[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 5, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2585-H2593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Moore of Kansas 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. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey)
each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have in this country a $7.1 trillion national debt.
We have a projected deficit by the Office of Management and Budget for
this year alone of $521 billion. The interest on our national debt,
$7.1 trillion, is almost $1 billion a day. We are in a hole, Mr.
Speaker, and we are digging the hole deeper and deeper by our lack of
fiscal responsibility.
American families live by three simple rules: Number one, do not
spend more money than they make; number two, pay off their debts; and,
number three, invest in basics in the future. The basics for an
American family are food, shelter, transportation, health care,
education, things that we write checks for, bills that we write checks
for, every month. And the same basics for our country, our national
defense, some sort of Social Security system, some sort of national
highway system to transport goods around this country and keep our
economy going. And yet the government, our government and our Congress,
has not lived by these rules that American families lived by for many
years, and to show for that we have a $7.1 trillion debt.
We need to get back to fiscal responsibility. We have an opportunity
to do that. We have done it before and we should do it again. I am not
playing partisan politics here. I do not blame President Bush for a
slowdown and the recession that happened. I do not blame President Bush
certainly for September 11. That was only the maniacs that created that
horrible problem and killed 3,000 Americans. But we have got to get
back to fiscal responsibilities here, and we are not doing it right
now. In fact, the Committee on the Budget, and I see the chairman over
here, passed a PAYGO rule requiring only that if we are going to have a
new spending proposal, we have to abide by the rule that says it has
got to be offset or paid for.
They did not apply the same rule, though, to tax cuts. The Senate, on
a bipartisan basis, did apply the rule to tax cuts and to spending
proposals, and I think we need to look at doing the same thing here.
And this is a motion to instruct conferees to institute that kind of
PAYGO procedure here.
{time} 1445
If we do that, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity as a Nation to
return to fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H2586]]
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this discussion and disputing the
central premise, I think, of the motion offered by the gentleman from
Kansas, which seems to be that new spending is somehow equivalent to
the American people with lowering the tax burden. I want to get into
that in a little bit because these two ideas are not equivalent.
They are certainly not equivalent in terms of their impact on the
economy. New spending is contrary to maximizing economic growth, while
tax cuts reduce it.
Mr. Speaker, before I do that, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, for his thoughts on this.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed. The gentleman who offers the
motion to instruct conferees says, gee, it would be nice if we had a
rule that tax cuts had to be paid for. Well, that is not what the
instruction says. The instruction says they should. It is not a, gee,
it would be nice. The gentleman just voted for a tax cut that was not
offset, was not paid for. In fact, he joined 109 Democratic colleagues
who voted not to pay for tax cuts.
In fact, what is even more interesting is that the same gentleman,
and I respect his position, because it is how I voted, so it is hard to
complain when somebody joins you on a vote, I do not mean it that way,
voted just last week with 101 other colleagues for the marriage penalty
relief, without offsetting pay-as-you-go requirements.
So on the one hand, the gentleman is saying we ought to have a rule,
we ought to have a rule around here that you pay for things. It is
important to do that, because we are in a hole and you ought to stop
digging.
I understand. We have heard that rhetoric a lot. Except, he says, do
not apply it to me, is what the gentleman is saying. Instruct everybody
else for other tax bills, but not the one I just voted for this week,
or not the one I voted for last week. Let us have a pay-as-you-go rule,
but let us not apply it to us right now because it is kind of
politically popular to vote for this.
The difference is that on our side of the aisle we know and we agree
with the gentleman that tax cuts often pay for themselves in a way that
stimulates the economy, stimulates growth, puts people back to work,
generates economic growth and development, and drives revenues into the
Treasury to the tune of, this year, what we know already from what CBO
says, is about $200 billion more revenue. Even with tax reduction, even
with those tax cuts, $200 billion is what CBO estimates now. Just
yesterday, in The Washington Post, it was revealed that that number is
only going up, is what we are hearing.
So on the one hand, just 5 minutes ago the gentleman voted for tax
relief without paying for it and now rushes to the floor with a rule
that says but from now on and for everybody else, it is fair to, quote-
unquote, pay for tax cuts.
I think we should be consistent; and just like in the past, we should
consistently say that in this instance we should not tie our hands when
it comes to creating jobs, when it comes to making sure that married
people are not penalized, when it comes to not raising taxes on
families with children, when it comes to AMT relief that people are
being hit with now, this alternative minimum tax, that we should
provide that kind of relief, and we should do it in a way that does the
job now and gets the economy going, as opposed to putting some
arbitrary rule on, which I would argue if you vote 5 minutes ago one
way, and then come back here and say, well, really I did not mean that,
which vote do you not mean? Is it the vote for tax relief, or is it the
vote for the rule?
So I would hope that people do not tie our hands when it comes to
this, what is called pay-as-you-go. When it comes to taxes, I have said
it before and I will say it again, you may think the government pays
for taxes. The only people in America who pay for taxes are taxpayers,
and they are the people who deserve the relief, and what you are trying
to do is cause automatic tax increases for this country by tying hands
and by putting arbitrary rules in, and I do not believe that is the
right thing to do for this economy. It is finally back on its feet, it
is finally creating jobs, and we need to make sure that continues.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to respond to the chairman, the gentleman talks fiscal
responsibility, but does not vote it. I am following the rules that are
in place right now, and I am proposing that this body change the rules
and practice fiscal responsibility and not just talk about it. We have
got to get back to that.
