Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his leadership within the Blue Dog Coalition, trying to do that which we talk about today. We get accused of a lot of things in Congress. Some of it we deserve, some of it we do not deserve. But one thing that has kind of bugged us is the lack of serious attention to policy. We spent about 4 hours today in the Committee on Agriculture dealing with agricultural problems, of which we have been a little derelict in dealing with our policy decisions. Decisions were made that have not quite worked out. When we make a decision that does not quite work out, what we do is change it. We have a budget of about $1,700,000,000,000, every dollar of which benefits somebody. It is important to somebody. It is our decision or our responsibility to decide which is the most important, and to be as frugal as we possibly can with our taxpayer dollars. That does not mean that we ignore real problems. When they are there, we deal with them. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, lest anyone misunderstand, the main point that we have made regarding the tax cut, we totally acknowledge all taxes belong to the taxpayer. We acknowledge that. I have no difficulty with those that say, if there is a surplus, we are going to return it to you because you can better make the decision of how to spend it, unless we are talking about national defense, and I would question that statement. But what we add to this, that simple statement is, also, it is your debt. The $5.6 trillion is current taxpayer debt of which you, if you are in your 30s, 40s, 50s, or 60s, you have enjoyed the fruits of the spending of this $5.6 trillion. Why not take some of your dollars to pay down that debt. The choice is to increase the debt and to pass it on to your children and grandchildren. The Blue Dogs say that is wrong. We encourage the President to do that which he is going to do, that is veto the tax bill. Then we hope that we can settle down and deal in a responsible way with the budget that does what we have talked about today.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, that was the thing I was talking about a moment ago, which is why I call this the most fiscally irresponsible action because it is back-end loaded. We have had a little flury. I am not sure everybody in the country has seen this, but we had some folks in the other body suggest the way to get through this cap business is to increase by 1 month the number of months in a year. Apparently, they did it with a straight face. Now, back home, folks would be laughing about that. But I thought for a moment that, well, maybe that is a good way to see how serious the Y2K problem is if we could just postpone it for 30 days. We can see what is going to happen in there. But that is what some folks have seriously talked about doing. Well, that is not a good way to do business. The debt, $5.6 trillion, that is what we owe. We owe. The tax cut, $792 billion is projected, but they back-end loaded it. Instead of front-end loading, instead of moving spending, some are suggesting now let us spend it in the next 2 weeks because then it will not count against the caps next year. They conveniently overlook that spending is spending, and that is still going to come out of Social Security Trust Fund. Make no mistake about it. One cannot disguise the real numbers no matter how we debate it on the floor of the House. But that tax cut literally explodes by $4.5 trillion from 2011 to 2020 in its effect on the drain of the Treasury which some people honestly want to do. They believe that is good policy. We tried that in the 1980s, and we participated. We were going to squeeze the revenue and balance the budget, and we borrowed $4 trillion trying out that little experiment. I do not want to do that. Now, I am not going to be around the Congress in 2014, but I do not want the actions that we take or do not take this year to put that burden on the 2014 Congress. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) is young enough, he is probably going to be here. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) is young enough, he is probably going to be here. But I am not going to be in the Congress in 2014, I do not believe for a moment. Why would we do that? That is why we have taken as strong a position as we have on the Social Security question, which is separate, but very important. We are not quite there yet as far as getting a solution, but I have resolved that Cindy and I, my wife, and I have two grandchildren, Chase and Cole, 4 years old and 2 years old, and I resolved when they were born, my being in Congress, that I did not want them to look back 65 years from today and say, if only my granddad would have done what in his heart he knew he should have done when he was in the Congress, we would not be in the mess we are in today. That is the spirit in which we participate today. That is why I have enjoyed my association with all of my Blue Dogs, the two that have joined us today, and all, in the policy discussions that lead us to be able to come to the floor and to say these things and not apologize to anybody. We sincerely believe that paying down the national debt is the best thing that this Congress ought to do, with no exceptions. Then we believe that we ought to deal with the five priority areas that we outlined, and we have already talked about them: defense, agriculture, health care, education, and veterans. In some of those instances, we are prepared to say we need to spend some additional dollars in the short term to make the investment so that our country will meet those obligations. But we do it within the spirit of all of the Social Security Trust Funds going against the debt, paying down the debt, half of any projected surpluses being set aside, and then meeting those priorities, including a tax cut with the other 50 percent of that debt. That is what we are here to talk about today. Mr. Speaker, I yield for any additional comments. We have got a few more minutes. If we are through, I am always a great believer, once one has said everything that needs to be said, nothing else needs to be said, and we will let these folks go home.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the light of this conversation now between the three of us, if we were conducting a town hall meeting in the 17th District of Texas, someone would be just itching to stand up and say, ``Yep, there you go. You are already talking about spending. That is why we need the tax cut so you will not spend it.'' To which my response is pretty simple: ``If you do not believe that necessary spending on defense is a prudent expenditure of your dollars, you are right.'' But last time I checked, one of the most important responsibilities that this Congress has is to maintain the national defense because, without a strong America, all of these other arguments will pale.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, what I say to that constituent of mine, okay, what we are saying in the Blue Dog budget, we are prepared to make the tough decisions and squeeze the budgets. We will work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get the most fiscally responsible budget that we can possibly get. We submit that we have got one, and it has been proposed. I am sure that now that we are through this little exercise of the tax cut to the exclusion of everything else that we will get serious about this, and my colleagues will find that they will not find a more fiscally responsible budget that can get 218 votes than the one that we proposed 6 months ago.

