Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to make one correction. I believe the chairman of the Committee on Rules misspoke but not intentionally. What the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and I, have asked you to do is to report a rule to allow the conference report, as reported unanimously from the House and Senate, that passed by 92 to 8, to be allowed to be voted on today. That is what we asked for, not what you stated we asked for.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it was stated earlier that if this rule passes in the form in which we are discussing it and the bill is sent over to the Senate, that this agricultural research bill, with the crop insurance and the other provisions, would pass very soon in the Senate. Is that a fair statement? Is that the understanding of the gentleman, that that is what the Senate would do?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let no one be deceived. If this rule passes as it was designed, this bill is going to be dead. It will not pass, and we are going to get into a ``he blamed,'' ``he did,'' and what have you, just like we did 2\1/2\ years ago and shut down the Government. This is not the way for us to proceed. I thank the gentleman for clarifying that.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Darryl B. Kreitman as he retires with 20 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Air Force. Lieutenant Colonel Kreitman is retiring from his position as Deputy Chief of the Air Force's Legislative Weapons Systems Liaison Division. In this capacity he is responsible for liaison between the Air Force and Congress on annual authorizations of $30 billion for all Air Force weapons systems, munitions and related technologies. His expertise in this arena and his knowledge of Air Force policy and direction is unparalleled. In 1978, after receiving his commission as a Second Lieutenant from OTS, he entered Undergraduate Navigator Training at Mather Air Force Base, CA. He then flew as a B-52 navigator and instructor navigator at Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. Following a one year Pentagon assignment, Darryl began a remarkable tour of duty in the B-1 at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. From 1986 through 1994, he showed exemplary performance through a range of duties beginning as a B-1 Instructor Offensive Systems Officer and culminating as Commander of the 7th Transportation Squadron. His professionalism was highlighted when he served as Chief of Transportation while deployed to Saudi Arabia. It was during his 8 year tour at Dyess that his wife Judy gave birth to their beautiful little Texas girl--Robbin. Darryl's expertise was recognized when he returned to the Pentagon in 1994; he was selected to manage the B-1 program for the Air Force's Acquisition community. He then went on to become the B-1 Branch Chief and the Bomber Division Chief. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues who have directly benefited from the outstanding support Lieutenant Colonel Kreitman has provided the Congress and the executive branch, in both his capacities in legislative liaison and as a premier aviator in the Air Force, in congratulating him for a job extremely well done and in wishing his family the very best in the future. Colonel Kreitman is a professional among professionals and has brought great credit upon himself and the United States Air Force.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of an amendment which will improve TRICARE, the military managed health care program. I have the privilege of representing the 17th District of Texas which includes Abilene, TX. Abilene is located one of the first regions in which TRICARE was implemented. There were many problems with the start up of the TRICARE Program in our area, and although many of the initial bugs have been worked out of the system, there are still several areas of improvements to the program which are needed--improvements which will help to maintain and to improve access to quality health care for our Nation's military, their dependents, and retirees. One of the issues my constituents have identified is claim processing and the hassle associated with the TRICARE system. TRICARE requires that its regional contractors use a computer software program known as ClaimCheck. ClaimCheck is a bundling system similar to the Correct Coding Initiative used by the Medicare Program which ``bundles'' claims for multiple services performed during a single visit to a health care provider. When claims are bundled, services considered to be incidental to the primary service are reimbursed at a lower rate. Currently there is no provision for appeals from ClaimCheck denials even though the Department of Defense has acknowledged that ClaimCheck software in some cases contradicts Department policy. The Department of Defense has indicated an interest in establishing a formal appeal process; however, no concrete steps toward establishing such a process have been taken. The amendment Congressman Thune and I have proposed would simply require the Department to prepare and submit a proposal to establish an appeal process which could simply mean incorporating ClaimCheck denials into the existing appeals process. The amendment does not dictate the nature of the process. Although this is a small step to decrease the hassle-factor for both military patients and civilian doctors, I believe it is an important step in the right direction to improve the military health care system and the quality of life of those who serve and have served our nation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment by voting for the en bloc amendment in which it is included.