[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 30, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1651-H1659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 
                    THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) 
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for 
fiscal years 2006 through 2009, with the House amendment thereto, 
insist on the House amendment, and request a conference with the Senate 
thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.


        Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Thompson of California

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Thompson of California moves that the managers on the 
     part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the House amendment to the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 95 be instructed to agree to the pay-
     as-you-go enforcement provisions within the scope of the 
     conference regarding direct spending increases and tax cuts 
     in the House and Senate. In complying with this instruction, 
     such managers shall be instructed to recede to the Senate on 
     the provisions contained in section 408 of the Senate 
     concurrent resolution (relating to the pay-as-you-go point of 
     order regarding all legislation increasing the deficit as a 
     result of direct spending increases and tax cuts).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Last week, the House passed a budget resolution for fiscal year 2005. 
They did so on a straight party-line vote. But it was the alternative 
with the strongest budget enforcement provisions, the Blue Dog budget, 
that got the bipartisan support. Budget enforcement received bipartisan 
support in the Senate, also. They passed an amendment extending PAYGO 
rules to both revenue and spending measures with the support of a 
bipartisan majority.
  Common ground, bipartisan ground, can be found on the issue of budget 
enforcement; and if we are really going to reduce the deficit, 
bipartisanship is a must.
  Spring is a time of March Madness and the basketball tournament. But 
when it comes to responsible budgeting, I feel like it is baseball 
season around here.
  On March 17, the House Committee on the Budget voted down a PAYGO 
amendment on a straight party-line vote. Strike one.
  On March 24, the House Committee on Rules ruled out of order a PAYGO 
amendment on a straight party-line vote. Strike two.
  And on March 25, the House approved a budget that had no PAYGO rules 
by a straight party-line vote. Three strikes, and we were out.
  When it comes to budget enforcement, the House of Representatives 
struck out, but, unfortunately, it is our constituents that are the 
real losers here today. And our constituents understand that deficits 
impact them directly. They know that a $477 billion deficit means that 
we are borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay our 
bills. They understand that a $7 trillion national debt means that $50 
billion of their hard-earned tax dollars are being sent to other 
countries every single year in interest payments on that national debt. 
Our constituents understand that Washington expects them to balance 
their budgets and to pay their bills. What they do not understand is 
why Washington does not require the same of ourselves.
  Families across America sit down every week to balance their 
checkbooks. Our government, unfortunately, has not balanced its budget 
in 3 years. We have maxed out our national credit cards not once but 
twice; and instead of paying down the debt, we have increased our 
spending limit on that national credit card.
  Today, we can send a clear message that Congress needs to hold itself 
to the same standards that it holds American families. Congress needs 
to pay for what it does. It does not matter if it is an increase in 
spending or a reduction in revenue. If it is important enough to become 
law, we should be required to pay for it. That is the motion to 
instruct that is before us today.
  The motion instructs the conferees to agree to the strongest possible 
enforcement rules for all spending increases and tax cut legislation in 
the House and Senate, and it instructs conferees to adopt the Senate 
amendment on PAYGO as applied to all legislation that increases the 
deficit.
  Members of the Blue Dog Coalition have been calling for the 
reinstatement of PAYGO on both revenue and spending since the Budget 
Enforcement Act expired in 2002. And it is not a partisan concept. As a 
matter of fact, in its original form, PAYGO was part of a bipartisan 
budget agreement between the first President Bush and a Democratic 
Congress. A Democratic President and Congress extended PAYGO in 1993, 
and a Democratic President and Republican Congress extended it again in 
1997.
  Members of both parties have long appreciated the PAYGO rules as an 
enforcement tool that helps Congress achieve and maintain a balanced 
budget.
  Today, I urge Members of both parties to vote yes on this motion to 
instruct. Such a vote will tell our constituents that this House of 
Representatives understands that we are not sent here to play games 
with the budget, but we are sent here to balance the budget. It will 
say that we are serious about deficit reductions and that we are 
willing to reach that goal in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to please vote ``yes'' on this motion 
to instruct.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I join the gentleman when it comes to paying for things 
as we go. Every family, as the gentleman from California said, has to 
pay for things as they go. When they have a bill come in from the light 
company or from the gas company or from the city, from the city office, 
to pay for the water or the garbage collection, they have got to pay as 
they go. When we go to the grocery store and buy the milk and buy the 
bread and buy the eggs, we have got to pay as we go.
  Spending should be paid as we go. There is no question about that. 
There is bipartisan agreement, I think, for that. Spending should be 
paid for. It is an important concept. And the gentleman spoke about the 
outrages of government on the spending side.
  But the argument gets a little bit fuzzy when we start talking about 
the income side or the revenue side. The gentleman wants budget 
enforcement. He has got a partner over here in the Committee on the 
Budget chairman. I certainly want and expect that we will have budget 
enforcement and an opportunity for Members to vote on budget 
enforcement this year. In fact, we passed a bill out of the Committee 
on the Budget together with the budget that was for the purpose of 
enforcement. When we pass a spending plan, we ought to enforce it so 
that there are not increases in spending.
  Unfortunately, the Spending Control Act that the gentleman supports 
and that I support and that I think we have bipartisan agreement on 
supporting has been murkied. There has been some murkiness applied to 
it. Because now, all of a sudden, people want to apply the same 
controls on spending over on

[[Page H1652]]