Mr. STENHOLM. This is one subject, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman in the Chair now, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey), if the rules would permit him to participate in the debate at this time, I believe we would have a four-way discussion of some of the needed changes as it pertains to Medicare. The gentleman brings up a very good and valid point. The balanced budget agreement of 1997 was a good agreement. I supported it, and everyone who was here supported it, if Members claimed to be fiscally responsible, fiscally conservative. Do I regret supporting it? No. That was the proper thing to do. There were compromises reached dealing with Medicare and Medicaid and other spending that needed to be done, and it was judged by the best judge of our actions, the market, to be responsible, because the market reacted favorably to what we did. Unfortunately, there were some unintended consequences. Some of the proposals that were made and the changes in the delivery of health care have had unintended consequences. When we have unintended consequences, reasonably intelligent people make decisions to change that which we did not intend. We have a unique situation today in which, because we have always done it this way, we reimburse some hospitals more than others. If you happen to be in a major metropolitan area, you can get reimbursed 30 percent or 40 percent more for doing the same thing than in that rural small town hospital. We hear this, and a lot of times our constituents raise the flag of concern, and we react to them. Sometimes they are crying wolf when they ought not to be, or they are making it out worse than it really is. But in this case, I do not think there is anyone out there today that suggests that the rural health care concerns are not very real. I always ask, whatever subject we are talking about, when somebody says they have a problem with the government and I am involved, I ask them to prove it to me, show me, give me some hard numbers. I will not mention names, but I will use this example. There are two hospitals, one in my district, one I used to represent just outside my district, two hospitals 20 miles apart. One is in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. The other is just outside. They brought me the hard evidence. The one in the rural area received $900,000 less last year for doing the exact same services, apples to apples. The only difference is the reimbursement area. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that most folks, both at HCFA, health and human services, and we in the Congress in the relevant committees, would say, as we say privately, it seems, those with the responsibility, say, yes, that is wrong. It needs to be changed. Here it is, September 15. I met with about 20 of my 24 hospitals when I was home during the August break, all of them with an urgency of the fact they are running in the red and they are having a difficult time, saying, when are you going to make some of these changes? I hope next week. I hope we will truly bring this to the floor, to the relevant committees, deal with it in a responsible way. But that is the thing that gets overlooked from time to time here. We made a decision with the balanced budget agreement, but that is not written in stone, particularly if it is having unintended consequences and is not working as was intended. I do not think any reasonable people, and I would like to believe that our colleagues, those who are in urban areas that are not having this problem of payment reimbursement for Medicare and Medicaid, I would wish they would not be adverse to taking a few cuts. We have taken them. But if not there, the least we can do is raise the reimbursement level to the doctors and nurses and hospitals in rural areas up to a level that will meet their expenses. That is something that I guess we have always seen, and perhaps in my 20 years, but not too long ago we recognized that health care was spiralling out of control. We all acknowledged that we have to do something about that, and we have, in a bipartisan way. Not everything we have done has been bad. But sometimes you have unintended consequences. Another one we have had now is dealing with home health care. We made some decisions on numbers that have had a very adverse effect on home health care delivery in rural areas. I would hope that we could change that, too.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has had just a fascinating discourse on a subject which is of extreme importance. I want to commend him for the diligence in which he has pursued a subject that is every bit of importance to our country as he has indicated that it is, and he makes a lot of sense and this is one Member that looks forward to working with him in the days ahead in this very important area. What I have taken this hour for, and I will be joined by several of our Blue Dog colleagues, is to once again talk about perhaps a little more mundane subject, the budget of the United States and the policies, or lack thereof. A lot of what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has talked about some of the shortcomings of the Congress and the administration in dealing with Russia, I think, can also be said of this body in dealing with the budget. Today, I guess we had a little ceremony in which we have now sent the tax cut down to the President, which he will veto, as he should. One of the policy objectives that the Blue Dogs have suggested all year long is let us be conservative with our actions now as we enjoy the newness of dealing with surpluses. We are for cutting taxes. Let no one be mistaken about that, but the Blue Dogs have suggested all along that there is a good way and a bad way to get to tax cutting. The bad way, we believe, is what the House and Senate concurring have said to the President, of having a tax cut with projected surpluses that may or may not materialize. What the Blue Dogs have said, quite clearly, all year long, let us deal with Social Security and Medicare first. Let us have an open and honest debate on the floor of the House, with the best ideas winning, as to how we fix Social