[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.

                          ____________________