Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 115 (Wednesday, September 22, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 22, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7399-H7404]
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. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Moore 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 Kansas (Mr. Moore) and

[[Page H7400]]

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is really a straightforward motion to instruct the
tax conferees. The motion calls on Congress to extend middle-class tax
relief without increasing the Federal budget deficit. There is broad,
bipartisan support in Congress for extending the middle-class tax
relief that expires at the end of this year, and the House will soon
have a chance to vote on extension of the relief.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is also bipartisan support for the
reinstatement of PAYGO rules that expired nearly 2 years ago. Extending
PAYGO rules would have the effect of getting our fiscal house back in
order and forcing the Federal Government to live within its means, to
live within a budget.
Today, the House has an opportunity to put itself on record in
support of a conference report that extends necessary tax relief in a
fiscally responsible manner.
I have strongly supported middle-class tax relief in the past and
will continue to support it in the future, Mr. Speaker. I support
extending marriage penalty relief. I support the increased $1,000 per
child tax credit. I support the expanded 10 percent tax bracket, and I
also support alternative minimum tax, or AMT, tax relief. But what I
find troubling is passing these tax cuts with borrowed money and
leaving our children and grandchildren to pay our bills, putting a $7-
plus to $10 trillion mortgage on our children's future. That is
absolutely unacceptable.
Applying PAYGO rules to both mandatory spending increases and tax
cuts does not, I repeat does not, prevent Congress from passing more
tax cuts. It simply means, if we are going to reduce our revenues by
tax cuts, we need to reduce our spending by the same amount.
This should not be about Republicans and Democrats. This should be
about the future of our country and the future of our children and
grandchildren.
A bipartisan group of Senators has put forth a proposal to expand the
middle-class tax cuts for 1 year, offset by an extension of customs
users fees and closing tax loopholes. The Blue Dog coalition has
offered a similar measure in the House that makes sense now and in the
future.
As of 9 a.m. this morning, Mr. Speaker, the national debt for our
country stood at $7.35 trillion, trillion with a ``T''. That raises the
share of debt for every citizen in this country to $25,000. The
Treasury Department estimates that the national debt will exceed the
statutory debt limit later this month or sometime next month. Over the
last year alone, Mr. Speaker, our national debt has increased by $670
billion, and over the last 3 years it has increased by $1.5 trillion.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt, our
national debt, will exceed $10 trillion in just a little more than 4
years under our current budget policies, $10 trillion.
Just a few hours ago, by an overwhelming vote of 404 to 8, the House
passed the Stenholm amendment to the Transportation, Treasury
appropriations bill which would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury
from raiding government retirement funds to avoid breaching the debt
limit. I hope that Congress will keep the Stenholm amendment in the
Transportation, Treasury conference report and force the Federal
Government to take responsibility for its fiscal policies.
As the House moves to consider an extension of tax relief, we should
keep in mind that the one tax that will never go away, Mr. Speaker, is
the debt tax. The debt tax is the interest we pay on our national debt,
almost $1 billion a day. That is $1 billion a day. Last year, the debt
tax accounted for 18 percent of all government revenues, and the
interest that we pay on our national debt will only grow if we continue
our present fiscal policies.
We should not pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our
children's future, in effect putting a mortgage on the future of our
children and grandchildren. We are taking the tax cuts now and asking
for our kids and grandkids to pay for those tax cuts later, with
interest, billions and trillions of dollars of interest.
Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make
things fit within a budget, just like families across our country do
every day. Almost every weekend, Mr. Speaker, I go back to Kansas and I
hear from Kansas families, Why can the people in Congress not live like
American families do?
They follow three simple rules: Number 1, do not spend more money
than you make; number 2, pay off your debts, common sense, Mr. Speaker;
and number 3, take care of basics and the future. The basics for a
family are food, shelter, education, health care, transportation,
things we all write checks for every month. The basics for our Nation
are national defense, the Social Security system, a retirement system
for people who have worked hard all their lives and cannot work anymore
and, just an example, some sort of national highway system to move
goods around this country and keep this economy going.
Yet, for years, Congress has lived beyond its means by spending more
money than it took in in revenues, and we need to change that course
again. We need to start living like American families do and not
placing a $10-plus trillion mortgage on the future of our children and
grandchildren.

