[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8451-8459]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                   ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

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

       Mr. Moore of Kansas 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 concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 95 be instructed to agree to the pay-
     as-you-go enforcement provisions within the scope of the 
     conference regarding direct spending increases and tax cuts 
     in the House and Senate. In complying with this instruction, 
     such managers shall be instructed to recede to the Senate on 
     the provisions contained in section 408 of the Senate 
     concurrent resolution (relating to the pay-as-you-go point of 
     order regarding all legislation increasing the deficit as a 
     result of direct spending increases and tax cuts).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) 
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, we have in this country a $7.1 trillion national debt. 
We have a projected deficit by the Office of Management and Budget for 
this year alone of $521 billion. The interest on our national debt, 
$7.1 trillion, is almost $1 billion a day. We are in a hole, Mr. 
Speaker, and we are digging the hole deeper and deeper by our lack of 
fiscal responsibility.
  American families live by three simple rules: Number one, do not 
spend more money than they make; number two, pay off their debts; and, 
number three, invest in basics in the future. The basics for an 
American family are food, shelter, transportation, health care, 
education, things that we write checks for, bills that we write checks 
for, every month. And the same basics for our country, our national 
defense, some sort of Social Security system, some sort of national 
highway system to transport goods around this country and keep our 
economy going. And yet the government, our government and our Congress, 
has not lived by these rules that American families lived by for many 
years, and to show for that we have a $7.1 trillion debt.
  We need to get back to fiscal responsibility. We have an opportunity 
to do that. We have done it before and we should do it again. I am not 
playing partisan politics here. I do not blame President Bush for a 
slowdown and the recession that happened. I do not blame President Bush 
certainly for September 11. That was only the maniacs that created that 
horrible problem and killed 3,000 Americans. But we have got to get 
back to fiscal responsibilities here, and we are not doing it right 
now. In fact, the Committee on the Budget, and I see the chairman over 
here, passed a PAYGO rule requiring only that if we are going to have a 
new spending proposal, we have to abide by the rule that says it has 
got to be offset or paid for.

[[Page 8452]]

  They did not apply the same rule, though, to tax cuts. The Senate, on 
a bipartisan basis, did apply the rule to tax cuts and to spending 
proposals, and I think we need to look at doing the same thing here. 
And this is a motion to instruct conferees to institute that kind of 
PAYGO procedure here.