the tax cut side. And why do they want to do that? Because they do not 
support tax cuts, pure and simple.
  If one comes to the floor today and they vote for this, it basically 
tells all of us that they do not support reducing the tax burden on 
Americans.
  It would be one thing if for some reason the Federal Government was 
running out of taxes. I mean, if we came here today learning for the 
first time that the government was running out of money for some reason 
or another, that there were not taxes coming into the Federal Treasury, 
then I could see why people might be nervous and might say we ought to 
apply some kind of concern or more controls on the tax reform side of 
the debate. But, unfortunately, this is an arbitrary decision that 
comes in that sets yet again another 60-vote point of order on a Senate 
which already has the ability to enforce reduction in taxes with a 60-
vote point of order, meaning that the way this bill or this rule would 
work is if they want to cut taxes in the Senate, they would have to get 
60 votes to waive the rule that the gentleman is promoting today.
  That is exactly what they would have to do if they wanted to pass a 
tax cut. So, instead of one vote, what the gentleman wants is two 
votes. Well, what is wrong with two votes?
  The point of it is that why do we want to murky up the debate about 
controlling spending, about paying for things as we go by having yet 
another rule that comes in that will be gladly waived by everybody who 
wants to waive it, which has been cheerfully done time and time again 
not only in the other body but also in this body. Instead, what we 
should be doing is we should be controlling spending.
  We passed a budget last week that controls that spending side, that 
says we should begin to pay as we go, but, unfortunately, what this 
motion does is it says that somehow the government should pay for 
taxes.
  Think about that for a moment. We are coming up on April 15, a lot of 
people are going to be doing something very interesting about that 
point in time. They are going to be sending in a check to the Federal 
Government. And what does that do? It pays for taxes. So who pays for 
taxes in this country? The American people pay for taxes. How does the 
government pay for taxes? Seriously, think about that. How does the 
government pay for taxes? Does the government pay taxes? No. Each of us 
individually, I presume, pay taxes. I know I am going to be paying my 
fair share, and I am sure the gentleman from California and many other 
people who will come down here today will be paying for taxes. But does 
the government pay for taxes? No.
  Now, if they come here today and they say they do not like the Tax 
Code, again I agree with them. The Tax Code is convoluted. Many of us 
on our side believe we ought to throw it out and start all over with a 
new Tax Code. If they say they want to close loopholes, they should 
vote for the budget when it comes back. Because loophole closing will 
be part of that for corporations or for anybody who is trying to take 
advantage of a loophole within the Tax Code.
  So if they do not like the Tax Code, if they do not like loopholes 
that are in the Tax Code, if they want to control taxes, if they want 
to use taxes as a way to stimulate investment, stimulate savings, 
stimulate job creation in this country, then that is something that we 
should be doing.
  But to pay for taxes, there is only one group that pays for taxes, 
and those are taxpayers. We have an income side, and we have an expense 
side. The expense side we should pay as we go, but the income side, how 
do we pay for income as we go? It does not make any sense.
  So the entire debate today is not a debate about some responsible 
decision about paying for tax cuts. It is a direct attempt to eliminate 
any discussion this year of tax cuts. And if that is what they want to 
do, if they do not want to cut taxes on the job creators in this 
country, if they do not want to cut taxes on farmers, if they do not 
want to allow for married people who were penalized for many years to 
continue under a regime that allows them to finally not be penalized 
for their marriage, if they want to continue the tax relief that was 
provided to families with children, if they want to continue the tax 
relief to small businesses that create most of the jobs in this 
country, then they will come down here and say, no, no, no, they are 
just trying to prevent us from cutting taxes.

                              {time}  1030

  It sounds very responsible, ``pay-as-you-go.'' But remember who pays 
in this country: Taxpayers pay for taxes. The government does not pay 
for taxes. The government does not pay taxes.
  One last thing that I want to say before I turn it back to my friend 
from California. As I was saying before, it would be one thing if the 
government was running out of money. If the debate today was, oh, my 
gosh, somehow tax cuts are irresponsible, because the government is 
running out of money. You allowed taxpayers to keep so much money that 
we are running out of money.
  But here are the line items, and, since we are in the House, I will 
include this for the record, this revenue stream from the Congressional 
Budget Office, so that everyone can see this. But every single year 
under the budget, including tax relief, the amount of money that comes 
out here to Washington increases.
  You might say to yourself, how is that possible? Do you mean to tell 
me if we pass tax relief, on the one hand, more money is coming in to 
the Federal Government? Is this done by magicians?
  No, this is called an American economy that is now $11 trillion and 
growing, and when it grows and when it surges, when jobs are created 
and when people are working and when taxpayers pay taxes, and that is 
who pays for taxes, more money comes in to the Treasury.
  Just listen to this: This year we estimate $1.8 trillion of taxes 
will be coming in to the Federal Government; next year it will be $2 
trillion; then $2.2 trillion; then $2.35 trillion; then $2.475 
trillion; then $2.6 trillion.
  That is growing by about $150 billion a year, and that is a net 
figure. That is including us saying, taxpayers, keep your taxes; 
married people, keep those taxes you were being penalized; parents with 
children, keep that extra money for your kids. That includes us saying 
to small businesses, we do not want all that extra money, we want you 
to keep your jobs. That includes us saying to all those people, keep 
your taxes in your pocket. Do not send it out here in the first place, 
is what we are saying.
  Every year more money comes in to the Federal Treasury. Not by Jim 
Nussle's account, not by any of us as Members, partisan or nonpartisan, 
but by the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget 
Office, which has the job of, in a nonpartisan way, looking at all of 
the statistics and giving us an idea of exactly how this is going to 
work.
  People will come down here and say, do not believe figures 5 years 
from now. Just take this year to next, a $200 billion increase in taxes 
coming in to the Federal Treasury, and we are assuming as part of that 
that we want to reduce taxes.
  Again, the whole point of this is, who pays for taxes? My friends on 
the other side come rushing down here today with a motion saying the 
government pays for taxes. That is wrong. There is only one entity in 
America that pays for taxes, and that is taxpayers. And as taxpayers, 
they constantly tell us, time and time again, we spend our money more 
wisely, you should worry about how you spend your money.
  Taxes are doing just fine. We are sending more money every year, as I 
just explained, to the Federal Government. What you need to control is 
spending. You ought to pay-as-you-go for spending. You ought to make 
sure that you are paying for that increase in spending. That is where 
you ought to worry about that, and you ought to control spending in 
order to accomplish getting back to a balanced budget, which ours does.
  Our budget that we passed last week, on a party line vote, 
unfortunately, does just that. It controls spending, it gets us back to 
a balanced budget, and it does it by reducing the tax burden on 
Americans, by a small amount, in order to allow them to keep that money 
and allow them to spend that money more wisely.
  Taxes are paid by taxpayers. Taxes are not paid by the government.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the document referred to 
earlier.

[[Page H1653]]



                                             FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET RESOLUTION--TOTAL SPENDING AND REVENUES
                                                                [In billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Fiscal year                            2004         2005         2006         2007         2008         2009         2005-2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         SUMMARY
 
Spending:
    Total:
        BA.............................................    2,338.157    2,410.054    2,479.999    2,613.497    2,744.808    2,881.038         13,129.396
        OT.............................................    2,295.012    2,406.565    2,492.322    2,590.618    2,711.444    2,844.614         13,045.563
    On-Budget:
        BA.............................................    1,952.701    2,009.554    2,069.485    2,189.682    2,306.882    2,426.182         11,001.785
        OT.............................................    1,911.236    2,008.020    2,084.056    2,169.193    2,276.173    2,392.699         10,930.141
    Off-Budget:
        BA.............................................      385.456      400.500      410.514      423.815      437.926      454.856          2,127.611
        OT.............................................      383.776      398.545      408.266      421.425      435.271      451.915          2,115.422
                                                        ================================================================================================
Revenues:
    Total..............................................    1,817.359    2,028.881    2,220.056    2,350.204    2,475.522    2,609.451         11,684.114
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On-budget......................................    1,272.787    1,456.452    1,618.994    1,720.721    1,816.661    1,919.701          8,532.529
        Off-budget.....................................      544.572      572.429      601.062      629.483      658.861      689.750          3,151.585
                                                        ================================================================================================
Deficit (-):
    Total..............................................     -477.653     -377.684     -272.226     -240.414     -235.922     -235.163         -1,361.449
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On-budget......................................     -638.449     -551.568     -465.062     -448.472     -459.512     -472.998         -2,397.612
        Off-budget.....................................      160.796      173.884      192.796      208.058      223.590      237.835          1,036.163
                                                        ================================================================================================
Debt Held by the Public (end of year)..................        4,386        4,776        5,062        5,315        5,564        5,812                 na
Debt Subject to Limit (end of year)....................        7,436        8,088        8,677        9,246        9,827       10,424                 na
 