What the gentleman neglected to mention is we have the highest
national debt in our Nation's history. What the gentleman neglected to
mention is we have the highest deficit in any one year in our Nation's
history. We are mortgaging the future of our children and
grandchildren, and it has got to stop.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time and for his bringing this measure before this House
for a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) which would require the budget
conferees to include the pay-as-you-go provisions, budgets enforcement
provisions, in the final budget bill.
Ten years ago, our colleagues across the aisle made a contract with
America. One of the first principles they promised to instill in this
Congress was a requirement that all laws that apply to the rest of the
country would also apply equally to the Congress.
Well, the truth is, American families are required by law to pay
their bills; yet in Congress we do not require the same thing of our
own institution, and that is wrong.
One of the previous speakers said that we are trying to tie the hands
of Congress so we can automatically bring about tax increases. That is
absolutely not true. All this measure says is, if we pass a bill, we
should pay for that bill.
The House budget resolution for 2005 was passed 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 not only in the House,
but in the Senate also. They passed an amendment extending pay-as-you-
go 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.
If we are really going to reduce the deficit, bipartisanship is a
must. It does not matter if it is an increase in spending or a
reduction in revenue. If it is important enough for this House to pass
it as law, by golly, we should pay for it. That is what this motion to
instruct says. The motion is to instruct the conferees to agree to the
Senate pay-as-you-go provision, which requires the Congress to find a
way to pay for new spending or new tax cuts.
Members of the Blue Dog Coalition have been calling for the
reinstatement of pay-as-you-go on both revenue and spending since the
Budget Enforcement Act expired in 2002. And it is not a partisan
concept. From the original pay-as-you-go provision, it was brought
about by bipartisanship. It was an agreement between the first
President Bush and a Democratic Congress. A Democratic President and
Congress extended pay-as-you-go in 1993, and a Democratic President and
a Republican Congress extended it again in 1997, along with $100
billion worth of tax cuts.
Today we can send a clear message from the Congress that we will hold
ourselves to the same standards as we hold American families. Vote
``yes'' on this motion to instruct and reintroduce fiscal
responsibility to this House and to the American taxpayers.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to one of the points just made by the
gentleman from California. This is pretty close to being a direct quote
as I heard him say it, and it was pertaining to this deficit. I think
what the gentleman said was it does not matter if it is a decrease in
revenue, which is to say a tax cut, or an increase in spending; either
way, we have to offset it.
[[Page H2587]]
I am here to say that that is just not right. It does matter. It
makes a difference. It makes a big difference. I am going to finish my
point, because I think it makes a big difference in terms of the
economic growth of our economy, and that means the opportunity for
Americans, and that means prosperity and ultimately the quality of life
of the working people.
Look at the data that we have. After we passed a tax cut package,
look at what has happened. We have had a 2-decade high point in terms
of GDP growth. The economy grew at 6 percent in the second half of last
year; it is growing very strongly this year. This is the best economic
growth numbers we have had in 20 years. Housing starts are at a record
high. Homeownership, a record high number of Americans own their own
home today.
We have financial markets that have made huge gains, which generally
have been a good predictor of economic growth. The manufacturing
sector, which has undergone a very difficult time, has, by all accounts
and all objective data, turned around, is showing growth, is actually
hiring.
Speaking of hiring, we have strong new job growth now. We waited a
long time, because we know that job growth is always the last part to
come in during an economic recovery. But it really looks like the job
growth is happening now. Whether you are looking at the household
survey or whether you are looking at the payroll survey, the job growth
is strong. In March, we had 308,000 new jobs, and on Friday we are
going to get a number for April; and it looks like we are going to have
another strong month for job growth.
What this means is we are approaching a period now of sustainable
economic recovery. When new people are getting to work and being able
to generate their own incomes, now the economy starts to be able to
grow of its own. This has happened because we lowered the tax burden.
If we go and pass this provision that you guys are advocating, it
almost certainly means a big tax increase, and I am very concerned that
this would cut off this economic recovery we have under way, and that
is the last thing we should be doing.
The problem that we have, we have got a problem here, no question
about it. We have a deficit that is too big, there is no question about
it. But the problem has come from years of excessive spending. It is
not that we do not bring in enough revenue. In fact, as we all probably
know, recent numbers suggest that revenue growth is growing and it is
accelerating, which is not surprising, given the strong economy we have
today, the strength that is developing; but it is spending that has
been the problem.
Now when we offered a PAYGO provision that would require that we
offset any new spending proposals, you guys all voted against it. You
guys said no, no, we do not want to just offset spending.
The point I am trying to make here is that new spending and lowering
the tax burden, and in fact maintaining existing tax law, because that
is what we are talking about now, these are not equivalent.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
The point is if it is important enough to pass, it is important
enough to pay for. The record deficit and the record debt, $7 trillion
worth of debt, on mark to go up to $10.4 trillion in the next 5 years,
that is the difference between revenue and spending. It is not the
difference between spending. If we believe this is important enough to
tax, we should pay for whatever it is we pass.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is not
recognizing we have had a growth in revenue, despite lower tax rates.
This is what happens when the economy grows strongly. And the most
important thing here, it is very important that we get the deficit
under control and reduce the debt, but the most important thing is we
have a strong economy, and everybody who wants a job is able to get a
job and that wages are rising and people are having more and more
opportunities.