                              {time}  1445

  If we do that, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity as a Nation to 
return to fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this discussion and disputing the 
central premise, I think, of the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Kansas, which seems to be that new spending is somehow equivalent to 
the American people with lowering the tax burden. I want to get into 
that in a little bit because these two ideas are not equivalent.
  They are certainly not equivalent in terms of their impact on the 
economy. New spending is contrary to maximizing economic growth, while 
tax cuts reduce it.
  Mr. Speaker, before I do that, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, for his thoughts on this.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed. The gentleman who offers the 
motion to instruct conferees says, gee, it would be nice if we had a 
rule that tax cuts had to be paid for. Well, that is not what the 
instruction says. The instruction says they should. It is not a, gee, 
it would be nice. The gentleman just voted for a tax cut that was not 
offset, was not paid for. In fact, he joined 109 Democratic colleagues 
who voted not to pay for tax cuts.
  In fact, what is even more interesting is that the same gentleman, 
and I respect his position, because it is how I voted, so it is hard to 
complain when somebody joins you on a vote, I do not mean it that way, 
voted just last week with 101 other colleagues for the marriage penalty 
relief, without offsetting pay-as-you-go requirements.
  So on the one hand, the gentleman is saying we ought to have a rule, 
we ought to have a rule around here that you pay for things. It is 
important to do that, because we are in a hole and you ought to stop 
digging.
  I understand. We have heard that rhetoric a lot. Except, he says, do 
not apply it to me, is what the gentleman is saying. Instruct everybody 
else for other tax bills, but not the one I just voted for this week, 
or not the one I voted for last week. Let us have a pay-as-you-go rule, 
but let us not apply it to us right now because it is kind of 
politically popular to vote for this.
  The difference is that on our side of the aisle we know and we agree 
with the gentleman that tax cuts often pay for themselves in a way that 
stimulates the economy, stimulates growth, puts people back to work, 
generates economic growth and development, and drives revenues into the 
Treasury to the tune of, this year, what we know already from what CBO 
says, is about $200 billion more revenue. Even with tax reduction, even 
with those tax cuts, $200 billion is what CBO estimates now. Just 
yesterday, in The Washington Post, it was revealed that that number is 
only going up, is what we are hearing.
  So on the one hand, just 5 minutes ago the gentleman voted for tax 
relief without paying for it and now rushes to the floor with a rule 
that says but from now on and for everybody else, it is fair to, quote-
unquote, pay for tax cuts.
  I think we should be consistent; and just like in the past, we should 
consistently say that in this instance we should not tie our hands when 
it comes to creating jobs, when it comes to making sure that married 
people are not penalized, when it comes to not raising taxes on 
families with children, when it comes to AMT relief that people are 
being hit with now, this alternative minimum tax, that we should 
provide that kind of relief, and we should do it in a way that does the 
job now and gets the economy going, as opposed to putting some 
arbitrary rule on, which I would argue if you vote 5 minutes ago one 
way, and then come back here and say, well, really I did not mean that, 
which vote do you not mean? Is it the vote for tax relief, or is it the 
vote for the rule?
  So I would hope that people do not tie our hands when it comes to 
this, what is called pay-as-you-go. When it comes to taxes, I have said 
it before and I will say it again, you may think the government pays 
for taxes. The only people in America who pay for taxes are taxpayers, 
and they are the people who deserve the relief, and what you are trying 
to do is cause automatic tax increases for this country by tying hands 
and by putting arbitrary rules in, and I do not believe that is the 
right thing to do for this economy. It is finally back on its feet, it 
is finally creating jobs, and we need to make sure that continues.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, to respond to the chairman, the gentleman talks fiscal 
responsibility, but does not vote it. I am following the rules that are 
in place right now, and I am proposing that this body change the rules 
and practice fiscal responsibility and not just talk about it. We have 
got to get back to that.
  What the gentleman neglected to mention is we have the highest 
national debt in our Nation's history. What the gentleman neglected to 
mention is we have the highest deficit in any one year in our Nation's 
history. We are mortgaging the future of our children and 
grandchildren, and it has got to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time and for his bringing this measure before this House 
for a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) which would require the budget 
conferees to include the pay-as-you-go provisions, budgets enforcement 
provisions, in the final budget bill.
  Ten years ago, our colleagues across the aisle made a contract with 
America. One of the first principles they promised to instill in this 
Congress was a requirement that all laws that apply to the rest of the 
country would also apply equally to the Congress.
  Well, the truth is, American families are required by law to pay 
their bills; yet in Congress we do not require the same thing of our 
own institution, and that is wrong.
  One of the previous speakers said that we are trying to tie the hands 
of Congress so we can automatically bring about tax increases. That is 
absolutely not true. All this measure says is, if we pass a bill, we 
should pay for that bill.
  The House budget resolution for 2005 was passed on a straight party 
line vote; but it was the alternative, with the strongest budget 
enforcement provisions, the Blue Dog budget, that got the bipartisan 
support.
  Budget enforcement received bipartisan support not only in the House, 
but in the Senate also. They passed an amendment extending pay-as-you-
go rules to both revenue and spending measures with the support of a 
bipartisan majority. Common ground, bipartisan ground can be found on 
the issue of budget enforcement.
  If we are really going to reduce the deficit, bipartisanship is a 
must. It does not matter if it is an increase in spending or a 
reduction in revenue. If it is important enough for this House to pass 
it as law, by golly, we should pay for it. That is what this motion to 
instruct says. The motion is to instruct the conferees to agree to the 
Senate pay-as-you-go provision, which requires the Congress to find a 
way to pay for new spending or new tax cuts.
  Members of the Blue Dog Coalition have been calling for the 
reinstatement of pay-as-you-go on both revenue and spending since the 
Budget Enforcement Act expired in 2002. And it is not a partisan 
concept. From the original pay-as-you-go provision, it was brought 
about by bipartisanship. It was an agreement between the first 
President Bush and a Democratic Congress. A

[[Page 8453]]

