[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 101 (Tuesday, July 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6101-H6104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1308, TAX RELIEF, SIMPLIFICATION,
AND EQUITY ACT OF 2003
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Stenholm 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 Senate amendment to the
bill H.R. 1308 be instructed to agree, to the maximum extent
possible within the scope of conference, to a conference
report that--
(1) extends the tax relief provisions which expire at the
end of 2004, and
(2) does not increase the Federal budget deficit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ryan) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a very simple motion. The motion calls on Congress to extend
middle-class tax relief without increasing the deficit. There is a
broad, bipartisan support for extending the middle-class tax provisions
which expire at the end of this year. There is also bipartisan support
for the concept of pay-as-you-go to avoid further increasing the record
budget deficits facing our Nation. Our motion would put the House on
record in support of a conference report that achieves both of these
goals.
I strongly support middle-class tax relief. I support extending
marriage penalty relief. I support continuing the $1,000 per child tax
credit and the expanded 10 percent tax bracket.
What I oppose is passing those tax cuts with borrowed money and
leaving our children and grandchildren to pay our bills.
The Blue Dog budget and Spratt budget substitute called for extension
of middle-class tax relief offset by suspending a portion of additional
tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers.
More recently, a bipartisan group of Senators has put forward a
proposal to expand the three middle-class tax cuts for 1 year, offset
by an extension of customs user fees and closing corporate tax
loopholes.
The question is not whether or not we should provide tax relief to
middle-class families. The debate is whether we should do so with
borrowed money, adding more debt on top of our $7.1 trillion national
debt.
We should not pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our
children's future. Congress should be required to sit down and figure
out how to make things fit within a budget, just like families across
the country do every day. If we do not pay for tax cuts by cutting
spending or replacing the revenues, every dime of the tax cuts will be
added to the debt we will leave for our children and grandchildren.
At a time when our national debt is approaching $8 trillion and our
Nation faces tremendous expenses for our troops overseas, it is
irresponsible to continue passing legislation that would put our Nation
even deeper in debt.
As of the close of business last Friday, our total national debt
stood at $7,273,792,456,490.62. It appears very likely the debt limit
will be reached sometime in late September or October, with the most
likely date being early October, and here let me pause for a moment and
say instead of working in a bipartisan way, which we could achieve in a
heartbeat to increase the debt ceiling, what we continue to face are
more and more bills to increase spending and decrease revenue and
increase the deficit.
We offer the hand of bipartisan cooperation on this amendment
tonight, and in my opinion, if this would suddenly become the
leadership's position, we would pass the tax cuts that the folks on
this side of the aisle are talking about unanimously tomorrow or the
next day, and it would conference out of the Senate.
But instead, it appears very likely the debt limit that will be
reached
[[Page H6102]]
sometime in late September or October will come and go, and we will
have a crisis.
Secretary Snow has publicly urged Congress to increase the debt limit
as soon as possible, even before recessing in August, and we should do
that. The most responsible thing for this Congress to do is do exactly
what Secretary Snow is asking us to do.
As of the end of April, $1.726 trillion of our debt was held by
foreign investors, more than $1 trillion held by official institutions
of foreign countries. Despite this, the leadership of this body is
talking about bringing up legislation that would add another $75 to
$180 billion to that debt. And some folks even have the nerve to say
with a straight face they are taking a conservative position.
Those who want to extend expiring tax cuts or make the tax cuts
permanent should be willing to put forward the spending cuts or other
offsets necessary to pay for them.
Applying pay-as-you-go rules to tax cuts do not prevent Congress from
passing more tax cuts. All it says is that if we are going to reduce
our revenues, we need to reduce our spending by the same amount.
If Republicans actually mean what they say about controlling
spending, you should have no problem with applying pay-as-you-go to tax
cuts, because it would force Congress to actually control spending when
we pass tax cuts instead of just promising to do so in the future and
having what apparently seems to be a good campaign issue.
The problem is that actions of Republicans have not matched their
rhetoric. They cut taxes without cutting spending, in fact, increasing
spending at the most dramatic rate that we have seen in many, many
years. They charge the difference to our children and grandchildren by
increasing the deficit. We should provide tax relief to working men and
women, but we must do so without increasing taxes on our children and
grandchildren. That is what the Stenholm amendment to instruct
conferees would provide.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief about this. This is a similar
motion to instruct that we have seen before. The practical result of
this motion to instruct is to make sure that a tax increase hits all
middle-income families next year.
{time} 1930
We have a problem and the problem is when the tax cuts passed into
law last July and in the original tax cuts when they passed in 2001,
the intention of this body was to make those tax cuts permanent. The
tax cut that passed the House originally was that the child tax credits
would be doubled, the marriage tax penalty would be vastly eliminated,
and the 10 percent bracket would be expanded, and that that would be
the law of the land in perpetuity.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman did not intend to
mischaracterize my amendment.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I am getting there.
Mr. STENHOLM. I guess I did not hear what I thought I heard you say.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, I am making a larger point
that will come around to the practical effect of this motion to
instruct.