If we do that, and control spending, which we are trying to do which
this budget, which, again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
did not agree with, but it is a budget which for the first time I am
aware of in a very long time, we took the nonsecurity parts of
discretionary spending and decided to freeze it.
We said we are going to freeze this, because I think that is what you
need to do to get this spending under control so we can get this
deficit under control. I think we are heading in the right direction if
we can have the discipline on the spending side.
We should not be advocating a provision, which the gentleman from
Kansas is introducing, which almost guarantees a big tax increase right
at the time when our economy seems to be recovering strongly.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I
have a prepared statement. I am not going to give it.
Perhaps the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and perhaps the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) believe if you say something enough,
somebody will believe it.
I refer the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) to page 22 of
the administration's budget document on receipts. For 8 years under
Clinton, receipts went up. After we passed the 1993 bill, the economy
went up and deficits went down. However, for the 12 years of Reagan and
Bush, deficits went up, and under this administration, deficits have
soared. And I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey), check out page 22. Receipts have gone down, my friend. Down.
{time} 1500
Starting with 2000, $2.25 trillion; 2001, $1.9 trillion. Mr. Speaker,
I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), he is not
listening to these figures. I know he wants to know the truth. I know
he wants to know the facts. I am trying to give them to him so he will
not misstate again. I want him to hear these facts, and then he can
respond. This is the administration's book, not mine.
I will give them to the gentleman again. In 2000, $2.25 trillion;
2001 $1.9 trillion; 2002, 1.8 trillion; 2003, 1.7 trillion.
So to not tell us and the American public that resources are going
up, they are not. This graph reflects what the Republican budget book
says.
Now, with respect to spending, I say to my friend, we are spending
less on discretionary spending than we spent in 1962 of GDP. But you
all talk about that. Why? Because it is easy to talk about that. It is
17 percent of the budget; you do not talk about the other 83 percent.
What the gentleman from Kansas is saying, I say to my colleagues, is
do not pass these tax cuts for which there is no money to give anybody.
You are taking it from Social Security. You are taking it from
Medicare. And, more importantly, I will tell my colleagues who is going
to pay for these tax cuts: my children, my grandchildren, and the
generations yet to come. That is not only intellectually wrong, it is
an immoral fiscal policy.
Mr. Speaker, if the vote on this motion to instruct budget conferees
is anything like the first one on March 30, then someone should summon
the house physician because there may be some very sore arms on the
Republican side of the aisle.
Certainly, we remember that five-minute vote? The Republican
leadership held it open for 28 minutes so that it could (quote/unquote)
persuade eight Republicans to change their votes from yes to no, and
defeat the motion on a tie vote.
As David Broder, the syndicated columnist, pointed out (and I quote):
Clearly, on a free vote of conscience, narrow majorities in
both the House and Senate would be prepared to impose this
degree of self-discipline [meaning pay-as-you-go budget
rules].
The simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Office of Management and Budget
projects that our Nation will run a record budget deficit of $521
billion this year. That figure does not include the costs of fighting
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an estimated $50 billion to $75 billion.
The 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion that George W. Bush
inherited when he took office has been turned into a projected deficit
of more than $4 trillion in just 3 short years.
[[Page H2588]]
And now, our Republican friends want to drive us even deeper into
debt with tax cuts that are not paid for.
Perhaps Mr. Nussle, the chairman of the Budget Committee, summed up
the Republican philosophy best. In March, he said (and I quote):
We don't believe that you should have to pay for tax cuts.
Well, my Republican friends, you don't. But our children and
grandchildren surely will.
That's why the list of those supporting pay-as-you-go rules
includes, among others, House Democrats, a bipartisan majority of the
Senate, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, the Concord Coalition, the
Committee for Economic Development, and the Committee For a Responsible
Federal Budget.
Republicans have not always believed that tax cuts are sacrosanct.
In fact, the majority leader himself even said in 1997 of Jack Kemp,
a former member of this body (and I quote):
Jack Kemp worships at the altar of tax cuts. Jack has
always said that deficits don't matter. We think that
deficits do matter.
Mr. Speaker, PAYGO rules will not preclude tax cuts.
They simply recognize that, with a fiscal crisis looming, it is
irresponsible--indeed immoral--to force the next generation to pay our
bills.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing when we come to the
floor and have this debate over and over and over again. We are
fighting a war today, and I believe I would be factually correct to say
this is the first war we have fought by reducing the amount of revenue.
I suggest our troops are paying dearly for that, because as we all
know, they have not received that which they need in order to protect
themselves while they are doing for us what we are unwilling to do for
them.
This is a pretty straightforward amendment; and despite the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), despite the gentleman from Iowa
(Chairman Nussle) and all of his rhetoric, nobody is talking about
raising taxes. That is just rhetoric that will be used in campaign
slogans.
All we are saying is, if we are going to cut taxes and reduce the
amount of revenue to pay for the war, we have to provide either cuts in
spending, which we do, in spite of the fact, all of what you talk about
never happens because spending has gone up, up, and up since
Republicans took over this House, and how you can stand on the floor
and keep lecturing Democrats on spending, you have no conscience.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a budget
that had lower spending and lower deficits even than the one that we
passed, the Republican one. I do not know of any Democrat that voted
for my alternative budget.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is great
rhetoric, and I will yield again, but I want to respond to that. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania put a budget out. How many votes did the
gentleman get for his budget?