Democratic President and Congress extended pay-as-you-go in 1993, and a 
Democratic President and a Republican Congress extended it again in 
1997, along with $100 billion worth of tax cuts.
  Today we can send a clear message from the Congress that we will hold 
ourselves to the same standards as we hold American families. Vote 
``yes'' on this motion to instruct and reintroduce fiscal 
responsibility to this House and to the American taxpayers.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to one of the points just made by the 
gentleman from California. This is pretty close to being a direct quote 
as I heard him say it, and it was pertaining to this deficit. I think 
what the gentleman said was it does not matter if it is a decrease in 
revenue, which is to say a tax cut, or an increase in spending; either 
way, we have to offset it.
  I am here to say that that is just not right. It does matter. It 
makes a difference. It makes a big difference. I am going to finish my 
point, because I think it makes a big difference in terms of the 
economic growth of our economy, and that means the opportunity for 
Americans, and that means prosperity and ultimately the quality of life 
of the working people.
  Look at the data that we have. After we passed a tax cut package, 
look at what has happened. We have had a 2-decade high point in terms 
of GDP growth. The economy grew at 6 percent in the second half of last 
year; it is growing very strongly this year. This is the best economic 
growth numbers we have had in 20 years. Housing starts are at a record 
high. Homeownership, a record high number of Americans own their own 
home today.
  We have financial markets that have made huge gains, which generally 
have been a good predictor of economic growth. The manufacturing 
sector, which has undergone a very difficult time, has, by all accounts 
and all objective data, turned around, is showing growth, is actually 
hiring.
  Speaking of hiring, we have strong new job growth now. We waited a 
long time, because we know that job growth is always the last part to 
come in during an economic recovery. But it really looks like the job 
growth is happening now. Whether you are looking at the household 
survey or whether you are looking at the payroll survey, the job growth 
is strong. In March, we had 308,000 new jobs, and on Friday we are 
going to get a number for April; and it looks like we are going to have 
another strong month for job growth.
  What this means is we are approaching a period now of sustainable 
economic recovery. When new people are getting to work and being able 
to generate their own incomes, now the economy starts to be able to 
grow of its own. This has happened because we lowered the tax burden.
  If we go and pass this provision that you guys are advocating, it 
almost certainly means a big tax increase, and I am very concerned that 
this would cut off this economic recovery we have under way, and that 
is the last thing we should be doing.
  The problem that we have, we have got a problem here, no question 
about it. We have a deficit that is too big, there is no question about 
it. But the problem has come from years of excessive spending. It is 
not that we do not bring in enough revenue. In fact, as we all probably 
know, recent numbers suggest that revenue growth is growing and it is 
accelerating, which is not surprising, given the strong economy we have 
today, the strength that is developing; but it is spending that has 
been the problem.
  Now when we offered a PAYGO provision that would require that we 
offset any new spending proposals, you guys all voted against it. You 
guys said no, no, we do not want to just offset spending.
  The point I am trying to make here is that new spending and lowering 
the tax burden, and in fact maintaining existing tax law, because that 
is what we are talking about now, these are not equivalent.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  The point is if it is important enough to pass, it is important 
enough to pay for. The record deficit and the record debt, $7 trillion 
worth of debt, on mark to go up to $10.4 trillion in the next 5 years, 
that is the difference between revenue and spending. It is not the 
difference between spending. If we believe this is important enough to 
tax, we should pay for whatever it is we pass.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is not 
recognizing we have had a growth in revenue, despite lower tax rates. 
This is what happens when the economy grows strongly. And the most 
important thing here, it is very important that we get the deficit 
under control and reduce the debt, but the most important thing is we 
have a strong economy, and everybody who wants a job is able to get a 
job and that wages are rising and people are having more and more 
opportunities.
  If we do that, and control spending, which we are trying to do which 
this budget, which, again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
did not agree with, but it is a budget which for the first time I am 
aware of in a very long time, we took the nonsecurity parts of 
discretionary spending and decided to freeze it.
  We said we are going to freeze this, because I think that is what you 
need to do to get this spending under control so we can get this 
deficit under control. I think we are heading in the right direction if 
we can have the discipline on the spending side.
  We should not be advocating a provision, which the gentleman from 
Kansas is introducing, which almost guarantees a big tax increase right 
at the time when our economy seems to be recovering strongly.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I 
have a prepared statement. I am not going to give it.
  Perhaps the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and perhaps the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) believe if you say something enough, 
somebody will believe it.
  I refer the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) to page 22 of 
the administration's budget document on receipts. For 8 years under 
Clinton, receipts went up. After we passed the 1993 bill, the economy 
went up and deficits went down. However, for the 12 years of Reagan and 
Bush, deficits went up, and under this administration, deficits have 
soared. And I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey), check out page 22. Receipts have gone down, my friend. Down.