                                                                       BY FUNCTION
 
National Defense (050):
    BA.................................................      461.544      419.634      442.400      464.000      486.149      508.369          2,320.552
    OT.................................................      451.125      447.114      439.098      445.927      465.542      487.186          2,284.867
Homeland Security (100):
    BA.................................................       29.559       34.102       33.548       35.160       36.520       40.420            179.750
    OT.................................................       24.834       29.997       33.298       35.635       36.979       38.401            174.310
International Affairs (150):
    BA.................................................       43.604       26.529       27.776       27.927       28.077       28.228            138.537
    OT.................................................       29.281       32.848       30.017       26.714       25.323       25.099            140.001
General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
    BA.................................................       22.822       22.813       22.927       23.042       23.157       23.274            115.213
    OT.................................................       21.897       22.453       22.683       22.743       22.763       22.863            113.505
Energy (270):
    BA.................................................        2.323        2.863        2.604        2.583        2.629        2.285             12.964
    OT.................................................        0.059        1.201        1.397        1.040        0.662        0.891              5.191
Natural Resources and Environment (300):
    BA.................................................       32.021       31.212       31.568       31.897       32.101       32.777            159.555
    OT.................................................       30.210       30.868       31.911       32.153       22.128       32.804            159.864
Agriculture (350):
    BA.................................................       19.908       21.087       23.374       24.278       24.042       24.903            117.684
    OT.................................................       18.434       20.501       22.310       23.199       22.957       23.956            112.923
Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
    Total
        BA.............................................       14.577        8.692        7.442        6.827        6.405        6.080             35.446
        OT.............................................       10.248        3.682        4.042        1.869       -0.011       -0.760              8.723
    On-budget
        BA.............................................       17.077       10.792       10.242        9.727        9.705        9.580             50.046
        OT.............................................       12.748        5.782        6.842        4.769        3.190        2.740             23.323
    Off-budget
        BA.............................................       -2.500       -2.100       -2.800       -2.900       -3.300       -3.500            -14.600
        OT.............................................       -2.500       -2.100       -2.800       -2.900       -3.300       -3.500            -14.600
Transportation (400):
    BA.................................................       62.937       64.216       64.311       64.442       64.539       64.638            322.146
    OT.................................................       59.280       62.061       64.287       65.770       66.496       66.998            325.612
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to 
respond briefly to my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is not about tax cuts, it is 
about balancing the budget. In 1993, when we had PAYGO rules, we passed 
tax cuts. In 1997, with PAYGO rules, we passed tax cuts. This is merely 
saying if a bill is important enough to pass, it ought to be important 
enough to pay for. The American people deserve it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and fellow colleague 
on the Committee on the Budget for bringing this motion to instruct to 
the floor, and I rise to urge support amongst all Members, both sides 
of the aisle, for this motion to instruct conferees.
  What does this motion do? It simply directs the conferees, who will 
be appointed today, to accept the pay-as-you-go provisions included in 
the Senate-passed budget resolution, which would make PAYGO applicable 
to both entitlement spending increases and tax decreases. It would make 
those steps on either side of the ledger deficit neutral in order to 
pass.
  Let us not forget that we have a deficit this year of $521 billion, 
and if you take the President's budget as projected by the 
Congressional Budget Office, the deficits over the next 10 years will 
accumulate to $5.132 trillion. That is why this motion is necessary.
  The Senate resolution creates a PAYGO point of order against any tax 
cut or any entitlement increase that adds to the deficit, the bottom 
line of the budget. That point of order can only be overridden by the 
vote of 60 Senators.
  The gentleman here says, well, it takes 60 votes because of the 
filibuster rule to pass anything in the Senate. But there is a way 
around the filibuster rule in the budget process called reconciliation. 
If a tax cut is included in the reconciliation provisions of a budget 
resolution which is passed by majority vote, by one vote is all that is 
necessary, then reconciliation can dispense with the 60-vote 
requirement.
  So, in order to have at least 60 Senators stiffen their spines and 
stand up and say, and I would like to see the same procedures in the 
House, no, we are not going to commit this act of further increasing 
the deficit, this rule would apply.
  In contrast to the PAYGO provision in the Senate budget, the House 
budget resolution which we passed last week by a narrow margin contains 
what I can best describe as a half measure. It is nonbinding language. 
It endorses a single-edge PAYGO rule, by which I mean it applies only 
to entitlement spending and not at all to revenues. The one-sided PAYGO 
rule in the House Resolution would make no effort whatsoever, none, to 
temper tax cuts, although, since 2001, tax cuts have added four times 
as much to the deficit, mounting deficit, as entitlement increases 
have.

[[Page H1654]]

