questions about their commitment to the integrity of the Social Security trust fund. The votes being cited to criticize Democrats were on bills that would have raided the Social Security surplus to fund tax cuts, in which repeal of the earnings limit was one small part. Seniors will not be fooled by a political effort to use the issue of repealing the Social Security earnings limit to advocate a tax cut that would have been funded by raiding the Social Security surplus. The past votes that some Republicans seek to exploit for political purposes were on bills that would have threatened the integrity of the Social Security trust fund. The $80 billion tax cut considered by the House in the fall of 1998 that included repeal of the Social Security earnings limit would have been funded entirely out of the Social Security surplus. The Republican leadership at that time did not even allow a vote on the Stenholm-Neumann amendment, which provided that the tax cuts could not be funded with a Social Security surplus. Likewise, the tax bill considered by the House last year would have dipped into the Social Security surplus by more than $70 billion and would have exploded in costs at the same time the Social Security system is projected to begin running shortfalls. Let us use today to set aside the bipartisanship. Let us recognize that today we are reaching out in a bipartisan way in order to do what everyone has agreed. While I am critical of the fact we are not doing more, we accept this today, let us put the partisanship aside. Let us continue to reach out for a long-term solution for Social Security.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I use this time to respond to my good friend from Texas by saying he made my point, my point in asking that we have a budget before we discuss tax cuts or spending increases. It is the fact that the gentleman's very own bill, which he mentioned, will cost $933 billion over the next 10 years. It would seem to me, and this is the point I was trying to make, that if we truly are concerned about the future of Social Security, and you have a good program, you have one of which I would not talk down about, but it costs money, and what the gentleman is saying with the bill today is that it takes priority over the Social Security bill that the gentleman is advocating. My point is we should have that debate in the context of priorities.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a little troubled by some of the rhetoric I have been hearing from my colleagues today that the Democratic substitute does nothing, objecting to the language of the Democratic substitute and the motion to recommit making tax relief contingent on a plan to eliminate the debt and strengthening Social Security and Medicare. The simple truth is if the Republican leadership is serious about eliminating the publicly held debt and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, the contingency language in the Democratic substitute will not prevent marriage tax penalty relief from becoming a reality, or, to my friend from Alabama, having it retroactively applied to this year, if we can fit it within a budget. The Speaker and the President have both expressed a desire to pay off our national debt by 2013. There are several plans to strengthen Social Security; Kolbe-Stenholm, that of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), and Archer- Shaw. We could deal with these challenges if the leadership of the House was willing to work together and make it a priority. The only explanation for any objection to the contingency language in the Democratic substitute is that the Republican leadership is not serious about establishing a plan to eliminate the publicly held debt or strengthening Social Security and Medicare. That has to be the conclusion. Now, I want to provide relief to the 57,000 couples in the 17th Congressional District of Texas who pay a marriage tax penalty, but I also care about the 67,000 households in my district who depend upon Social Security, the 253,000 workers paying into the Social Security system now who are counting on us to make sure Social Security and Medicare are there for them when they retire, the 250,000 children under age 18 who will face a crushing debt burden and higher taxes if we do not take action now to deal with Social Security and Medicare and paying off our national debt, and the 107,000 families in my district I care about with home mortgages who I believe will benefit from lower interest rates if we reduce our national debt. I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman as a fellow Texan, why we continue to have all of the debate about a tax cut instead of bringing the Social Security question to the floor of the House and debating it. I do not understand why we spent all of last year debating a $1 trillion tax cut that did get vetoed, as it should have gotten vetoed, and, here we go again, same argument, same debate, same mischaracterization of everybody's position regarding the issue. Why can we not deal openly and honestly with Social Security? As the gentleman knows, I will gladly join with him, as I have joined with others on his side of the aisle, to work on this question. But the only conclusion I come to is that is not on the agenda for this year, that we have to wait. That is why getting a budget first makes a lot more sense to the American people.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I will probably not take all the time, but I do take this time to rise strongly in opposition to this rule. And I do so for the same basic reasons that I have done it year in and year out for several years now, and which I used to be joined in by my colleagues on the majority side of the aisle, those who would stand up and decry the Committee on the Budget waiving the budget rules and bringing a bill to the floor of the House before we followed the regular order. Now, I have not changed. I still feel very strongly that we should follow the regular order at this day and age, in this time, on this day. I ask my friends on the other side why they have, particularly the last two speakers that I have served with for a long time, why have they changed their minds and suddenly are perfectly willing to bring a rule to the floor of the House that waives all budget considerations? I will let them answer that question. We should establish a comprehensive fiscally responsible budget framework before considering tax legislation or any other spending legislation. We can and should cut taxes. There is no question about that, especially the marriage tax. But I would submit that if we are going to stand in the well of the House and talk all day about fixing the marriage tax, that we should confine our comments to the bill. Fix the marriage tax penalty, which is about half of the bill before us today by the majority. Fix that. I agree to that. Who could possibly stand on the floor of the House and say they could be opposed to that? But any tax cut must be in the context of a fiscally responsible budget, I believe, and we believe, the Blue Dogs believe, that eliminates the publicly-held debt, strengthens Social Security and Medicare, and addresses other priorities, such as defense. I happen to believe the best