                              {time}  1500

  Starting with 2000, $2.25 trillion; 2001, $1.9 trillion. Mr. Speaker, 
I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), he is not 
listening to these figures. I know he wants to know the truth. I know 
he wants to know the facts. I am trying to give them to him so he will 
not misstate again. I want him to hear these facts, and then he can 
respond. This is the administration's book, not mine.
  I will give them to the gentleman again. In 2000, $2.25 trillion; 
2001 $1.9 trillion; 2002, 1.8 trillion; 2003, 1.7 trillion.
  So to not tell us and the American public that resources are going 
up, they are not. This graph reflects what the Republican budget book 
says.
  Now, with respect to spending, I say to my friend, we are spending 
less on discretionary spending than we spent in 1962 of GDP. But you 
all talk about that. Why? Because it is easy to talk about that. It is 
17 percent of the budget; you do not talk about the other 83 percent.
  What the gentleman from Kansas is saying, I say to my colleagues, is 
do not pass these tax cuts for which there is no money to give anybody. 
You are taking it from Social Security. You are taking it from 
Medicare. And, more

[[Page 8454]]

importantly, I will tell my colleagues who is going to pay for these 
tax cuts: my children, my grandchildren, and the generations yet to 
come. That is not only intellectually wrong, it is an immoral fiscal 
policy.
  Mr. Speaker, if the vote on this motion to instruct budget conferees 
is anything like the first one on March 30, then someone should summon 
the house physician because there may be some very sore arms on the 
Republican side of the aisle.
  Certainly, we remember that five-minute vote? The Republican 
leadership held it open for 28 minutes so that it could (quote/unquote) 
persuade eight Republicans to change their votes from yes to no, and 
defeat the motion on a tie vote.
  As David Broder, the syndicated columnist, pointed out (and I quote):

       Clearly, on a free vote of conscience, narrow majorities in 
     both the House and Senate would be prepared to impose this 
     degree of self-discipline [meaning pay-as-you-go budget 
     rules].

  The simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Office of Management and Budget 
projects that our Nation will run a record budget deficit of $521 
billion this year. That figure does not include the costs of fighting 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an estimated $50 billion to $75 billion.
  The 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion that George W. Bush 
inherited when he took office has been turned into a projected deficit 
of more than $4 trillion in just 3 short years.
  And now, our Republican friends want to drive us even deeper into 
debt with tax cuts that are not paid for.
   Perhaps Mr. Nussle, the chairman of the Budget Committee, summed up 
the Republican philosophy best. In March, he said (and I quote):

        We don't believe that you should have to pay for tax cuts.

   Well, my Republican friends, you don't. But our children and 
grandchildren surely will.
   That's why the list of those supporting pay-as-you-go rules 
includes, among others, House Democrats, a bipartisan majority of the 
Senate, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, the Concord Coalition, the 
Committee for Economic Development, and the Committee For a Responsible 
Federal Budget.
   Republicans have not always believed that tax cuts are sacrosanct.
   In fact, the majority leader himself even said in 1997 of Jack Kemp, 
a former member of this body (and I quote):

        Jack Kemp worships at the altar of tax cuts. Jack has 
     always said that deficits don't matter. We think that 
     deficits do matter.