  Ironically, ironically, this form of PAYGO would also open the way to 
initiatives that might otherwise be spending entitlements. That is 
because it could allow them to become law as tax expenditures, put in 
the Tax Code, called tax cuts, without being offset, and this could 
actually worsen the deficit and further complicate the Tax Code.
  The original PAYGO legislation was part of a budget summit agreement 
that was reached between the first President Bush and Congress in 1990. 
That rule was extended in 1993 and 1997 but allowed by Congress and the 
second President Bush to expire in 2002.
  The original PAYGO rule cut both ways. It applied to both revenue 
decreases and entitlement increases, and it worked, Mr. Speaker, it 
worked. It was one of the basic steps that we took in a long, arduous 
journey that moved the government out of mammoth deficits, $290 billion 
in 1992, to huge surpluses, $236 billion in 2000.
  The Senate version simply restores the rule to its original form, 
that is all. In the House Committee on the Budget, the renewal of PAYGO 
in its original form was explicitly endorsed by none other than the 
chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Greenspan.
  I asked him myself, Mr. Chairman, do you support the restoration of 
the PAYGO rule in its original form?
  He said, absolutely, I do.
  I asked, Mr. Chairman, would you apply it to expiring tax provisions?
  Yes, sir, I certainly would.
  He was unequivocal in his support for it.
  So also is the AARP, the Concord Coalition, the Committee For 
Responsible budget, anybody who is a responsible, informed observer of 
the budget process, who knows what PAYGO did for the 1990s, it 
stiffened our spine and helped us put the budget into balance for the 
first time in 30 years. We need it today more than we did then, because 
we have, as I said, a deficit of $521 billion. We have a cumulative 
deficit over the next 10 years of $5.136 trillion if you do not include 
Social Security.
  We need the PAYGO rule with both edges applicable today as like never 
before in both houses, the House and the Senate. If nothing else, if 
nothing else, this can be the one bold step we take in a budget that 
otherwise does very little to move us out of deficit.
  So I urge everyone, vote for the motion to instruct, vote for PAYGO 
in its original proven-to-work form, applicable both to entitlement 
increases and tax decreases, vote for this motion, and reinstate one of 
the best rules we have ever had for putting the budget in balance.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we buy and they pay. We buy and taxpayers pay. This is 
an attempt, in my view, to look for a tax increase. That is what this 
is about, increasing taxes.
  We should not allow the Senate to impose a rule on the House. Sixty 
votes in the Senate just makes it harder to jump through yet another 
hoop in the Senate, and then I suppose one 60-vote hoop is more than 
enough. But we should not allow the Senate to impose those rules on the 
House.
  If we are here to talk about rules of the other body, I could think 
of some good rules. How about a 51-vote rule for judges? We have got a 
lot of judges we need to appoint in this country. How about 51 votes? 
How about a new rule that says for voting on judges, it only takes 51 
votes instead of 60?
  How about a rule for the other body that says all bills shall be 
debated for not longer than 100 hours? That would be a pretty good 
rule. Not for the people watching C-SPAN necessarily, who would have to 
sit through a 100-hour debate, but do you not think one hour per 
senator would be enough to debate just about any bill? You would think 
so.
  But, unfortunately, the way it works right now, it is unlimited. They 
could take up a bill and filibuster it for the rest of their lives, as 
long as they could stand on their feet.
  So, there are a lot of rules that I would like to impose on the other 
body, if we wanted to talk about imposing rules.
  I do not want to have the other body imposing rules on us. If we are 
serious about budget enforcement, we should pass a law, and that is the 
reason that we passed a very strong budget enforcement law on spending 
out of committee at the same time we passed the budget resolution.
  That stronger bill is a bill that will be coming to the floor after 
we come back from the Easter recess, the district work period. It is 
not just a rule that can be waived, either by the House or by the other 
body, but it is a rule, it is a law, that is in statute, that actually 
helps us control spending. If you need to stiffen someone's spine, 
there is nothing like a law, rather than a rule, which have been 
traditionally and, unfortunately, waived.
  It seems to me that, and parenthetically I would say to my good 
friend from South Carolina, we do not have a rule within the resolution 
with regard to spending, pay-as-you-go spending. The House did not pass 
a similar rule with regard to spending. But we do have a bill that we 
want to come to the floor after the district work period.
  Again, the reason is because we believe on this side that spending is 
the concern, that is what you pay for, and that is what we should make 
sure we pay for, not reducing taxes to taxpayers.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my 
distinguished Blue Dog colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full and unqualified support of my 
colleague from California's motion, a motion that asks this House to do 
what the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, has already done, a motion that 
Democrat and Republican Presidents, Democrat and Republican colleagues 
of Congress have passed; that the conservative Concord Coalition as 
well as Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan supports; a motion that 
any business, family, or consumer can understand and has to live by 
and, frankly, a motion that most Republicans in this Chamber would 
probably love to vote for, if only they could. It is a motion that 
stands for this basic principle: when you balance a budget, it is not 
balanced unless and until you balance it all.
  Mr. Speaker, what is so hard about PAYGO? Why can my House colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, in the party that professes budget 
discipline, not see what their own colleagues in the Senate see 
clearly? Is it a failure to understand, is it a failure to agree, or is 
it a denial of reality?
  I cannot believe it is a failure to understand. My own teenage son 
understands that when he balances his budget, he cannot leave out any 
part of it. He cannot leave out the spending. He cannot leave out any 
potential reductions in income. My neighbors and I understand that 
there is a difference between a budget that has a home mortgage payment 
in it and a budget that does not. If my wife comes to me tomorrow and 
says, I am going to be making less next year than I made this year, do 
I ignore it in my budget calculations? No.
  The States understand it. Every State understands PAYGO and practices 
it. Why? Because they have something that we do not have here: they 
have a balanced budget requirement. When they have a balanced budget 
requirement, they have to balance all of their budget.
  It cannot be a failure to understand. If it is, we are all in 
trouble. I would like to believe it is a failure to agree; but then I 
would like to have a conversation, substantively, about what we do not 
agree on. No, I think it is a conscious failure to accept reality or, 
perhaps worse, an attempt to spin, to deceive, to accomplish a result 
by means other than up front.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about the substance of whether to reduce or 
increase taxes. This is not about the substance of whether to reduce or 
increase spending. This is about the consequences of actions. This is 
about the consequences of whether we reduce or increase taxes. This is 
about the consequences of reducing or increasing spending.
  My colleagues are telling me that there are no consequences of a $2 
trillion aggregate tax cut. That is like saying there are no 
consequences of increasing our budget by $2 trillion. Of course there 
are consequences. Do we want to talk about it in a budget context? 
Okay, fine. Let us talk about the tax cut. Let us talk about the 
dynamic

[[Page H1655]]