tax cut we can give married couples is paying down the debt. That is a personal belief that I have. We can argue and debate that, hopefully in the context of future legislation. The budget framework put forward by the Blue Dogs last year demonstrated how tax relief can be provided within a fiscally responsible budget. The Republican leadership bill that is brought forward today has failed to put forward a comprehensive plan of how that plan will fit within the overall framework that we need to be talking about. The majority knows it and I know it. And no explanation can move that away from the very fact that it is. It is fiscally irresponsible, in my opinion, to vote on legislation cutting taxes before we know whether or not there will be sufficient revenue to cut those taxes. It is important for all of us to remember that these tax cuts we are talking about today will occur in the second 5 years. Who among us can predict accurately what is going to be the surplus, the economic conditions in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010? Who can predict that? Have we stopped for a moment to ask ourselves what will happen if these projections turn out to be wrong and we have spent them? Our children and grandchildren will pay dearly for our mistakes. Is it too much to ask of the majority today to live under the rules that we have talked about living under for as long as the 21 years I have been here; to have the open and honest debate of the actual numbers and fit it within a framework that will keep the economic recovery that we are now in year 7 of, the longest single standing economic recovery period or expansion period in the history of our country? I say again, speaking on the rule, that I cannot believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who I have stood with so many times when we asked to live by the budget rules, that today they are saying it is okay to waive them so that we can have a Valentine present. I do not believe it. I cannot believe. I hope my colleagues will change their minds, vote down the rule, send it back to the Committee on Ways and Means, let the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the Committee on the Budget bring forth a budget, let us have a debate on this, and then fit the marriage tax penalty relief into that confines, which the Blue Dogs believe can be done; and I know everybody in this body believes can be done.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding. I thank the gentleman for taking the time today and giving the Blue Dog Democrats and perhaps others hopefully on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to engage in this debate before we get into the political debate of tomorrow. It is difficult to be perceived as being against a tax cut, particularly when you agree that the marriage tax penalty should be corrected, but it is not difficult to oppose a bill that not only corrects the marriage tax penalty, but also gives a marriage bonus to those that are currently getting a bonus. I am sure in the limited time tomorrow we will not have an opportunity to fully debate that. But the real purpose for which we take this hour today is to talk about why paying down the debt should be the number one priority for this Congress and why some of us on this side of the aisle feel so strongly that not following the regular order of determining the priorities of the Congress is a drastic fiscal mistake. We now have the opportunity to pay down this debt we all talk about if, and this is one of the big questions, if the projected surpluses materialize. That is why we and the Blue Dogs have been saying now for quite some time, let us not spend projected surpluses as if they are real money, surpluses that may or may not occur in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Is that conservatism? Are we going to go back to the same fiscal policies that we followed in the 1980s when we borrowed over $3 trillion pursuing a fiscal policy that did not quite work out, unless you perceive that borrowing money by the Federal Government, taking that money away from the private sector, is a good investment. We do not. We happen to believe that paying down the debt and the fact we are now going to be in our third year of seeing our Federal debt, that which the Federal Government is borrowing, be reduced, is good fiscal policy and has contributed to the fact that we now have the longest single economic recovery period in the history of our country, economic expansion; that unemployment has now hit and gone below 4 percent; that we have more people working in America than at any other time in the history of our country. We think that is the result of something that we have been doing right, and that is that we have been living since 1993 on a course that has gotten us into the position now of actually being able to debate what we are going to do with projected surpluses. To those that suggest that we start out with a tax cut, you are in fact saying that the plight of rural hospitals is of secondary importance. The fact that we have over 250 representatives from rural communities all over the United States in Washington as I speak begging us for additional investment in hospital care in rural areas, that that is of secondary importance, and we are not even going to discuss that until later, and perhaps never get there, because when you make the argument of a $1.3 trillion tax cut, you will find there is no money available in the budget for additional investments and needed investments in any program. To those that suggest that we should start with a tax cut, you are saying that we do not need to invest any further in the defense capabilities of this country, that there is no need for us to do anything but freeze defense spending for the next 10 years at current levels; and anyone knows what that will do to the ability of the United States to defend ourselves against what might happen in the next 10 years. Why are we not debating what the priority investments should be, along with how we shall deal with our Tax Code? It is no secret we have real problems in rural America in the farming sector. The President has proposed putting into the budget debate an investment, an expenditure, if you please, of taxpayer dollars. Should that not be debated, and if the majority of this House feels that is not a prudent investment, have it voted down? Should that not be considered in the budget process? When we talk about spending, we have those that believe, and sincerely believe, that all Federal spending almost is a waste of money. They choose to close their eyes to the fact that we, the Congress, in a bipartisan way, over the last 4, 5 or 6 years, have done a pretty darn good job of restraining discretionary spending, a pretty darn good job. Can we do better? Yes. Should we do better? Absolutely. But can we do it in a way in which we say we are going to freeze and continue cutting in the area of defense, of agriculture, of health care? I repeat, if we cannot find it in our wisdom to recognize that rural areas are being substantially penalized to the degree that we will have to close hospital after hospital after hospital unless we can find it in our hearts and in our judgment to increase spending in this