   Mr. Speaker, PAYGO rules will not preclude tax cuts.
   They simply recognize that, with a fiscal crisis looming, it is 
irresponsible--indeed immoral--to force the next generation to pay our 
bills.
   I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing when we come to the 
floor and have this debate over and over and over again. We are 
fighting a war today, and I believe I would be factually correct to say 
this is the first war we have fought by reducing the amount of revenue.
  I suggest our troops are paying dearly for that, because as we all 
know, they have not received that which they need in order to protect 
themselves while they are doing for us what we are unwilling to do for 
them.
  This is a pretty straightforward amendment; and despite the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), despite the gentleman from Iowa 
(Chairman Nussle) and all of his rhetoric, nobody is talking about 
raising taxes. That is just rhetoric that will be used in campaign 
slogans.
  All we are saying is, if we are going to cut taxes and reduce the 
amount of revenue to pay for the war, we have to provide either cuts in 
spending, which we do, in spite of the fact, all of what you talk about 
never happens because spending has gone up, up, and up since 
Republicans took over this House, and how you can stand on the floor 
and keep lecturing Democrats on spending, you have no conscience.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a budget 
that had lower spending and lower deficits even than the one that we 
passed, the Republican one. I do not know of any Democrat that voted 
for my alternative budget.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is great 
rhetoric, and I will yield again, but I want to respond to that. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania put a budget out. How many votes did the 
gentleman get for his budget?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, we got just under half the Republican caucus 
on it, about 100, maybe 110.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. I can put a budget 
out too.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, how did the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) vote on it?
  Mr. STENHOLM. On your budget, I opposed it, because it increased the 
deficit.
  Mr. TOOMEY. It increased it much less than your budget did. It got us 
back to a balance much sooner than your budget or any other budget, and 
you voted ``no.'' You voted ``no.''
  Mr. STENHOLM. You could not pass it.
  I take back my time. I take back my time. Yes, it is great. You can 
come out, but the problem that comes out today is we have to live under 
the rules of the majority party. And for years I was criticized by the 
gentleman's side because it was my party that was doing to the economy 
what you said we were doing. Today, you are in charge; and no matter 
how many times you say it, you cannot overcome the facts. Republicans 
have spent more in the Reagan-Bush years, in the Bush years than we did 
in the Clinton years. You have spent more, period, and that record 
stands up.
  All we are talking about today is a simple resolution saying, let us 
put us all under the gun. If you put your budget on the floor under 
pay-as-you-go, I will have to vote for it, if it is under pay-as-you-
go, because I am sincerely for it. I did not vote for the last tax cut 
because it is with borrowed money on my children and grandchildren. I 
did not vote for last week's tax cut because it is with borrowed money; 
and I will not vote for the additional tax cuts with borrowed money on 
my children and grandchildren's money. But your rhetoric and mine 
should match. Where is the mismatch?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  A couple of points I would like to make. One, to follow up on some 
comments made by the gentleman from Maryland, first of all, history has 
proven time and time again when we have cut taxes, we have ended up 
with increasing revenue. The gentleman from Maryland cited the Reagan 
administration. The fact is, within a decade of the big Reagan tax 
cuts, revenue collected by the Federal Government, tax revenue had 
about doubled. The problem was that expenditures tripled, and this 
reinforces my point that the problem here is spending. The problem is 
not that we are undertaxed.
  The second point that I want to make, the gentleman from Maryland was 
referring to declining revenues in the height of the economic slowdown. 
I do not think anybody disputes that if the economy is in a recession, 
when the economy is contracting, revenue decreases. That is true. That 
is what happens when you have, especially a combination of a 
contracting economy, and then you have the cost of a war, it is not 
surprising that you have a deficit under those circumstances.
  The final point I want to make, to suggest that this provision does 
not amount to the equivalent of a tax increase I think is just 
factually wrong. We all know that we have provisions in the current tax 
law that are expiring very soon; and if we do not allow those to become 
permanent, then we have a big tax increase coming. And if this 
provision were to be adopted and become binding on Congress, then it is 
almost assured that we are going to have a significant tax increase.
  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 Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

[[Page 8455]]