Security for the future, because everyone now knows and admits quite publicly that the future of Social Security is bleak unless we, this Congress, make some tough decisions and very, very soon. We ducked on that one, and I must say that our President ducked on that one, which was unfortunate. Just because the President ducks is no sign that we in the Congress should duck. Here, at least some of us, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I, and we have been joined by colleagues on both sides of the aisle now, a few, proposing a Social Security fix. That is not what I am here to talk about tonight. What I am talking about tonight is the rhetoric that we continue to hear about why we need to have a big tax cut first before we deal with Social Security, before we deal with Medicare, before we deal with Medicaid, before we deal with these very important subjects. These are projected surpluses and one of the dangers that some of us see, particularly the Blue Dog Democrats, and I suspect there are some on both sides of the aisle that see the same danger, spending a projected surplus before it is real can get very dangerous; just like in families. If they have built up a debt on their credit card or personal debt to where it is becoming difficult to pay the interest on that debt and suddenly come into some money, most families will pay down their debt first before they go out and reward themselves with a new car or reward themselves with new options. That is not what the Congress has voted to do. That is not the issue today. To those that say well, we are only returning your money to you, that is true but they conveniently overlook one fact. Not only is it your taxes that we talk about and every dime that we spend is your money, but also your debt of $5.6 trillion that we have built up, $4 trillion of it basically in the last 10 years, 15, it is your debt. The Blue Dogs suggest that now is the time to be a little bit conservative with our children's and grandchildren's future. Instead of once again rewarding us, as this tax cut would do over the next 10 years, we say use this opportunity to pay down the debt so that our children and grandchildren will not have as much debt to pay and as much taxes to pay in order to pay the interest on that debt. We think that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, we have not been able to convince a majority of the House and the Senate concurring that it does make sense, and we understand and we play by those rules and we also very strongly played by the rule that said if one is going to be critical of the other guy's proposal they better have something that they are for. The people back home in the 17th district that I represent, that is what they demand of me. As we have discussed and asked the question over and over, what do you want to do with this surplus, most people openly and honestly say, pay down the debt. I do not know why different Members get different answers to this question, except sometimes we ask it differently. If I ask the question, do you want to have a tax cut or do you want us to spend the money, you say tax cut. That would be my answer. Then we get into another little problem because we have had a whole lot of rhetoric around this body over the last several weeks now, and we are still playing this giant game of chicken of who is going to blink first on the caps, who is going to be the first one to admit that already this year we are spending the Social Security trust fund? Now, we have tried to outdo each other as to who has the best lockbox, who is going to do the best job of not touching Social Security trust funds next year. Well, I would say to my colleagues, let me share a little secret. We have already done it. This Congress has already dipped into the Social Security trust fund. No matter how we want to score it, it has already happened; little things like declaring the census an emergency, $4 billion; conveniently using OMB scoring when it suits our purpose of being able to score spending $16 billion cheaper. I used to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle quite regularly on this argument when we finally got around to saying our scorekeeper is the Congressional Budget Office. The White House has the Office of Management and Budget. We have the Congressional Budget Office. It is bipartisan. It is our scorekeeper. Let us quit fussing about whose numbers and whose projections we are going to use. Let us agree on the Congressional Budget Office. Every once in awhile we would say, where there is differences why do they not just add up the two and divide by two and take an average and that becomes something that we can use that is consistent. Well, by conveniently thus far using $16 billion of OMB scoring, it allows us to spend money. Well, this might help us on the budget caps debate, but it does not change the bottom line when we finish the year. Any spending for any purpose, whether it is an agricultural emergency, which we have, whether it is the health care emergency that we have in rural America, whether it is the shortchanging of home health care, which we are doing under current law, unless we change it, all of these spending decisions are going to be real dollars. So somehow, some way I hope that we can find a way to accept what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and I and, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) does not get over here I have a statement that I want to put in for him, and if some of our colleagues who are perhaps here and are going to be joining us soon, we the Blue Dogs are both extending our hand to both the leadership of the House and to the President of saying take another look of what we propose and how we propose it and if they do not like what we are talking about, perhaps there is some compromises that can be reached. One thing we feel very strongly about, that we should not spend projected surpluses for any purpose until they materialize. If they do and we pay down the debt, to me and to us, the best tax cut we can give all of the American people is to reduce the debt sufficiently that the Federal Reserve is convinced that we will maintain fiscal responsibility in our spending habits and instead of increasing interest rates over the next several months, as they have done twice in the last month, month and a half, if we can bring interest rates down we know that a 1 percent reduction in the interest rate that affects student loans, credit card bills, home mortgages, car auto loans, all of the things that all of working America use every day, it is estimated at $200 billion to $250 billion a year. Why is that so difficult for our colleagues who continue to believe that the best tax cut is the one that they send to the President of which he is going to veto? I do not understand. We do not understand that. To those that suggest spending, let