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, we got just under half the Republican caucus
on it, about 100, maybe 110.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. I can put a budget
out too.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, how did the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) vote on it?
Mr. STENHOLM. On your budget, I opposed it, because it increased the
deficit.
Mr. TOOMEY. It increased it much less than your budget did. It got us
back to a balance much sooner than your budget or any other budget, and
you voted ``no.'' You voted ``no.''
Mr. STENHOLM. You could not pass it.
I take back my time. I take back my time. Yes, it is great. You can
come out, but the problem that comes out today is we have to live under
the rules of the majority party. And for years I was criticized by the
gentleman's side because it was my party that was doing to the economy
what you said we were doing. Today, you are in charge; and no matter
how many times you say it, you cannot overcome the facts. Republicans
have spent more in the Reagan-Bush years, in the Bush years than we did
in the Clinton years. You have spent more, period, and that record
stands up.
All we are talking about today is a simple resolution saying, let us
put us all under the gun. If you put your budget on the floor under
pay-as-you-go, I will have to vote for it, if it is under pay-as-you-
go, because I am sincerely for it. I did not vote for the last tax cut
because it is with borrowed money on my children and grandchildren. I
did not vote for last week's tax cut because it is with borrowed money;
and I will not vote for the additional tax cuts with borrowed money on
my children and grandchildren's money. But your rhetoric and mine
should match. Where is the mismatch?
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
A couple of points I would like to make. One, to follow up on some
comments made by the gentleman from Maryland, first of all, history has
proven time and time again when we have cut taxes, we have ended up
with increasing revenue. The gentleman from Maryland cited the Reagan
administration. The fact is, within a decade of the big Reagan tax
cuts, revenue collected by the Federal Government, tax revenue had
about doubled. The problem was that expenditures tripled, and this
reinforces my point that the problem here is spending. The problem is
not that we are undertaxed.
The second point that I want to make, the gentleman from Maryland was
referring to declining revenues in the height of the economic slowdown.
I do not think anybody disputes that if the economy is in a recession,
when the economy is contracting, revenue decreases. That is true. That
is what happens when you have, especially a combination of a
contracting economy, and then you have the cost of a war, it is not
surprising that you have a deficit under those circumstances.
The final point I want to make, to suggest that this provision does
not amount to the equivalent of a tax increase I think is just
factually wrong. We all know that we have provisions in the current tax
law that are expiring very soon; and if we do not allow those to become
permanent, then we have a big tax increase coming. And if this
provision were to be adopted and become binding on Congress, then it is
almost assured that we are going to have a significant tax increase.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I got up to my office, and I heard the
comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) both
said not the perspective you thought revenues were going to increase,
but that they had increased. That was not accurate. That was my point,
and I think your review of the book indicates that I was accurate.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Kansas has
the time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), for yielding me this time.
What we have here is what never has been tried in history. We are
waging three wars with three tax cuts that have resulted in $500
billion of annual deficits and a $3 trillion increase in the debt.
What has passed here in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003 are record tax
cuts for the special interests that have produced record deficits and
record national debt. There is an economic program here that basically
we followed in the 1990s.
In 1993 we cut taxes and reduced the deficit. In 1997 we cut taxes
for middle-class families and balanced the budget while investing in
children's health care, the environment, and also in job training and
education, higher education access. We threw that book out
[[Page H2589]]
that led to record job growth of 22 million jobs, a decrease in
poverty, an expansion of the middle class, incomes going up for all
people. And now what we have is record deficits and record debt, all
because we followed an economic strategy that threw out the book of
putting our fiscal house in order, investing in the priorities of tax
cuts for middle-class families, and investing in the areas of education
and health care.
What do we have to show for it? We have $500 billion in annual
deficit. We have a record deficit while the economy is growing. You all
have said if the economy grows, the deficit will disappear. Well, the
economy is growing and we have record deficits. Why? Because your
economic strategy lacks any logic to it. And that is you cannot follow
and have three tax cuts and three wars at the same time and get any
other result than the one we are getting today. And to repeat the same
mistake and expect a different result is a sign of somebody who is not
facing reality.
Today, what we need to do and what this proposal does is it begins to
get us on a road of putting our fiscal house back in order and setting
the priorities straight that if we want to invest in education, if we
want to finance wars overseas, if we want to have tax cuts, we have to
make sure that we live within a balanced set of priorities. We cannot
leave to other generations and steal from Social Security and steal
from Medicare to live today in bacchanalia and happy times. We have to
put our fiscal house in order.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The point I was making about the increase in revenue, and the
gentleman from Maryland was disputing this, I think, my point is if you
look at the last 6 months of this year, if you look back from October
of 2003 through March of 2004 and you compare the same 6-month period
to the year before, you will discover that we brought in more revenue
to the Federal Treasury in this most recent 6-month period than we did
in the last 6-month period. That is the point that the gentleman from
Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and I have been making.
Revenue coming into the Federal Government is, in fact, growing, and
it is at an accelerating pace; and I strongly suspect that the next
quarter is going to show an increase over the corresponding quarter
from the previous year. That is precisely because of the strong
economic growth.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I understand his analysis of the last 6 months; we have had a good
growth in the last 6 months. Not as good, contrary to what the
gentleman says, as we had in terms of the Clinton years, because where
we grew 23 million new jobs, we have still lost jobs. The gentleman
pointed out we raised 300,000 jobs. As he knows, 100,000 of those were
returning workers from the strikes around the country.