impact. Let us talk about jobs that may or may not be created, income 
coming in. But let us calculate it, factor it into a balanced budget. 
That is all this motion does. Let us live within our means and pay as 
we go.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond.
  The gentleman used an excellent example about his son; and the next 
time he has this allowance conversation with his son, because I have a 
son and I have this conversation once in a while as well, I want the 
gentleman to tell him that he actually does not get an allowance. He 
actually pays for an allowance. Is that not interesting? Do we think 
that would go over very well? I know it would not go over very well 
with my 13-year-old son. He would not understand how in the world he 
pays for an allowance. I pay his allowance. The gentleman from Hawaii 
pays his son's allowance. The taxpayers pay the Federal Government's 
allowance, called taxes. They pay. We buy, they pay. People should not 
have to pay for taxes when they have already been paid for by the 
taxpayers, and that is the whole discussion that we are having here 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding 
me this time, as it is a very important debate that we have here today.
  The gentleman from Hawaii referred to consequences, and that is 
important. As a younger Member of the House, I like to view things for 
the long haul. We talk about the consequences of the decisions that are 
made here, not just for the next election cycle or the next fiscal 
year, or to put a Band-Aid on this budget, but the long-term fiscal 
consequences.
  Frankly, I have been encouraged by a great deal of the debate that 
took place throughout the budget hearings and throughout the debate on 
the floor, because the positive consequence of this rising Federal 
deficit has been that we have attracted a good deal more fiscal 
conservatives to the cause. But the consequences of the Democratic 
amendments in committee were 28 billion new dollars in new spending. 
The consequences of the amendments in that markup were nearly 30 
billion new dollars added to the Federal deficit, the consequences that 
would be borne by the next generation of Americans and taxpayers.
  This debate centers around core values. Everyone, I think, is coming 
around to the idea that the deficit is a great, great problem that has 
to be dealt with. But when we get down into the details, the other 
team's plan wants to focus on making it more difficult to lower the tax 
burden on the American citizen, the American entrepreneur, the American 
homeowner, investor, worker; make it easier to increase the tax burden 
on that same group of hard-working, hard-charging, thoughtful, 
innovative Americans, and not deal with the real issue, which is 
spending. Nearly two-thirds of the Federal budget now is mandatory 
spending. It is on auto pilot. The debate, the fights, the arguments, 
the outstanding eloquent rhetorical discussions that take place on this 
floor are about over one-third of the Federal budget. That is it.
  Our plan and the Spending Control Act, which has the force of law 
that was marked up in the Committee on the Budget and will be on this 
floor before Memorial Day, deals with mandatory spending. It deals with 
the fact that Congress has failed to make some of the tough decisions 
over the past generations to get their arms around spending; and as a 
consequence, we have been far outpacing the spending of the American 
household.
  Now is not the time, when we have a dual challenge, the challenge of 
getting the economy going, putting people back to work, bringing small 
businesses the opportunity to have a piece of the American dream, now 
is not the time to make it easier to raise taxes. And for us to adopt 
as a consequence, for us to adopt the other body's half-baked, 
cockamamie, crazy schemes to deal with this issue is nuts.
  All of us have a difficult time explaining why the other body's rules 
require us to phase down the death tax on farmers and small businesses 
and then, boom, miraculously it is reborn 10 years from now in its old, 
in its old full, former glory of the highest rate possible. All of us 
have a difficult time explaining why it was such a great idea to end 
the marriage penalty, but we have to vote on it again this year; 
otherwise, it comes back, or that the American people will lose the 
expanded child tax credit. It is because of the other body's cockamamie 
rules that we do that, and now we want to adopt another one of their 
cockamamie rules and make it even easier to raise taxes on the American 
people.
  Now is not the time to turn back that clock, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
respond.
  Mr. Speaker, first I want to just make sure everybody understands, 
this does not make it more difficult to raise taxes. This merely makes 
it honest to raise taxes. My friend from Iowa is correct, taxpayers pay 
all right. They pay $1 billion a day in interest on the national debt, 
$50 billion a year in interest to countries like China and Japan and 
the OPEC nations.
  When budgets do not balance, taxpayers do pay. That is why we need 
PAYGO.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to 
instruct the conferees offered by my colleague on the Committee on the 
Budget, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  We are on the verge of passing a $2.4 trillion budget with a $550 
billion hole in it. Mr. Speaker, a $2.4 trillion budget with a $550 
billion hole, showing that it is impossible to finance three wars with 
three tax cuts and get any other result. It has never been done in 
history. We are trying to do it now. What do we get for three wars and 
three tax cuts? A $550 billion deficit.
  This budget by the Republicans perpetuates the President's economic 
policies of the status quo, failed policies that have led to a jobless 
economy and a wage recession. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost 
their jobs since he has been President; 43 million Americans are 
without health care, of which 33 million Americans work full-time and 
have no health care; 2 million Americans who, prior to this 
administration were in the middle class, are now in poverty; and nearly 
$1 trillion worth of corporate and individual assets have been 
foreclosed on in the last 3 years. What do they recommend doing? The 
same thing: put your foot on the accelerator and see if we can rush 
forward. And those are the results of the Bush economic policies.
  What this PAYGO rule would be, just to be straight about it and not 
get into the, as some would say, cockamamie, arcane rules of the 
Congress, what this would do would force this Congress to pay for its 
policies. That is what this PAYGO rule would do, as cockamamie as it 
may sound; and it would change the economic direction of this Congress 
and this administration so we do not have the results of unemployment, 
lack of health insurance, lack of affordability on college education. 
That is what this would do.
  It is a commonsense approach. It adopts what businesses do, families 
do, State governments do, and that is pay for the way you go. If you 
want to pay for more education, you have to do it.
  Let me remind everybody, in the 1990s when we created 22 million 
jobs, poverty was cut in half, health care costs were contained, and we 
insured more Americans. This was part of that economic strategy that 
led to the greatest period of economic growth ever in American history. 
That was a piece, a central piece of the economic strategy. So it is 
about economic philosophy and strategy, but the results are in: one 
failed economic policies that have left more people without jobs, 
without health care, without the ability to afford college education; 
and one that had the greatest period of economic growth, greatest 
period of employment, and greatest period of poverty rates in the 
history of this country.
  So that is what this debate is. I urge my colleagues to support the 
motion of the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, again, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. In 1997, we cut taxes by $100 billion as part of 
the Balanced Budget Agreement. This does not

[[Page H1656]]

do anything to hamper tax cuts. It just says we have to be honest. We 
have to pay for them. Pass the tax cuts, but pay for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), the distinguished policy chair of the Blue Dog Coalition.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I would again point out, this motion is based on a simple 
philosophy that when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to 
quit digging. Take the shovels away from Congress and the President.
  The budget enforcement rules Congress and the President enacted in 
1990 were an important part of getting a handle on the deficits in the 
early 1990s and getting the budget back into balance. They have been 
tested and they have worked. There is no question that they 
significantly improve the responsibility and accountability of the 
budget process and were instrumental in going from large deficits in 
the 1980s to surpluses in the 1990s.
  The principle of PAYGO, if we want to reduce our revenues or increase 
our spending, we need to say how we would pay for it within our budget, 
something all families have to do, because they understand it. If a 
family wants to give up a second job, they must first cut spending of 
what the second job is providing income for. That is so simple. Why is 
it so difficult for the majority to understand that?
  If we want to reduce our revenues, we need to say what spending we 
will do without. If we want to increase spending, we need to say where 
it will come from. If we want to decrease revenues, where will it come 
from? If we are truly serious about restoring fiscal discipline, budget 
rules must apply to all legislation which would increase the deficit, 
both increased spending or reductions in revenues. All parts of the 
budget must be on the table.
  Applying pay-as-you-go rules to tax cuts do not prevent Congress from 
passing more tax cuts, just the opposite. All it says is that if we are 
going to reduce our revenues, we need to reduce our spending by the 
same amount, just like families do.

