[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.
____________________