area, then we have to be prepared to suffer the consequences. Now, I do not think that is what the Congress will do. But my question is simply this to the leadership: Why did you choose to come with the first bill of the year with a tax cut that is politically attractive? Why do you choose to ignore the budget process that we all say we believe in and in which we will make tough choices? Why do you short circuit it? Unless it is, as some suggest, a politically attractive way to get to the $1 trillion tax cut without anybody ever having to face up to the realities of what we are talking about. I think we are making a bad mistake when we do that. As Members before me have said today, I support dealing with the intricacies of the Tax Code that penalize couples for being married. That is ridiculous. Let us fix that part. But let us do it in the context of a total budget approach that will not jeopardize the economic recovery we have been in now for the last 7 years and that we have all indications we can continue if we just manage to stay on course. I want to repeat again, and then I will yield back: we are in danger, if we choose this road that we start tomorrow, we are in danger of saying to our rural communities, I am sorry, but there is no money left for investment in health care in rural communities. That is the choice. We are in danger of saying there is no money to be used for increasing the durability and longevity and strength of the defenses of this country, which most of us agree need to be done. Why are we not having that argument first? That is our question. We will have a motion that will provide that we can do everything everybody talks about, if it is possible to do it within the context of a budget and tough decisions. One of those needs to be being a little conservative with our first bill out of the box. I hope that we will find a way to do that. One last point: I get real concerned when I see the leadership of the House of Representatives continuing, continuing, to ignore the need of making changes in our Social Security system and our Medicare system for the future. I get very concerned when I continue to hear the finger pointing of the House of Representatives leadership towards the administration for not dealing with Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, when everyone knows we can do it in the House of Representatives. Why have we not spent one second talking about the future needs of Social Security in the context of the budget? If we are going to fix Social Security for the future, so our children and grandchildren will have the same benefits that we have today, those on it today, it is going to require some changes; and it is going to require changes that will cause the need of utilizing some of those surplus dollars we are talking about. But we completely ignore that, and I think that is a shame.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just kind of sum up what I think I have heard, listening to my colleagues today. What we are suggesting is that the conservative thing for this House to do is to make the tough calls on the budget and put the tax cut within the confines of what we can agree in a bipartisan way is the blueprint that will allow our economy to continue to grow as it has in the past 7 years. We get very, very disturbed when we hear people talking about, well, there is a $4 trillion surplus, and we can give one-fourth of it back to the people because it is the people's money. If only that were true. Well, it is true, it is the people's money, but it is not true that we have $1 trillion to give back, unless we are prepared to say to the 55- to 65-year-olds today, ``We are going to let you worry about your social security check when it starts coming due in 2014. We are going to let you worry and let your children and grandchildren worry even more about it.'' The problem that many of us have with expenditures, spending programs, of which we are also opposed to the creation of new entitlement programs, very strongly. We should not create new spending programs, any more than we should have massive tax cuts at this time, based on projected surpluses. Here are the numbers, a $4 trillion surplus. $2 trillion of it is social security. Fine. Put that towards paying down the debt. That leaves $2 trillion, of which some say $1 trillion should go to a tax cut. All right, let us assume for a moment, fine, let us do it. Then that means that all of the rest of government is basically going to live at current expenditure levels for the next 10 years. Here is where I have a problem, because in the defense area alone, I do not believe for one second we can prepare this country for the future threats that we are going to have if we assume that defense is going to stay frozen at year 2000 levels. I do not believe that. But that is what we are going to get into if we follow this path. How much can we cut back from the current baseline without allowing for inflation? That is something we ought to debate, and we ought to do it program by program. Let us assume for a minute that we let defense grow at the rate of inflation. There are many of us that say that in itself is not enough because we have allowed it to trend downward too long and too far. But these are the kinds of discussions we ought to have first. We ought to deal with the spinach part of the budget before we deal with the dessert. In the area of health care, this is one thing that is getting overlooked. How many of us hear from our senior citizens and others, young people, young working families who are having a difficult time paying their pharmaceutical bills? Are we going to ignore that very real need in this budget? I think not. I have mentioned agriculture. We can mention veterans. We can mention the rural hospitals again. Why are we not doing the regular process? Why are we coming in with what someone perceives is a politically attractive marriage tax penalty, with which we all agree, we ought to deal with the penalty, but why should we also give, under the name of a marriage penalty, a bonus to those who are already getting a bonus in the tax cut because they are married, also? I do not understand the logic of that. I have a little rule of thumb: If it meets the West Texas tractor seat commonsense approach, then it is a pretty good idea. That does not meet anybody's commonsense approach, it defies logic, except somebody has decided it is a good political move. I hope the House will show the wisdom of saying, we are for it. Let us put this bill back into the committee. Let the committee deal with it in the confines of the overall budget. Let us deal with a marriage tax penalty, but let us not do so at the expense of social security and Medicare, because that is the basic, fundamental choice we will make. Once we start down the path of saying that we are going to have tax cuts, one piece of cake at a time, and if we have 12 cuts or 10 cuts or 5 cuts at $182 billion, we are soon going to spend $1 trillion. When we get into that, we are going to see that we will have jeopardized the very thing all of us have said we will never do, and that is jeopardized the future of social security and the Medicare program. That is the fundamental choice that we will make if we start down this politically attractive path without dealing with the tough decisions that we need to make, and we can make in a very bipartisan way.