[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17739-17745]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1308, TAX RELIEF, SIMPLIFICATION, 
                         AND EQUITY ACT OF 2003

  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. HILL moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill 
     H.R. 1308 be instructed to agree, to the maximum extent 
     possible within the scope of conference, to a conference 
     report that--
       (1) extends the tax relief provisions which expire at the 
     end of 2004, and
       (2) does not increase the Federal budget deficit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I am here to introduce a simple, but important, 
motion before us. My motion calls on Congress to extend expiring 
middle- and low-income tax cuts set to expire at the end of this year 
without increasing the deficit. We have seen broad and bipartisan 
support for extending the middle-class tax cuts. We have also seen 
bipartisan support for the concept of pay-as-you-go to avoid further 
increasing the ballooning budget deficits facing our Nation. The motion 
before us asks the conferees to be sure that Congress achieves both of 
these goals.
  We have already seen a bipartisan proposal from the Senate extending 
for a year middle-class tax cuts without increasing the deficit. And 
the Blue Dogs have offered a corresponding bill in the House.

                              {time}  1830

  There are some simple solutions to making these cuts budget neutral, 
and I would suggest that they are relatively noncontroversial, such as 
closing various tax shelters that are being abused.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to be creating economic stimulus and tax relief 
while maintaining our long-term economic security. Economists have 
estimated that the current debt limit will be reached very soon, either 
this month or in October. This means that the limit on the national 
debt will have to be raised for the third time in 4 years to

[[Page 17740]]