                              {time}  1100

  Those who want to extend expiring tax cuts or make the tax cuts 
personal should be willing to put forward the spending cuts or other 
offsets necessary to pay for them.
  My Republican colleagues continue to argue that budget rules should 
not apply to tax cuts because tax cuts will not increase the deficit. I 
wish they would actually look at the facts of what is happening.
  To paraphrase Will Rogers, it is not what my Republican colleagues, 
particularly the budget chairman, do not know about the budget, because 
he knows a lot, that bothers me; it is them knowing so much that ain't 
so and continuing to come to this floor and saying it.
  We have enacted now three tax cuts based on the theory that tax cuts 
will stimulate the economy and pay for themselves as a result of 
economic growth, and yet the deficit continues to grow. That is what we 
are here talking about: the deficit.
  The budget written by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) that 
Congress passed last year said that revenues would be $1.9 trillion in 
2004. The President's budget came forward and said $1.8. That is $100 
billion difference in estimates. That is all we are saying, that what 
do we do with that $100 billion? We borrow it. We continue to pass on 
all of these debt and deficits to our children and grandchildren.
  If my Republican colleagues actually mean what they say about 
controlling spending, they should have no problem with applying pay-as-
you-go to tax cuts. Because it would force Congress to control spending 
when we pass the tax cuts instead of just promising to do so in the 
future.
  The problem is, the actions of my Republican colleagues have not 
matched their rhetoric. If they match their rhetoric and actions, they 
will find significant bipartisan support to get our fiscal house back 
in order. That is what they are not doing. That is why we should 
support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we borrow it because we keep spending. The gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) said, ``What happens? It is because we keep 
spending. We keep spending.''
  I mean, the gentleman, I know he wants to respond, so let me just get 
in a couple of other jabs here, too, because he made some good points. 
But the gentleman said that, just like a family, if they reduce their 
income, they got to figure out how they are going to make ends meet. I 
agree with the gentleman.
  The difference is, our income is not being reduced. Our income to the 
Federal Government, which comes from taxpayers who pay the taxes, and I 
know the gentleman knows that, but I am going to keep stressing it, 
they are paying more and more and more even with the tax relief that we 
have provided under this budget being made, as we say around here, 
permanent, which only means until the Senate figures out some 
cockamamie rule, as the gentleman from Florida said, that makes them 
all of a sudden snap back. They are only permanent until the Senate 
allows them to snap back under their rule.
  So that is the problem we have got. We do not want another rule to 
make them just more difficult to be made permanent.
  But, as the gentleman said, if there was less income coming in every 
year, the gentleman's points would be much stronger. But there is not 
less income. From this year to next year, first of all, $1.8 trillion. 
Next year, it will be $2 trillion. $200 billion more will come in next 
year than this year, even with the tax relief packaging made permanent.
  So why do we keep borrowing? Because we keep spending. That is what 
this is all about. There are two sides of the ledger. There is an 
expense side and an income side. We do not pay for the income side. 
There is no reason for us to pay for the income side. Because that 
income side comes from taxpayers. The pay-as-you-go is from them.
  The gentleman very eloquently said, when you are in a hole, stop 
digging. And my retort back to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
is, when you are in a hole, stop digging in the pockets of taxpayers. 
That is the point that we are trying to make. They pay the taxes. 
Congress does not need a rule in order to have some kind of mechanism 
to pay for something we do not pay for.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to respond.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the budget chairman, again 
continues to listen to only part of what I say. The revenue is not 
meeting the estimates of what he is saying in his budget, therefore, we 
had to borrow another $110 billion in order to make up for it because 
his guesstimates are not, in fact, doing what is being said on this 
floor.
  And spending is not my fault. The majority is the one that is 
spending all of this money they are talking about. It is time they take 
the responsibility for their own record on spending. They are spending 
it, not the minority.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), a distinguished Blue Dog 
colleague and member on the Budget Committee.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, the last point made by my friend from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) is entirely true. The House and the Senate have been 
under Republican control for some time now. The spending that has 
occurred on their watch exceeds the highest levels previously in 
American history, exceeded spending rate of growth under LBJ.
  It is wrong for them to deny responsibility for the spending surge 
that has occurred. The Heritage Foundation, the CATO Institute, other 
conservative Republican think tanks have pointed out the spending 
explosion has taken place under their watch, under their leadership, 
with their votes. The vote we are about to cast on the motion to 
instruct is one of the most important votes that we will cast in this 
Congress or in many people's careers in this Congress because PAYGO, 
pay-as-you-go, is one of the most important principles that we have in 
this body to control spending and to get our deficit under control.
  This is not a theory. It has worked and worked well beginning with 
the

[[Page H1657]]

first President Bush through the Clinton administration to tame budget 
deficits.
  But now we are faced with the largest budget deficit in American 
history. We need that same spending control device. It is not theory. 
Ask Chairman Greenspan, one of the great economists of our time. He 
could remember the very day that the previous PAYGO requirement 
expired, September 30, 2002, because that was a black day in modern 
American history. It basically told this Congress and the Republican 
majority, spend as you will.
  We need PAYGO back and we need real PAYGO, not fake PAYGO, not play-
go, not pretend-as-you-go. We need real PAYGO, the way our bipartisan 
Senate has passed it, so that we can get our budget deficit under 
control.
  This is a kitchen-table issue. People back home understand it. I am 
happy to defend this in any civic club in America, because small 
business men and women, they understand they have to pay their bills. 
One has to pay their bills. They cannot understand why this Congress 
gets so wrapped up in some sort of ideology or something we forget to 
pay our bills, and that is why we have the largest budget deficit in 
American history going on today under Republican leadership.
  We have to have PAYGO. It should have been passed in the budget last 
week. It was not. This is a chance to try to correct that mistake.
  So I would urge my colleagues, men and women of goodwill on both 
sides of the aisle, to set partisanship aside, to think common sense 
again, to think kitchen table, to follow the advice of Alan Greenspan, 
to follow the leadership of the bipartisan Senate vote on this issue 
and have real PAYGO again. Pay as you go so that we will not increase 
our deficit anymore.
  As my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) said, we will 
stop digging the hole that we are in. It is already $521 billion deep. 
It is not just a 1-year hole. We are facing such a massive structural 
budget deficit that the President's own budget as submitted to this 
Congress said that the current path we are on is unsustainable.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), our Blue Dog colleague.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are on this floor today trying 
to get our financial house back in order, trying to get this House to 
adopt a very simple, straightforward rule requiring us to pay as we go 
that has already been adopted by the Senate.
  And it is really hard for me to understand why our Republican 
colleagues do not want to do this. I always thought they were the party 
of fiscal conservatism. They always wanted to balance a budget. Yet now 
they come to the floor and claim that the only remedy here is to cut 
spending when, in fact, they control both Houses of the Congress and 
they control the White House. So if they think that is the answer, why 
do not they get on with it?
  We just simply believe that you have got to run the Congress and the 
Federal Government like we do any household or any business. We have 
got to pay our bills. We have got to pay as we go. And why do we think 
that is so important? We think it is important because next year it is 
projected we will have the largest Federal deficit in the history of 
this country, over half a trillion.
  We are going to come to this floor, and we are going to vote on 13 
appropriations bills as we do every year to fund this government, and 
we are going to borrow 60 percent of that total of those 13 
appropriations bills. One could not get by with that at home. One could 
not get by with that in their business. One cannot get by with it at 
city government, county government, State government. Why do they think 
we can do it here in Washington?
  My colleagues act like it just does not matter anymore, that somehow 
they can just say it is all going to work out when they presented a 
budget that never even purports to get back into balance.
  And deficits do matter. They are making this country weaker. How can 
we defend against terrorism if we do not have any cushion to fall back 
on financially? How can we expect to get this economy going again and 
how can we expect to avoid the high interest rates that everyone 
projects in the future that will be contributed to by the fact that the 
Federal Government is borrowing all these billions of dollars?
  Deficits do matter. That is a simple rule adopted by the Senate to 
try to impose a little discipline on this Congress, on this House. And 
the truth of the matter is, if you vote with us, the Committee on Rules 
majority can waive this rule any time they get ready and my colleagues 
can do whatever they want to out here.
  All we are trying to do is send a clear message that this Congress 
and the fiscal conservatives in this Congress believe we need to get 
back to balancing our budget, paying as we go, and recognizing that 
deficits do matter because they make this country weaker, they make us 
have an inability to have a strong economy, they make it impossible for 
us to be able to have a strong national defense.
  And it is morally irresponsible to pass on debts created by this 
generation to the next generation. We have got soldiers today in Iraq 
fighting for this country that are going to come home and enter the 
private sector and get to pay the bills for the war that they are 
fighting that we refuse to pay for.
  There has never been a war in the history of our country where the 
American people did not step forward and pay the bills for the war. 
This is the first. We want fiscal discipline. We believe it is 
important for this country.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, let me say to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner) there is not a Member on this side that is refusing 
to pay for the bill for the war. And if we want to roll out the record 
votes in not only this body but also the other body for who paid for 
our men and women over in the field, I will be glad to do that. Because 
there will be a very interesting name that is left off the list. He 
happens to be running for President right now.
  The second thing the gentleman said is that we have to pay our bills, 
and we agree. Who gets the bill for taxes? Taxpayers get the bill for 
taxes. They pay the taxes. Nobody else.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle), the Committee on the Budget chairman, for bringing 
forward a budget that this House could support which does, in fact, get 
spending under control and does grow the economy.
  And let me respond briefly to my friend from Texas who just spoke and 
my friend from Tennessee who spoke before that about spending. Because 
they seem to be saying that somehow the Republicans do not care about 
deficits, do not care about spending. Nothing could be further from the 
truth.
  Let us talk about the truth. The Democratic substitute, which my 
friends on the other side of the aisle voted for, has not less 
spending, it has more spending. In fact, in 2005 alone it has $21.6 
billion more spending. Over 5 years, it has $135 billion more spending. 
And that is more spending on education, they want more spending on the 
environment, they want more spending on health care, they want more 
spending on science, they want more spending on homeland security, they 
want more spending on international commitments. More spending, not 
less spending.
  Now, they will say in response, well, we pay for our spending. How do 
they pay for it? By raising taxes. And who do they raise taxes on? They 
raise taxes on what they say are the wealthy. Turns out a lot of the 
wealthy are small businesses. Because most small businesses in this 
country pay their taxes through the individual tax system. Therefore, 
you are not an entrepreneur. You are an innovator. You are the person 
out there creating jobs. Because most jobs are created by small 
businesses, you are going to get taxed for more spending.
  Now, I know people do not like to hear the tax and spend 
characterization, but that is what it is. It is more spending, and it 
is more taxes. And all the budget enforcement in the world is not going 
to help if you take this approach of more taxes and more spending. That 
is what they have chosen to

