[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 105 (Wednesday, September 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6859-H6863]
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. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. HILL 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 Indiana (Mr. Hill) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. English) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I am here to introduce a simple, but important,
motion before us. My motion calls on Congress to extend expiring
middle- and low-income tax cuts set to expire at the end of this year
without increasing the deficit. We have seen broad and bipartisan
support for extending the middle-class tax cuts. We have also seen
bipartisan support for the concept of pay-as-you-go to avoid further
increasing the ballooning budget deficits facing our Nation. The motion
before us asks the conferees to be sure that Congress achieves both of
these goals.
We have already seen a bipartisan proposal from the Senate extending
for a year middle-class tax cuts without increasing the deficit. And
the Blue Dogs have offered a corresponding bill in the House.
{time} 1830
There are some simple solutions to making these cuts budget neutral,
and I would suggest that they are relatively noncontroversial, such as
closing various tax shelters that are being abused.
[[Page H6860]]
Mr. Speaker, we ought to be creating economic stimulus and tax relief
while maintaining our long-term economic security. Economists have
estimated that the current debt limit will be reached very soon, either
this month or in October. This means that the limit on the national
debt will have to be raised for the third time in 4 years to more than
$8 trillion, effectively forcing our children and our grandchildren to
pay our Nation's bills. Tragically, Social Security becomes the victim
program of this irresponsible behavior because its surpluses are used
to fund the debt.
The Congressional Budget Office has announced that the 2004 deficit
will be $422 billion. When the Social Security surplus is excluded, the
deficit for 2004 is $574 billion. And we have got projected deficits as
far as the eye can see if Congress continues down the path it is on.
So for starters, I think a budget paired with budget enforcement
rules would help get us on the right track. Alan Greenspan and many
others have called for these deficits to be reined in through pay-as-
you-go budget discipline. So if we are going to cut taxes in this
fiscal climate, we ought to be doing it either with offsets or spending
cuts. I could not in good conscience add more burden to the backs of
our children and grandchildren, and this Congress should not have that
kind of a conscience as well. Families are spending thousands of
dollars each year in debt taxes because the Federal Government has not
balanced its books. As deficits grow, so does the burden on taxpayers.
Not only is the deficit spending irresponsible, but it is immoral,
passing on a legacy of debt to be paid off by our children and our
grandchildren.
One of our highest priorities should be to act fiscally responsible
with the people's tax dollars. If we are to be responsible and honest
with the people, we must honestly confront the cause of these deficits.
We cannot continue down the path of increased spending and tax cutting
at the same time. This Congress is doing both, and it is burying its
head in the sand by expecting no consequences. Soon the debt will be so
enormous that it will begin to affect ``the long-term health of our
economy,'' not my words but the words of Alan Greenspan. When that day
comes, we can be sure that the middle class will shoulder the heaviest
burden.
So let us give the middle class some relief from taxes today without
making them pay for it in the end.
Lastly, I want to make clear that this motion calls for the
extension, not the expiration, of middle-class tax cuts. But there is
no free lunch here. These tax cuts will be paid for somehow, whether it
is with an offset upfront like we want to do it today or whether it is
offset with borrowed money tomorrow. As the Concord Coalition has
noted, if we must borrow the money, the cost will even be greater
because we have to pay interest on the borrowed money. That is equal to
a tax increase on the American people.
All it takes is a couple of hands reaching across the aisle, and we
can make a real difference in the lives of the middle- and lower-income
families of America. Both Congress and the administration ought to sit
down, put everything on the table, and get our economic house in order,
not mortgage our future to pay for today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), my distinguished colleague from the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for yielding me this time.
I listened with great interest to my friend from Indiana, and I rise
asking this House to reject this motion to instruct because when we
take a closer look at what is transpiring here, we do see really a
distillation, a distinction, of two different philosophies. One is the
notion that the highest and best use of the taxpayers' money is here by
government. And that is fine. That is an intellectually defensible
position; but those who offer that tonight, I believe, need to make
very clear to the American public what, in fact, transpires if we
embrace this motion to instruct.