{time} 1915

Mr. Speaker, I hope and I ask all the Members of this House of
Representatives to, again, put aside partisan politics, because it is
not about Democrats and Republicans, and to vote for this motion to
instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the national debt is an
important issue that needs to be taken seriously. I know for much of my
lifetime, under Democratic control of Congress, America begged
legislators to balance the budget, but they went deeper and deeper in
debt each year. I am grateful that when Republicans took control of the
House that they worked with President Clinton to balance the budget,
indeed, not just to do that but to start paying off the national debt.
It is terribly frustrating to me when I see the triple hit that
America took, the attacks on 9/11 that cost us almost 2 million
American jobs, when I see the recession President Bush inherited from
his predecessor and when I see the collapse of our technology companies
and the horrible actions of Enron and WorldCom and others that have
given us such a triple hit to our economy; that made it so difficult.
It took away so much of our revenue that we have been unable to balance
the budget.
But let us be real clear about what this instruction does. It
requires that these extensions, the child tax credit and the 10 percent
bracket for people who do not make much and the marriage penalty relief
to make sure we do not penalize people simply because they are married,
it requires these extensions be paid for. In other words, the motion to
instruct requires more than $130 billion of tax hikes or spending cuts.
I know the spending cuts will not be supported by my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle. This motion does not make the tough choices
regarding which taxes to increase or which programs to cut.
The extension of family tax relief is already provided for in the
House-passed budget resolution. That resolution would cut the deficit
in half without raising taxes, and if we follow the House-passed budget
resolution, this motion is not necessary. In contrast, the Democratic
motion we talk about tonight is a zero sum game. It provides tax
relief, on one hand, and then takes it away, takes it from families'
pockets, with the other.
The House has already voted to extend this tax relief without raising
taxes to pay for it. And if Congress does not act, families will face a
tax increase next year. For example, next year, the $1,000 child tax
credit drops to $700, which is tough on a family raising children these
days. The 10 percent tax bracket, which helps folks who do not make
that much money, will apply to less of a person's income. And the
marriage penalty relief will provide less relief for couples.
There is a right way to tackle our spending and our national debt,
and

[[Page H7401]]