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me this time. I wish there was a little more attention being paid to this motion to instruct. As one that spent a good part of my congressional career striving for a balanced budget, I am rather happy to see that for the first time in years we have a surplus. Too many people, though, are ignoring that we have a surplus because of the Social Security trust fund surplus for this year. Any dollars that we spend over and above the balanced budget agreement of last year are going to eventually come from Social Security. Let no one be deceived or deceive anyone with their vote on any bill that exceeds that which we agreed to in the balanced budget agreement. We have spent a lot of time fussing over the last several years about whose scoring is going to be used. It is, well, I do not want to use the word amazing, it is rather alarming and disturbing that all of a sudden it seems that the majority that have spent a good part of their time criticizing OMB suddenly are willing to cherrypick a number that suits the current needs that will borrow an additional $7 billion from the Social Security trust fund to pass a highway construction bill. And I am not opposed to the highway construction bill, except that portion which busts the budget. I think we are soon going to find, even though I hear that the budget that is going to be submitted after we come back after Memorial Day, 2 months late, is not going to talk about specifics. Once again, Members of this body are going to get to vote for principles, numbers. If we are really truly wanting to keep our country on a fiscally sound direction, this motion to instruct should not just pass here on the floor but our conferees, who are working, as the majority whip said, as we speak, they ought to be listening to this and they ought to be already doing that which we are asking them to do: Use CBO scoring. If it was reason enough to shut the government down in a dispute with the President a couple of years ago, how can it be tonight that we suddenly say it does not matter anymore? If it was so much of a principle for us to stand on, and I disagreed with the tactic of shutting the government down, but I agreed with the principle that we should use CBO scoring. And now all of a sudden are we just going to wink and nod and convince the people that we are doing budget responsible things? I hope not. We have a surplus this year. We are going to have a surplus next year. It is because the economy is performing. It is because somebody out there in the marketplace believes that something of what we have been doing over the last 5 years is working. We have 5 consecutive years of a deficit coming down. Five consecutive years. We are in the black this year. But how long will we be in the black, particularly if we start going against the very principles that we have agreed unanimously, unanimously, last year, that when it comes to scoring various bills we are going to use CBO scoring? If we cherry-pick $7 billion, and I have got my concerns about the utilization of veterans' funding for purposes of paying for this bill, very big concerns. And a lot of other Members are going to have their concerns. Because if we have $10 billion in the veterans area, we should spend that on improving veterans' health care, not on some other purpose. Because we have tremendous need, as we almost had a unanimous vote this afternoon on the defense authorization bill. But I conclude by saying this: This motion will hold the conference committee to the standard that this Congress and the President unanimously agreed to as part of the budget agreement. If we could unanimously agree to this last year, how can we change our mind? For what convenient purpose can we do it tonight? I urge an aye vote for the motion to instruct. But, more importantly than that, I encourage our conferees, who are meeting to do it without us instructing them to do it, to do it. Because that is what every one of my colleagues conferring on this bill agreed last year that they were going to do. Do it for that purpose, if for no other reason.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, having joined with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Baesler) and other members of the Blue Dog Caucus to initiate a discharge petition last October to force consideration of campaign finance reform under a fair and open process, I am very pleased to be here tonight debating a rule to bring up campaign finance reform under an open process. The American people deserve to know where their representatives stand on the major proposals to reform our campaign finance laws. Although this rule meets the standard of openness that the Blue Dogs call for in our discharge petition, the process for considering campaign finance reform will fall far short of the standard of fairness unless we defeat the previous question and allow the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) to offer an amendment to allow the House to have clean votes on all the major proposals under a fair process. Having worked with my Republican colleagues to use discharge petitions to force a fair debate on the balanced budget constitutional amendment and other issues, I am very