Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this version of the balanced budget amendment for many, many reasons, one of which I will talk about, on agriculture. But a second one is that this one that we are about to vote on increases the debt of the United States by $41 billion more over the next 3 years than the balanced budget amendment that I and a large number of [[Page H 13626]] Members on both sides, I believe, will soon end up supporting, and that is the so-called coalition budget. But I repeat, the balanced budget amendment borrows $41 billion more than the better alternative that we could have voted on today. Let us talk about agriculture for just a moment. We Democrats learned a lesson 2 years ago when we tried to reform our health care system partisanly, in closed meetings, behind closed doors, and excluding the minority, and we were wrong. We paid the price because nothing good happened. Now we have the majority writing farm policy behind closed doors in a partisan manner, excluding the minority. You are wrong today for doing that, to bring a farm bill as part of this reconciliation that destroys the safety net for agriculture, an agriculture community that must compete in an international marketplace, an international marketplace that is not as free as those who have designed this policy, not members of the Committee on Agriculture. This farm part of this reconciliation bill was not written by the House Committee on Agriculture. It was written in the Speaker's office and by certain designated hitters who chose, in fact, to put their philosophical beliefs into this reconciliation agricultural portion. Another reason I oppose this version of the agriculture component is that it does not by any stretch of imagination recognize the unique needs of rural health care. The Medicare-Medicaid cuts from rate of increase, I readily concur with every chart I have seen, they are totally accurate in what they say, but they are immaterial. It is immaterial what we are talking about numbers unless we change the policy that goes with it. The policy directions that are present in the budget we are about to vote on do not address the needs of rural America, health care, rural housing, water and sewer, conservation needs, research. Research, we are continuing to cut in that area. These are the things that concern many of us on this side of the aisle, that the agricultural component, the policy, the decisions in which we are going to see whether or not some future speaker can stand in this area right now, as I am standing and talking to you today, and saying are we not blessed to live in a country that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost of any other country in the world. We do not do that by accident. We do not do that by following blind philosophical beliefs. We do it by following good policy. Oppose this budget. Support one that will have better policy.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, unlike some Members on the other side of the aisle who spoke of this being the day they have waited for years to see, I feel like the young boy who waited for Christmas only to find lumps of coal in his stocking. How I would love to celebrate a common sense, compassionate, honest, fair balanced budget. I would have loved having an opportunity to participate in the conference which produced this budget. Even though I was one of the overall conferees, I got my first glimpse of the package this morning, first from some lobbyists who evidently had first dibs at the information and then finally summary information compiled by my ranking member. I would love to celebrate a budget that speaks to the need for reaching balance before using more borrowed money to allow for tax cuts. I would love to celebrate a balanced budget that takes seriously the impact which this level of Medicaid savings will have on the underserved in rural and inner city America. I make reference to the letter I received just this morning from the Texas Hospital Association urging all Members of the Texas delegation to vote against this conference report because ``the various health care provisions in this legislation are not in the best interest of patients, communities, and those who provide their care.'' I would love to celebrate a balanced budget that holds harmless the most vulnerable in our society: seniors in nursing homes, lower income working families trying to stay off of welfare, disabled individuals. The other party has implied that unless Members support this reconciliation bill, one opposes a balanced budget. That's simply not true. We presented hard evidence here on the House floor that that is not true. We presented a CBO-scored 7-year balanced budget which didn't destroy Medicare, Medicaid, EITC, student loans, children's nutrition, and so many other programs. Our budget would require shared sacrifice, but not at the expense of compassion. I do commend Chairman Kasich for the incredibly hard work he has done in putting together a package. I offer tremendous praise for the way he has moved the debate in this country toward a balanced budget. But this is not the balanced budget we need. President Clinton has stated clearly that he intends to veto this reconciliation bill and I support him in that decision. But just as strongly, I will follow by urging him to work toward finding the middle ground which protects some of his priorities and principles, remaining within the framework of a time-certain balanced budget. I support every Member of this body, Democrat or Republican, who refuses to accept defeat in finding a commonsense resolution of our disagreements, rolls up their sleeves, and moves toward a balanced budget. I will vote ``no'' today but this campaign is far from over today. I hope that the next time we come to the floor for this debate, I will have the privilege of standing shoulder to shoulder with both my chairman and my ranking Member in supporting a balanced budget solution that we all can be proud of.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a slightly different spin on the last speaker, the distinguished chairman of the committee, and I take no affront to most of what you said, I say to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. But, you know, the problem we have is when the 55 CRs were being discussed on this side, I oppose my leadership on that just as I wished you were opposing your leadership on why we are here today. The issue today is not Social Security. It is not Medicare. It is not balancing the budget. The issue before us is as to whether we are going to have Government continue while we do our work. No matter how you spin it, the bottom line of this particular resolution and this particular argument, Congress has not completed but three of our legislative appropriation bills. If we had all 13, we would not be here. The Department of Agriculture is functioning today because we did our work. The legislative appropriations, I voted against it, I say to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. Why? Because we did not cut ourselves as much. I thought we ought to cut Congress as much as we did the executive branch. We did not do it. I voted ``no.'' I was glad the President vetoed it. I was disappointed he did not make the same point I did. I got criticized by folks on your side of the aisle for doing that. You know, we have not done our work. That is the bottom line. The President cannot get involved until we do ours. We have 68 Democrats who have already said we are for balancing the budget. If you want to deal with these peripheral issues, let us get on with doing our work. Let us put us all on the line. But that is not what we are talking about today. Why cannot we do our work? Why can we not send 13 appropriation bills to the President? Why have we brought the Government down because we have not done our work and tried to blame the President because we have not done our work? Now, ``we'' means me, because I am getting tarred by the same thing the majority is refusing to do. But I am tired of taking it, and I would like to have the blame for this particular bill go where it belongs. The majority has not don it's work.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I did not cast any dispersions intentionally on the work ethic of the Congress. I readily concur with the gentleman's statement. [[Page H 12244]] My only point was it seems to me that the business as usual that you have rightfully complained about, and I have joined you with, is now being perpetuated at a level of which we have not seen in a long time on one particular issue, and that is the continuing. If we could just send a clean continuing resolution, get on with doing our work and allow a little more bipartisanship in it, I believe we would all do better. My only point today was we are blaming the President for doing something that we have not done, regardless of the merits. We have taken 318 days to get to this point. We spent the last four debating this. Why have we not been sending the appropriation bills down to the President so he can sign them? That is my only point.