Essentially what will transpire, despite the best efforts of my
friends on the other side, if this body fails to act to maintain the
rate of tax relief, next year the $1,000 child tax credit shrinks. It
shrinks to $700 per child.
If we want to provide tax relief for working families, the desired
goal that we hear from our friends here, we do not want, in essence, to
increase taxes. But that will be what will happen. We will see the
marriage penalty provision reduced.
And it is fine to have a disagreement. My friends on the other side
view this as a fundamental cost to government. Again, that is fine, and
I will leave that position for them to stake out, and we could go back
through a litany of history in deficit spending that in previous
Congresses it seemed to matter not a whit. But we welcome this
adherence that my friends now say they have for fiscal accountability,
responsibility. We welcome it from any quarter.
But the question becomes, What is the best way really long term to
reduce deficits? And this argument, incidentally, is nothing really
new. It has been part and parcel of our constitutional Republic since
the Federalist Papers. Hamilton and others said, why do we not embrace
a policy of growth? When we reduce taxation across the board, when we
maintain the $1,000-per-child tax credit, when we maintain the
alleviation of the marriage penalty that we have incorporated into
current law, we actually grow the economy because people have more of
their hard-earned money to spend.
And so it is important to maintain the tax relief that we have
already established, not to come back and fill under the notion that
somehow by doing so, we are being more fiscally accountable and
responsible. No, we are not to the families who depend on the tax
relief. And if we reject across-the-board tax relief, we are hurting
the very people who produce in our economy.
Good people can disagree. And we appreciate the motion to instruct,
and we appreciate the lectures that will be forthcoming, to be sure, on
fiscal responsibility. But at the end of the day when we maintain a
reduction of taxation across the board, we grow our economy. We have
seen that happen. It is not partisan. Many of my friends on this side
and, indeed, throughout the Chamber and across this country, Mr.
Speaker, remember with great reverence Jack Kennedy's Presidency,
remember his argument that a rising tide lifts all the boats, that when
we cut taxes across the board, we invigorate the economy.
We saw that happen, though, sadly, President Kennedy did not live to
see the result. We saw it happen in the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. We
have seen a reinvigoration of our economy through the across-the-board
tax relief that we have offered now that should be made permanent
because that is the very thing that has gotten us out of the economic
doldrums in the wake of 9/11.
So, respectfully, not doubting the sincerity of my friend from
Indiana, nor the speakers who will follow, we just have two different
paths we need to follow. Either embrace pro-growth notions that in the
fullness of time we know that long term we actually increase revenues
to the government for more economic activity. And despite the best
efforts of my friend, I do not want to see the per-child tax credit
watered down to $700 a year. I do not want to see a decrease in the
benefits we have offered married couples. I do not want to see an
abridgement in what, in essence, in the long term will actually
increase revenues to the government through increased economic
activity.
But two different points of view: either the money belongs to the
folks, or it belongs to the government. If we vote ``yes'' on the
motion to instruct, what we are doing is saying the highest and best
use of the people's money, Mr. Speaker, is here in Washington, D.C. I
believe it is exactly the opposite. I believe the highest and best use
of the money is not to ignore our obligations, but to understand the
money belongs to the people. When the people keep more of it, when the
families with children keep more of it, when married couples keep more
of it, when small business owners have more of their money to save,
spend, and invest, we indeed ignite the engines of economic prosperity.
[[Page H6861]]
And in the long term, Mr. Speaker, we will see more revenue to the
government, not through the heavy hand of castor oil economics, but
through the real proven success, whether in the Kennedy years or in the
Reagan years or more recently this Congress working with this
President, we fire the engines of economic activity.
So with all due respect to my friends on the other side, reject this
motion to instruct. Stay the course. In the long term it will mean more
economic prosperity and the very revenues to the government my friends
on the other side purport to want to see.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Apparently the gentleman from Arizona, my good friend, has not read
our motion to instruct. We want to do the same things about
rejuvenating the economic machine that he does. We want to extend the
tax cuts. We just want to pay for it. And so I fail to understand the
point that he was trying to make.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my friend from Arizona has left
the floor. But I sat here and listened carefully to his very eloquent
speech that was totally irrelevant to the motion that is before the
House.