more than $8 trillion, effectively forcing our children and our 
grandchildren to pay our Nation's bills. Tragically, Social Security 
becomes the victim program of this irresponsible behavior because its 
surpluses are used to fund the debt.
  The Congressional Budget Office has announced that the 2004 deficit 
will be $422 billion. When the Social Security surplus is excluded, the 
deficit for 2004 is $574 billion. And we have got projected deficits as 
far as the eye can see if Congress continues down the path it is on.
  So for starters, I think a budget paired with budget enforcement 
rules would help get us on the right track. Alan Greenspan and many 
others have called for these deficits to be reined in through pay-as-
you-go budget discipline. So if we are going to cut taxes in this 
fiscal climate, we ought to be doing it either with offsets or spending 
cuts. I could not in good conscience add more burden to the backs of 
our children and grandchildren, and this Congress should not have that 
kind of a conscience as well. Families are spending thousands of 
dollars each year in debt taxes because the Federal Government has not 
balanced its books. As deficits grow, so does the burden on taxpayers. 
Not only is the deficit spending irresponsible, but it is immoral, 
passing on a legacy of debt to be paid off by our children and our 
grandchildren.
  One of our highest priorities should be to act fiscally responsible 
with the people's tax dollars. If we are to be responsible and honest 
with the people, we must honestly confront the cause of these deficits. 
We cannot continue down the path of increased spending and tax cutting 
at the same time. This Congress is doing both, and it is burying its 
head in the sand by expecting no consequences. Soon the debt will be so 
enormous that it will begin to affect ``the long-term health of our 
economy,'' not my words but the words of Alan Greenspan. When that day 
comes, we can be sure that the middle class will shoulder the heaviest 
burden.
  So let us give the middle class some relief from taxes today without 
making them pay for it in the end.
  Lastly, I want to make clear that this motion calls for the 
extension, not the expiration, of middle-class tax cuts. But there is 
no free lunch here. These tax cuts will be paid for somehow, whether it 
is with an offset upfront like we want to do it today or whether it is 
offset with borrowed money tomorrow. As the Concord Coalition has 
noted, if we must borrow the money, the cost will even be greater 
because we have to pay interest on the borrowed money. That is equal to 
a tax increase on the American people.
  All it takes is a couple of hands reaching across the aisle, and we 
can make a real difference in the lives of the middle- and lower-income 
families of America. Both Congress and the administration ought to sit 
down, put everything on the table, and get our economic house in order, 
not mortgage our future to pay for today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), my distinguished colleague from the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding me this time.
  I listened with great interest to my friend from Indiana, and I rise 
asking this House to reject this motion to instruct because when we 
take a closer look at what is transpiring here, we do see really a 
distillation, a distinction, of two different philosophies. One is the 
notion that the highest and best use of the taxpayers' money is here by 
government. And that is fine. That is an intellectually defensible 
position; but those who offer that tonight, I believe, need to make 
very clear to the American public what, in fact, transpires if we 
embrace this motion to instruct.
  Essentially what will transpire, despite the best efforts of my 
friends on the other side, if this body fails to act to maintain the 
rate of tax relief, next year the $1,000 child tax credit shrinks. It 
shrinks to $700 per child.
  If we want to provide tax relief for working families, the desired 
goal that we hear from our friends here, we do not want, in essence, to 
increase taxes. But that will be what will happen. We will see the 
marriage penalty provision reduced.
  And it is fine to have a disagreement. My friends on the other side 
view this as a fundamental cost to government. Again, that is fine, and 
I will leave that position for them to stake out, and we could go back 
through a litany of history in deficit spending that in previous 
Congresses it seemed to matter not a whit. But we welcome this 
adherence that my friends now say they have for fiscal accountability, 
responsibility. We welcome it from any quarter.
  But the question becomes, What is the best way really long term to 
reduce deficits? And this argument, incidentally, is nothing really 
new. It has been part and parcel of our constitutional Republic since 
the Federalist Papers. Hamilton and others said, why do we not embrace 
a policy of growth? When we reduce taxation across the board, when we 
maintain the $1,000-per-child tax credit, when we maintain the 
alleviation of the marriage penalty that we have incorporated into 
current law, we actually grow the economy because people have more of 
their hard-earned money to spend.
  And so it is important to maintain the tax relief that we have 
already established, not to come back and fill under the notion that 
somehow by doing so, we are being more fiscally accountable and 
responsible. No, we are not to the families who depend on the tax 
relief. And if we reject across-the-board tax relief, we are hurting 
the very people who produce in our economy.
  Good people can disagree. And we appreciate the motion to instruct, 
and we appreciate the lectures that will be forthcoming, to be sure, on 
fiscal responsibility. But at the end of the day when we maintain a 
reduction of taxation across the board, we grow our economy. We have 
seen that happen. It is not partisan. Many of my friends on this side 
and, indeed, throughout the Chamber and across this country, Mr. 
Speaker, remember with great reverence Jack Kennedy's Presidency, 
remember his argument that a rising tide lifts all the boats, that when 
we cut taxes across the board, we invigorate the economy.
  We saw that happen, though, sadly, President Kennedy did not live to 
see the result. We saw it happen in the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. We 
have seen a reinvigoration of our economy through the across-the-board 
tax relief that we have offered now that should be made permanent 
because that is the very thing that has gotten us out of the economic 
doldrums in the wake of 9/11.
  So, respectfully, not doubting the sincerity of my friend from 
Indiana, nor the speakers who will follow, we just have two different 
paths we need to follow. Either embrace pro-growth notions that in the 
fullness of time we know that long term we actually increase revenues 
to the government for more economic activity. And despite the best 
efforts of my friend, I do not want to see the per-child tax credit 
watered down to $700 a year. I do not want to see a decrease in the 
benefits we have offered married couples. I do not want to see an 
abridgement in what, in essence, in the long term will actually 
increase revenues to the government through increased economic 
activity.
  But two different points of view: either the money belongs to the 
folks, or it belongs to the government. If we vote ``yes'' on the 
motion to instruct, what we are doing is saying the highest and best 
use of the people's money, Mr. Speaker, is here in Washington, D.C. I 
believe it is exactly the opposite. I believe the highest and best use 
of the money is not to ignore our obligations, but to understand the 
money belongs to the people. When the people keep more of it, when the 
families with children keep more of it, when married couples keep more 
of it, when small business owners have more of their money to save, 
spend, and invest, we indeed ignite the engines of economic prosperity.