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

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad for my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to come back. I think the gentleman and I agree on most of what the gentleman has said, not everything. One of the things that has puzzled me about this emergency, and why we are sitting here 3 hours and 55 minutes from shutting down the Government, and we keep talking about what the President has or has not done. It has always seemed reasonable to me that the House should have completed its work, that the budget reconciliation bill that should have been addressed by October 1, which has not been addressed, which I was told tonight at 8 o'clock the conferees were going to meet for the first time, only to be told that we are not going to meet tomorrow until 3 o'clock, but it seems to me that the House should have done its work if we are going to be criticizing the President. What am I missing?

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. STENHOLM. If I could reclaim my time----

Mr. STENHOLM. It seems to me if you have Democrats also saying balance the budget in a time certain, if you have Democrats also saying to balance the budget by the year 2002, it should not be unreasonable for us, before we shut the Government down as we are doing, that we ought to let the regular legislative process go before we start criticizing the President. It seems to me that what we ought to be doing is going ahead and doing our work. We have wasted 5 days playing this game that we are playing. The gentleman and I do not want to play games, we say. At least he has made a speech, it was excellent, on what he is for. I would want to make the same speech. But it seems to me when we are talking about the President not engaging, under the regular legislative process that everyone in this House understands as clearly as anybody could, when you have a bill, the House passes it, the Senate passes it, you go to conference, the conference works it out, the conference then goes to the President, the President signs or vetoes the bill. If he vetoes it, then we try to override, or we start over and we start negotiating.

Mr. STENHOLM. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, there are at least 68 Democrats who agree with you.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. As I understand the motion before us, it is that we do nothing until December 12. In the meantime the gentleman and, I believe----

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, again, I have to come and say I do not understand why we are here. The people are very confused as evidenced by the telephone calls coming to my district. I hear very rational speeches as my good friend from Georgia just made and which I sit and say, I agree with him. That is part of the problem. One of the things the people are saying to us today is no more business as usual. This amendment, this vote today is the best example of business as usual as I have seen in a long time. It does the very things we all decry, at least what I am hearing today. If I could just in 1 minute try to make it clear to everyone who is wondering what are we doing. No. 1, we should not be putting the good faith and credit of the United States at risk, playing political games, no matter what our end goals are. No. 2, we keep hearing, ``Balanced budget, balanced budget. That's why we're doing it.'' There are over 300 Members of this body from both sides of the aisle that have already agreed with our vote and intend to, with our actions, show that that will be done in a time certain. Is it too much to ask of the majority to let that work, to send a clean debt ceiling to the President and then send the budget that we are talking about that has not even been completed, that is going to be conferenced for the first time tonight? Is it too much to ask of the majority, and all of us, in a bipartisan way to send a clean debt ceiling, to not muck around with the debt, the good faith and credit of the United States? Send him a clean one? Get on with doing the people's business? Have the House and Senate act, have the President veto, and then let us get on with the necessary compromising that is going to be necessary in order for us to accomplish what I believe an overwhelming majority of the House wants us to do? No more business as usual. Let us defeat this resolution, and let us get on with doing the House's work as we were elected to do.