We are not talking about raising taxes. We are talking about being
concerned about the rising deficit. And sooner or later these speeches
that we make, and I think it was Yogi Berra who said this is deja vu
all over again, sooner or later folks like the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Hayworth) are going to have to come to this floor and increase the
debt ceiling for the United States of America, the credit card limit.
Because they can talk about all of what these tax cuts are doing all
they want to, but CBO today certified that we now have the largest
deficit in the history of our country, $422 billion; and it is
explained away, somehow, some way, this rhetoric that we hear over and
over that unfortunately has got a few of the American people believing
them, that these deficits do not matter.
They do matter; and soon, I hope, the gentleman from Arizona will
stand on this floor and move the motion to increase our debt ceiling to
$8 trillion, which is what somebody is going to have to do because we
will reach sometime in October or early November the credit card limit
of what the United States of America can borrow.
The gentleman from Indiana offers a simple motion to instruct, and
just as he said, the Blue Dogs, we had a substitute that called for an
extension of middle-class tax relief, the marriage tax penalty. All of
these, we are not arguing. We want to extend them. But nobody listens
on that side. They come up with a speech that is totally irrelevant to
the argument. But we want to pay for them because if we do not pay for
them, we are going to have to borrow the additional money to make room
for them. That is not me talking. That is not the Blue Dogs talking.
That is the overwhelming consensus of economists who are saying we have
got to borrow it; $422 billion dollars, $574 billion when we once again
take into consideration we are borrowing all of the Social Security
trust fund dollars and we might add in all the military trust fund
dollars and all of the civil service trust fund dollars. And the folks
on this side who claim to be conservatives say that is irrelevant.
It is going to take 40 percent of all the income taxes collected this
year to pay the deficit tax, the interest on the national debt. And if
interest rates start going up, guess what. The deficit tax is going to
go up.
{time} 1845
This is money that is literally wasted as far as a productive value
for the United States of America. But nobody mentions that. Everybody
is going to talk about more tax cuts, more tax cuts.
We say, great. Put them on the floor, paid for, and we will support
you. But put them on the floor and borrow on our children's and
grandchildren's future, and we say no. Let you do it. But you will have
to make another speech like the gentleman from Arizona makes, and
everybody thinks that is great stuff and that us Blue Dogs are all
opposing him. We agreed with him. We agreed with him on everything,
except you should not do what he is doing by borrowing on the future on
some theory of economics that has been proven, proven in the 1980s,
proven in the 1990s, and now we are about to prove it in this century,
that it does not work, because if it did work, we would not have to be
borrowing the money to pay for it.
So listen very carefully to what Mr. Greenspan is saying. Listen to
what people like Pete Peterson, people like the Concord Coalition are
saying; begging this body, begging this body to get fiscally
responsible and not keep turning a blind eye to the fact that of this
debt held by the public now, $1.7 trillion of that debt is now owned by
foreign interests, and $1 trillion of our debt is owned by foreign
institutions.
Now, the United States of America is no different than any family
sitting down over dinner at this moment. When your banker tells you
that you cannot borrow any more, you have to adjust your spending
habits.
We are heading for a precipice that is going to be one of the most
serious problems this country has ever faced, because 2011 is not that
far away. The baby-boom generation, all the promises, all of the
legislation we refuse to consider on this floor dealing with the future
is being swept under the rug.
Support the gentleman from Indiana's motion to instruct. It is a
fiscally responsible direction for this House to take.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, you know, this is a very interesting debate tonight,
although it seems a little circular, because we have seen similar
motions to instruct in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I have chosen to rise tonight in opposition to this
motion to instruct. First I want to commend the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means and the Republican leadership for having
already taken substantial action on the issues before us.
