[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 105 (Wednesday, September 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6863-H6865]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). Members are reminded to refrain 
from improper references to the Senate.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we talk so much in this institution about values; and, 
specifically, we talk about family values. Fiscal responsibility is a 
family value. It is a family value we should teach our children; it is 
a family value we should practice ourselves here in Congress as we do 
in our homes around the country.
  When we stand up here, and I am here in support of the gentleman from 
Indiana's motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, what this would do is extend 
tax cuts, extend tax cuts, not raise taxes; so the debate tonight is 
partially mischaracterizing what this is all about. All we are saying, 
Mr. Speaker, is that when we extend these tax cuts, we want to employ 
what Chairman Greenspan recommended the House reinstitute and that is 
budget rules that say pay for these, find some way to offset these or 
pay for these tax cuts. That is all we want to do. We want to extend 
tax cuts, not raise taxes; but we want to do it in a fiscally 
responsible manner.
  As my colleagues know, we have a $7.3 trillion debt, the highest in 
our Nation's history; we have a $422 billion deficit, the highest in 
our Nation's history. We are paying almost $1 billion a day in what I 
call the debt tax, which is the interest on our national debt. It is 
money that could be used for more tax cuts if we were not paying 
interest on this huge national debt.
  We have got to get back to fiscal responsibility. We have to get back 
to fiscal sanity. We have to start living like American families do, 
within a budget. And this should not be about Democrats and 
Republicans. This should not be partisan. This should be about the 
future of our country and not placing a huge unsustainable, unpayable 
mortgage on the future of our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will say that when this side of the aisle at one time subscribed to 
spending caps and pay-as-you-go, now they have abandoned that idea for 
some reason; but when we did have them in place, we actually went into 
a surplus. Now that we have abandoned that discipline, we are looking 
at deficits as far as the eye can see. Mr. Greenspan, his name was 
evoked tonight, and it was evoked because he believes in pay-as-you-go 
and spending caps. We have to get real with our budget deficits.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I find this debate we are having this evening 
most amazing. I was eating breakfast Monday morning with a dear friend 
of mine. He is a farmer and lives on the bank of the St. Francis River 
in Clay County, Arkansas. He is full of wisdom. He knows that if you do 
not make a crop, you cannot pay the bank off. He understands that. We 
were sitting there eating breakfast just at daylight looking out across 
some beautiful cotton; and he said, Marion, those guys are not going to 
know they are broke until they have sold their last chicken. We have 
already sold our last chicken, and you guys want to just keep borrowing 
money and borrowing money and piling the debt on top of debt on top of 
debt on top of my grandchildren.
  Like everyone that has grandchildren, I think they are the most 
special thing, and it breaks my heart to see what you all are doing to 
them and this country. I do not see how you can continue to deceive 
yourselves and try to deceive this great Nation by doing that. And you 
can talk about raising taxes and you can talk about whatever you want 
to. The bottom line is, you cannot hide from that debt. You got to pay 
it. You got to pay the interest on it. There is no place to go when it 
gets so high that nobody can afford it, and we are already there. Yet 
you want to keep playing these little games. There are lots of things 
you can say about this, but one thing is for sure: it is irresponsible.
  I do not think anybody has children or grandchildren that they do not 
care a lot about and they love them deeply and they do not want to 
leave them in debt.
  I remember so well when President Bush first came into office and the 
Blue Dogs reached out to him and said we know you want to cut taxes. We 
will work with you. We will help you. But let us not get back into that 
deficit ditch. He sent Vice President Cheney to the Blue Dog meeting 
and it took him about 3 minutes to say we think you are pretty good 
folks, but we do not need you and we do not care whether you like it or 
not, we are going to do this, and they did. And they took a $5 trillion 
surplus and squandered it. It is gone. There is not a dime left in the 
trust funds of Medicare, Social Security. They are all gone. It has 
been spent. And we are deeper in debt today than we have ever been.
  Then they sent this little fellow, Mitch Daniels, to explain to the 
poor, ignorant Blue Dogs that these tax cuts were going to create so 
much prosperity that our greatest danger in this country was going to 
be that we would not have any bonds to sell because we were going to be 
out of debt and we would not have to borrow any money. Not a more 
ridiculous idea has ever been presented in this building, and there 
have been some real dandies brought forth.
  The fact is, the Nation is bankrupt, the $5 trillion surplus is 
squandered, the ability to deal with Medicare and Social Security is 
gravely threatened, and nobody wants to acknowledge it. It is like, oh, 
just say it does not matter. Just tell them anything. The American 
people are smarter than that.
  Some day, you guys will figure that out. I hope I am still around 
when that happens, but I hope my children and grandchildren do not have 
to pay the bill for it.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding me this time this evening to talk about a very important 
issue.
  Thinking back, it is hard to believe that from 1997 through 2001, 
this country was running on a balanced budget. It is hard to believe, 
because in 2002, this country ran a $155 billion deficit. In 2003, it 
was $374 billion. In 2004, it is $422 billion. Guess what? If you 
subtract out the money they are borrowing from the Social Security 
trust fund, it is actually a $574 billion deficit for fiscal year 2004. 
It is hard to believe that our Nation today is spending $900,000 more 
than it is taking in.
  For years, ever since I was a small child I have heard the 
Republicans talk about how it is the Democrats that spend the money. 
This is the first time in 50 years that the Republicans have controlled 
the White House, the House, and the Senate; and for the second year in 
a row, they have given us the largest budget deficit ever in our 
Nation's history. The debt today is $7.3 trillion. By 2009 it will be 
$10 trillion, and by 2013, it will be $13 trillion. A trillion here, a 
trillion there, and before long we are talking about some real money.
  Let me tell my colleagues this. This motion to instruct conferees 
simply says this: we support tax cuts for working families; we simply 
want them to be paid for. In other words, if you are