me make this suggestion, and this is a Blue Dog suggestion. This has been in our budget proposal all year. Let us all acknowledge the fact that spending caps have worked. We, the last two, three, four Congresses, have done a fairly responsible job in reducing discretionary spending. In fact, we went a little too far in the area of defense and we are now having to put some of it back because this is no longer a safe world, and we heard the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) talking about a little different component of that. The caps have worked. But why is it so difficult to admit that perhaps what we did in 1997, in which most people acknowledged then that it was going to be difficult to make those cuts because we back end loaded it, what does that mean in plain English? It said, Congress, in 1997, chose not to make the tough decisions, we punted it to the 1999 Congress. That is why we are having such a difficult time. Why do we not go back and do it the way we used to do it around here, 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago. Why do we not go back and have a new set of budget caps on appropriation bills that are set and will be agreed to by a majority on both sides of the aisle of what the new spending restraints ought to look like. As I answered a businessman's question earlier today in another meeting I was in, he said when in 1997 when the Congress did what you did, the markets reacted favorably, because they believed that you were going to get a fiscally responsible Congress for a change and markets react to that, and I said there is no reason why we cannot do that again. We can do the same thing again. We can have a new set of caps that we live with that will get us on track. Why is it so difficult for us to do? Let me pause right now and recognize one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for any comments that he might like to add at this time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for making those comments. Let me fill in a couple of blanks, or supply a little bit more information on Social Security before I recognize the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). When we are talking about Social Security, I think it is important that everybody understands why some of us are as concerned about the tax cut. For example, a lot of folks have really questioned me quite personally when I have said on this floor, as I am about to say now, this tax cut that is going to the President is the most fiscally irresponsible bill to come before this Congress in the 20 years that I have been here. And I say that for one reason and one reason only, and that is, when we look at the effect of the proposed tax cut, at least the one that was talked about, not the one that was conferenced, because it is interesting, when we sunset a tax bill in 8 years, that one is interesting. But the effect of a tax cut literally explodes by about $4.5 trillion in the second 10 years. Now, my colleague talked about the baby boom and the Social Security Trust Fund and it being exhausted, and the year is 2034. That is when the Social Security Trust Fund under current projections will be exhausted provided we do not do anything. Well, it is our hope and expectation that we will do something, and therefore, when we talk about this, there is no reason for anyone 65 years of age and older, in fact, 55 years of age and older to worry about that. That is a given. But in 2014, that is only 14 years from now, that is when we will begin paying out more out of the Social Security Trust Fund than will be paid in. That is when the problem becomes a reality. It will take $7.4 trillion of money from somewhere between 2014 and 2034 in order just to meet the current obligations of the Social Security Trust Fund. And the Blue Dogs have said, why do we want to do that? Why would the Congress, for any reason, want to increase the liabilities on the ability of the Federal Treasury to make the commitments that we promise everyone on Social Security, why would we want to reduce the amount of revenue available to pay off those commitments at exactly the same time that the baby boomers are going to be retiring at the top of their numbers. I do not understand that. I have never understood why the leadership of the House this year did not choose to fix Social Security first, but they did not, we did not. And therefore, we find ourselves in a position of having a bill go down to the President which he will veto, which he should veto; it is in the best interests of our country that he veto it. Then, it will be in the best interests of our country that we now begin to look at putting together the kind of a compromise piece of legislation that will fix Social Security, fix Medicare, deal with rural health problems, and I hope that my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), since he has been the coordinator and the chairman in the Blue Dog effort dealing with health care might have a few comments about that, and I would recognize him at this time, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for any comments that he might like to add to this discussion.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Doolittle amendment and in support of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. The Doolittle amendment would undermine the important reforms in Shays-Meehan which would bring greater accountability to campaign spending. Shays-Meehan would let public know who is running ads and allow them to decide for themselves whether or not the ad is credible. Brining all campaign activity out in to the open through increased disclosure is beneficial to the election process and does not harm any organizations. The public should know who is beyond any advertising in order to evaluate the credibility and reliability of the opinions being presented, especially when they are presented as ``facts,'' not opinions. What is wrong with disclosure and openness? Why does requiring disclosure prevent people from running ads? The Shays-Meehan bill does not prevent any organization from saying whatever it wants about any candidate for office in a TV ad, voter guide or anywhere else at any time. It simply states that campaign activities of political parties and independent organizations should be subject to the same rules that apply to candidates for office. The Doolittle amendment is disguised as a ``voter guide exemption,'' but in reality, it would undermine the reforms in the bill. Under the Doolittle amendment, individuals and groups could run unlimited print or Internet ads with no regard to election law simply by including information on a candidate's voting record. This is a gigantic loophole. The Shays-Meehan bill already contains a true voter guide exemption. Legitimate voter guides that state a candidate's position on an issue and how that compares to the groups