disappointed that the majority did not listen to the advice of those of us who initiated the discharge petition that brought us to this point. The Blue Dog discharge petition in the underlying rule, H. Res. 259, calls for extensive debate on leading reform legislation followed by votes on each offered substitute. The guiding principle behind the Blue Dog discharge petition was that we should allow clean up-or-down votes on all major campaign finance plans: the freshman bill, who worked awfully hard on their bill; the Shays-Meehan bill; the Doolittle bill; any alternative either leadership wishes to offer and any other alternatives as substitutes at the beginning of the process. Under the king-of-the-hill process in which the amendment receiving the largest number of votes becomes the base bill for the purpose of perfecting amendments, if more than one amendment receives a majority vote, the Blue Dog discharge rule would have allowed clean votes on all amendments in the form the authors of the amendment wanted by prohibiting second degree amendments. Let me just sum up by saying what we must do to provide for a clean and open debate is to allow all the substitutes to be submitted as those authors wish them to be submitted and vote on them and allow the one that gets the most votes to become the base bill and then allow anyone that has an amendment to offer that amendment to the base bill ultimately getting to the final package of true campaign reform. To do less than that will make another sham. We have already been through one sham in this process. To do other than that will end up with another sham.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3534, the Mandates Information Act. This bill extends to the private sector comparable procedural limitations currently placed on legislation imposing unfunded federal mandates on state or local governments. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy in my District and, in fact, across the country. It always has been my practice to take the impact on small businesses into account when legislation is being considered, and it is for this reason that I support this bill. The bill before us requires Congressional committees to include in their legislative reports detailed information on potential private sector mandates in excess of $100 million that would result from the legislation. H.R. 3534 also requires that the Committee reports provide information on a proposed bill's effect on consumer prices and the supply of goods and services in consumer markets, as well as on matters relating to workers. Those of us supporting this bill dare not oversell its merits. H.R. 3534 will not end private sector mandates. What it will do is force Congress to honestly examine and make public the consequences of its actions, considering the effects of mandates on consumers, workers and small businesses. Congress would fully retain its right to pass whatever legislation it chooses. There easily could be instances in which Congress determines that the benefit of the regulation is worth its cost. This measure would simply force Congress to reveal and consider more complete information about the policies we approve. I do want to mention one reservation I have about the bill before us. The current legislation states that points of order would not be permitted against bills that have net decreases in tax revenues over five years, even if the measure includes a tax increase. This provision assumes that the mix of tax provisions resulting in a decrease in revenues automatically will be a net positive for businesses, workers and consumers. There is absolutely no reason for such an assumption. This provision places tax cutting of any sort above all other priorities, including reducing business' regulatory burdens, maintaining a balanced budget, or a wide array of other priorities which could be expressed through certain tax cuts. While I trust the good intentions of the author of this language, I believe that those supporting this language are looking at this issue from a narrow perspective which ignores unintended consequences these supporters would not appreciate. Reducing the burdens imposed on small business by the federal government is one of my highest priorities in Congress. I will continue to do whatever I can to encourage and promote a business climate which is conducive to maintaining and expanding small business opportunities. Enactment of this legislation will assist me and other Representatives in this effort.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to inquire of the majority leader if the leadership has ascertained as yet the nature of the rule under which we will consider campaign finance reform? As my colleague is I am sure aware, the discharge petition that many of us felt would have given a very free and open debate of the issue includes some mode of operation that we feel is very, very important to the consideration of these competing ideas. The so-called freshman bill and the Shays-Meehan bill, we believe very strongly, should be considered in what we call the Queen of the Hill, in which the one that gets the most votes becomes the base bill; and then the open rule that I believe everyone has promised for amendment would then occur thereafter. Could my colleague shed some light as to whether or not the leadership might be sympathetic to basically having the rule that was about to be discharged be the rule under which we will conduct the free and open debate?