Mr. STENHOLM. Would the gentleman allow me to respond?

Mr. STENHOLM. On the debt ceiling.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to get involved in this discussion today, but after a phone call from a constituent this morning, concerning whether or not she should remove her savings from Treasury notes and Treasury bonds and CD's, it suddenly occurred to me that this game that we are playing today is one that could be very harmful to a lot of unintended people. It is true, December 12, we could be doing this between now and then. My fear is that we have spent 314 days getting us nowhere. We have 300 votes on this floor to balance the budget next week. The argument that this is required to get us to a balanced budget is purely political. We have the votes. It seems to me that we are missing something, but the people are not. We are missing it on the floor, particularly [[Page H 12110]] with my friends on this side. We have not done our work. The Congress has not, in a bipartisan way, delivered to the President 13 appropriation bills and a reconciliation bill so that the President can say whether he is for or against it. Though some will say, ``He should be weighing in already,'' I am on the conference, I have not been consulted 1 second. I got a call from the president of the largest farm organization in Texas yesterday asking me, ``Charlie, I hear we are getting close to a farm bill. What is in it?'' I say, ``Mr. Stallman, I have no idea.'' I confronted the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture this morning an asked him, ``What is going on?'' And he said, ``Charlie, if I knew, you would be the first to know if you would just ask me.'' Committee chairmen do not know what is in the bills that are coming before us in this heated debate. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we could get away from some of this political rhetoric that is now occurring. If I have misspoken, and I would be happy to yield to any of my friends on the other side of the aisle, if I have said anything; I would be glad to have a discussion, as we had between the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] just a moment ago. But it seems to me that we are playing an unneeded political game, risking the good faith and credit of the United States in order to prove a political point. It seems to me the risk is not worth it.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. speaker, if I could reclaim my time, that is totally irrelevant to the discussion today. What we should do today is do our work, and then get on with the negotiations. That is irrelevant.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker reminded me of an oft- quoted quote of the late Will Rogers when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much; it is them knowing so much that ain't so that is the problem.'' Medicare is not the issue today. The fundamental question is: Why is it in a continuing resolution? That is a simple question. It is not like we could not get a unanimous vote to have a clean CR sent to the President that he will sign. That can be done, guaranteed 100 percent. The problem is we have spent 314 days not doing our work, as we have seen the chart time after time. Now, we are wasting 5 additional days in the same way we have wasted a good part of the previous 314 days, sending something to the President that the President has already said he would veto. Mr. Speaker, I ask simply: Why are we doing this? Why are we wasting a weekend? Why are we having to have our own staffs get ready to be furloughed? Why are we having the possibility of 800,000 of our Federal workers going on a furlough? For what reason? To send a message to the President? Mr. Speaker, the best way to send a message to the President is to do our work so we have got something to negotiate. And to those that say that is not an issue, what about those of us in this body that would like to work with somebody on appropriations bills, on the continuing resolution? Why do we have to have bloodhounds out finding out where you are meeting? Why, when we call the chairman of our own committee, they do not know what is going on? Because the Speaker has not told them yet what it is we are doing. Mr. Speaker, the issue is very clear. We can send a clean CR; we can spend this weekend working instead of speechmaking; we can get on with doing our work and we can quit being ugly to each other and the American people.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. The first thing I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is make this general observation, that are we not truly blessed to live in a country that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply, at the lowest cost of any other country in the world? From that point I make another observation. Here we are, I thought about to discuss one of the most important things for agriculture in the United States in the budget, and we are talking EITC on this side, and no one is discussing agriculture. That has been our problem all year on agriculture. We have ideology running it on this side, and some of us on this side would like to deal with technology. We would like to talk about how we make certain things work. Instead, we are still debating freedom to farm. That is in the budget. Where is someone over here to defend freedom to farm? Where is someone on this side who is prepared to stand up and say the Freedom to Farm Act is the way we ought to go? No one is yet, and I am sure there will be someone soon. This has been the point we have been trying to make all year, not one single minute of hearings have been held on the agricultural sector freedom to farm, which is in the budget today. A simple question, a simple statement. Basically what we are saying, we should not unilaterally disarm our farmers in the international marketplace with trade, GATT, NAFTA, all of the things that are going on, when the rest of the world is continuing to subsidize farmers. What do we hear from the other side? Freedom to farm, freedom to farm, freedom to go broke. Somehow, some way, people believe that we can have our farmers competing with the European Economic Community that are increasing their subsidies. That is the answer we hear in this wonderful budget coming from this side of the aisle. That is the thing we have wanted to see debated and discussed time and time again. For the first time in years, if not history, we have a farm bill in this bill that nobody seems prepared to defend. No one has seen fit even to have hearings. Yet, here we are today, unilaterally disarming, at least from the majority budget. Support the coalition budget, the best alternative.