[[Page H6864]]

going to cut taxes, cut spending. This Nation today is spending nearly 
$1 billion a day simply paying interest on the national debt. It is 
what I call the debt tax, D-E-B-T, and that is one tax that can never 
go away until we get fiscal responsibility and fiscal discipline 
restored to our Nation's government.
  We could build 200 brand-new elementary schools every single day in 
America just with the interest we are paying on the national debt. 
These tax cuts may make for good politics for the wealthiest 2 percent 
of the people in the country. The 2003 tax cuts, 60 percent of the 
people that I represent received less than $2 a week. A tax cut for the 
wealthiest people in this country with borrowed money, and, I might 
add, every single dime of the tax cuts of 2003 were with borrowed 
money. The money came directly from the Social Security trust fund and 
what did not come from there came from the Bank of China. That is 
right. Seventy percent of our deficit in 2003 came from foreigners; 70 
percent.
  A tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country with borrowed 
money, money that is coming from Japan, Hong Kong, and the Bank of 
China and from the Social Security trust fund is nothing more than a 
tax increase on our children and grandchildren; and it is wrong, and 
that is why I am pleased to stand here tonight and rise in support of 
this motion to instruct.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I have only one more speaker, myself, to 
close; and I would like an understanding from the gentleman how many 
more speakers he might have.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, we have one more speaker, but that speaker 
will be making the closing remarks.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been with great interest that I have listened to 
the debate tonight. I guess my reaction, in listening to some of the 
rhetoric from the other side, is that I do not mind much if they steal 
our clothes when we go in bathing, if they want to look and sound like 
fiscal conservatives, look and sound like Republicans; that is an 
understandable thing in today's political climate.

                              {time}  1915

  Although I must say, if I were actually to go in swimming and they 
were to steal my clothes, they might need a little clever tailoring, 
and, in fact, I think the rhetoric suggests they may need a little 
clever tailoring if they are to pass themselves off.
  I feel very strongly myself that under most circumstances the United 
States should have a balanced budget, but history tells us, whether 
Republicans were in charge or whether Democrats were in charge, there 
is no real example of the United States having maintained a balanced 
budget during a significant recession.
  Second of all, there is no real example of the United States having 
run a balanced budget during wartime, and over the last few years, as 
the gentlemen undoubtedly are aware, we have not only been fighting a 
slowdown, which began during the Clinton administration, which cut into 
our revenues and began to create the deficit over a couple of years' 
time, but also, we engaged in the war on terror.
  Now, I realize it is controversial on the other side. They are 
sometimes for the war in Iraq, sometimes against it, even sometimes 
having misgivings about Afghanistan, but the fact remains, we have made 
a major investment in our efforts not only to improve homeland 
security, but also to challenge our adversaries elsewhere in the world. 
In my view, that has been an investment worth making.
  The fact that we have run a deficit does not alarm me as much as some 
of the rhetoric on the other side seems to suggest alarm. For example, 
when I came to Congress in 1994, we were approaching a point where our 
national debt, which was smaller in those days in absolute numbers, but 
larger relative to the economy, was approaching 44 percent of GDP. Even 
in that context, realizing that what we needed to do was stimulate the 
economy, we cut taxes, and we were able to trim spending, and over time 
the Republican Congress, grappling with a Democratic administration, 
winning some, losing some, we were able to get to a balanced budget, 
and we brought down the deficit in relative terms to the economy.
  Today, in real terms, our national debt is lower than 40 percent of 
GDP. It has grown over the last year. Well, we might expect that under 
the circumstances, but also, the Republican budget has made a 
commitment to lower the deficit to one-half of what it is currently 
relative to the economy. That is a powerful commitment that gives us 
confidence to go forward and cut taxes, which is what we need to do to 
stimulate the economy and generate more revenues.
  There will always be some who would prefer to raise taxes during a 
slowdown, and we remember the intellectual genesis of their philosophy. 
This was the argument being made by the Hoover administration. It is 
odd that we hear some conservative Democrats, or who are wanting to be 
conservative Democrats, tonight adopting some of the same rhetoric that 
the Hoover administration embraced during the Depression. Hoover 
Democrats I do not think is the solution tonight.
  I do think what we need to do is continue to stimulate the economy 
and make permanent the President's tax program. It has been criticized 
tonight for allegedly giving most of the benefits to the wealthy. Yet 
the folks on the other side will have difficulty explaining that in the 
context of the studies which have shown that now the wealthy, since the 
tax cut, pay a higher proportion of the tax share.
  We have increased the progressivity of the American Tax Code in the 
wake of the tax programs that have passed this House. That is something 
that is not grasped well on the other side, but it is one of those 
stubborn facts that takes the sting out of their rhetoric.
  The fact is a little more of the share has gone to working families, 
and this is important. Some families, I realize, may be only $2 a day, 
but that means something to them, and I believe it is important that we 
continue to have that relief in place.
  This is, I think, a very important debate. I think it is worth noting 
that there is fresh evidence that the way to get the deficit down is to 
grow the economy, because with new estimates, we have found that the 
deficit has actually shrunk by $75 billion, $75 billion over the past 
few months as we have begun to take into account the recovery of the 
economy and the growth in revenues.
  These, I think, are facts which rebut the argument being made on the 
other side, but if they were serious about these arguments, I think we 
would hear some more specifics. We would hear some specifics about the 
tax shelters that the gentleman from Indiana alluded to, and I am 
hoping in his close he will perhaps give us some specifics of tax 
shelters that can be closed, real ones that can generate real revenue 
or reduce spending. Surely we can have some suggestions from the other 
side. If they do, contrary to my impression, want to cut spending, 
perhaps they will prove me wrong and identify some areas where we can 
save money.
  But, at any rate, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana 
tonight for raising this debate. It has been, from my standpoint, 
edifying. I have enjoyed it, and I believe also that the House has had 
an opportunity to see a clear difference here, and I believe as they 
examine it, they will have an opportunity to vote down this perhaps 
well-intentioned motion to instruct, but one that I think would be 
counterproductive at a time when we are trying to get our economy back 
on the growth path.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This debate is about to close. In response to my friend from 
Pennsylvania's comments about the specifics, I would simply say that 
the Blue Dogs did offer a specific plan. I will not go into that 
specific plan now for the sake of time, but we put it on the line and 
asked the House to do it exactly like we have asked them to do it. So 
we would make the tough choices, and in our budget proposal we made 
those tough choices.
  In many ways I am a little saddened by the debate tonight because I 
heard my good friend from Pennsylvania talk about the fact that he is 
not as concerned about the deficit. It did not used to be that way on 
the other side of the

