Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. No, sir.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule today. While I had offered a suggestion for a little different kind of a rule, I believe on close analysis this is a fair rule for purposes of debating the relevant issues that will come before us today. Madam Speaker, I would say, as one of the coauthors of the Schaefer- Stenholm amendment, to those who are concerned about Social Security benefits, education, and all of the other extremely important endeavors, there is nothing in our substitute that has anything to do with a negative effect on any of those issues. That will be brought out in general debate. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 44 allowing for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, as well as five substitute amendments to that language. I want to commend the Republican leadership for its prompt consideration of this critical matter. As this body knows, it has taken herculean efforts on the part of many Members, both Democrat and Republican, to bring this issue to the floor during the last three Congresses. In each case, we filed discharge petitions to the rules allowing for the consideration of these matters. In each case, we crafted rules which granted a fair and open debate on the major contending approaches to amending the Constitution for purposes of requiring a balanced Federal budget. And in each case we, unfortunately, fell just short of the two-thirds support necessary for passage. I am supporting this rule because I believe it allows for debate on those relevant issues of greatest concern to House Members. While I had suggested an alternative way to handle the rule which the committee did not adopt, I believe that this rule is fair and I am pleased, Chairman Solomon, to be able to support it today. My great, great hope is that this year, at last, will be the final time to deliberate this issue. It is time for us to get the amendment behind us so that all of this energy can be focused, instead, on the actual process of achieving a balanced budget. All of the hours my staff and I, not to mention so many others, have been required to put into this issue notwithstanding, I know that our forbears showed remarkable wisdom and foresight when they made it so difficult for us to amend the Constitution. This is no minor task we will be undertaking for the next 2 days. When we Representatives take our oath of office, we swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That oath must not be taken lightly. This is no place for games-playing. It is no place for seeking political advantage. It is no place for irresponsible, short-sighted self-interest. I hope that the remarks which fill the debate of the next 2 days, regardless of whether the speaker be favorably or negatively inclined toward the amendments, reflect the seriousness of our endeavor. Because when these 2 days are over, regardless of the final outcome of these votes, we will find ourselves still facing the cancer of debt which is destroying the fiscal flesh and bones of our country. Regardless of whether you vote yea or nay on House Joint Resolution 1 or on any of the amendments, each individual Member must be willing to say, ``This is what I did today to make our country a better place.'' I appeal to both sides, let us deliberate this issue straightforwardly and honestly. Especially to the freshmen Members I would say, please evaluate this issue on its merits, not on its internal or external politics. There is no such thing as an easy vote on a constitutional amendment. I come here prepared to work hard these next 2 days and my hope is that the hard work will pay off with 290 votes on final passage. But as I said last year at the beginning of this debate, come Friday I'll have the same gameplan whether the BBA wins or loses and whether the tax limit wins or loses. Regardless of how many votes there are, I'll be working hard for the rest of the year to chip away at our monstrous deficit. Next week I'll be working with Peter Visclosky to develop a revised enforcement implementation plan. This spring I'll be working with Chairman Kasich amd Ranking Democrat Sabo on the first installment of the 7-year glidepath to a balanced budget. Teaming up with Jane Harman and Chet Edwards, I will push for some of those budget process reforms that we believe will make a difference in the way business is done around here. Joining with David Minge, Dan Miller, and other porkbusters I will seek to keep our appropriations bills clean and lean. My wish is that even those who vote against the constitutional amendment--in fact, especially those who vote against a constitutional amendment--are ready to join me in saying, ``This is what I did this Congress, this year, this day, to take the debt off of my children's shoulders.'' Again, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and, subsequently, to support the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SCHAEFER, I yield to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who has worked long and hard on this issue. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and for taking this time today to allow a preliminary discussion of a subject that I too appreciate his leadership on over the years, as we have brought ourselves again to this week where we will have a vote on whether or not to amend the Constitution for purposes of balancing the budget here on the floor of the House, and we are cautiously optimistic we will have the 290 votes to do so. Before I do that, I want to remember a few other names for us today that go back in this battle. Larry Craig, now Senator Craig, has been one of the real leaders in the effort that is behind House Joint Resolution 28 and Senate Joint Resolution 1, the subject of our discussion today. Also Bob Smith of Oregon, now retired, but Bob, as you remember, worked tirelessly with us the last Congress to a futile defeat by some 12 votes. But then we have some others. Tom Carper, now Governor Carper of Delaware, was one of the original Democrats that has taken on the leadership of this effort, and now as Governor has continued to offer us encouragement along the lines of this bipartisan, bicameral budget amendment that we talk about today. Mike Castle, who has joined us now, Mike from Delaware on the Republican side of the aisle, will be joining us in this effort this week. So Delaware has done their share. Jon Kyl, now Senator Jon Kyl, Olympia Snowe, now Senator Snowe, Jim Inhofe, of Oklahoma, now Senator Inhofe, have all played unique roles in bringing us to what we affectionally call the bipartisan, bicameral balanced budget amendment. I would like to take now a little time to just talk about two or three major points that we are going to hear a lot about. One is that we should not be doing this through the Constitution, that we ought to be doing this the old-fashioned way, by cutting spending, to which I answer absolutely. I did not come and do not come today to this well with a great deal of happiness as to being here suggesting that we ought to amend the Constitution. I reluctantly, in fact almost never, have supported constitutional amendments, and I have reluctantly come to supporting this for one reason, and you mentioned that in your opening remarks, and that is I am now convinced this is the only tool that we need to put in our arsenal that will help us do the job that we must do, and that is balance the budget. I wish we did