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, the legislation pending before the House, H.R. 10, the Financial Services Competition Act, contains numerous provisions that cause concern. Specifically, I'd like to bring to the attention of the Members of this body the section of the bill that proposes to broadly expand the mission of the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) System. The authorities of the FHLB System would be expanded to provide advances to commercial banks for a variety of purposes, including agricultural lending. I am concerned that this proposal could actually limit credit availability by adversely affecting the two government sponsored enterprises chartered to serve rural markets: the Farm Credit System (FCS) and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (FarmerMac). Expanding the Federal Home Loan Bank mission will convert every commercial bank with assets of less than $500 million into a retail GSE. As the ranking Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, I have had a keen interest in rural credit availability for many years. Credit is quite literally the lifeblood of our nation's agricultural producers. As a result, I am very interested in new ways to provide additional credit to farmers and rural communities. However, I am concerned that we have not had ample time to fully consider the serious policy implications of expanding the FHLB System's mission. While I support an appropriate expansion of credit for rural Americans, doing so through the FHLB System, without making important changes in the lending charter of the Farm Credit System, could potentially disrupt the competitive balance that exists in rural markets today. Currently, commercial banks, the Farm Credit System and FarmerMac work to provide competitively priced credit to those who live and work in rural America. We all have an interest in seeing that that competitive balance continues. The Agriculture Committee is aware of efforts by all participants in the rural credit markets to expand their lending authority. I am convinced that if we proceed down the path of expanding authorities, then we must consider all players that provide rural credit.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I take this 5 minutes to further clarify some of the discussions that we had a moment ago concerning the question of campaign finance reform. I want to make it very clear for those who are negotiating on what the rule shall look like and how we shall proceed what the Blue Dog Coalition suggested in the discharge petition that was filed, that was getting very close to having the required number of votes in which we could have had a free and open debate and which we have now been promised that we will have a clean and open debate. There are some general principles allowing clean up-or-down votes on all major campaign finance plans. The freshman bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, and the Doolittle bill, and any alternatives the leadership might come up with on either side of the aisle and wishes to offer as substitutes at the beginning of the amendment process, this is key to the discharge petition that we filed. It is exactly the same discharge petition that was used to successfully bring the balanced budget amendment up in 1992. It is a very fair process if it is allowed to proceed in this manner. All major proposals deserve a vote. The freshmen, bipartisanly, have worked awfully hard; and they worked in an environment in which they believed that there was not going to be campaign finance reform unless there was a compromise reached, and they reached that compromise internally. They worked awfully hard. They deserve to have a chance to have their idea voted upon as they wish it to be voted upon, not as the leadership or any other individual wishes. The same is true with the Shays-Meehan; it deserves to be voted upon on its merits. And then we use what is called the queen-of-the-Hill rule. Let the freshman bill be voted upon. If it gets the majority vote, it becomes the base bill. Then let us vote on Shays-Meehan. If it gets a majority vote and more votes than the freshman bill, it becomes the base bill; whichever one gets the most votes, as ascertained by a majority on both sides, becomes the base bill. And then allow the perfecting amendments to be offered. Let any one of the 435 of us who have an idea that they believe is important to the campaign issues before us be offered. I have one interest, one major interest, that I want to see addressed. It is the soft money question. A lot of people do not know what we are talking about by ``soft money.'' But to me it means unlimited amounts of money given by individuals or corporations for which there is no real reporting therein. I am a great believer in the first amendment, and I have been chagrined to be attacked by many of my so-called friends, people whom I agree with in the special interest, the issue advocacy organizations that believe that somehow, some way, that by having public disclosure of who is in fact contributing to the ads that they are responsible for offering, that somehow that is against their constitutional right. I fail to understand that. Anybody that wants to run ads against me, as they will between now and November, that is a first amendment right. I just believe very strongly that the people of the 17th District deserve the right to know who is paying for those ads, called public disclosure. This is a debate that I hope we will spend some considerable time on, because I think there is a little misunderstanding about this. No one is talking about doing away with individual rights to express themselves under the first amendment of the Constitution, but we are talking about something which we are seeing live and in living color played out on both sides of the aisle, tremendous expenditures of dollars in which accusations are occurring on both sides. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me just say again to those who are negotiating the rule in which we are going to consider this, it is extremely important, and we ask of you in a very respectful way, to go back and look at the discharge petition and to make sure when that rule comes to the floor of the House you are truly going to allow the will of the House to be followed in allowing the Members to express themselves in a free and unhindered manner.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. My colleague from Texas adequately pointed out that the tentative schedule for next week does not include the mention of campaign finance reform, and that is what brought me to the floor of the House to inquire. Timing could not possibly be a problem, because here it is 3:30 on Thursday afternoon. We have adjourned for the week. There will be no votes tomorrow, on Friday, no votes on Monday, and no votes on the next Friday. There was a promise made. And back where I come from, your word is your bond and a handshake is as good as a contract. This is very disturbing, particularly since we were at the verge of having a discharge petition that would have discharged a very fair rule; that would have allowed all ideas. And I think it is incredibly important that when we do eventually get to campaign finance reform, and hopefully next week, that we will allow a clean up-and-down vote on the freshman bill and a clean up-and-down-vote on the Shays-Meehan bill, and then allow any Members of this body that have any constructive ideas of what should be included in campaign finance reform to be included. That is what we worked awfully hard to do, and there was bipartisan support for that. There were promises made if they would just remove their names from the discharge petition, that we would get just exactly what we were asking for. And now these rumors that are circulating are very, very disturbing to many of us who, again, believe that our word is our bond.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have been here for the purposes of hoping to hear in the schedule for next week that we were going to have campaign finance reform up, since that was sort of agreed to here when we had a discharge petition that was pulled down, and we had the indication that we were going to have this bill up. I had hoped to be over here to hear that colloquy between you and the majority. I guess they are not here.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the minority whip yield for a question?

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Riggs amendment, and I do so after numerous conversations with institutions of higher learning in my district. There are a lot of folks around that complain regularly that the Federal Government, specifically the Department of Education, exercises too much control over the education of our children. They claim that they are for local control in autonomy and education. My friends, this amendment promotes expanded authority for the Federal Government and takes away decision-making power from States and localities, as read by those who are responsible for education in my district. My office has been in discussion with university presidents from across my district. They represent a broad spectrum of schools, small, large, public, and private, those who are affected by this amendment, and those who are not immediately affected. In spite of the differences in their schools, though, all of the university presidents in my district that we spoke with were unified in their opposition to this amendment. They are worried about this latest potential intrusion by the Federal Government in instructing schools on ways in which they must conduct their business. They foresee an impact far more draconian and extreme than Proposition 209 and the Hopwood decision. The last thing that these folks and their universities that have done such a fine job educating young people of west Texas want is more intrusion and regulation from the Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to listen to these voices, to vote no on the Riggs amendment, and help prevent a broad-based, far-reaching, intrusive Federal prohibition that universities do not support and students do not want.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the work of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the Committee on Ways and Means on this legislation. However, I respectfully disagree with the assessment that the solution to Social Security reform is establishment of another commission. Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous commissions, panels, et cetera, that have diagnosed the problems facing Social Security. They have offered countless options to address these problems. We do not have a shortage of proposals for reforming the Social Security system. Next month the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I will join Senators Judd Gregg and John Breaux in introducing legislation incorporating the recommendations of the National Commission on Retirement Policy organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This proposal will address the issue of retirement savings in general, in addition to the future of Social Security. It reflects several months of work of a bipartisan commission composed of a diverse group of experts as well as Members of Congress. I doubt that an external commission will know what is politically viable. Only Members of Congress, the people's elected representatives, are qualified to