[[Page 17741]]

  And in the long term, Mr. Speaker, we will see more revenue to the 
government, not through the heavy hand of castor oil economics, but 
through the real proven success, whether in the Kennedy years or in the 
Reagan years or more recently this Congress working with this 
President, we fire the engines of economic activity.
  So with all due respect to my friends on the other side, reject this 
motion to instruct. Stay the course. In the long term it will mean more 
economic prosperity and the very revenues to the government my friends 
on the other side purport to want to see.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Apparently the gentleman from Arizona, my good friend, has not read 
our motion to instruct. We want to do the same things about 
rejuvenating the economic machine that he does. We want to extend the 
tax cuts. We just want to pay for it. And so I fail to understand the 
point that he was trying to make.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my friend from Arizona has left 
the floor. But I sat here and listened carefully to his very eloquent 
speech that was totally irrelevant to the motion that is before the 
House.
  We are not talking about raising taxes. We are talking about being 
concerned about the rising deficit. And sooner or later these speeches 
that we make, and I think it was Yogi Berra who said this is deja vu 
all over again, sooner or later folks like the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth) are going to have to come to this floor and increase the 
debt ceiling for the United States of America, the credit card limit. 
Because they can talk about all of what these tax cuts are doing all 
they want to, but CBO today certified that we now have the largest 
deficit in the history of our country, $422 billion; and it is 
explained away, somehow, some way, this rhetoric that we hear over and 
over that unfortunately has got a few of the American people believing 
them, that these deficits do not matter.
  They do matter; and soon, I hope, the gentleman from Arizona will 
stand on this floor and move the motion to increase our debt ceiling to 
$8 trillion, which is what somebody is going to have to do because we 
will reach sometime in October or early November the credit card limit 
of what the United States of America can borrow.
  The gentleman from Indiana offers a simple motion to instruct, and 
just as he said, the Blue Dogs, we had a substitute that called for an 
extension of middle-class tax relief, the marriage tax penalty. All of 
these, we are not arguing. We want to extend them. But nobody listens 
on that side. They come up with a speech that is totally irrelevant to 
the argument. But we want to pay for them because if we do not pay for 
them, we are going to have to borrow the additional money to make room 
for them. That is not me talking. That is not the Blue Dogs talking. 
That is the overwhelming consensus of economists who are saying we have 
got to borrow it; $422 billion dollars, $574 billion when we once again 
take into consideration we are borrowing all of the Social Security 
trust fund dollars and we might add in all the military trust fund 
dollars and all of the civil service trust fund dollars. And the folks 
on this side who claim to be conservatives say that is irrelevant.
  It is going to take 40 percent of all the income taxes collected this 
year to pay the deficit tax, the interest on the national debt. And if 
interest rates start going up, guess what. The deficit tax is going to 
go up.

                              {time}  1845

  This is money that is literally wasted as far as a productive value 
for the United States of America. But nobody mentions that. Everybody 
is going to talk about more tax cuts, more tax cuts.
  We say, great. Put them on the floor, paid for, and we will support 
you. But put them on the floor and borrow on our children's and 
grandchildren's future, and we say no. Let you do it. But you will have 
to make another speech like the gentleman from Arizona makes, and 
everybody thinks that is great stuff and that us Blue Dogs are all 
opposing him. We agreed with him. We agreed with him on everything, 
except you should not do what he is doing by borrowing on the future on 
some theory of economics that has been proven, proven in the 1980s, 
proven in the 1990s, and now we are about to prove it in this century, 
that it does not work, because if it did work, we would not have to be 
borrowing the money to pay for it.
  So listen very carefully to what Mr. Greenspan is saying. Listen to 
what people like Pete Peterson, people like the Concord Coalition are 
saying; begging this body, begging this body to get fiscally 
responsible and not keep turning a blind eye to the fact that of this 
debt held by the public now, $1.7 trillion of that debt is now owned by 
foreign interests, and $1 trillion of our debt is owned by foreign 
institutions.
  Now, the United States of America is no different than any family 
sitting down over dinner at this moment. When your banker tells you 
that you cannot borrow any more, you have to adjust your spending 
habits.
  We are heading for a precipice that is going to be one of the most 
serious problems this country has ever faced, because 2011 is not that 
far away. The baby-boom generation, all the promises, all of the 
legislation we refuse to consider on this floor dealing with the future 
is being swept under the rug.
  Support the gentleman from Indiana's motion to instruct. It is a 
fiscally responsible direction for this House to take.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, this is a very interesting debate tonight, 
although it seems a little circular, because we have seen similar 
motions to instruct in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I have chosen to rise tonight in opposition to this 
motion to instruct. First I want to commend the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and the Republican leadership for having 
already taken substantial action on the issues before us.
  Contrary to what the argument is we are hearing from the minority, 
the House took action on this issue and moved legislation forward in 
order to ensure that families are not hit with a tax increase next 
year. Earlier this year, the House voted to permanently extend the 
current $1,000 child tax credit, relief from the marriage penalty and 
the expansion of the 10 percent bracket. That is the bracket that 
applies to working families. The House passed this permanent relief 
without raising taxes on hard-working Americans.
  The motion to instruct before us takes several steps back from the 
policy we had previously passed. The motion calls for the extension of 
middle-class tax cuts, but insists that they be fully paid for. I do 
not think that the minority intends to pay for them through cuts in 
spending. If they did, we might have a very different outcome this 
evening, but I do not believe they do.
  Republicans have provided tax relief in the past 3 years, and the 
minority has fought us every single time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has already had a few 
minutes. I would like to complete my statement, because I think it is 
important that a realistic perspective be offered on this.
  This is, in my view, simply another attempt to turn the clock back on 
tax relief. While it is costly to extend tax relief permanently, the 
workers of this country deserve to know that their taxes will not be 
increased on a year-by-year basis. The tax relief passed by this House 
under this administration has clearly helped grow the economy.
  Chairman Greenspan has been invoked here, and it is fairly clear from 
his testimony before congressional committees that he believes that the 
tax plan that has passed the House and that has been signed into law 
has clearly stimulated the economy.
  This is the wrong time to block the extension of this tax relief. The 
House acted when it passed a direct and permanent solution to the needs 
of families struggling with the burden of day-to-day expenses.