that is to abolish obsolete Federal agencies, to cut programs that
duplicate themselves and to go after the fraud in Medicare and Social
Security. And the wrong way to tackle our debt is to raise taxes on
hardworking families and parents and small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Kansas, my
fellow Blue Dog, a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, which may very
well be the last group of Members of this House left that works every
single day for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility and against
indebtedness.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct conferees
because this Congress needs to start taking our children's future into
account. What this motion says is, extend middle class tax relief but
do not expect future generations of Americans to pay for that middle
class tax relief.
Mr. Speaker, I have supported many of the President's tax cuts. I
understand and I appreciate that most middle-class families, people,
that their tax burdens are overwhelming. However, I believe that it is
incumbent upon us to ensure that we relieve those burdens in a
responsible manner and not literally pass the buck to our children and
our grandchildren.
There is not a single Member of this House on either side of the
aisle who would walk into a luxury car dealership and say to a sales
person, I will take the most expensive car you have on the floor with
the most elaborate fancy options, load it up as much as you can, and
send my children the bill for that car. Not a single Member would do
that. If we do not pay for these tax cuts, that is exactly what we are
doing to our children. We are placing the burdens of our tax cuts on
our children's shoulders.
The national debt is over $7 trillion. This year's projected budget
deficit is $422 billion. The Treasury Department has estimated that the
national debt will exceed the statutory authority in the next 60 days.
We need to start making better decisions on a bipartisan basis now on
how to manage our money.
Now, conferees have options on how to implement tax extensions at
little or no cost. Conferees have options on how to proceed in a
fiscally responsible manner. Conferees can help pay for these cuts by
closing tax loopholes, and this motion instructs them to do so.
Mr. Speaker, everyone who pays a credit card knows that the least
productive part of that credit card bill is interest payments. We are
paying $1 billion a day on interest on our national indebtedness,
interest on the decisions that we have made. We need to bring fiscal
responsibility back to this House. America's middle-class families are
spending an average of $4,400 a year on our debt. That is a death tax,
and it is one that we will not be able to repeal.
Mr. Speaker, I want to close by reminding my colleagues and the
American people that the middle class is being squeezed. They do not
need that reminder. They know it every day. They know it because they
are paying higher interest rates. They are paying more to gas up their
cars. They are paying more for college tuition. They are paying more
for their children's health care, more for their parents' health care.
They are paying more everywhere they turn. They deserve relief now, and
our children do not deserve to have the buck passed to them later.
That is why I so strongly urge my colleagues to heed the words of the
gentleman from Kansas. Let us put politics aside. Let us not harp on
the past but start thinking about our children's future.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the best thing we can do to pay down the debt is to make
sure we are keeping revenues coming in to the Federal Government. We do
that not by raising taxes on families and small businesses who can ill
afford it. We do it by getting this economy growing, by reducing the
amount of spending and, in fact, doing away with the obsolete Federal
agencies and all the programs that duplicate each other where we waste
so many of our hard-earned tax dollars in Washington and in Federal
programs.
The fact of the matter is, the reason we went into deficit is that
the economy took such a hard hit. And I think we fought back the right
way. When you look at the attacks of 9/11, when we look at the
recession President Bush inherited and when we look at the WorldComs
and Enrons that hurt so many of us with jobs, what Republicans in
Congress did to fight back was to provide tax relief for families and
small businesses and people who live on a retirement income.
Our principle was simple: If we want to create jobs in Kansas, if we
want to create jobs in Texas, if we want to create jobs in America,
then leave the money in Kansas, in Texas, in America, so it can turn
around in our economy and so it can be spent on Main Street and so we
can help families balance their budget and get this economy growing.
And it is working.
Despite the three hits that would have knocked most nations'
economies to its knees, by fighting back with tax relief for families
and small businesses, we have created over 1.5 million new jobs this
past year, more than 100,000 in my State of Texas. We are fighting
back. We are not where we would like to be yet in today's economy, but
the worst thing we could do for America's families and for their
children is to prolong a recession by raising taxes on families and
small businesses today. And that is what this motion does.
Mr. Speaker, we know that we do not get support when we try to cut
wasteful spending. And when we try to lower the cost of our
appropriation bills, my Democratic colleagues, with some exceptions,
rarely argue that we are spending too much. Their argument is that we
need to spend more. They want higher spending, not less. So I know this
motion to instruct is not about reducing the wasteful spending in
Washington; it is about raising taxes on families and small businesses
who can ill afford it.
In my opinion, and I would think the opinion of the American public,
what we can do for tomorrow's children is to get their parents jobs
today where they are paying both their income taxes and their payroll
taxes into Medicare and into Social Security. Because without an
economy that is strong and vibrant, we will not have a recovery. We
will not balance the budget sooner rather than later, and we will not
put money into Medicare and Social Security. That, ultimately, is what
will cost our children a death tax, not getting this economy going and
stopping wasteful Washington spending.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my friend from Texas, but
the only person in this chamber tonight, in this debate, the only
person in this chamber who has talked about raising taxes is the
gentleman from Texas. I certainly have not, and I do not intend to,
because that is not what my intention is at all, Mr. Speaker. I do not
want to raise taxes. We do not want to raise taxes. What we want to do
is get our budget back in balance and eliminate the death tax on the
future of our children and grandchildren.
My friend from Texas, across the aisle, talks about making some hard
decisions. I would challenge him to pass this motion to instruct
tonight and let us sit down together, Republicans and Democrats, and
put aside all talk about raising taxes and work on identifying where
there is waste, fraud and abuse in our budget and eliminating that. We
can do that. Again, I am more than willing to. This motion intends to
extend the marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, extend the 10
percent tax credit and AMT relief. All of those are tax cuts that we
want to extend. Not raise taxes, cut taxes.
But we need to work together, Mr. Speaker, to find ways that we can
eliminate this horrible mortgage, this horrible debt we are putting on
the future of our children and grandchildren. The folks across the
aisle act as if this is just no big deal. Just no big deal. But I am
concerned that, as the baby boomers in the next 4 to 5 years start to
retire, our children are going to take on the debt of providing for
Social Security for the baby boomers. That is the way it has always
been. That is the way the system has always worked.

[[Page H7402]]