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on this side. I would just conclude by thanking the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) for their work on this piece of legislation, and I urge our colleagues to support it.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1733, the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability Act. This legislation is designed to ease the current burdens on interstate transactions in the food stamp program. In 1996, Congress amended the Food Stamp Act by requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to consider a cost-effective alternative to the use of food stamp coupons in order to reduce the cost of coupon redemption. The EBT system was developed. The switch to EBT cards is clearly a practical policy objective. Unfortunately, there is a lack of uniformity among State EBT systems and this negatively affects the delivery of assistance to food stamp recipients, many of whom lose benefits when they travel from State to State. For example, the different EBT designs of Texas and Oklahoma limit a Texas food stamp participants's choice by preventing shopping in other States where the EBT system designs and procedures are not uniform. This was not the case under the previous inefficient coupon system. S. 1733 addresses the uniformity issue in a practical and accountable manner. Specifically, it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to adopt a uniform national standard of interoperability and portability that is used by a majority of State agencies. At the present time a majority of States are using a standard referred to as ``QUEST.'' This was developed by the National Automated Clearing House Association EBT Council which includes State food stamp program administrators, retailers, and food and nutrition officials. Mr. Speaker, under S. 1733, the Secretary of Agriculture will be allowed to modify the QUEST rules in order to solve future problems. This discretionary authority is important to my State of Texas for a couple of reasons. Texas operates the Nation's largest EBT system for food stamps, benefitting 1.5 million Texas recipients or 635,000 households per month. The real challenge for Texas is the search for a replacement of its full service EBT contract in a market with limited competition and increased pricing, lower levels of service and less State customization. In order to remedy the lack of competition in the EBT market, Texas will serve as its own prime EBT contractor while issuing various subcontracts for specific EBT services, including the interoperability and portability components. This method will give Texas and other States a better chance of delivering uninterrupted, timely, and accurate food stamp benefits in a cost-effective manner. The bill's language in section 4(a) accommodates these concerns by requiring the Secretary to use the QUEST rules as a starting point and permitting necessary changes to those rules as the dictates of the food stamp program require. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation sets an annual cap of $500,000 to pay for the switching and settling charges associated with interstate food stamp purchases. This cost issue has been the cause of some disagreement. The States were correct in their belief that the Food and Nutrition Service should pay for all of the costs associated with interstate transactions. We should not, however, set a precedent suggesting that the Federal Government will pay for every new technology advancement used by retailers who participate in the food stamp program. National uniformity among State food stamp systems will mean that program participants will no longer encounter problems with the use of their EBT cards beyond the borders of the issuing State. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a great deal of Texas pride to recognize an outstanding individual, Gordon Wood of Brownwood, Texas. In today's edition of the Dallas Morning News, the newspaper named Coach Wood, the ``Coach of the Century'' as part of its 100 Years of Texas High School Football series. I can think of no one more deserving. Coach Wood not only led and inspired many young people during his career but also brought great achievements to several Texas communities. ``Coach'' was an important figure during the formative years of my life, and he has remained so. Early in his career, he coached in my hometown of Stamford. He led our team to two State championships, and I am proud to have been part of his early success. He went on to lead the Brownwood Lions to seven State championships and won a total of 405 games in his 43-year career. Coach Wood is a legend in Texas not only for his coaching but for the way he has led his life. To me, that puts him in the Ranks of Tom Landry, Bear Bryant and Joe Paterno. I wish to include in the Record a copy of the article that ran this morning in the Dallas Morning News. This honor is a great tribute to Coach Wood and his wife, Katharine, and I know there are many folks who join me in sending them congratulations and best wishes. [From the Dallas Morning News, Nov. 17, 1999] Always in the Game--Football, Gordon Wood Style, Still Absorbs Coach of Century (Kevin Sherrington) Brownwood, Texas.--Gordon Wood wears hearing aids in both ears. He had a triple bypass in 1990, and five years ago a stroke punched a few holes in his memory. He's working on his third artificial hip. He's diabetic. A faint white web of scars runs wild over his mottled face, the vestiges of 13 skin tumors. This is what can happen to you if you live 85 years. He can't play golf because of the bad left hip. He won't play checkers anymore because that's what he was doing when the world started spinning, and he walked into a restroom and couldn't find his way out. A stroke, the doctors told him. A woman came to get him in the restroom and asked him to step back with his right foot. He tried to comply but stepped forward instead, right into the toilet. Checkers was fun, and he was good at it, but it's not worth it if it reminds him of that. So now the only hobby he has left is football. This is what can happen to you if you coach 43 years. Or maybe this is what happens if you're Gordon Wood, the greatest coach in the history of Texas high school football. A Dallas Morning News panel of college coaches and sports writers chose Wood over a group that included Waco's Paul Tyson, who won four state championships in the 1920s, and Abilene's Chuck Moser, who won 49 consecutive games. Joe Golding got some consideration at Wichita Falls, as did Amarillo's Blair Cherry. Wood wasn't a hard choice, though. He won nine state championships, two at Stamford and seven at Brownwood, which in the 40 years before he arrived had won only a single district title. He won 405 games overall, which was more than anyone else in the nation when he retired in 1985 at 71. But, if you're looking for numbers to define Wood's greatness, you must know that he is the only coach to win 100 games in three different decades, and the only coach who won state titles in three decades, as well. Those numbers