decide what are forms the American public is willing to support in a program as important as Social Security. Members of Congress are elected to provide leadership on issues facing our Nation. Our constituents expect and deserve to have their elected representatives make the tough choices necessary to ensure that the Social Security program is strengthened and preserved. Expert commissions are useful in bringing new ideas into the debate and helping Congress understand the issues. We are past that point on this issue. There are more than enough expert reports that identify the problems and offer ideas for solutions. Now is the time for elected officials to begin doing our job of taking these proposals and putting together a politically viable proposal that the public will support. Earlier this year, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I introduced legislation establishing a special bipartisan bicameral committee of Congress so that those of us elected to make tough decisions would be able to work through the regular legislative process to take all the proposals that have been developed and put together bipartisan Social Security reform legislation that can be voted into law. We submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules yesterday that attempted to incorporate some of the ideas from our super committee proposal into the commission, but were not able to offer that amendment today. There is no question that legislation of this magnitude cannot receive the confidence of the American public or Congress unless it is bipartisan from the beginning. The failure of health care reform in 1994 made this crystal clear. I am pleased that the President has learned this lesson by allowing a bipartisan discussion to go forward on Social Security instead of unilaterally offering a proposal of his own. While I agree very strongly that we must maintain bipartisanship in the Social Security debate, I do not believe that a commission is necessary. The President is demonstrating the presidential leadership that will be essential to maintaining bipartisanship. Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Lott and other Republican leaders have all expressed a commitment to Social Security reform. And I am committed to doing my part to speak out against those who attempt to politicize this debate from left or right. Also, I want to speak briefly in support of the motion to recommit stating that the entire budget surplus be reserved until we enact Social Security reform. Reserving the budget surplus for Social Security is not a substitute for structural reforms of Social Security but it will give us a running start towards structural Social Security reform. Reserving the surplus for Social Security reform will make it easier to enact policies which provide a strong Social Security system for future retirees. Proposals to use the surplus for any other reasons, including the proposals to create individual savings accounts to supplement Social Security reform now, will make our task much more difficult, that task of comprehensive Social Security reform. While I strongly support the concept of individual savings accounts within the context of comprehensive legislation, we should not enact individual accounts on a piecemeal basis without knowing how they will fit within a comprehensive reform.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, these are loan funds. When loan funds are granted and paid back, there is no loss to the taxpayers of America. The gentleman knows this and I know this.

Mr. STENHOLM. ``Guaranteed'' is correct. But the bottom line is, is it a good investment and for whom is it a good investment? It is a good investment for American agriculture. And to those who continue to drag your feet and say we could not even bring this bill up and consider it, to those who continue to do that, you are in danger of doing irreparable harm to the American farmer and rancher, because we depend upon world trade, and we are a part of a 182-nation group that is attempting to have organized trade. For us to continue to drag our feet can do irreparable harm to the American farmer, and when you vote no on this, understand that.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, these elite groups that we heard talked about a moment ago that are sneaking this through include the American Farm Bureau Federation, Dairy Farmers of America, National Cattlemen's Beef Association and, U.S. Wheat Associates. To all of these who have suggested that we are spending taxpayer money, you are not reading the facts. You know better than to stand here in the well and tell our colleagues who are not here that we are going to be appropriating this money, when we have not appropriated one penny in the history of the IMF. Why are we here for the IMF? Because it is in America's best interests. It has been ever since we have had the IMF, and it is today. To those who want the reforms, I agree with you on that. And let us look at the Wall Street Journal of April 10. ``IMF moves are expected to force open markets.'' We are doing all of the things that critics who usually we agree on are saying we need to do, but the only way we can get it done is to bring this bill and have this action done. If we had not had this in place, we could not have had GSM-102 funding for agriculture that has been very successful in building up markets.