[[Page H6865]]

aisle. This side of the aisle used to be very concerned about the 
budget deficit. Now it seems like it is less concerned about the budget 
deficit.
  All we are asking for here is to make sure that we pay for these tax 
cuts as we extend them. That is all we are asking. This side used to 
believe that. Now they do not. I think they ought to revisit their 
philosophy because it did produce budget surpluses.
  Finally, I would say to the American people who might be listening 
tonight that I do not think anybody at their kitchen table would ask 
Congress to borrow the money for tax cuts, and that is what this motion 
to instruct prevents us from doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my good friend.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and my friend from Pennsylvania asked for the specifics.
  The Blue Dog budget this year proposed to spend no more than 
President Bush recommended that the Congress spend, and we intend to 
stick with that. When my colleague talks about spending and he talks 
about revising history, in the 8 years prior to the last 3\1/2\, 
spending went up 3.4 percent per year on the average. In the last 3\1/
2\ years, spending has gone up 10.4 percent.
  The gentleman keeps asking for specifics from the minority side. Last 
time I checked, the minority does not even get recognized for 
amendments so that we can do some of things that we talked about doing. 
We were denied having even a vote on some of our budgets over the last 
3\1/2\ years. The gentleman keeps talking about specifics and rhetoric. 
His rhetoric does not match the specifics.
  We are going to prove unequivocally sometime in the next 2 or 3 
months that the economic game plan we are under is not working because 
we are going to have to vote to increase the credit card limit of the 
United States of America for the third time in 3 years, this time 
through $8 trillion. Yes, the war is expensive and we must pay for the 
war, but this is the first war in the history of our country that is 
being fought at the same time we are asking to reduce the amount of 
money available to make sure the troops have the material that they 
need in order to fight the war.
  If my colleague wants to make that argument, be my guest. All we are 
suggesting with this simple motion is go back to what worked in 1994, 
pay-as-you-go. It worked when we were bipartisan working on it. It 
worked in 1997 when we worked together as Democrats and Republicans. 
What has happened in the last 3\1/2\ years to suggest that, in a 
bipartisan way, we do not want to follow that which has worked?
  That is the fundamental question for this body. I ask for a vote in 
favor of the gentleman from Indiana's motion. It is returning common 
sense, pay-as-you-go, making tough choices; does not raise taxes on 
anyone. It just says if we are going to increase spending for any 
worthwhile project, we have got to pay for it; if we are going to cut 
taxes and increase the deficit, we have got to cut the spending first, 
not rhetorically, after the next election. Do it now, and my colleagues 
will find there will be some Blue Dogs working with them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). 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 Indiana (Mr. Hill).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HILL. 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.

                          ____________________