But the point I would make is that in 1993 when we adopted the
Clinton economic program, Mr. Armey and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), I cannot say the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), but Mr.
Kasich was then the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, they said
that program was going to destroy America's economy, we would lose
jobs, have high deficits and high unemployment and high interest rates.
In fact, exactly the opposite happened, and we had the best economy we
have had in the history of the country.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what happened was that
immediately after that tax increase in 1993, economic growth was quite
slow for some period of time; and then it accelerated, despite the tax
increases.
But my point is, and I do not think the gentleman is disputing me
now, that over the last 6 months we have had a revenue growth compared
to the same 6-month period a year before, and all evidence and all
trends suggest that this is going to continue. And what I think it
demonstrates is, once again, lowering marginal tax rates and
encouraging strong economic growth more than offsets the reduction in
revenue that comes from the nominal loss that comes from the rates
themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hill).
(Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Kansas for leading this discussion here this afternoon.
A few minutes ago on the floor of this House, I cast a vote against
the AMT tax cut. Some would say that that was a foolish vote for me
politically, do I not think so. I do not think it was a foolish vote
politically, because I believe that the people of the Ninth District in
southern Indiana believe that if it is tax cuts versus shoring up
Social Security, if it is tax cuts versus paying down the debt, if it
is tax cuts versus shoring up Medicare, if it is tax cuts or having
foreign countries buy our paper to finance the debt, I think that they
will pick fighting the war, shoring up Social Security, shoring up
Medicare, making sure that not too many foreigners have our paper. They
want to be fiscally responsible like many of the Members on this side
of the aisle want to be. And the only way that can happen, I say to my
colleagues, is for there to be PAYGO discipline in both spending and
tax cuts.
Now, I was at the Joint Economic Committee meeting last week where
Alan Greenspan was at the meeting. I asked him, Mr. Chairman, do you
believe that PAYGO rules ought to apply to tax cuts as well as
spending? And his answer in his prolonged way that he answers was an
unequivocal yes. There needs to be discipline in the Congress of the
United States. PAYGO rules have worked in the past, they will work in
the future, and it is the fiscally responsible thing to do.
One last thing that I would just like to remind my colleagues of on
this side of the aisle. A quote from the majority leader on the
Republican side, Dick Armey: ``I am sitting here, and I am upset about
the deficit. I am upset about spending. There is no way I can pin this
on the Democrats. Republicans own the town now.'' Wise words, indeed.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. It is a shame we cannot have a longer, more substantive debate on
this. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) got up and criticized the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for his inconsistency. He is for
middle-class tax cuts, as I am; but he wants to pay for them. The
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) in 1997 voted for the Balanced Budget
Amendment, as I did, which had exactly the same PAYGO as is included in
the Moore motion to instruct.
Hear me, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). The
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) voted for exactly the same PAYGO as
did 193 Republicans. Stick with your original convictions.
{time} 1515
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Moore) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Moore).
It is our duty as lawmakers and the voices of our constituents to
demand a budget resolution that is fiscally responsible and meets the
needs of our country. This motion a very simple motion would require
that any increase in spending and tax cuts must be subjected to a pay-
as-you-go rule.
As this country faces record deficits, increased spending on homeland
security and the war in Iraq, now is the time for fiscal discipline.
The Federal budget deficit is fast approaching $500 billion and will
only continue to grow. Unless we act now, our children and
[[Page H2590]]
our grandchildren will be paying for our fiscal irresponsibility.
Remember 1990 when America also struggled with record deficits.
Congress faced the same choice that we do today. Ignore the realities
of fiscal irresponsibility or confront it head on and resolve the
problem. In 1990, the Democratic-controlled Congress made the
responsible choice. It included PAYGO legislation as a part of 1990
budget agreement.
PAYGO was extended in 1993 and 1997 and was essential in restoring
this country's economic health. The sky-high deficits of the late 1980s
and early 1990s turned into substantial budget surpluses by the late
1990s. When this administration took office, there was nearly a $400
billion surplus and a projected surplus of several trillion dollars.
Despite this success, the administration's irresponsible choice to
allow the PAYGO rules to expire in 2002 has contributed to the record
deficit we face today. The time to act is now, before our Nation slides
further and further into debt. We must include PAYGO rules that apply
to both spending and tax cuts in this year's budget resolution.
If I could add something personal. My husband is not only a
Republican, he is a Heritage Foundation Republican, a fiscal
conservative in our personal life; and he believes that this is
outrageous. He is astounded that the Republican-controlled Congress is
behaving in this irresponsible fiscal manner. He will not have it and
neither will I.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure everybody is very clear as we
have this discussion that if this proposed provision were to become
binding, the net effect is almost certainly a very, very major tax
increase. All we are talking about is, what I want to do here is let us
make sure we can maintain existing tax law.
What the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) is proposing is that under
existing law, unfortunately, taxes are scheduled to go up. If we
prevent that by making sure we maintain the existing rate structure,
the existing tax law, we would have to come up with these huge offsets,
which we certainly are not going to get the votes over there to do that
with spending cuts, so we would have to raise taxes somewhere else.