The point I was trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that because of an
arcane rule in the other body, those tax cuts were made temporary,
meaning next year if Congress does not act, the per child tax credits
will go from $1,000 down to $700. The marriage penalty relief will go
away and the marriage penalty will come back into full force which
costs the average married couple $1,400 in higher taxes. And the 10
percent bracket which is income tax relief to low-income Americans will
go away and go back to the 15 percent tax bracket.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. You are mischaracterizing my amendment. We are
suggesting that the tax cuts be extended through next year. You are
describing something that is not going to happen in my amendment,
leaving a wrong impression with the people that might be listening to
us right now.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, the point I am coming to
is that the practical effect of this by saying ``does not increase the
Federal budget deficit,'' is to say that this will not, in effect, end
up happening. And what we want to do is make sure these tax cuts stay
in place.
The point is this, Mr. Speaker, when the House passed its budget
resolution, when the House deemed its budget resolution passed, we
budgeted for this. We planned for this. It is within our budget, which
is also a broader plan to reduce the budget deficit. The point is if
you put this emphasis as this motion to instruct is created, it will
put a bias in to keep these taxes high. It will put pressure not on
reducing spending, but keeping taxes high. That is my concern with the
gentleman's motion to instruct.
By saying, ``extend the tax relief provisions that expired at the end
of 2004 and does not increase the Federal budget deficit,'' that puts
emphasis on keeping taxes high or raise raising taxes somewhere else to
make this tax cut extended, rather than putting the emphasis where it
ought to be, and that is reducing spending like we budget for in the
budget resolution which we have deemed here.
So the points is this: we want these tax cuts to be permanent. It was
always the intention they be permanent. By having these kinds of
motions to instruct which will have the practical effect, in my
opinion, of derailing these tax relief measures, we will have a tax
increase on the middle-income family earners.
This is in our budget resolution. We budget for these tax cuts to be
made permanent. That is what should happen. That is why I urge a ``no''
vote on this motion to instruct.
With that, I understand my friend from Texas disagrees with my
assessment of this, but that is my assessment. I think that is exactly
what would happen if this were to be the case. That is why I urge a
``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think it is a fascinating argument. We have heard it time and time
and time again. My friend talks about the lack of controlling of
spending. Let me remind, Mr. Speaker, you control this House. You
control the Senate. You control the White House. All of the great
speeches that are made about controlling spending are your
responsibility.
This amendment will not stop that from happening. In fact, I suggest
just the opposite has been happening because we continue to pay tax
cuts but spending goes up. Nothing in my amendment suggests that
spending would not go down. If you want to have a tax cut, pass the
spending cuts first. Do not just do it on the promise of a theory that
so far has not worked. Did not work in the 1980s, has not worked in the
1990s. But yet we hear the same rhetoric; and with all due respect, my
colleague mischaracterizes our amendment.
I would be happy to yield at any time to my friend.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. As this motion to instruct is written, number
one, under the PAYGO rules that you are advocating, you will have to
raise taxes somewhere else to pay for this tax cut or you will cut
entitlements because that is how PAYGO works for these tax reliefs.
Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I take back time because again you
are totally misleading the body when you make that statement.
If you go back to PAYGO as was originally passed in this body in
1990, repassed in 1993, repassed in 1997 with Republican votes for it
and Democrats joining, like myself, in putting that in place, it
worked. There is nothing in this amendment that suggests that you, the
majority party, must cut entitlement spending in order to achieve a tax
cut.
[[Page H6103]]
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Does PAYGO allow for cuts in discretionary
spending to be used to pay for tax relief?
Mr. STENHOLM. Yes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I have a different understanding on that.
Mr. STENHOLM. That is the problem. That is the problem. It is a lack
of understanding.
PAYGO means you have got to come up with the spending cuts to take
care of the amount of tax cut.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. If the gentleman is suggesting that when the
budget resolution sets its 302(a) and reconciles its provisions, then
the answer is you can put credit on the PAYGO score card to pay for a
tax cut. But given the fact that we already have a budget resolution
that is deemed, that accommodates this tax relief provision extending
this tax cut so that it does not expire, we already have in our budget
this budgeted for.
Mr. STENHOLM. The gentleman has misstated the facts again. There is
no budget. There is no budget until we get a House-Senate conference
and we have a budget. If we had a budget, I would probably be standing
up here agreeing with parts of what you are saying.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The House deemed a budget, so we for practical
purposes are operating under the House budget resolution which we
deemed to be the budget of the House because we could not get a budget
agreement with the other body.
Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, that is precisely why I am standing
here tonight offering a solution for the House and the Senate.
There is a bipartisan family tax relief proposal in the other body.
It calls for a clean 1-year extension of the present law, $1,000 tax
credit. It calls for the marriage tax penalty relief and the standard
deduction, clean 1-year extension of present law so that married
couples get twice the standard deductions of single filers. It calls
for the 10 percent rate bracket clean 1-year extension. It calls for 1-
year acceleration of the scheduled 2005 increase from 10 to 15 percent.
It provides for the benefit of the child credit to military families by
expanding the definition of earned income.
There is not a bit of this that you are opposed to. We all agree on
that.
