Charles W. Stenholm: “the gentleman from Florida was correct a moment ago when he said, this is all about who is going to get a tax cut, and…”

“the gentleman from Florida was correct a moment ago when he said, this is all about who is going to get a tax cut, and that is precisely why I oppose both the substitute and, even more strongly, the base bill. Because the gentleman from Florida knows that the Archer-Shaw bill, for the future of Social Security, requires this $116 billion in order to fund it. Therefore, the tax cut they are perfectly willing to give back today will jeopardize the very plan my Republican colleagues have worked very hard for. The gentleman from Florida also knows that this gentleman is ready to reach out and to work with my colleagues on the other side on a meaningful Social Security fix. However, I would submit to my colleagues, and why I so strongly oppose this so-called tax cut, is because we are misleading the senior citizens of this country. Because no matter how many times the gentleman from Florida stands on the floor and says nothing in his bill will jeopardize Medicare, how can he say that, when the removal of that will require $14 trillion over the next 75 years to replace it. Now, the gentleman will say that he is going to replace it, and both bills replace it, but let me point out legislating general revenue transfers to the Medicare trust fund simply to tread water in terms of solvency is a dangerous precedent.”