[[Page 17742]]

  This motion, in my view, is unnecessary and sets us down a path of 
tax increases. The author, whom I have great respect for, argued that 
this could be paid for simply by closing a few tax shelters. If it is 
so painless, I would be very interested as a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means to solicit his suggestions, and perhaps he may offer 
some this evening.
  I thank him, Mr. Speaker. However, under the circumstances, I feel 
obliged to call upon the House to oppose this motion.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think most Americans listening to this debate tonight 
would agree that tax cuts are not appropriate when you have to borrow 
the money to offer the tax cuts, so this motion that we are offering 
here tonight prevents that from happening. It simply says we have got 
to find a way to pay for it, and we are not going to go out and borrow 
the money. I think everybody at their kitchen table tonight would agree 
with that philosophy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Indiana for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are so many issues that the Members of this House 
disagree upon, and I am talking about Members from the Democratic side 
disagreeing with the Members on the Republican side. Witness the bill 
that was just pulled by the majority leadership over the overtime 
regulation issue. And there are other issues that we disagree upon.
  But, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many issues that we do agree upon, 
and I think what the American people want us to do is to isolate those 
issues that we can agree upon and then move forward with those 
particular issues.
  I listened to my friend from Pennsylvania and my friend from Arizona 
earlier, whom I am not sure was reading the same motion to instruct 
that I have before me. But the motion to instruct that we have before 
us does two things, two things that I think every Member of this House 
would agree with, and certainly all of the American families would. 
There are three specific provisions. It extends the middle-income tax 
cut. Number one is the 10 percent tax bracket; two is the child tax 
credit; and, three, is the Marriage Penalty Relief Act. It extends 
those.
  Now, my friend from Pennsylvania voted for those, but he voted 
earlier to end them, to sunset them, after 4 years. Now we face that 
sunset. We are asking that they be extended. That is the first part.
  The second part says do not increase the size of the Federal budget 
deficit. These are two things we can agree upon.
  Extend the tax cuts; that is, the 10 percent bracket, the child tax 
credit and, of course, the marriage penalty relief. Those are 
provisions which will affect every middle-income family in a positive 
way. Those are provisions which will, in the long run, increase the 
size of the middle class of America, and any good economic policy plan 
put in place by anyone should include provisions which try to increase 
the size of the middle class.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we should not be confused by all the rhetoric here 
about raising taxes. This motion to instruct extends tax cuts. I would 
remind us to focus on those things again: The 10 percent tax bracket, 
the child tax credit and the marriage penalty relief, and doing it 
without increasing the size of the Federal budget deficit.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania to yield a moment ago, and he 
refused to. And I understand, I did not mean to interrupt, but I did 
want to clarify one of the statements.
  The gentleman was mischaracterizing what we are standing up here 
doing tonight. We are suggesting that tax cuts be paid for, and we 
would love to see spending reductions proposed to accommodate that. 
That is what we would like to see on this floor, and that is what we 
constantly and consistently do.
  I would ask the gentleman, and I will yield to him for a brief answer 
to a question, will the gentleman bring from the Committee on Ways and 
Means a bill to the floor of the House before we adjourn for the 
elections to increase the debt ceiling for the United States of America 
to $8 trillion to accommodate the economic policy that the gentleman 
seems unwilling to make any changes in and believe is successful? Will 
the gentleman do that?
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply flattered by the gentleman's 
kind words and his apparent elevation of me to the chairmanship of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. I am not in a position to make any 
promises about what the Committee on Ways and Means will do.