So the net effect is a huge tax increase. What are some of the things
that are scheduled to expire, some of the problems that we would have
if this were adopted? Well, we would find we would get the marriage
penalty coming back in full force. We get the child tax credit that
would be diminished dramatically. The increase in the size of the 10
percent bracket, that goes away. Small business expensing which has
probably contributed significantly to this economic turn around. That
goes away. Small businesses cannot expense items the way they can under
current law.
I think it is a bad idea when we have all the evidence suggesting we
are well into a substantial and probably a sustainable economic
recovery, why we would suddenly ratchet back up the taxes in the face
of that and the fact that this has been a very successful tax policy,
very successful in terms of turning this economy around and now in
terms of getting people back to work, why we would want to undo all of
that with a measure like this makes no sense to me.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman can say black is white until his face is
blue, but it does not change the facts. You can talk about tax
increases here. We are talking about fiscal responsibility and he is
not. In fact, what he is doing and his policies would do is put our
Nation deeper and deeper and deeper in debt.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we have the largest debt, $7.1 trillion in our
Nation's history. We have the largest 1-year deficit in our Nation's
history, and the policies he is talking about, contrary to what
Chairman Greenspan wants, will put our Nation in deeper debt and
mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren.
I was at a high school last week and I talked to a group of high
school students, government students, about this, and I said, Why
should you care about a $7.1 trillion debt? A girl raised her hand and
she said, Because we are going to have to pay for it. And I said you
get an A for today, and you should be angry about what folks in
Congress are doing to you and your children and grandchildren because
you are putting them in a hole they can never dig their way out of.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to this point because this is a
very important point. We have created an environment, created a tax
environment in which the economy can grow more rapidly and it is
growing more rapidly. We have both CBO projections and the House budget
resolution both forecast Federal receipts at $35 billion more this year
than last year, despite the fact that we cut taxes last year; and now
the monthly Treasury data that is coming in this year shows, and I do
not think anybody is disputing this, that, in fact, we probably low-
balled that. The revenue was coming in at an even faster clip than the
amount by which we thought it would exceed last year.
So the fact is we have got a deficit that is too big. We all
acknowledge that. It is getting smaller. The revenue is coming in
faster because the economy is growing. And if we get spending under
control, we can solve this problem. But the right way to do it is not
to raise taxes.
I know the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) does not like the
characterization of this. But the fact is we have got provisions in law
that will result in a tax increase if we do not do something about it,
and what your provision would do would prevent us from solving that
problem that results in a tax increase.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman has done is presided over policies
that has created the greatest debt in our Nation's history and nothing
he says can change that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Toomey) did not deliberately attempt to misspeak to this body, but
revenues in 2000 were $2.025 trillion, revenues in 2003 were $1.782
trillion; projected CBO for this year is the $1.817 trillion. I
understand that you are putting the best spin forward, on this year, it
is going up, but look at what it has done under the policies that you
continue to advocate.
What we are talking about is what Chairman Alan Greenspan would like
to see us do; what the Concord Coalition would like to see us do: Put
some fiscal responsibility into all our actions.
The gentleman keeps referring to the Reagan years. I was here. I
helped pass the first Reagan tax cut. It did not work as was intended.
It built up $1.8 trillion of debt in 8 years. The Bush 41 built up
another $1.5 trillion of debt. In the 8 years of the Clinton
administration debt went up $1.4 trillion; and it is estimated under
the Bush 43, debt will go up $2.4 trillion. That is what we were
suggesting doing something about. It is called fiscal responsibility.
It is called living within your means. It is called making tough
decisions.
Yes, there are tax cuts that grow the economy, but there are also tax
cuts that increase the deficit. Let us make that decision, instead of
just coming here and rhetorically talking about things that just are
not so. With all due respect, it just is not so from the standpoint of
the deficit coming down.
If you talk about spending, I just have to smile and get myself under
control, every time I hear a Republican stand up on this floor and talk
about spending, and I would yield to the gentleman to answer to a
question, who has been in control of this House since 1994?
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been the first one to say that
excessive spending is a bipartisan problem.
Mr. STENHOLM. Then if it is a bipartisan problem, that is what we are
suggesting today is a bipartisan solution.
[[Page H2591]]
Mr. TOOMEY. With a tax increase. That is not a good solution.
Mr. STENHOLM. No, with all due respect, well, if you want to fight
the war by shortchanging the troops in order that you can have your
rhetorical answers on that, fine.
I will be happy to yield for a simple discourse, but every time you
start that rhetoric that has put us into a $2.4 trillion hole in 4
years.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. First of all, I think the gentleman will acknowledge that
Republicans have not short-changed our troops; that we have advocated
and passed legislation that would provide the necessary resources; and
we had a budget resolution that took the non-security portions of our
budget and we froze that. We said, these areas that are not critical to
American security should grow at zero.
Now, most if not all Members on the gentleman's side of the aisle,
thought that that was somehow unreasonable, because we did not grow
spending. So I do not think you can accuse us at this point of not
dealing with this problem.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield me some time.
Mr. Speaker, if not, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. The short-
changing of our troops is bipartisan. I am \1/435\ of this body and
anything we have not done, I accept my share of the blame for; but I am
not in control. I am not in the majority. And the minority has been
totally ignored on most of these issues, but I still have to take my
responsibility for that action. And the fact is we have not done a real
good job.
On the question of providing for spousal benefits for military
retirees, we have a bill that has 300 cosponsors of and we cannot get
it on the floor of the House in order to debate.