In addition to the debt of the baby boomers, they are going to have
the obligation of taking on this debt tax, which is a billion dollars a
day now that we pay interest on the national debt, not to mention, by
then, a $10 trillion to $12 trillion national debt and a deficit of who
knows how much.
When my friends across the aisle talk about fiscal responsibility, we
should mention that the debt this year, $7.35 trillion, the debt that
stands for our country right now, the deficit, $422 billion, is the
highest in our Nation's history. The highest ever. And I am not being
partisan when I say that.
Again, I ask the gentleman from Texas and my friends across the aisle
to come together with us, and let us sit down and figure out a way to
make this work. Let us reinstitute PAYGO rules, and let us make sure
that we are in a fiscally responsible and balanced budget position in
the future so we do not impose this horrible burden on future
generations in our country. If we do that, Mr. Speaker, we are doing a
disservice to our kids, to our grandkids and to our country.
I implore the gentleman to pass this motion tonight and to sit down
with me and find ways we can eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse he
has talked about here tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the gentleman from Kansas that
there is a shared desire to reduce this deficit, not only that but to
balance the budget and start paying down the debt. The question is, how
do we do it?
Do we raise taxes on small businesses and families or cut wasteful
spending? My contention is, rather than raising taxes, we reduce the
wasteful spending here. And I will gladly work with my colleague to do
so, although there is a history against that, unfortunately, from his
side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
McCotter) who has been a strong advocate not only of cutting taxes for
families but reducing the deficit and getting back to balancing the
budget.
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join this debate for a
brief moment and, first, echo the remarks of the gentleman from Texas
and commend anyone in this institution for their commitment to end
waste, fraud and abuse within the Federal Government's spending
practices. No one party controls a monopoly on good ideas, and so we
must always be open and subject to agreeing where we should.

{time} 1930

We hear about the debt tax. My wife and I live in Lavonia. We are
thoroughly middle class. We have both roughly working class
backgrounds. My parents were teachers. My wife came from a single-
income family. We have three children, 11, 9, and 6; boy, boy, girl.
And so when we hear about relief for working families, believe me, I
understand it. But what I also understand, as having been an elected
official for a while, is that in terms of eliminating waste, fraud, and
abuse, that is something that, regardless of whatever the tax policy of
the United States is, we should all be committed to doing. It is not
merely a collective burden. It is a burden that individually falls on
each and every single Member of this Chamber and one which, if we do
not pursue, we are remiss.
My concern by linking working families' tax relief and tax relief for
small businesses, many of which in my district, a manufacturing
district, are tier one and tier two auto suppliers, is that in linking
them to the tax relief, we run the risk of holding working families'
tax relief hostage to Washington's big spending practices. In short, it
amounts to the fact that no matter how much money they pay to the
Federal Government, unless they stop spending even more of their money,
they will get no tax relief. That is not an incentive to appropriators
to stop appropriating too much of their money. That is not an incentive
to go find waste, fraud, and abuse and end it in the Federal
Government. That is an incentive for Washington to continue spending,
because Washington will not feel the price of their largess. They will.
So I think that that is my concern in this debate, trying to link
those two together because I do not believe working families should be
punished. I do not believe small businesses should be punished. I do
not believe anyone in the American economy should be punished for
Washington appropriators' misspending or misappropriation of their
funds.
In the final analysis, there is also something that we have to touch
on and I have touched on as a member of the Committee on the Budget and
I will continue to touched on. We hear much about the deficit. We hear
much about inherited recessions. We can argue that we inherited a
recession, as we heard last night; but the reality is that I think the
numbers were about 9 percent of the economy was lost in one quarter,
the final quarter of the Clinton administration, which I will say for
the record is not a recession because it takes two quarters of negative
growth to constitute a recession. Granted, no one really works that
fast that they can lose 9 percent of the American economy in one
quarter, but it was done, which does not constitute a recession. But as
jobs follow a recovery upward, jobs follow down too in a recession, in
a collapse.
In the 1990s, and I will preface this with what I have said, which is
that we cannot blame the Clinton administration nor this Congress for
these three things changing. I know it is hard to believe, but
sometimes things are outside our control. In the 1990s we had the first
rush of globalization, which was beneficial to the United States at the
time. We have since seen the long-term downside of that. We then saw
the rise of the Internet, which was an enormous boon to the American
economy, a lot of it based on potential because we had not learned how
to factor that in.
The final, and I think the most important, was the collapse of the
Soviet Union because at that point in time we all thought we had a
``peace dividend,'' and the American economic activity was spurred here
and was spurred throughout the globe. What those three things have been
replaced with are now the downside of the outsourcing problems that we
have.
I speak as a representative from a manufacturing district. We now
have the fact that not everyone is going to buy things on the Internet.
We have seen a constriction of the optimism, and I think a large part
of that was manifested in the dot-com boom; and, most importantly, we
have seen the rise of the war on terror. These factors are as much
driving the shaky economy that we have in many areas of this country as
anything else because we replaced the perfect storm of economic
prosperity we saw in the 1990s with these three detriments.
And every single American, especially for the war on terror, has to
figure out how that is going to play into their economic outlook from
their family room to their boardroom. The mistake that we would make is
in claiming that somehow this recession that was passed and we are
coming out of in this recovery are as normal as anything we have ever
been through before. I totally disagree with that premise. And I think
that as we continue to link working-family relief or small-business
relief, things that are important, things that will encourage people to
make investment decisions, will encourage them to come out of their
shell in these difficult times both here at home economically and
internationally in terms of the war on terror.
If these things are allowed to expire, the American public, which
grows this economy, will have an even more difficult time figuring out
how to factor in the irrational act of terrorism into their rational
economic calculations they have made for years and years and years. So
my concern is, and it is echoed by the gentleman from Texas, is that
that is a wrong message to send.
But I would like to conclude by commending the gentleman for his
commitment in trying to end waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal
Government.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To the gentleman from Texas, I say that until 2002, we had in the
Congress here budget rules one of which was called PAYGO, and it
required that if we were going to initiate a new spending program or a
new tax cut, we had