[[Page H1658]]

take. That is the honest truth. That is the difference that we are 
talking about here.
  Now the question is, how should we enforce whatever budget we think 
is right? We think there ought to be less spending, and we think there 
ought to be a continuation of the tax relief. And, incidentally, we 
think that for a very simple reason, because we know when we look back 
at history the only way to get the deficit under control is by growing 
the economy and restraining spending.

                              {time}  1115

  That is exactly what the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) has 
rolled out in his budget that this House has supported. It is the only 
way it works.
  In 1997 we learned that. On a bipartisan basis we stood together and 
said we are going to get this budget under control. We said we will get 
it under control within 5 or 6 years, by 2001 or 2002. It happened in 2 
years. Why? Because the economy grew.
  Getting the economy to grow is absolutely the reason we put the tax 
relief in place in the first place and it is working. We had the 
fastest economic growth in the last 6 months in the most recent data we 
have than we had in 20 years. Jobs are coming back, not as fast as we 
would like; but jobs are coming back as we see the economy is growing. 
It is working
  Why would we want to at this point go back to raising taxes just as 
things are beginning to turn around, as we are getting the economy back 
on its feet? As the economy grows and as you keep spending under 
control, you get the deficit down. It is a very simple calculation. It 
happens to be one that works, and we know it works.
  I would just like to say, with regard to the concerns about then how 
do we enforce the budget, and I have explained why I think our budget 
is better than the approach that my friends on the other side of the 
aisle have proposed, how do you enforce it, absolutely we should 
enforce it. I am all for PAYGO, as are the Members of my side of the 
aisle; and we have a commitment, as my colleagues know, from our 
leadership to bring a PAYGO bill, meaning you pay for spending as you 
go, before Memorial Day. We will do that, and that is very important. 
If you do not have a budget, though, you have nothing to enforce.
  What we are saying is we ought to have a budget that allows the 
economic growth to continue, that restrains spending and then put in 
place the PAYGO rules.
  They would like to have PAYGO rules include taxes. I would ask my 
colleagues, let us say a few years from now we go into another economic 
slump, as this President inherited from his predecessor. Would we not 
want to be able to put in place pro-growth tax relief as we have done 
three times in the last 3 years? I think we should be able to do that. 
I think we should be able to do that in a way that indicates that tax 
relief, appropriate tax relief is the way we grow the economy. So we 
need to be very careful not to equate spending and taxes.
  I commend, again, my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), 
for a great budget; and I commend him for encouraging our leadership to 
bring a PAYGO provision to the floor which will happen before Memorial 
Day.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I briefly yield 15 seconds 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), ranking member of the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security, to respond to some comments that were 
made regarding national defense.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the chairman 
of the Committee on the Budget's comments.
  We simply looked at our budget today, and we see that if we take all 
nondiscretionary spending that we are going to vote on in the 13 
appropriations bills and we just eliminate all nondefense homeland 
security, we are not paying for the defense of homeland security 
portion of our budget. That is how bad a shape we are in.
  So I would say it is fair to say we are not paying for defense, we 
are not paying for the conflicts that we are facing.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, in the Democratic budget resolution, let me 
remind the gentleman, we incur a lower deficit than their resolution. 
Every year for 10 years, we incur $1.2 trillion less debt than the 
President's resolution, and we merely bring spending back to baseline 
so that we can restore what is needed for priorities like education and 
veterans health care.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thompson) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
California has the right to close.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this chart tells an 
important story about pay-as-you-go rules, about the importance of the 
real pay-as-you-go rule that was adopted as part of the bipartisan 
budget agreement in 1990 and the folly, as our budget goes back into 
deep deficits, of adopting a phony pay-as-you-go rule going forward.
  Members who were here in the 1980s remember the well-intentioned, but 
ineffectual, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings procedures, where there was rampant 
gaming of the budget process, all kinds of rosy scenarios that 
ultimately failed to mask rising deficits.
  Finally, in 1990, the first President Bush--who, unlike the present 
President Bush, understood the first rule of holes, which is if you are 
in one, stop digging--the first President Bush joined with the then-
Democratic congressional leadership to conclude a courageous 1990 
budget agreement which put the pay-as-you-go rule in effect. That 
proved to be very hard to game. It proved to be effective, along with 
the statutory caps on discretionary spending. And so, along with the 
1993 Clinton budget plan passed with Democratic votes alone, the two 
budget plans, 1990 and 1993, with tough pay-as-you-go rules, produced 
the reduced deficits throughout the 1990s and actually took us into 
surpluses, now only a fond memory, surpluses that enabled us to pay off 
almost $500 billion of the national debt.
  In 1997, we concluded another bipartisan budget agreement. Our 
friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, was one of 219 
Republicans who voted for the renewal of the 1990 pay-as-you-go rule, a 
real pay-as-you-go rule, the one that they now disparage.
  We are now going back into deep deficits. What an inopportune time, 
not only to let the pay-as-you-go rule expire, which our friends on the 
other side of the aisle did a couple of years ago, but now to propose a 
defective rule that has no promise for getting ahold of this situation!
  It is like trying to fill a bucket with water when there is a hole in 
that bucket. We can simply not balance the budget with constraint on 
the entitlement side alone.
  Our friend Mr. Nussle has talked about the revenues that are going to 
be coming in future years. What he did not mentioned was the revenue 
picture from 2000 to the present, where we have each year had reduced 
revenues coming in, the price of tax cuts that were not paid for.
  So we need a real pay-as-you-go rule that follows the formula that 
worked so well in the 1990s. The Republican proposal is a sham, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) 
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from California, I 
have no other speakers; and I am prepared to close if the gentleman is.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. We are prepared to close.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  There was a gentleman earlier who indicated that this may be the most