not have to do it that way, but I am convinced the only way you can do this with Congress after Congress, succeeding Congresses, is to put into the Constitution the requirement that we do live within our means. I would remind people, and will do so over and over this week, that this year's budget is the first year's installment, and I anticipate with a great deal of confidence that the budget that this House will prepare this year will give us the first year's installment, with a 7- year projection, not a 5-, but a 7-year projection, so that we can honestly say to the people this year, we will in fact set ourselves on the course to balance in 2002, and this year is the first year, and then next year we will come back again with a budget resolution, with reconciliation, which should and I anticipate and hope will be in this year's budget resolution, that we will do so. But then comes one of the major reasons why a constitutional amendment is necessary, because this Congress can get elected to do that. But what about the next Congress? This President can suggest we ought to do that, and we ought to have a budget on the line of getting to balance, which we have got it going in the right direction after the first 2 years of the current administration. But what about the next President? What about the next Congress? And that is where we have always run into difficulty. So let me say to those that suggest that we ought to get the cart before the horse, that we ought to have the 7-year budgets first. We have tried that, it does not work. Let's take a 1-year budget this year, prove with good faith we are sincere about it, but let us also set in concrete the fact we cannot wiggle out of it this Congress, next year, or succeeding Congresses. Another point that I want to emphasize over and over, I am getting a little bit put out with those who every time we bring up the balanced budget constitutional amendment seem to have the next word in their vocabulary, Social Security, and then sending convincing letters, which some group is doing to constituents in the 17th District, that if we pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment, Social Security will be wrecked. That could not be further from the truth. They ought to be saying unless we balance our budgets, Social Security is going to be wrecked, and that is for our children and grandchildren, and there is nothing in this amendment that will have one slight, negative effect on Social Security for the current recipients. Nothing in this amendment has ever, does now, or will ever have anything negative. And to those who continue to politicize and frighten senior citizens around the country, I say shame on you. We are going to talk more about that as we get into this week's debate. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to share this hour, Mr. Payne of Virginia, with you and others, as we talk about the bipartisan, bicameral balanced budget amendment, the only amendment that has a chance of getting 290 votes. I am proud to say it is Senate Joint Resolution 1, it has tremendous support on the Senate side, and now we believe that we have the votes on the House side, and I believe that after the debate this week, we will be able to prove that. But I am a great believer in not counting our chickens before they are hatched. Therefore, I commend you again for taking this hour to talk, so that all of our colleagues, those not in the House today, will begin to focus on the merits of what we are to talk about. Thank you very much for allowing me this privilege.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, since 1983, the United States Congress and the German Parliament, the Bundestag, have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about the working of each other's political institutions and convey Members' views on issues of mutual concern. This year marks the fifth exchange with a reunified Germany and a parliament consisting of members from all 16 German States. A delegation of staff members from the United States Congress will be chosen to visit Germany from May 7 to May 20. During the 2-week exchange, most time will be spent at meetings conducted by Bundestag Members, Bundestag party staff members, and representatives from political, business, academic, and media groups. Cultural activities and a weekend visit in a Bundestag Member's district will round out the exchange. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States in July for a 3-week period. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington and visit the districts of Congressional Members over the Fourth of July recess. The Congress-Bundestag Exchange is highly regarded in Germany, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff members who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag sends senior staff professionals to the United States. The United States endeavors to reciprocate. Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite United States delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern in Germany and the United States such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, health care, and other social policy issues. In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag staff members when they visit the [[Page E133]] United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two staff people in their Member's district over the Fourth of July, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district. Participants will be selected by a committee composed of U.S. Information Agency [USIA] personnel and past participants of the exchange. Senators and Representatives who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state why they believe they are qualified, and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated. Applications should be sent to Kathie Scarrah, c/o Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, 316 Hart Senate Office Building, by Wednesday, February 15.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, over the last several decades it has become far too easy for the Federal Government to take credit for programs without having to foot the bill. Although many of these programs have had worthy goals, it has been irresponsible for us to set the priorities and expect State and local governments, school boards, and private businesses to raise their taxes or curtail their services to pay for programs we impose, particularly when our mandates have not made sense. Now, the people are speaking, and today we have the opportunity by passing H.R. 5 to say we are hearing you. I can think of no better example of what I am talking about than Brownwood, TX, a community in my district. When the people of Brownwood received their water and sewer bills, the exact amount of the bill which is due to Federal unfunded mandates is noted. In the copies that I insert in the Record today, that amount typically is 40 percent of the total: $264.91, $103.31 unfunded Federal mandates; $46.54, $18.15 unfunded mandates. And then when you have a note, ``Please understand this is killing the little people''; people living on fixed incomes who have to pay what their local leaders are saying do not make sense is what this is all about today. I can list Mineral Wells, TX, $300,000 the school board had to pay for purposes of removing asbestos from the school when the best science available was telling us you are going to make the problem worse not better. These are the reasons why we are here today.