Charles W. Stenholm: “I must say this debate is absolutely phenomenal. All of the arguments that are being made about the automatic spending…”

“I must say this debate is absolutely phenomenal. All of the arguments that are being made about the automatic spending are precisely why I oppose the bill. Not because I do not support the conservation, all of the wildlife, all of the good things that are in it. But remember, 2 years ago we came before this body and we took highway spending off budget. Last year we took aviation off budget. Now we are taking conservation off budget. We are creating new entitlement programs, and I do not know how many times I have stood on this floor and listened to people say we have just got to stop and restrain entitlement spending. But, Mr. Chairman, because it is a good purpose, and who can argue against all of the good things that are in this bill? But no matter how we color it, spending is spending. And no matter how many times we talk about the good parts of legislation, ultimately we are going to have to make some decisions. And this amendment today does not say we cannot spend it. It just says that we have got to look at what actually is happening in the year in which we are going to be appropriating for various conservation programs and say whether the money is there or not. If it is not there without touching Social Security, we cannot do it.”