  I am not in a position to make a commitment on behalf of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. I do not know the chairman's policy. I do 
know that the chairman is prepared to move forward with whatever 
legislation is necessary, recognizing that the national debt today is 
significantly smaller relative to the economy than when Republicans 
inherited that 10 years ago when I came in.
  I cannot, obviously, commit the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to ask another 
question then. I would just refer to the gentleman as an individual 
Member, 1/435th of this body, does the gentleman believe we should have 
a clean up-or-down vote on increasing the debt ceiling for this country 
prior to going home to run for reelection?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman from 
Texas has expired.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, how much is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) has 15 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) has 
19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what is coming through here is kind of an 
interesting contrast, and while I am here by myself tonight speaking on 
this point, I do not feel that I am particularly outnumbered, one man 
and the truth and all of that.
  I think what we have before us, Republicans clearly want to prevent 
tax increases on middle-class families. I think from the debate tonight 
we have a legitimate question as to whether our friends on the other 
side are as firmly committed to doing that, unless they also get to 
raise taxes somewhere else.
  I found reassuring some of the comments of my friend from Texas who 
suggested that he might be willing to consider cuts as well in 
spending. I think everyone here intuitively understands that there is 
adequate spending, low-priority spending, in the Federal Government, 
and that certainly that would be one way we can bring down the deficit. 
In fact, the Republican budget this year contemplates just that kind of 
fiscal restraint through the process.
  H.R. 1308 maintains the successful tax policy that has clearly 
contributed to the economic recovery. The motion to instruct here 
creates a zero sum game. It extends tax relief with one hand, while 
potentially raising taxes with the other. If I understand our recent 
fiscal experience in America, I do not believe that this is a good time 
for us to be raising taxes on certain sectors. This is bad for the 
economy, and it is bad for families.
  Republicans have provided significant tax relief for families since 
this administration took office resulting in higher after-tax incomes 
for Americans. Yet because of arcane Senate rules, Congress could not 
provide permanent tax relief for families.
  The gentleman correctly pointed out that when we voted, what we voted 
for

[[Page 17743]]

turned out to be a temporary expedient, but was a function, as he well 
knows, of the Senate and its rules.

                              {time}  1900

  House Republicans have voted to provide predictability in the Tax 
Code, and the Senate has not taken those steps. If Congress does not 
act, I think we all could agree, middle-class families will face a tax 
increase next year. For example, next year, the $1,000 tax credit, as 
my friend from Arizona noted, drops to $700 per child. The 10 percent 
tax bracket will apply to less of an individual's income, and the 
marriage penalty provision will provide significantly less relief for 
couples.
  The House has voted overwhelmingly to make these tax cuts permanent 
and has done so without offsets. These votes show that the House does 
not want to increase taxes on middle-class American families.
  Now, if we are serious about looking for a way of balancing this, if 
we are serious about addressing the deficit, first we need to stimulate 
the economy to bring down the deficit. We have done that, and it has 
succeeded. But second of all, if there is an argument here that we 
should be tying tax cuts to other reductions in spending, or closing 
some unsubstantial loopholes, then I think that the burden is on the 
other side as they lay out the instructions to tell us specifically how 
they think this could be done without pain or without a drag on the 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I retain the balance of my time.


                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

[[Page 17744]]

$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 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.

[[Page 17745]]

  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 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.

                          ____________________