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I join my ranking Member in emphasizing that putting all substance aside, the logistics of bringing this bill to the floor have been an abhorrence not only to the usual committee process but of any democratic process. I want to add a word or two today about the role which the Budget Committee has, or rather could have had, in today's reconciliation bill. Having spent a great deal of my career looking at budget process issues, and in fact, having enjoyed working on a number of those issues with Chairman Kasich, that is what I would like to examine now. I was both surprised and disappointed that this reconciliation bill took a minimalist approach to process reform. Needless to say, this bill is expansive in every other regard. No one single bill has ever entailed such a comprehensive overhaul of Federal Government policy. The other side likes to speak of the Republican revolution and I would, in no way, dispute that this is a revolutionary document. That is why I am disappointed that process reforms which could bring meaningful budget enforcement, greater integrity in the process, and a sense of openness and honesty were left out of the revolution. Two year's ago when we were battling over the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, I engaged in intense negotiations with my leadership to move us closer to enforcement language which would guarantee the deficit reduction promises being made. In particular, we were trying to remove ``uncontrollable'' as an adjective for entitlement spending. The agreement that we reached in 1993 was far less than I wanted, especially with regard to guaranteeing control over the Medicare Program. But do you know what? That agreement showed a lot more enforcement muscle than appears any where in this budget. I received all sorts of Republican lecturing for failing to bring my party to the stronger entitlement control I wanted and yet even that compromise language is missing in this revolution. This bill allows ``uncontrollable'' to continue accurately describing entitlement spending. What else could have been included? Well, the substitute which I am supporting today includes deficit reduction guarantees enforced by sequestration. It has 10 year scorekeeping to make sure that things like grossly ballooning tax cuts start showing up beyond the curtains on current budget windows. Our substitute has process reforms like line item veto and a deficit reduction lock box, which the majority of this House has said it supports. It also adopts numerous provisions borrowed from previously bipartisan bills which many people standing on the other side of the floor right now not only supported but co-authored--things like baseline reform, controlling emergency spending, continuing resolution reform. Where are those provisions today? How did they get left out of the revolution? For a party which has made a mantra of ``Promises Made-- Promises Kept'' why were not some of the promise-keepers built into this bill? I urge my colleagues to vote no on the base bill and vote yes on the substitute which actually has a chance of maintaining the many promises being made today.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I first want to associate myself with Chairman Kasich's remarks earlier today when he commented on the remarkable shift in philosophy toward a balanced budget which has occurred in our country. John, you have done as much as any single individual to bring about that shift and I am grateful for the role you have played. I also associate myself with many of the comments of my ranking member. My Swedish ancestors may turn in their graves but Martin Sabo is one Norwegian who has earned my deepest, highest respect. Finally, I have been proud to spend hours locked up in rooms with coalition members and our staffs as we fought our way through this massive reconciliation substitute. I am proud of our product, making tough choices, always with an eye toward fairness and reasonableness. All Members know that launching into the intricacies of the Federal budget can bring about an eye-glazing, bring-numbing boredom. But budgets are about much more than numbers; they are about people and our values. When the coalition budget reaches balance in 7 years it is not just numbers. It is an assertion of the value that our children and grandchildren should be given as much economic opportunity as we were, not have to pay for our irresponsibility. By putting spending cuts ahead of tax cuts we reinforce the value that rewards should come after hard work, not before. We are not opposed to tax cuts. We simply learned from the 1980's that when dessert comes first, you never get to the spinach. The coalition budget makes reforms in Medicare to keep the program solvent well into the next decade. Value: keep the promises you have made, to today's and tomorrow's seniors. Similarly, the coalition budget finds a numeric middle ground in Medicaid. Value: A society will be judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens, particularly young children needing basic health care, senior citizens needing guaranteed, quality nursing home care, and the disabled. The coalition budget would fundamentally reform America's welfare system, moving people from welfare to the work force, but also it includes sufficient funding for child care, job training, and other building blocks necessary to make a welfare reform policy more than a pot full of empty political promises. Value: balance compassion with a sense of personal responsibility. The Coalition budget maintains support for student loans and agriculture. Value: treasure, nurture, and develop your national resources if you want to remain strong and healthy. Unilaterally disarming the American farmer as he seeks to compete in the international market place food makes about as much sense as unilaterally disarming our country militarily. Disarming our American students by depriving them of the education they will need to compete globally is equal folly. Finally, the coalition budget includes the only meaningful budget enforcement to be found in this debate. Value: if you expect people to believe what you say, you ought to police yourself in ways that show you mean it. Our budget includes hundreds of numbers but all of those numbers draw a picture of values Americans are desperately seeking in their elected officials and in public policy: responsibility, honesty, fairness, compassion. Vote for a commonsense reconciliation budget full of the common values held by most Americans. Vote for the coalition substitute.