indicate that he never lost his enthusiasm for the game, never thought he knew so much that he couldn't learn more, never won so much that he got enough of it. Not when he retired 14 years ago. Not even now. The numbers say a lot about Gordon Wood. But, if you really want to know why he was so great, you only have to go to a game with him. He is better-looking in person than in photographs. Pictures can't capture his vitality or regal posture, his warmth, his habit of extending both hands to someone in greeting, or his habit of holding on to the hand of a young person while he's talking to him. In most pictures, he looks almost sad, or, at best, blank. They couldn't be less telling. Pictures can't show the balletic movement of a curious, inquisitive mind. He is sitting in the press box of the stadium named after him, talking about his offense between bites of a ham sandwich. Did you always run the Wing-T? ``I have since the war,'' Wood says. He means World War II. He put in the offense at the counsel of Clyde ``Bulldog'' Turner, once called the toughest football player ever. But it was Turner's old college coach, Warren Woodson, who invented the offense, the same one he used at Hardin-Simmons and New Mexico State and Arizona, and in the process was the only coach ever to produce the nation's top rusher four years in a row. ``Warren Woodson was one of the greatest offensive coaches that ever was,'' Wood says. ``Cocky little devil, too. He watched us one time and came up to me afterward and said, `Coach, don't tell anybody you run our offense. You did such a lousy job.' ``Yeah, he was the best offensive coach I ever saw.'' He takes a bit out of his sandwich. ``Sorriest defensive coach, too.'' Warren Woodson is dead. So is Bulldog Turner. They are great names lost to a younger generation that wouldn't know a Wing-T offense from a wingtip shoe. Wood knew Turner and Woodson, and he knows Darrell Royal, who calls Wood ``one of the all-time great football coaches, regardless of the level.'' He is a friend of Bum Phillips, who calls Wood the best coach he knows. Bear Bryant told Wood's son, Jim, that, had he stayed at Texas A&M, ``I would have given your dad a heck of a run for the best coach in Texas.'' Wood knows Bill Parcells. Maybe you remember the story that came out a couple of years ago, when Parcells took over as coach of the New York Jets after going to Super Bowls with two different organizations. Parcells told reporters about the time he coached linebackers for Texas Tech in the 1970s. They had 20 spring practices, and at more than a dozen, he saw the same leathery old man in a maroon cap with a ``B'' on it. Parcells introduced himself and asked the old man where he was from. ``A little town down the road here,'' the man said. ``Outside Lubbock?'' Parcells asked. ``No, a little further.'' ``How far is it?'' ``Well, it's 2\1/2\ hours one way.'' Wood drove five hours a day to watch Tech's linebackers. He drove every day for two weeks to learn something from a coach half his age. Parcells said Wood had as much influence on him as Halas, Lombardi, Noll or Landry, and he thinks about him every summer when training camp starts, thinks about the old man with more than 300 wins ``driving five hours a day to find out something.'' Wood has gone farther than that. Every year, for 43 years, he has traveled around the country to the American Football Coaches Association meeting. He has lectured at coaching clinics in 18 states, most of them more than once. He spoke in Tennessee last summer. He went to Canada three times, in the summers of 1967, '70 and '71. He was guest coach for the CFL's Winnipeg Blue Bombers, coached by a man named Jim Spavitol, who played at Oklahoma State and first met Wood in the Navy. After one of his summer trips north, Katharine, his wife of 56 years, asked him what it was like working with professional players. ``They're just overgrown boys,'' he said. He only had a few players who went on to play professional football. The best probably was Lawrence Elkins, the Baylor receiver, his career ruined by injuries in the NFL. The best set was the three Southall brothers--Si, Terry and Shae--all quarterbacks, the sons of his long-time assistant, Morris Southall. Southall helped run the offense. In the Wing-T, the Lions flipped the offensive line to double their number of plays and simplify blocking assignments. Wood told Royal about it in 1960, when Royal invited him on a trip to New York. Royal used the flip-flop in 1963, when he won his first national championship. ``We ran more formations than most teams run plays,'' Wood says. ``We'd run 36, 39, 42 plays a week in practice, and the second team got just as many reps as the first team.'' And, always, the rules were the same. ``Kid makes a mistake in practice,'' Wood says, ``we run it over again.'' Wood hates mistakes. He made a point in his career of making players believe in themselves. He won a state championship his first season at Brownwood, in 1960. He says that, if you severely criticize a player at practice, you have to make sure you do something to build him up again. But it is his obsessive perfectionism that drives him. He watches anxiously from a press box cubicle as the Lions play host to Joshua, a heavy underdog. He talks until a play starts and then stops talking until it's over. If the play is a success for Brownwood, he might say nothing, most likely picking up his speech where he left off. If the play favors Joshua, it might give him fits. Like, say, a 10-yard burst on a trap play by Joshua. ``You go back to our state championship teams,'' he says, irritated, ``and see how many zeroes it has there for what the other teams scored.'' He is up from his press box seat, talking to someone about how in the world Joshua can be moving the ball at all when he suddenly realizes that the Joshua band is playing. ``Did they score?'' he asks, incredulous. Forty-one-yard field goal, someone says. Makes it 21-3, Brownwood. ``Gaw-dang,'' Wood says. He settles down and goes back to talking about offense. He got plays everywhere. He'd see something in a college game on Saturday afternoon and put it in the game plan Sunday night. He has spoken at so many clinics that most of what he says seems as if he were reading it off the walls of a locker room. On a coach who wouldn't leave his team for a week: ``If you can't leave for four days, you've got a poor group of assistant coaches. And if you leave for four days, the kids will listen to you more when you come back.'' On the variety of offenses available: ``It doesn't make a dang what you line up in; it's what you do after you get there.'' On his coaching philosophy: ``It's not the big things that beat you; it's a million little things.'' The little things might surprise you. He watched a coach in practice one day and noticed that, on every offensive play, he put the ball down on a yard line. Wood couldn't believe it. How often does that happen in a game? Move the ball around, he told them. Make the players look to see where the ball is, and maybe they won't draw foolish penalties for lining up offsides. His assistants knew what he wanted. Southall, the only assistant over elected president of the Texas High School Coaches Association, worked for him 31 of his last 