[[Page H7403]]

to find a way to pay for it. This year we have eliminated that and
changed it only if we have a new spending proposal, we have to find a
way to pay for it, but not a new tax cut.
I am on the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Financial
Services, and at least twice a year I have a chance to talk to a fellow
by the name of Alan Greenspan, and every time Chairman Greenspan
appears, he tells us how important fiscally responsibility is, and he
advocates reinstituting PAYGO rules, which expired in 2002, and that
means as to new spending programs and as to tax cuts.
And when the gentleman says, and I say this respectfully, our side
has always spent more money, well, to the gentleman from Texas I say
our side is not in control of the House, the Senate, or the Presidency.
Your side is. And you can stop new spending if you want to do that.
So I say, please, in all sincerity, join us, pass this motion, make
it apply to new spending proposals as well as new tax cuts so we can
get out of this horrible deficit position we are in in this country and
not pass this horrible debt on to our children and grandchildren.
And Chairman Greenspan, when he testified in front of our committee
for the past 6 years I have been in Congress, he has said invariably
this, he says this over and over. He says one of the most important
things Congress can do is live within a budget and practice fiscal
responsibility. And what Chairman Greenspan says to me and to the
members of the Committee on the Budget and Committee on Financial
Services each year when he testifies is this: when we are in a slowdown
economy, as we have been in the past couple of years, not if, but when
this economy takes off, if we are not in a fiscally responsible
position, we could see interest rates start to go up dramatically. In
fact, yesterday we saw them go up one quarter of one point, but they
could go up dramatically.
I am not suggesting it is going to happen like this, but I think some
of us in this Chamber are old enough to remember the late 1970s. We had
interest rates in this country of 14, 16, 17 percent, which would be
absolutely devastating for the real estate industry, for business
generally, and for consumer borrowing. I hope we never see that again.
But if we keep on the course we are on right now of fiscal
irresponsibility with the largest deficit in our Nation's history, with
the largest debt in our Nation's history, we could see interest rates
go up to 8, 9, 10 percent. I am afraid if that happens, that would be,
again, devastating for the business economy, devastating for real
estate, and devastating for consumer borrowing.
We owe our country better than that. We owe our children and future
generations better than that. And I ask the gentleman, please, join us
in support of this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Two thoughts: one, I do not think it is responsible to try to scare
our citizens with 9, 10, 14, 15 percent interest rate predictions when
we know that is not what Alan Greenspan said. And I think even though
it is election year and people take great pleasure in trying to doom
and gloom the economy and scare average voters in America, I do not
think it is the right thing to do.
Secondly, I do know that we can tell some things from the past. And
while I believe my friend from Kansas is sincere about wanting to
address spending as the right way to reduce the deficit, the fact of
the matter is that earlier this year on three different occasions, his
Democratic colleagues offered motions to pass tax relief for families
and a child tax credit and all that, and in each case they did not
offer any spending relief. What they offered were more tax increases.
So I say that this motion tonight, much like those other motions, its
goal is not to pay down the debt by limiting and targeting abusive
spending. What it desires to do is raise taxes. And I think the best
way we pay down the debt and get back to a balanced budget to do the
things that Alan Greenspan rightly said we should do, and I agree with
my friend from Kansas, is not to increase taxes on families and small
businesses.
We are recovering from a recession. We are trying to move dollars
through that economy. It is working. I think the quickest way we can
put a stop to this economy is to tax families and small businesses at
this point when we are just coming out of it, doing a good job in doing
that, fighting back the way we ought to with the principle of let us
leave the money in the community, because at the end of the day, this
philosophy really comes down to this: Is this your money or is this
Washington's money?
I have more faith in people spending the money that is so hard
earned. I believe we are an overtaxed Nation. I think getting this
economy going, which Republicans and Democrats should share, election
year aside, should share that dream. I think cutting wasteful spending,
which Republicans and Democrats should share that dream, is the fastest
way we can get back to a balanced budget and to pay down the deficit,
which, again, I agree completely with my colleague. I believe he makes
a great point on that issue and one that we can work together on.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I say this with the greatest respect for the gentleman from Texas:
the question that he asks, Is this your money or Washington's money? is
not an honest question because when we ask that question, the honest
answer is it is not our money. It is our children's money and our
grandchildren's money that we are taking right now for feel-good tax
cuts and for new spending programs. And if we both are sincere here,
and I have the greatest confidence in the gentleman from Texas, my
friend across the aisle, I believe he is sincere, we should sit down
together, pass this motion, reinstitute the PAYGO rules as they existed
prior to 2002 that applied to both spending and new tax cuts and go
forward from there and protect the future of our country. That is the
way we should legitimately proceed here.
I am not trying to prey on anybody's fear. I think we have learned a
big lesson since the late 1970s when we had interest rates at 14, 16,
17 percent. I do not think that is going to happen again. But I think
we could see interest rates in the upper 8, 9, or 10 percent if we are
not careful here and if we do not get back to fiscal responsibility.
That is why I say the answer here is not to pose false questions such
as, Is it your money or Washington's money, because it is not our money
right now. We are basically charging it on a national charge card,
passing the bill along to our kids and grandkids and saying, Here, you
guys take care of this. That is not responsible. That is not fiscal
responsibility. It is not fair to future generations in this country.
We have the greatest Nation in the whole world, but we cannot be strong
and free and broke.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let us make two quick points here. The interest rates did not go down
because we were paying off the debt. The interest rates went down
because our economy slowed after three huge hits: the attack of 9/11
that cost us almost 2 million jobs, the dot-com and the Enrons of the
world that damaged our economy so much, and the recession that
President Bush inherited. The interest rates came down at the behest of
Alan Greenspan to spur this economy, the very same reason we traded tax
relief so that we could put people back to work so that money would
circulate within our economy.
And the interest rates will not go up because we are in these
deficits, as hard as we are fighting to get back down to a balanced
budget. They will go up because our economy is improving, and the
Federal Reserve Board will seek to not overheat this economy so that we
create inflationary pressures. That is the reason why interest rates
change.
But I still think the gentleman from Kansas is right in raising the
issue of the debt and getting back to a balanced budget. He is exactly
right. The question is how we do it. And I believe that the reason we
have PAYGO for spending is that if we cool this economy too