Now, what my proposal does is the offsets that they put in their
bill. The Concord Coalition today has endorsed what this bipartisan
group of Senators, let me read the names, Senator Snowe, Republican of
Maine; Senator Baucus, Democrat of Montana; Senator McCain, Republican
of Arizona; Senator Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana; Senator Chafee,
Republican of Rhode Island; Senator Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas.
The other body is showing some signs of saying, look, it is time for
us to deal with a very serious problem. If we do not act, these tax
cuts are going to become tax increases on the middle-income folks. If
we do not act. To act you are going to have to eventually get some kind
of bipartisan agreement. You will never get bipartisan agreement by
standing up in this body and saying, we passed a budget in this House.
Whoopee. We passed one in this House. But you have got to have a Senate
concurrence if you are going to, in fact, achieve something that we all
agree needs to be done. That is my point.
We can do this. It is not that difficult. Unless you just believe we
can borrow unlimited amounts of money.
There are some misconceptions flowing around. I have been in this
body now for 13 terms. And when I look at spending as a percent of
gross domestic product when I arrived here in 1979 and compare it with
spending today, total spending as a percent of GDP, it is one half of 1
percent less today than it was in 1979. Revenue has dropped by 5
percent. The amount of revenue that we have available to fund the
programs, including fighting three wars, has dropped by 5 percent; and
in dropping the revenue by 5 percent, we are adding to the deficit at
an alarming rate.
It does not seem to bother you, Mr. Speaker. It does not seem to
bother my friend. As long as we were out here arguing about tax cuts,
it does not bother anyone. And why should it? The folks that this
should bother are our children and grandchildren, and they have about
as much knowledge of this as my friend arguing on the other side here
today and they cannot vote. That is the problem. Our grandchildren
cannot vote.
Adding to the deficit under a political theory that has not worked,
did not work in the 1980s, is not working today, is dangerous to the
future health of this country. I believe that.
My friends on the other side apparently do not believe that. And that
is fine. As long as you stand up and say, honestly, I do not believe it
is going to harm the United States of America that we borrow another 75
to $180 billion, because tonight I do not know what my friends are
proposing in this mysterious conference. Very unusual procedure that we
are talking about in doing what no one knows until the leadership deems
that it is going to be on the floor, and deems the way it is going to
be carried out, and deems the way that it is going to, in fact, effect
the future economy of this country.
Now, that is perfectly within the purview of the majority party, to
continue to allow business as serious as the economic future of this
country to be decided in a very small cadre of Members who happen to be
in the leadership. And if you continue to do as you have been doing,
you are going to be successful in this body. But then what happens if
we cannot get an agreement with the other body?
Why would we not come together tonight and say, okay, we can have a
1-year extension and we can pay for it, either with the way the Senate
has proposed it or by finding some other spending cuts up front. Not
doing it like we did it 2 weeks ago, and spending 7 hours in this body
debating all these wonderful amendments and then having nothing. Some
got 100 votes and some got 105. And that is perfectly within the
purview of any Member to stand up and speak for what they are for. But,
ultimately, when you are in the majority party you have to accept the
responsibility, the responsibility of your actions.
Just as I took the hand of your party in the 1980s when we were in
the majority in this body and we worked together for some compromises
regarding the economy of this country, we offer that hand tonight. This
amendment, if you look at it honestly, again, is a very simple motion.
It calls on Congress to extend middle-class tax relief without
increasing the deficit. What is wrong with that? I ask my colleagues,
what is wrong with extending middle-class tax relief without increasing
the deficit? Why are my friends on the other side of the aisle so bound
and determined that you want to continue to increase the deficit
because you have a theory, a theory, that by cutting taxes without
paying for them that it will do something other than increase the
deficit?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I was thinking we were going to yield all time
back.
I want to be very brief. We do want to reduce the deficit. We are
trying to reduce the deficit. I think there is a better way than this
vehicle. That is the point I am trying to make.
I do believe there is a difference of opinion on how the PAYGO rules
work. But also I think it is important to point out the fact that the
tax cuts that took place last year, since then we have actually raised
more money in tax receipts under these new lower tax rates than we did
last year under the higher tax rates. So the facts are there; but,
nevertheless, the point of this is we passed budget resolutions. We
have not gotten one with the other body for a lot of reasons, but we
have deemed it here. We passed the budget to try to get a handle on
spending and reduce the deficit. I would have done even more on
spending control in our budget resolution.
This is not the vehicle to do it because I believe this vehicle will
make it harder to extend this tax relief; and, therefore, you will have
a tax increase on middle-income workers. And I believe the better
vehicle to get a hold of our deficit is to pass a good budget that gets
down our deficit, that reduces our deficit.
I thank the gentleman for giving me the time.
{time} 1945
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I do. I respect the sincerity of the
gentleman
[[Page H6104]]
and his belief. I happen to believe that he is wrong and is being
proven wrong every day by the facts. And let the facts speak for
themselves.
That is the whole question today, and this is something that we can
continue to argue, but if we do not get some agreements fairly soon,
middle-income folks will get a tax increase, and it will not be my
fault.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hensarling). 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 Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. STENHOLM. 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.
____________________