position in a neutral manner are explicitly exempted. The only way that a voter guide would be covered is if it is designed to clearly benefit one candidate over another. We have all seen these ``voter guides'' which pick and choose votes and characterize positions in a way that is clearly intended to express opposition to or support for a candidate. As a Member with a strong pro-life record throughout my career, I strongly disagree with the argument made by some folks that Shays- Meehan would hurt the pro-life cause. I cannot understand who pro-life groups are not willing to be completely open and up front about where they raise their money and how they spend their money to promote the pro-life position in political campaigns. That is all Shays-Meehan would require these organizations to do. I urge you to vote ``no'' on the Doolittle amendment and for the Shays-Meehan bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I absolutely do. I take back my time. I absolutely do, because based on sound science, as I argue in the Committee on Agriculture every day, including yesterday, when we had a ruling by EPA that chose not to follow sound science, it hurts consumers, it hurts producers in Arizona, and I find myself consistent in that. Let me just say again in closing, my reason for opposing this today is, as Members heard, no one challenged me when I said that we are spending $4.5 billion out of social security trust funds. That is why we all should oppose this rule and send it back until we can get bipartisanly accurate. Let us start shooting straight with the American public. If we are going to spend their social security dollars, let us tell them. If they are going to break the caps, let us tell them. If we are going to give a tax cut from a fictitious surplus that is not there, let us tell them. Let us start being honest, and we will find there will be bipartisan support for honesty, in opposition to what is going on in this rule.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear, I have only the highest respect for my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the committee. I rise against this rule but not against my colleague and the untenable situation that he and the chairman of the full committee have been put in. I rise in opposition to the rule because it is not a fair rule. If they had allowed three Democratic votes to have waivers of the rules, then it would be a fair rule and open, and I would be supporting the rule. But someone chose not to do that. The primary reason that I rise against the rule and against the bill is this continued charade that my friends on this side of the aisle are using regarding the caps. Everyone knows this bill, by declaring $4.5 billion as an emergency for the Census, breaks the caps. Everyone in this body knows that. If someone here does not know that, please stand up and challenge me at this time. Everyone knows we are breaking the caps. We are spending social security trust funds for purposes of declaring an emergency on a Census that everyone has known for 220-plus years we do every 10 years. The gentleman from Arizona was making a point a moment ago, and I could get into that, too, because I happen to believe that we do better in this country when we allow sound science to determine our policies. We could have saved $1.7 billion, $1.7 billion, had we chosen to use sound science instead of political rhetoric.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I take to the floor in support of the Coburn amendment and commend the gentleman for his fiscal honesty, and I appreciate the support that others have shown for it. The census obviously is important, but it is also important that we bring some honesty to the budget process. This morning I spoke against the rule and made the statement that we are already spending Social Security trust funds, and asked if anyone disagreed with me, to please confront me. There were Members here who could have, but chose not to. But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, was on the floor and chose to confront me after I left the floor. In doing so, he made some allegations that I want to set the record straight on. He said the Blue Dog budget had a tax increase, not a tax decrease. That is simply false, and he knows it. He said it is okay to declare census spending an emergency, because the 1997 budget agreement did not provide money for the census. I find it hard to believe that my colleague from Texas was actually suggesting that because Congress made a mistake and forgot about the census when we passed the 1997 budget agreement, we have to declare an emergency and leave the taxpayers to pick up the tab. I would also point out that the Blue Dog budgets that we offered in 1995, 1996 and 1997 all budgeted money for the census, supported by a majority of Democrats on each instance. If the Republican leadership had paid more attention to the Blue Dog budgets back then, perhaps we would not have this problem today. Another statement the majority whip made this morning is that the spending in all of the appropriation bills for next year is being cut. Saying that the appropriation bills are cutting spending below last year's level relies on an awful lot of creative accounting, directed scorekeeping, where we tell the Congressional Budget Office how to score bills to make it look like we are spending less. Oh, how my colleague from Texas used to lambast us Democrats when he accused us of doing what they are now doing. If we let CBO score all the appropriation bills honestly, they would tell us that the appropriation bills we have passed already spend $15 billion to $18 billion more than the leadership would like us to believe. That is in this book right here for anyone that wants to read it, phony offsets, emergency spending, taking spending off budget, all of these things we should not be doing. On page 6 of the Congressional Budget Office July budget outlook that is being cited as projecting surpluses outside of Social Security, they wrote, That was before the Republican leadership decided to abuse the emergency designation to increase spending above the caps even further. When we take into account these additional gimmicks, total discretionary spending will be at least $25 billion higher than the Republican leadership is claiming. Now, my opposition for the rule this morning was let us be honest. Let us be honest. Spending is spending, no matter what we call it, where we put it on the ledger or how we try to hide it. Let us be honest with the American people about how much we are spending, and not rely on accounting gimmicks and stand on the floor and accuse our colleagues of not telling the truth. Again, to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), I would challenge the gentleman to come back to the floor and make the same statements and read this in this report, because what I am saying is coming from CBO, not Charlie Stenholm. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says the tax cut has nothing to do with Social Security surpluses. The claim that we have a surplus outside of Social Security to use for tax cuts depends on all these budget gimmicks. There is no surplus outside of Social Security next year to be used for tax cuts or any other purpose when we add up the numbers honestly. In fact, we will have a deficit of at least $3 billion next year when Social Security is excluded. In other words, we have already spent $3 billion of the Social Security surplus, and all of the tax cut next year will come out of Social Security surpluses. One does not have to take my word for it. Again, just ask the Congressional Budget Office. Any spending above the caps, whether it is emergency or non-emergency, and I am prepared to make legitimate emergency decisions based on spending needs that handle emergencies. I am prepared to do that. But, now, let us start shooting straight with the American people. If we are going to break the caps, let us tell them. If we are going to increase spending, let us tell them. If we are going to spend Social Security dollars, let us tell them. If we are going to give a tax cut from fictitious surpluses, let us tell them. Let us support the Coburn amendment. Let us go back to the drawing board, and let us deal honestly with our budget while we still have a chance to work bipartisanly on some very difficult matters. preferential motion offered by mr. obey

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which will establish an emergency loan guaranty program for the independent oil and gas industry and the steel industry. Much like America's agriculture, the oil and gas industry and steel industries have recently experienced a price crisis which has caused hundreds of thousands of job losses and severe economic hardships for the communities in which they serve. In November of 1997, the oil and gas exploration and production industry began experiencing critically low prices, which included the lowest inflation-adjusted oil price in history. These low prices were well below the cost of finding and producing crude, and they threatened the ability of many independent producers to continue operation. The effects of hard times on producers have a significant impact in all areas of our economy, as many of our Texas schools and hospitals receive significant tax revenues from oil and gas properties. While prices have improved in the past few months, the industry continues to face economic hardship and infrastructure loss. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates that 56,400 jobs of oil and gas have been lost since October of 1997. Twenty-five percent of the United States' total oil wells and 57,000 natural gas wells shut down. Many of these wells will never operate again. With oil imports currently accounting for 56 percent of America's supply, it is of vital importance to our national security that we provide assistance to oil and gas producers so that we can preserve what is left of our domestic oil and gas industry. Since 1986, the United States has lost 2 million barrels per day of oil production. With programs such as these loan guarantees in place, we might not have lost the domestic production. But we now have the opportunity to do something to maintain what is left. These loan guarantees will provide struggling independent producers with the capital necessary to save jobs, businesses, and the viability of the domestic industry. If the relevant committees of jurisdiction had taken action since 1997, we would not be in this position now.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas left off a few other things that are not in the motion to instruct. There is not a $200 billion increase in the national debt over the next 5 years. There is not a $3 trillion increase in our national debt from 2011 to 2020, or $4.5 trillion of additional debt when you add in interest. That is also not in the Democratic motion to instruct. The motion to instruct is truly a debate about priorities and values. The priorities, we believe very strongly this is the time for us to use that which we have the opportunity to do, and, that is, to pay down our national debt. We do have a surplus. This is the time for us to be fiscally responsible and pay down the national debt. This is the time for us to be dealing with a very serious problem of 2014 and Social Security, of which the gentleman from Texas certainly knows and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) here knows that unless we do some things of a responsible nature soon, we will have deeper problems in 2014. That is what we ought to be doing. That is what the motion to instruct is all about. Do not have a tax cut today. What we should be debating this week before we go home is Social Security reform. What we ought to be dealing with is Medicare and Medicaid reform. We ought to have the debate on this floor right now dealing with the problems of our hospitals around the country that are saying to me, ``Unless you deal with some of our problems by October the 1st, we must close.'' That is what we ought to be doing. Really and truly what this motion to instruct is all about is just saying ``no'' to a tax cut first, let us deal with Social Security, let us deal with Medicare first and then let us bring a tax cut to the floor. If we would only do that, we would send the kind of message to our children and grandchildren that they need to hear. We should not be spending their future inheritance today based on our desires and all of the wonderful things that we say today. We ought to be paying down the debt so that they will have an opportunity for the same kind of future. Although a lot of numbers get thrown around in the budget discussions, this is really a debate about priorities and values. This motion to instruct is based on the value that has guided generations of Americans: the value that we should leave our country stronger for children and grandchildren. This motion simply says that meeting our obligations for Social Security and Medicare and first reducing the debt burden on future generations should be a higher priority than current consumption for tax cuts or new spending. We should put our fiscal house in order before we talk about tax cuts or new spending. We should agree to lock up a substantial portion of the surpluses outside of the Social Security trust fund to pay down national debt and deal with Social Security and Medicare before we start talking about how to carve up the surplus between tax cuts and new spending. How can we talk about having surpluses to spend when we still have a $5.6 trillion national debt and huge unfunded liabilities facing Social Security and Medicare? The tax bills passed by the House and Senate do not deal with these obligations and do