[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.

                          ____________________