38 years in coaching. Southall left him only a couple of times, once to be head coach at Winters after Wood left from Stamford, where he won state championships in 1955 and '56. ``If I'd had him at Stamford . . .'' Wood says of Southall and stops in mid-sentence when a ball bounces off a Brownwood receiver and into the hands of a Joshua defensive back. ``That's two balls they've dropped,'' he says. He shakes his head. ``If I'd had him at Stamford,'' he says again, ``I'd have won three state championships there. No doubt. He was the best quarterback coach in the state.'' He thinks about the interception again and winces. ``That kills me when they do things like that,'' he says. He sees mistakes everywhere. He watches the Cowboys every Sunday. He is a friend and ``great fan'' of Tom Landry, a reluctant admirer of the impersonal Jimmy Johnson and a defender of Barry Switzer. But he is amazed at what happens on a professional football field. He cites a play in a recent game where Emmitt Smith fumbled on a pitch. ``You know why they fumbled and lost it?'' he asks. ``Damn poor coaching, that's what.'' He says he thought about writing Cowboys coach Chan Gailey and telling him so. Wood is big on writing letters. They appear occasionally in The News and the Abilene Reporter- News, mostly defending teachers of U.S. Rep. Charles Stenholm, a former all-state end for Wood at Stamford. Sometimes he just writes to correct mistakes of any nature. He'd write Gailey, he says, but he's not sure it would do any good. He pulls out a sheet of paper and diagrams his trademark play, the power pitch. Any team that wanted to beat his, he says, first had to stop the power pitch. They'd run it 20 times a game and never fumble. Here's why the Cowboys fumble, he says, whether it's Tony Dorsett or Emmitt Smith: Coaches teach the running back to run at an angle toward the line of scrimmage before taking the pitch. Wood says they should have backs run parallel with the line, which would better allow them to catch the pitch, then square their shoulders before they hit the hole. But wouldn't the Cowboys argue that a back gets to the hole faster if he runs at an angle? ``Might be quicker to the hole,'' Wood says tersely, his eyes returning to the field, ``but you aren't gonna get to the hole with the ball.'' He stares straight ahead. ``Just a fundamental mistake,'' he mutters. ``S'all there is to it.'' Asked his favorite college coaches, he immediately cites Texas Tech's Spike Dykes and Texas' Mack Brown. He is intrigued by Oklahoma's comeback under Bob Stoops, he's impressed by Kansas State Bill Snyder, and he's a great friend of Florida State's Bobby Bowden. In his 1992 book, ``Gordon Wood's Game Plan to Winning Football'', he lists 36 coaches who have contributed to his beliefs, ranging from former assistants to Bo Schembechler, W.T. Staple, Gene Stallings and a high school coach from Ohio named Bron Bacevich. Wood's education in football seems funny, considering how he started. His father was a farmer outside Abilene who didn't believe a man needed much in the way of schooling. ``If you get to third grade and can read and write,'' A.V. Wood told his eight children, ``you're wasting your time going to college. You'll just be a teacher or preacher, and you'll starve.'' Gordon Wood was the only one of A.V.s four sons to earn a high school diploma. He went on to Hardin-Simmons and never starved. But he didn't get rich, either. The most he ever made coaching and teaching, he says, was $42,000. He had an offer in the '50s to be an assistant coach at Texas Tech, but he didn't like the travel required in recruiting. He and Katharine, who reared a son and daughter, live in a little three-bedroom house just two blocks from the high school, the same place they've lived since the early '60s, two doors down from Southhall. The day that Wood retired, he fulfilled a promise to himself when he bought a luxury car and the best golf cart he could find. He drove the car into the garage, and Katharine told him it was nice. She also told him she'd never ride in it. ``There are too many hungry people in this town,'' she told her husband. So he took the car back. He listens to Katharine, as long as she's not trying to send in a couple of new plays. He says he probably would have coached one more year, but she insisted that he retire, and he reluctantly agreed. ``It was time for me to quit,'' he says. He sounds sincere. But he still has a radio program on Thursday evenings to talk about high school football, still has coffee with friends to talk about it. He watches it on television, reads about it in newspapers, visits coaches and players. And, nearly every week, he goes to a game. ``I enjoy watching,'' he says. ``I really do.'' Most of the time, anyway. With five minutes left in the Joshua game, he gets up to leave the press box and beat the rush. Brownwood is up, 35-6, and sitting on Joshua's goal line. At one of the exits, he says to hold up a second. ``Let's see if they score,'' he says. As if on cue, a Brownwood player is flagged for illegal motion. ``Aw, crap,'' Wood says, and turns for the parking lot. Mistakes kill him, and always did. ``I'd die if we had two or three penalties a game,'' he says. Mistakes kill him, but he says he didn't make one by staying at Brownwood all those years. Katharine had put it in perspective earlier. ``You take Tom Landry and Spike Dykes and Grant Teaff and Hayden Fry,'' she said. ``They're all great coaches, but they were all just kids who played high school football in Texas.'' And Gordon Wood was a Texas high school football coach, the best ever, his peers say. Even an old perfectionist couldn't beat that. ``I wouldn't change anything,'' he says softly, sitting in his driveway in his sensible sedan. ``No.''

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today that will give the President an important tool to control spending by identifying low priority and wasteful spending that can be eliminated. The legislation I am introducing today, known as modified line item veto or expedited rescission legislation, would strengthen the ability of Presidents to identify and eliminate low-priority budget items with the support of a majority in Congress. Under this legislation the President would be able to single out individual items in tax or spending legislation and send a rescission package to Congress. The President would have the option of earmarking savings from proposed rescissions to deficit reduction by proposing that the discretionary spending caps be reduced by the amount of the rescissions. Congress would be required to vote up or down on the package under an expedited procedure. Members could offer motions to remove individual items from the package by majority vote if their motion was supported by fifty members. The spending items would be eliminated or the tax item would be repealed if a majority of Congress approves the rescission package. If the rescission bill is defeated in either House the funds for any proposed rescission would be spent or the tax item would take effect. This legislation embodies an idea which many Members, both Democrats and Republicans, have worked on for several years. Dan Quayle first introduced expedited rescission legislation in 1985. Tom