[[Page H7404]]

soon in its recovery with more tax increases, we have damaged our
children's future. If we keep the economy going and focus on wasteful
spending where in Washington on average every Federal program
duplicates five others, every Federal program duplicates five others.
At a time of war and a time of deficits, we cannot afford that type of
waste. And rather than raising taxes on families and small businesses,
I think the right way to do it for our children's future and their
parents who desire good jobs today is to not raise those taxes.

{time} 1945

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for time to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tenor of this debate and the
sincere comments by my friend from Texas. I really do appreciate that
sincerely. I think we have had a good debate here, and I do not think
for a minute that the gentleman is insincere in the statements he made
here tonight.
But I just think it is so important that, again, we lived, we thrived
under these PAYGO rules until 2002, when they expired, and we should
bring those PAYGO rules back across the board to apply to new spending
as well as new tax cuts.
I believe the gentleman is correct: When the economy is slowed down,
it is very appropriate to stimulate the economy through certain
targeted tax cuts. I have voted for those before and I will vote for
those again. But what we cannot do is have across-the-board tax cuts on
everything, to tax cuts for middle-class taxpayers, as we have talked
about here tonight, to total elimination of the estate tax and others.
We cannot afford all those tax cuts, because, again, Mr. Speaker, it
is not we that pay for them; it is future generations in our country,
and we are doing untold damage to our country and to the future of our
kids and grandkids if we persist as we are here.
I invite the gentleman, I implore the gentleman and our colleagues
across the aisle, to sit down with us to pass this motion, number one,
and sit down with us and identify waste and fraud and abuse, where we
can eliminate wasteful spending and continue to have the tax cuts that
we have. That is the right recipe for our country, for the future. It
is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren and future
generations in this great country that we all appreciate and love.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________