Contrary to what the argument is we are hearing from the minority,
the House took action on this issue and moved legislation forward in
order to ensure that families are not hit with a tax increase next
year. Earlier this year, the House voted to permanently extend the
current $1,000 child tax credit, relief from the marriage penalty and
the expansion of the 10 percent bracket. That is the bracket that
applies to working families. The House passed this permanent relief
without raising taxes on hard-working Americans.
The motion to instruct before us takes several steps back from the
policy we had previously passed. The motion calls for the extension of
middle-class tax cuts, but insists that they be fully paid for. I do
not think that the minority intends to pay for them through cuts in
spending. If they did, we might have a very different outcome this
evening, but I do not believe they do.
Republicans have provided tax relief in the past 3 years, and the
minority has fought us every single time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has already had a few
minutes. I would like to complete my statement, because I think it is
important that a realistic perspective be offered on this.
This is, in my view, simply another attempt to turn the clock back on
tax relief. While it is costly to extend tax relief permanently, the
workers of this country deserve to know that their taxes will not be
increased on a year-by-year basis. The tax relief passed by this House
under this administration has clearly helped grow the economy.
Chairman Greenspan has been invoked here, and it is fairly clear from
his testimony before congressional committees that he believes that the
tax plan that has passed the House and that has been signed into law
has clearly stimulated the economy.
This is the wrong time to block the extension of this tax relief. The
House acted when it passed a direct and permanent solution to the needs
of families struggling with the burden of day-to-day expenses.
This motion, in my view, is unnecessary and sets us down a path of
tax increases. The author, whom I have great respect for, argued that
this could be paid for simply by closing a few tax shelters. If it is
so painless, I would be very interested as a member of the
[[Page H6862]]
Committee on Ways and Means to solicit his suggestions, and perhaps he
may offer some this evening.
I thank him, Mr. Speaker. However, under the circumstances, I feel
obliged to call upon the House to oppose this motion.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think most Americans listening to this debate tonight
would agree that tax cuts are not appropriate when you have to borrow
the money to offer the tax cuts, so this motion that we are offering
here tonight prevents that from happening. It simply says we have got
to find a way to pay for it, and we are not going to go out and borrow
the money. I think everybody at their kitchen table tonight would agree
with that philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Indiana for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many issues that the Members of this House
disagree upon, and I am talking about Members from the Democratic side
disagreeing with the Members on the Republican side. Witness the bill
that was just pulled by the majority leadership over the overtime
regulation issue. And there are other issues that we disagree upon.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many issues that we do agree upon,
and I think what the American people want us to do is to isolate those
issues that we can agree upon and then move forward with those
particular issues.
I listened to my friend from Pennsylvania and my friend from Arizona
earlier, whom I am not sure was reading the same motion to instruct
that I have before me. But the motion to instruct that we have before
us does two things, two things that I think every Member of this House
would agree with, and certainly all of the American families would.
There are three specific provisions. It extends the middle-income tax
cut. Number one is the 10 percent tax bracket; two is the child tax
credit; and, three, is the Marriage Penalty Relief Act. It extends
those.
Now, my friend from Pennsylvania voted for those, but he voted
earlier to end them, to sunset them, after 4 years. Now we face that
sunset. We are asking that they be extended. That is the first part.
The second part says do not increase the size of the Federal budget
deficit. These are two things we can agree upon.
Extend the tax cuts; that is, the 10 percent bracket, the child tax
credit and, of course, the marriage penalty relief. Those are
provisions which will affect every middle-income family in a positive
way. Those are provisions which will, in the long run, increase the
size of the middle class of America, and any good economic policy plan
put in place by anyone should include provisions which try to increase
the size of the middle class.
So, Mr. Speaker, we should not be confused by all the rhetoric here
about raising taxes. This motion to instruct extends tax cuts. I would
remind us to focus on those things again: The 10 percent tax bracket,
the child tax credit and the marriage penalty relief, and doing it
without increasing the size of the Federal budget deficit.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania to yield a moment ago, and he
refused to. And I understand, I did not mean to interrupt, but I did
want to clarify one of the statements.
