Charles W. Stenholm: “my friend from California was exactly right when he said a moment ago that Social Security is not on the floor today…”

“my friend from California was exactly right when he said a moment ago that Social Security is not on the floor today, but it should be. The reason I rise to strongly oppose this rule and strongly oppose the previous question is that I believe that we ought to have an amendment allowed that would preserve the lockbox for Social Security. What our friends on this side of the aisle are saying clearly to the American people today, it is much more important to preserve the tax cuts in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 than it is to protect Social Security and the ability of our young people and the baby boomers to draw it in 2007. That is the choice today, and do I mind voting on this? Not at all. To those that continue to say we are talking about raising taxes on this side of the aisle, no one on this side of the aisle has said one word about raising taxes on anybody in the past several days or in the days ahead. My friends on the other side of the aisle will point out the primary reason we face a deficit this year is because of the war on terrorism and the economic downturn, and they are right, this year, but we are talking about a 10-year proposal. We are talking about setting into concrete a budget resolution that was passed before the war, before September 11, and saying we cannot touch any of that. We are going to borrow all of the Social Security Trust Fund moneys for the next 10 years. That is what my colleagues are saying.”