Mr. TOOMEY. Reclaiming my time, we are getting a little bit far
afield from the discussion.
Mr. STENHOLM. We are talking about pay-as-you-go.
Mr. TOOMEY. We are getting a bit far afield.
I think one of the fundamental areas of disagreement that we have is
the idea that my colleagues who offered the proposal, equate new
spending with new tax relief, including maintaining existing tax law.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, that is not the intent of this amendment.
It is not to get into taxes or spending. It is just to say to this
body, we have to make a decision regarding how much more we borrow on
our children and grandchildren.
Mr. TOOMEY. Reclaiming my time, but the mechanism by which you choose
to make that decision is precisely this, it is to say that we have to
treat, even maintaining existing tax law, as though it were equivalent
to launching a new spending program because you want to impose the
exact same mechanism on both those activities as though they are
equivalent. And my point is they are not equivalent.
One, the new spending, leads to lower economic growth, lower
productivity, fewer opportunities for American workers; and the other,
maintaining this lower tax burden that we managed to pass in recent
years, leads to stronger economic growth, more jobs, higher wages, and
we are seeing it in the numbers. We are seeing that this economy has
turned around. We are seeing the strength of this economy. We are
seeing it producing new jobs. And, in fact, as the gentleman has
acknowledged in recent months, we are even seeing a growth in revenue
to the Federal Government. It is true.
It has not yet reached the level that it was at before the recession
and before the war and before September 11. It will get there. It may
take a little bit longer but the fact is revenue to the Federal
government is growing. It is growing at an accelerating pace. But,
frankly, that is not my highest priority in life. My highest priority,
and what I think it should be here is, are we creating an environment
where we create the maximum opportunity for Americans, the most job
opportunities, the greatest chance for new businesses to flourish.
I know that is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) would
like to see accomplished. I think we differ about how to get there. But
I strongly believe that making it essentially impossible to maintain
the existing tax law and instead having a higher tax regime does not
get us there.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Because nothing in PAYGO precludes tax cuts, nothing
does.
Mr. TOOMEY. They have to be offset with equal tax increases or
spending cuts; is that correct?
Mr. STENHOLM. Right.
Mr. TOOMEY. Do you think that there are the votes anywhere in this
Chamber to have spending cuts when the Democrats in this Chamber would
not vote for a Republican budget?
Mr. STENHOLM. We did it in 1997. It was Democrats like me that stood
up with Republicans and got it done.
Mr. TOOMEY. Reclaiming my time, I would be thrilled if you and your
colleagues would vote with us on this budget resolution that freezes
non-security spending, that just says let us hold it at last year's
level because we really cannot afford more than that. But we never got
the votes to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman simply by saying that
we have, on this side, coined a phrase called the debt tax, not the
death tax, D-E-A-T-H, but the debt tax, D-E-B-T. And the debt tax is
the interest we pay on our national debt and the debt tax is going up
just as the deficits are going up and the debt is going up.
{time} 1530
It is the policies of the gentleman across the aisle that are causing
this to happen, and it has got to change. People in this country know
in their hearts and they know right in their heads that we cannot give
like this forever. We are the strongest Nation on the Earth. We are the
freest Nation on the Earth, but we cannot be strong and free and broke,
and that is the policy advocated by the gentleman from across the
aisle.
That is going to happen if we keep going the way we are. Our Nation
will end up owing so much money it will be financially unsustainable
for our children and grandchildren. I do not want that to happen.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Toomey) has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Moore) has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kansas has the
right to close.
Mr. TOOMEY. May I ask a question of the gentleman from Kansas. Does
the gentleman have any additional speakers?
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to grant some additional time at
the appropriate time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just make one additional point, and that is the point that
has been made for us at our committee by CBO Director Crippin, and I
think this is a very important one. When we look at how best to get our
deficit under control, he makes the observation that a one-tenth of 1
percent increase in GDP growth accounts for about an additional quarter
of a trillion dollars, $250 billion, in additional Federal revenue over
a 10-year period. This is why economic growth is so important.
The real reason it is mostly important is for the benefits that
accrue to the American people who produce this growth; but if we want
to figure out how do we get our budget house in order here, a strong
economy gets us there. One-tenth of 1 percent, going from 4 percent
growth to 4.1 percent growth, just that small difference amounts to an
extra quarter of a trillion dollars in Federal revenue. If we can
maximize economic growth and have some discipline on the spending side,
we get this budget back to balance. We are moving in that direction,
[[Page H2592]]
and I think that is a direction we should stay in.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago is when this debate began and
those of us that believed that we had a little better plan, we lost
that battle; and today, we are still fighting the same battle we did 3
years ago. We were told if we instigated the tax cuts that we would
balance the budget in 4 years. It did not work out quite that way. We
cannot argue with the fact that the budget, that is somewhere out there
in never-never land between the House and the Senate, includes an
increasing of the debt ceiling, the amount which this country can
borrow, to over $8 trillion.
In the last 2\1/2\ years, we have borrowed $1 trillion. In the next
year and a half, we are going to borrow in excess of another $1.5
trillion. We cannot escape that those are the facts. We all know the
reason why.
This amendment today just suggests that this generation ought to be
doing some of the paying rather than just blindly following a theory
that does not work, the theory that we can balance the budget by
cutting the amount of revenue when we are at war.