The gentleman was mischaracterizing what we are standing up here
doing tonight. We are suggesting that tax cuts be paid for, and we
would love to see spending reductions proposed to accommodate that.
That is what we would like to see on this floor, and that is what we
constantly and consistently do.
I would ask the gentleman, and I will yield to him for a brief answer
to a question, will the gentleman bring from the Committee on Ways and
Means a bill to the floor of the House before we adjourn for the
elections to increase the debt ceiling for the United States of America
to $8 trillion to accommodate the economic policy that the gentleman
seems unwilling to make any changes in and believe is successful? Will
the gentleman do that?
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply flattered by the gentleman's
kind words and his apparent elevation of me to the chairmanship of the
Committee on Ways and Means. I am not in a position to make any
promises about what the Committee on Ways and Means will do.
I am not in a position to make a commitment on behalf of the
Committee on Ways and Means. I do not know the chairman's policy. I do
know that the chairman is prepared to move forward with whatever
legislation is necessary, recognizing that the national debt today is
significantly smaller relative to the economy than when Republicans
inherited that 10 years ago when I came in.
I cannot, obviously, commit the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to ask another
question then. I would just refer to the gentleman as an individual
Member, 1/435th of this body, does the gentleman believe we should have
a clean up-or-down vote on increasing the debt ceiling for this country
prior to going home to run for reelection?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman from
Texas has expired.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, how much is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) has 15
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) has
19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think what is coming through here is kind of an
interesting contrast, and while I am here by myself tonight speaking on
this point, I do not feel that I am particularly outnumbered, one man
and the truth and all of that.
I think what we have before us, Republicans clearly want to prevent
tax increases on middle-class families. I think from the debate tonight
we have a legitimate question as to whether our friends on the other
side are as firmly committed to doing that, unless they also get to
raise taxes somewhere else.
I found reassuring some of the comments of my friend from Texas who
suggested that he might be willing to consider cuts as well in
spending. I think everyone here intuitively understands that there is
adequate spending, low-priority spending, in the Federal Government,
and that certainly that would be one way we can bring down the deficit.
In fact, the Republican budget this year contemplates just that kind of
fiscal restraint through the process.
H.R. 1308 maintains the successful tax policy that has clearly
contributed to the economic recovery. The motion to instruct here
creates a zero sum game. It extends tax relief with one hand, while
potentially raising taxes with the other. If I understand our recent
fiscal experience in America, I do not believe that this is a good time
for us to be raising taxes on certain sectors. This is bad for the
economy, and it is bad for families.
Republicans have provided significant tax relief for families since
this administration took office resulting in higher after-tax incomes
for Americans. Yet because of arcane Senate rules, Congress could not
provide permanent tax relief for families.
The gentleman correctly pointed out that when we voted, what we voted
for turned out to be a temporary expedient, but was a function, as he
well knows, of the Senate and its rules.
{time} 1900
House Republicans have voted to provide predictability in the Tax
Code, and the Senate has not taken those steps. If Congress does not
act, I think we all could agree, middle-class families will face a tax
increase next year. For example, next year, the $1,000 tax credit, as
my friend from Arizona noted, drops to $700 per child. The 10 percent
tax bracket will apply to less of an individual's income, and the
marriage penalty provision will provide significantly less relief for
couples.
[[Page H6863]]
The House has voted overwhelmingly to make these tax cuts permanent
and has done so without offsets. These votes show that the House does
not want to increase taxes on middle-class American families.
Now, if we are serious about looking for a way of balancing this, if
we are serious about addressing the deficit, first we need to stimulate
the economy to bring down the deficit. We have done that, and it has
succeeded. But second of all, if there is an argument here that we
should be tying tax cuts to other reductions in spending, or closing
some unsubstantial loopholes, then I think that the burden is on the
other side as they lay out the instructions to tell us specifically how
they think this could be done without pain or without a drag on the
economy.
Mr. Speaker, I retain the balance of my time.
____________________