not reduce the burden on future generations at all. Even if we stick with the lock box and save the Social Security surplus, this will not reduce the total national debt--it just shifts the debt from one part of the ledger to another. While my Republican colleagues are correct when they say that the lockbox requires us to use the $2 trillion in Social Security surpluses to pay down the debt held by the public, they forget to mention the rest of the story: that we will be accumulating $2 trillion in IOUs to the Social Security trust fund at the same time. If the lockbox is successful in requiring us to save future Social Security surpluses, it will prevent us from digging the hole deeper, but it won't do anything about the $5.6 trillion hole we have already dug for ourselves. Despite all of the talk about the debt reduction trigger added to the tax bill, the debt left for future generations to pay would not be one dime smaller than the tax bill passed by the House. In fact, the national debt would increase by $200 billion over the next five years under the Republican tax bill according to their own numbers. My Republican friends will say that the President's budget will increase the debt as well because his budget uses some of the surpluses for new spending. I agree with much of those criticisms, but that is not what we are talking about today. The motion before us today provides that we should reduce the debt and deal with Social Security and Medicare before we talk about tax cuts or new spending. The only way to truly reduce burden on future generations is to lock up a significant portion of the non-Social Security surpluses to reduce debt held by public. That is what this motion to instruct calls on our conferees to do. Paying down the national debt is the most important thing Congress can do to maintain a strong and growing economy with low inflation and providing working men and women with a tax cut in the form of lower mortgages, lower credit card payments, etc. Reducing our $5.4 trillion national debt will reduce the burden left to future generations by reducing the amount of the federal budget that will be consumed by interest payments. The motion to recommit will provide an opportunity to begin a bipartisan process to achieve a responsible budget agreement. Members on both sides of the aisle have said they agree with the Blue Dog budget approach of paying down our national debt, dealing with Social Security and Medicare, and then dealing with tax cuts. Voting for the motion to instruction would send a strong message to the conferees, the leadership in Congress and the President that we are committed to a fiscally responsible, bipartisan budget that is based on the principles of paying down the national debt and dealing with our obligations before agreeing to tax cuts or new spending.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution that would end normal trade relations with China. With normal trade relations, our farmers and ranchers can sell their products in China on the same terms as their competitors from Canada, Australia, South America, and Europe. Last year U.S. agricultural exports to China exceeded $3 billion, making it the fourth largest market in the world for U.S. agricultural products. Demand for agricultural products is likely to increase as China's economy continues to grow at a rate of about 8 percent annually. That is why our competitors are eager for us to give up on the Chinese market. In recent years the Canadian Wheat Board has worked tirelessly to promote its products in China. The Australians hold an 8 percent stake in a flour and feed mill in Shenzen, China, and it brought together a consortium to upgrade China's grain handling and storage facilities with $1 billion worth of projects. Our farmers are facing record low prices. While our competitors are out building market share in China, we sit here and debate whether we even want to have a normal trade relationship with its 1,237,000,000 customers. We must continue to work towards WTO membership for China. However, we have consistently told China that its entry to the WTO depends upon a commercially meaningful agreement. China cannot expect to maintain indefinitely the $1 billion per week trade surplus it currently enjoys with the United States. In agriculture, the message seems to have been received. China is changing slowly, but it is changing surely. In connection with its bid to join the WTO, China has agreed to reduce overall average tariffs for agricultural products from the current 30 to 50 percent to 17 percent by 2004. For priority U.S. products, the rate will be even lower, 14\1/ 2\ percent. USDA estimates that with entry into WTO, China's net agricultural imports would increase by over $8 billion annually. That is a benefit to the United States workers, men and women producing the tractors, making the fertilizer, making all of the products that are utilized here in the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting normal trade relations with China by voting no on this disapproval.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose an additional question. I did not hear any mention of H.R. 402, a bill sponsored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and 228 other cosponsors, a dairy bill, that has overwhelmingly passed the House Committee on Agriculture. I did not hear whether or not it might be scheduled next week.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for that.

Mr. STENHOLM. Might it possibly be scheduled the following week then? I am hearing that it might be postponed until September, and there is a little anxiety among the dairy community if that would be the fact. We would hope that it would and could be scheduled prior to our August break.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the F-22--the key to maintaining air dominance in the 21st Century. The F-22 is the first new U.S. air superiority fighter to be built in more than thirty years, and it is scheduled to join the Air Force inventory at a crucial time. Despite the ongoing upgrade of existing U.S. fighter aircraft, our tactical aircraft are facing increasingly sophisticated foreign fighters and more lethal air defense missiles. The F-22 is crucial to maintaining air superiority. History has shown us that air dominance is crucial to controlling the battlefield; it allows our forces and other aircraft to operate against our enemies with impunity. Proven success in attaining air superiority is the reason that no American soldier has died from enemy air attack in over forty years. We must continue development and acquisition of the F-22. Pausing this process is equal to cancellation of the program. Development of the aircraft system is on-track, and modern technology means that we can have a high-level of confidence in flight-tests, computer simulation, and other testing. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting funding for the F-22. It is important to our defense industry but most importantly it is crucial to the men and women who defend our nation.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a defining debate and a debate about priorities. The question is are we going to stop the generational mugging of our children and grandchildren? Are we going to give them a stronger or a weaker America? Our priorities today we believe, in support of the recommittal that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) will give in a moment, should be pay down the national debt really, using non-Social Security surpluses to do it, deal with Social Security and Medicare. Contrary to what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said a moment ago, there are Democrats who have proposed a Social Security fix. And contrary to what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) do in theirs, we do not use the same $1 trillion in proposed or projected surpluses to do it. And let me correct, $792 billion in the tax cut. But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) conveniently forgets the $140 billion we are going to have to pay in interest on that debt. The Republican bill does not reduce the burden on future generations, and that is what I am most concerned about. Simply using the Social Security surplus to reduce debt held by the public does not reduce the total national debt, it just shifts the debt from one part of the ledger to another. In fact, under the bill as proposed today, the debt in this country will go from $5.6 trillion to over $5.8 trillion over the next 5 years under the plan in which we are debating. And no one can contradict me on that because that is in their bill. The bill leaves no room to address other needs. I completely accept the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) the chairman of the committee. He is very sincere. And I mean no disrespect. He is perfectly willing to cut 27 percent from agriculture over the next 5 years. He is perfectly willing to spend less on defense than the President has proposed. He is perfectly willing to spend less on rural hospitals and allow rural hospitals all over to close. He is perfectly willing to do that, and I understand that. And there are a few others, but I do not think a majority are. I voted for the tax cuts in 1921. We based that decision on projections on the promise we would cut spending. The result was $3 trillion more in debt. We cannot afford to take another risky river boat gamble on projections. We cannot afford to take 10- and 15-year projections and spend that money like it is real money I do not believe. The motion to recommit will provide an opportunity to go back and have a bipartisan budget approach. Let me remind our colleagues today, the motion to recommit is based on the Blue Dog budget that was supported by a majority of Democrats and 29 Republicans. Members on both sides of the aisle that said that they agree with the approach of paying down our national debt, dealing with Social Security and Medicare, and then dealing with tax cuts. Voting for the recommittal would allow us to go back and work to put together a fiscally responsible bipartisan budget that is based on these principles. I hope my colleagues who once voted for this will again seriously consider, because that is the way we can responsibly deal with our children and grandchildren. This tax bill, if we vote for the majority approach, will explode the national dealt in the second 10 years. At precisely the time we have to come up with a Social Security fix, this bill will increase the national debt by $4\1/2\ trillion. It is irresponsible. It needs to be defeated. Vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to the most fiscally irresponsible bill to come before this House in the 20\1/2\ years that I have served here. I want to be sure that my colleagues understand why I say that. It is the second 10 years of the effect on this Social Security bill that causes me pain because it is when our children and grandchildren are going to regret that which we proposed to do tonight. Let me also share another secret with my friends on this side. We have already busted the caps, so any moneys that we are going to be spending on defense, on veterans, on health care, on education, on agriculture, is going to come from Social Security trust funds if my colleagues should, by chance, pass that which they propose tonight. On the deficit side of the question, the Blue Dog proposal that will be in the motion to recommit will reduce the national debt $1,650 per man, woman and child in the next 20 years over what my colleagues propose in their revised, extended version of that which they propose tonight. Please deal with the facts. Let us stop the rhetoric. We cannot afford this kind of a tax cut. What we ought to do right now is pay down the debt, solve Social Security and Medicare, and then deal with tax cuts.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. That is a point that I think needs to be reemphasized. If you took the $864 billion and applied it to the debt instead of a tax cut, we would reduce the interest cost over the next 10 years by $155, $165 billion. But more importantly, this bill, in the second 10 years, that amount of money is $1.5 trillion that future generations are going to have to pay in interest in the next 20 years, and I hope we are still there part of that. But this is what is being overlooked by this frenzy among some to say that the only way we can save this money is to send it back to the people that paid it, forgetting that if we do not deal with the debt, we are going to continue to have to pay interest. A moment ago, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) made the observation, and it is a correct one, each one percentage point of interest cost the American people between $200 and $250 billion in increased mortgage cost, automobile cost, TV cost, daily living expenses. It is a built-in expense. Therefore, we feel that the most conservative thing we can do and the best tax cut we can give the American people, the absolute best tax cut, would be to keep interest rates where they are or lower. Remember what the Federal Reserve did a couple of weeks ago, they increased interest rates a quarter of a point. That cost, according to these numbers, about $60 billion, is what consumers are going to have to pay. Look at what that would have meant if that interest had not gone up. Why did the Federal Reserve choose to raise interest rates? They were afraid the economy was overheating. Why do we have a tax cut, particularly the largest tax cut in modern history? To stimulate the economy. If we stimulate the economy, what might the Federal Reserve do? Increase the interest rates. Who is going to be the winner? It is not going to be the American people.