[[Page H1659]]

important, the most important vote in a congressional career. I have to 
say to the gentleman, I doubt it. This is a motion to instruct 
conferees. The conferees were just appointed, and it is what we refer 
to around here as a nonbinding resolution. Okay. I think we probably 
have had a few other votes that are more important than a nonbinding 
resolution to tell conferees to do something in the other body and 
apply a rule to our body, but I will play along just for the sake of 
the debate because I think it is an important debate, even though it 
may not be the most important vote.
  Our friends on the other side have, as I said, during the budget they 
have learned the words of fiscal responsibility, but they have not yet 
learned the music. The words are real easy to say, When you are in a 
hole stop digging. Well, of course, when you are in a hole stop 
digging, but stop digging in the pockets of the American people for 
more of their money so that you can keep digging, which is exactly what 
they did.
  They presented a budget alternative on the floor that kept digging, 
and what did they do in order to stop the digging? They were digging in 
the pockets of the American people for more of their money called 
taxes. Why do they do that? Because they know who pays taxes. We do not 
pay taxes. The Federal Government does not pay taxes. The Congress, as 
a body, pays taxes individually but not the Congress, the House of 
Representatives or the other body. The only people in this country that 
pay taxes are taxpayers, and so when we apply a pay-as-you-go and 
increase spending, guess who pays. We go and they pay. We buy and they 
pay. All the time, more spending, they pay.
  The second thing the gentleman from other side said, well, you have 
got to pay your bills. We agree and we will be bringing a bill to the 
floor that says you should pay your bills. Now you should not have to 
bring a law to the floor that says pay your bills. I would agree with 
the gentlemen on the other side that have said we have lost that 
discipline and we need to get that back on the spending side. There is 
no question, and we will do that; and we will have a debate on spending 
and paying your bills, and we should have that debate. But who gets the 
tax bill?
  When a bill is presented, you pay it. Who is presented the bill for 
taxes? The taxpayers, that is who pays. So by saying we should have 
pay-as-you-go for taxes, my colleagues are basically saying we want to 
take more money from the American people.
  We have heard about children's allowances. I want my colleagues to 
apply this principle to their kids and actually go to them and say, 
guess what, Johnny, you did not know this, but you pay for your own 
allowance. I mean, that is not only a head scratcher for them, but if a 
family was faced with this, we have heard a lot about families and 
kitchen tables today. If a family found out that the amount of money 
they were bringing in was increasing, all right, every year, their 
income, what would they do in order to deal with the hole that they 
were in? They would tighten their belt, and this is exactly what we 
have done. They would not say, all of the sudden, let us pay for an 
increase in taxes by some offsetting income. That is a goofy rule.
  You pay for taxes as a taxpayer, not as the government. The 
government pays for spending. That is where the rules should apply. Let 
us vote down this motion to instruct.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  This has been a very interesting and very telling debate. It has been 
a debate about paying our bills. Unfortunately, our colleagues across 
the aisle have tried to make this into some bogeyman about tax cuts, 
and there is nothing, nothing that could be further from the truth.
  This is about balancing our budget and paying for what we spend. My 
friend from Iowa's constituents in his district and my constituents on 
the north coast, if they go in to get a farm loan or a car loan or a 
home mortgage loan, the bank looks at both their spending patterns and 
their revenue source. That is because they understand that the 
difference between spending and revenue is the deficit, something we 
all agree we have to get under control.
  The chairman and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) understood 
this, too, back in 1997 when they joined 217 other Republicans to vote 
for a measure that put PAYGO in place; and I might add that PAYGO that 
they voted for in 1997 was actually stronger than the language that we 
are voting on today. It was statutory and they voted on a measure with 
Democrats, bipartisan measure, that passed a $100 billion tax cut as 
part of that budget agreement.
  I would be interested in knowing what has changed today other than 
the fact that our deficit and our debt is much higher than it was back 
then.
  Mr. Speaker, if this Congress is serious about deficit reduction, 
this Congress needs to stand together, and we need to vote to support 
the PAYGO rules that apply to both revenue and spending. Our 
constituents today deserve it, and future generations deserve it. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today is very 
simple. The question is: Do we want to pay for spending and tax cuts or 
do we want to pass this burden off on our children?
  Will we run the government like there is no limit to our debts or 
will we act responsibly, and work to balance our books?
  The other body has passed responsible pay as you go rules thanks to 
bipartisan support, especially from the delegation representing my home 
State of Maine.
  The State of Maine is full of small business owners, farmers, and 
fisherman--working families that must balance their own books.
  Before my time here, I spent 22 years in the Maine Legislature. We 
always worked together in a bipartisan way to pass balanced budgets.
  Pay as you go budget rules should allow us the opportunity to work in 
that same bipartisan way here in Washington.
  Nearly all of us can agree that we need to return the budget to 
balance. The American people know, and we know that we cannot run 
deficits in excess of $230 billion year after year.
  The best way that we can do this is to make sure that any policy that 
would increase the deficit is paid for.
  The American people want to run our own government responsibly.
  I urge my colleagues in both parties to pass this motion and show the 
American people that we will work to balance the books.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________