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I certainly share the goal of limiting taxes and strongly support reducing taxes. However, I cannot support a fiscally irresponsible proposal that allows us to increase spending with a simple majority, but requires a supermajority to pay for the spending increases that we have already enacted. I want to start by saying that I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, who has worked diligently and honorably for years on behalf of this amendment, and I know that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has the highest level of integrity. Having worked with him on several efforts to control spending and bring fiscal responsibility to our government, I know that he advocates this amendment based on a sincere principle, and I respect that. Unfortunately, I am not sure that everyone advocating this amendment is doing so for the same motivations. This debate today is part of a pattern of fiscal irresponsibility and a fiscally irresponsible legislative agenda of this year. Two weeks ago we passed a highway bill that increased spending by more than $20 billion beyond the 42-percent increase in highway spending in the budget resolution without saying how we are going to pay for it. Next month, we will vote to sunset the current Tax Code without giving business and other taxpayers any idea of how they should plan for the future. We read about all kinds of promises about what Congress is going to do, but we do not have a budget resolution to show how we are going to pay for it all. If Congress is interested in keeping taxes low, we should focus our energy on controlling spending. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership seems to be more interested in moving legislation to increase spending than they are in working to control spending. The Concord Coalition, one of the most credible watchdogs of deficit spending, opposes this amendment because it would be detrimental to maintaining a balanced budget, and they are right. My foremost fiscal concern is that we not mortgage our children's future to pay for today's consumption. Balancing the budget honestly without depending on the Social Security surplus should be our highest priority. Under this amendment, we can increase spending by a majority vote, but would need a two-thirds vote to raise the revenues to pay for the increased spending. The easy option will be for Congress to increase spending and pay for that by increasing the debt we will leave to our children and grandchildren. Witness the 1980's, if Members do not believe Congress left to its own whims, what we will do. This debate is just a distraction from a meaningful debate on genuine tax reform and budget priorities. If we were serious about helping American taxpayers, we would be doing our work to develop legislation that will actually accomplish something meaningful. We would have passed a budget resolution to establish a road map to show how we are going on control spending and maintain a balanced budget. We would have passed IRS reform legislation to ensure that the important protections in this bill were available when Americans filed their tax returns this year. We would be conducting serious hearings to carefully examine the various options for tax reform. I am anxious to begin work on tax reform. I thought we were supposed to start work on tax reform before the Presidential election in 1996. We have been talking about tax reform for almost 3 years now, but have not even begun to do any serious work in committees to bring legislation forward. I am a lot more interested in working to pass meaningful IRS reform and tax reform legislation that would do a lot more for American taxpayers instead of spending time debating amendments that are going nowhere. Saying that a simple majority can increase spending but a two-thirds vote is necessary to pay for it is irresponsible. The truly conservative and responsible position is to protect future generations from having to bear the burden of our irresponsibility today. Vote responsibly. Oppose this amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule; and I do so not in criticism of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. They have attempted to do their job in high priority. My concern today deals with the total amount of spending and the waiving of the budget process in a way that I have never seen in the 19 years I have served in this House of Representatives. We Democrats used to waive budget decisions and were criticized for doing it. But it was wrong when we did it. It is wrong when they do it today. And never have we seen it done as it is being done today. Where is the budget resolution? I want to have a warning, and I want all of my colleagues who believe this is a free shot today to listen to what I am about to say. We are using real bullets in this bill. Passing the highway bill as it is passed today jeopardizes a lot of other programs. Agriculture, for example, has priorities; and they are the first casualty of this bill. The Committees on Agriculture in the House and Senate have worked with the administration to reach a compromise on the Ag Research Conference, using savings from food stamp administration to pay for agriculture research, nutrition programs, rural development, and crop insurance. Now we are hearing the leadership of the Congress has determined that the agriculture research bill will not come to a vote because those monies have been reserved to pay for the highway bill. Now, if my colleagues care about problems of crop insurance, if my colleagues care about problems of nutrition programs, if my colleagues care about rural development programs, if my colleagues care about crop insurance concerns, please understand this is not a free shot. Paying for these programs under the caps of the budget that we have bipartisanly agreed to will be extremely difficult if the first bill outside the budget resolution comes to the floor of the House and is passed without anyone thinking they are going to have to pay for it with real dollars.