Carper and Dick Armey did yeomen's work in pushing this legislation for several years. On the Democratic side, Tim Johnson, Dan Glickman, Tim Penny and L.F. Payne were particularly effective advocates of this legislation for years. Numerous Republicans, including Lynn Martin, Bill Frenzel, Gerald Solomon, Harris Fawell and others made meaningful contributions to expedited rescission legislation as it has developed. Thanks to the efforts of these and other members, the House overwhelmingly passed expedited rescission legislation in the 102nd Congress. In the 103rd Congress, John Spratt and Butler Derrick worked with me to refine the legislation. This revised legislation was passed by the House in 1993. In 1994, Representatives John Kasich and Tim Penny joined the effort and helped pass a strengthened version of this legislation. Since then, Representatives Bob Wise, Rob Andrews and others have advocated this approach. Today, I am joined by David Minge, Rob Andrews, Collin Peterson, Marion Berry, Max Sandlin, Ralph Hall and Allen Boyd in introducing this legislation. We have heard a lot of talk about eliminating waste and pork barrel spending, but little serious action to actually eliminate pork barrel spending. In fact, the appropriations bills passed by the House includes hundreds of earmarks for spending items that were not requested by the administration and have not been subject to hearings or review. Senator John McCain has identified more than $14 billion of spending items buried in appropriations bills that have not been subjected to the proper review. Other private organizations have identified even more earmarked spending in the appropriations bills passed by Congress which they believe can be eliminated. Instead of subjecting these spending items buried in the appropriations bills to scrutiny, the Majority has proposed an across the board spending that would cut good programs just as much as we cut low priority and wasteful programs. Forcing votes on individual items in tax and spending bills will bring a little more accountability to the budget process. I hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are serious about controlling spending and eliminating wasteful spending and special interest tax breaks that cannot withstand public scrutiny, will join me in cosponsoring this legislation. Summary of Expedited Rescission Legislation The legislation would amend the Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974 to require Congress to consider Presidential rescissions of appropriations or tax items by a majority vote. The President could propose to cut or eliminate individual spending items in appropriations bills or to repeal targeted tax breaks (tax breaks which benefit a particular taxpayer or class of taxpayers, except benefits based on demographic conditions). The President would be required to submit proposed rescissions of tax items within ten days of signing the tax bill. Proposed rescissions of spending items could be submitted at any time during the fiscal year. The President could propose that the discretionary spending limits be reduced by the amount of the rescissions, but would not be required to do so. Within ten legislative days after the President sends a rescission package to Congress, a vote shall be taken on the rescission bill in the House. The bill may not be amended on the floor, except that 50 House members can request a vote on a motion to strike an individual rescission from the package. If the President's rescission package is approved by a simple majority of the House, the bill would be sent to the Senate for consideration under the same expedited procedure. Fifteen Senators may request a separate vote on an individual item. If a simple majority in either the House or Senate defeats a rescission proposal, the funds for programs covered by the proposal would be released for obligation in accordance with the previously enacted appropriation, or the tax provision would take effect. If a bill rescinding spending or eliminating tax benefits is approved by the House and Senate, it would be sent to the President for his signature. Upon Presidential signature, the spending items in the rescission package are reduced or eliminated, or the tax items in the rescission package are repealed.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, as with any compromise legislation, the final budget agreement has both very positive aspects and very troubling features. The agreement provides funding for several high priority spending items, particularly rural health care and education. In addition, the agreement preserves increases in programs affecting agriculture, veterans, defense and other priority areas. However, it falls far short of the standards of fiscal responsibility that were set forth in the Blue Dog budget and will create serious problems for the budget process that will begin next year. This package provides much-needed relief for rural hospitals, nursing homes, community health centers, rural health clinics, home health agencies, and other health care providers who have struggled to cope with the impact of the Medicare payment reductions included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Along with my colleagues in the House Rural Health Care Coalition, I introduced the Triple A Rural Health Improvement Act, legislation intended to help rural health care providers continue to provide vital services to rural seniors. I am pleased that this package includes a number of the important rural health provisions that we included in our legislation. Specifically, this bill includes protection for low-volume, rural hospitals from the disproportionate impact of the hospital outpatient prospective payment system, an alternative payment system for community health centers and rural health clinics, reforms of the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility/Critical Access Hospital program, expansion of Graduate Medical Education opportunities in rural settings, Rebasing for Sole Community Hospitals, Extension of the Medicare Dependent Hospital program, and permitting certain rural hospitals in urban- defined counties to be recognized as rural for purposes of Medicare reimbursement. The most significant accomplishment of the budget process this year is the success of fiscally responsible Members to block efforts to spend the projected surpluses over the next ten years on tax cuts or new entitlement spending. The bulk of the projected surpluses over the next ten years are preserved for debt reduction. I intend to join with my fellow Blue Dogs next year to renew our efforts to lock up half of these projected surpluses for debt reduction. In spite of all of the budget gimmicks and other fiscal shortcomings of this budget agreement, our successful vigilance in other efforts will result in a reduction of at least $130 billion in debt held by the public, following on the $123 billion in debt reduction achieved in fiscal year 1999. Sadly, this particular budget agreement is a product of a terribly flawed process. Instead of spending the first eight months of the year debating a fiscally irresponsible tax cut that was destined to be vetoed, Congress should have been working with the administration to develop a responsible