This is the first war in the history of our country that we have
fought by cutting taxes, and the results are predictable. It is
amazing. Most main-line economists agree with what we are talking about
today, making it tough to raise spending, being very scrupulous on the
manner in which we spend our taxpayer dollars, but also take a good,
hard look at what we are leaving our children and grandchildren and
take a good, hard look at who is buying our debt.
The Japanese will soon own over $600 billion of our debt. The Chinese
are at $200 billion and going up rapidly; and if that does not bother
my colleagues who is the banker of the United States, then continue to
say, as some so-called conservatives continue to say, deficits do not
matter as long as we are following the great game plan that has been
totally rhetorized today by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey); and he does a good job, and I respect the fact he is sincere.
That is something that I can respect on this floor because he puts
his money where his mouth is. The problem is there are not 218
Republicans that agree with him, but there are 218 Members of this body
that would agree on pay-as-you-go and would get our fiscal house in
order as we did in 1990 when Democrats were in control and a few of us
voted with Republicans to put some fiscal order, and as we did in 1997
when Republicans could not pass their budget in 1997 without Democratic
support, and I was there and I helped because I believed in that
compromise legislation that then ultimately gave us the economic growth
and expansion that we saw in the 1990s.
Now, we are arguing a theory today, and I understand there are some
that just cannot say, I was wrong, I did not make a mistake, I am
perfect, everything we are doing we have just got to keep on plugging
and we can send that debt to our children and grandchildren and look at
them with a straight face. I have three grandsons, and I cannot do it;
and that is why I will continue to say we will reach out the hand to
the folks on the other side of the aisle, and we will work together to
bring our fiscal house in order; but we cannot do it with the game plan
that they are advocating.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We have had a spirited debate here this afternoon about this, and I
would simply close by reminding my colleagues that if we were to pass
the provision that is proposed here, it would certainly result in very,
very large tax increases in this year, next year, the following years
of a very huge magnitude; and I am gravely concerned that the result of
that would be to, at a minimum, diminish the growth of our economy and
quite possibly even turn us down into an economic downturn, back from
whence we came.
We are on the right path. The economy is growing. It is growing
strongly. It is actually growing at a nearly record pace. We have job
growth that has kicked in in a very impressive way, and that is the
most important part of this; and that is really manifesting itself in
recent months, likely to continue, likely to generate a self-sustaining
momentum for the economy.
This is exactly what we should be trying to work for. It is the tax
cut package that helped us get here. We have now seen so much economic
growth that, as my colleagues on the other side have acknowledged, even
in recent months and recent quarters, revenue collected by the Federal
Government is growing. It is accelerating. That means if we stick to
the budget resolution that we passed with votes on this side of the
aisle alone, where we put a freeze on nonsecurity discretionary
spending, if we maintain that spending discipline, while we continue to
have the strong economic growth, we will, in fact, see a dramatic
reduction in this deficit. That is what we should be working towards,
maintaining the tax law, keeping the tax burden as low as we possibly
can on the American people, with some spending restraint.
Again, we proposed that we freeze this nonsecurity spending,
unfortunately. My colleagues on the other side would not go along with
that freeze. That is the kind of discipline that will get our budget in
order.
What we need to do is reject this proposal today, vote ``no'' on the
motion of the gentleman from Kansas, and stick to some discipline on
the spending side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
PAYGO, the PAYGO rule that we are proposing here today, does not stop
new tax cuts. All it says is that if we are going to have a new tax
cut, we have got to cut spending; and if he talks about discipline, he
should practice what he preaches. If he talks about discipline, he
should practice what he preaches; and if he wants a new tax cut, he
should say here is how we are going to pay for it. If my colleague
finds a way to do that, then I am all for the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), but he is not doing that. He is just talking
and not practicing reality here.
I voted for the President's tax cut 3 years ago. We were in surplus
mode at that time, but now we are in deficit mode. Now we are in
deficit mode. We are no longer in surplus mode.
Chairman Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Board has testified
before the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Financial
Services, on which I serve; and he said consistently, if we are not in
a fiscally responsible position when this economy takes off, interest
rates could climb rather dramatically, and we should not let that
happen. It could be devastating for business, for the real estate
industry, for consumer borrowing, and for people in this country.
Chairman Greenspan has said over and over, we should have budget
enforcement rules, PAYGO rules, that apply not only to new spending but
to tax cuts.
I understand the gentleman thinks he knows more than Mr. Greenspan,
but I do not believe that is true. I do not believe that is true.
We are going to have soon an $8 trillion national debt at 4 percent.
The interest on that national debt will be $320 billion a year. It is
digging us deeper and deeper in this hole. If that interest rate went
up to only 5 percent, it would add another $80 billion, another tax
increase; and that is what we are talking about here is the debt tax,
the interest on our national debt.
They will put us, the policy advocated by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), deeper and deeper in the hole; and the
problem is, they do not want to pay for it now. They want to pass the
bill to our children and grandchildren; and our children and
grandchildren if they are watching television today and they have heard
this debate, they should say, enough, we are not going to take that
anymore; it is not fair; it is really not American.
We should end this today by saying common sense. If my colleagues
want a tax cut, they have a new spending proposal, find a way to pay
for it; and if they cannot do that, we will not do it because it is not
fiscally responsible. It is not the right thing to do. It is not how
American families live, and we are going to start living like American
families.
[[Page H2593]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). All time 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 Kansas (Mr. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOORE. 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.
____________________