budget plan for the next five years. We should have set realistic spending caps and establish a framework for protecting the Social Security surplus and paying down the debt over the next five years. The negotiating process did establish a very valuable precedent as a result of the administration's commitment to offset all increased spending they requested. Since the administration proposed offsets for all of their increased spending requests, any spending above the discretionary spending caps and any spending out of the Social Security surplus was a result of the legislation passed by the Majority in Congress prior to the budget negotiations. The failure to put together a long-term budget framework has produced a bill that will cause real problems for the budget process next year and beyond. The cumulative effect of the budget legislation passed by Congress this year in the absence of a long-term plan will make it virtually impossible to comply with the discretionary caps in the next two fiscal years or balance the budget without counting Social Security. The discretionary spending caps in statute have lost much of their credibility as a tool to restrain spending. As a result of all of the budget gimmicks placed in the spending bills passed by the Majority before the budget negotiations began, the final agreement will result in spending at least $17 billion of the Social Security surplus in 2000 and will put us on a course to spend a similar or greater amount of the Social Security surplus in 2001 and consume more than 75% of the projected on budget surplus in 2002. When the timing shifts, emergency designations, and delays in the starting point for spending are taken into consideration, these bills put us on a path for an on-budget deficit of at least $20 billion in fiscal year 2001 and will reduce the fiscal year 2002 projected surplus from approximately $82 billion to approximately $13 billion in fiscal year 2002. My fellow Blue Dogs and I have advocated locking up a portion of the projected on-budget surpluses to reduce debt held by the public to effectively pay back the money borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. The impact the final budget agreement will have on the on-budget surplus in the next two years would have been mitigated if it was accompanied by a solid commitment to repay any monies borrowed from the trust fund to meet operating expenses through additional debt reduction. Unfortunately, the Majority leadership never seriously considered this approach. The outcome of the budget process this year underscores the critical importance of developing a responsible budget plan that addresses the long-term problems of Social Security and Medicare and provides for a reduction in the national debt in addition to providing room for tax cuts and priority programs. I am committed beginning work early next year with the administration and Congressional leadership on a bipartisan budget framework.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric, but no legislation from the other side of the aisle about protecting the Social Security surplus and eliminating wasteful spending, even though the appropriation bills passed by the majority would have spent $17 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund before the final budget negotiations even began. I am introducing legislation today that will give the President the ability to help the majority put some reality behind their rhetoric. This legislation known as ``modified line-item veto,'' or expedited rescission, would strengthen the ability of Presidents to identify and eliminate low priority spending with the support of the majority in Congress. Under this bill, the President would be able to single out individual items in tax or spending legislation and send a rescission package to Congress which would then be required to vote up or down on the package. Senator John McCain and others have identified $13 billion of low- priority or special-interest spending. Instead of subjecting these spending items to scrutiny, the majority has proposed an across-the- board cut that treats good programs the same as low priority and wasteful spending. I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding educational institution in the 17th District of Texas. The Texas State Technical College campus in Breckenridge, Texas, provides top rate education to students from across Texas, the United States and the world. On Tuesday, November 9, 1999, the campus celebrated its tenth anniversary. I offered a flag flown over the Capitol to commemorate this occasion and to show our dedication to the education to both past and future generations. I would like to submit for the Record a copy of a resolution that I offered at this very special event. It is my hope that this Nation and my home State of Texas will continue to honor institutions like Texas State Technical College that have dedicated themselves to providing the best possible education to its students.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding educational institution in the 17th District of Texas. Angelo State University in San Angelo, Texas, provides top rate education to students from across Texas, the United States and the world. The University will be completing construction of its Rao Alumni and Visitors Center in 2001. Last Friday, during homecoming festivities, a time capsule was dedicated and buried by the Alumni Association. This time capsule serves as a symbol of the University's commitment to the future. Included in the capsule was a flag flown over the Capitol as our dedication to future generations. The capsule will be opened during the homecoming celebration in 2025. I would like to submit for the Record a copy of a resolution that I offered the University on this very special occasion. It is my hope that this nation and my home state of Texas will continue to honor universities like Angelo State University that have dedicated themselves to providing the best possible education to its students. resolution Whereas, Angelo State University will complete construction of its Rao Alumni and Visitors Center in 2001; and Whereas, This center will serve as a link to the future and the past of Angelo State University, welcoming both new students and its alumni; and Whereas, Angelo State University has made an ongoing commitment to the future by providing a top rate education to students from across Texas, the United States and the world; and Whereas, The dedication of this time capsule by the Alumni Association serves as a symbol of Angelo State's commitment to the future; and Whereas, We included in this capsule a flag flown over our nation's capitol on October 4, 1999, as symbol of our dedication to those future generations who will open it during the 2025 Angelo State University homecoming celebration, be it Resolved, That I, Charles W. Stenholm, as Congressman for the 17th District of Texas, do officially recognize and extend my best wishes on the dedication of this capsule by the Angelo State University Alumni Association and that an official copy of this resolution be presented to the University and Alumni Association as an expression of my high regards for their efforts. Charles W. Stenholm, Member of Congress.