  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I got up to my office, and I heard the 
comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) both 
said not the perspective you thought revenues were going to increase, 
but that they had increased. That was not accurate. That was my point, 
and I think your review of the book indicates that I was accurate.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Kansas has 
the time.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), for yielding me this time.
  What we have here is what never has been tried in history. We are 
waging three wars with three tax cuts that have resulted in $500 
billion of annual deficits and a $3 trillion increase in the debt.
  What has passed here in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003 are record tax 
cuts for the special interests that have produced record deficits and 
record national debt. There is an economic program here that basically 
we followed in the 1990s.
  In 1993 we cut taxes and reduced the deficit. In 1997 we cut taxes 
for middle-class families and balanced the budget while investing in 
children's health care, the environment, and also in job training and 
education, higher education access. We threw that book out that led to 
record job growth of 22 million jobs, a decrease in poverty, an 
expansion of the middle class, incomes going up for all people. And now 
what we have is record deficits and record debt, all because we 
followed an economic strategy that threw out the book of putting our 
fiscal house in order, investing in the priorities of tax cuts for 
middle-class families, and investing in the areas of education and 
health care.
  What do we have to show for it? We have $500 billion in annual 
deficit. We have a record deficit while the economy is growing. You all 
have said if the economy grows, the deficit will disappear. Well, the 
economy is growing and we have record deficits. Why? Because your 
economic strategy lacks any logic to it. And that is you cannot follow 
and have three tax cuts and three wars at the same time and get any 
other result than the one we are getting today. And to repeat the same 
mistake and expect a different result is a sign of somebody who is not 
facing reality.
  Today, what we need to do and what this proposal does is it begins to 
get us on a road of putting our fiscal house back in order and setting 
the priorities straight that if we want to invest in education, if we 
want to finance wars overseas, if we want to have tax cuts, we have to 
make sure that we live within a balanced set of priorities. We cannot 
leave to other generations and steal from Social Security and steal 
from Medicare to live today in bacchanalia and happy times. We have to 
put our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The point I was making about the increase in revenue, and the 
gentleman from Maryland was disputing this, I think, my point is if you 
look at the last 6 months of this year, if you look back from October 
of 2003 through March of 2004 and you compare the same 6-month period 
to the year before, you will discover that we brought in more revenue 
to the Federal Treasury in this most recent 6-month period than we did 
in the last 6-month period. That is the point that the gentleman from 
Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and I have been making.
  Revenue coming into the Federal Government is, in fact, growing, and 
it is at an accelerating pace; and I strongly suspect that the next 
quarter is going to show an increase over the corresponding quarter 
from the previous year. That is precisely because of the strong 
economic growth.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I understand his analysis of the last 6 months; we have had a good 
growth in the last 6 months. Not as good, contrary to what the 
gentleman says, as we had in terms of the Clinton years, because where 
we grew 23 million new jobs, we have still lost jobs. The gentleman 
pointed out we raised 300,000 jobs. As he knows, 100,000 of those were 
returning workers from the strikes around the country.
  But the point I would make is that in 1993 when we adopted the 
Clinton economic program, Mr. Armey and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), I cannot say the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), but Mr. 
Kasich was then the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, they said 
that program was going to destroy America's economy, we would lose 
jobs, have high deficits and high unemployment and high interest rates. 
In fact, exactly the opposite happened, and we had the best economy we 
have had in the history of the country.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what happened was that 
immediately after that tax increase in 1993, economic growth was quite 
slow for some period of time; and then it accelerated, despite the tax 
increases.
  But my point is, and I do not think the gentleman is disputing me 
now, that over the last 6 months we have had a revenue growth compared 
to the same 6-month period a year before, and all evidence and all 
trends suggest that this is going to continue. And what I think it 
demonstrates is, once again, lowering marginal tax rates and 
encouraging strong economic growth more than offsets the reduction in 
revenue that comes from the nominal loss that comes from the rates 
themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hill).
  (Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Kansas for leading this discussion here this afternoon.
  A few minutes ago on the floor of this House, I cast a vote against 
the AMT tax cut. Some would say that that was a foolish vote for me 
politically, do I not think so. I do not think it was a foolish vote 
politically, because I believe that the people of the Ninth District in 
southern Indiana believe that if it is tax cuts versus shoring up 
Social Security, if it is tax cuts versus paying down the debt, if it 
is tax cuts versus shoring up Medicare, if it is tax cuts or having 
foreign countries buy our paper to finance the debt, I think that they 
will pick fighting the war, shoring up Social Security, shoring up 
Medicare, making sure that not too many foreigners have our paper. They 
want to be fiscally responsible like many of the Members on this side 
of the aisle want to be. And the only way that can happen, I say to my 
colleagues, is for there to be PAYGO discipline in both spending and 
tax cuts.
  Now, I was at the Joint Economic Committee meeting last week where 
Alan Greenspan was at the meeting. I asked him, Mr. Chairman, do you 
believe that PAYGO rules ought to apply to tax cuts as well as 
spending? And his answer in his prolonged way that he answers was an 
unequivocal yes. There needs to be discipline in the Congress of the 
United States. PAYGO rules have worked in the past, they will work in 
the future, and it is the fiscally responsible thing to do.
  One last thing that I would just like to remind my colleagues of on 
this side of the aisle. A quote from the majority leader on the 
Republican side, Dick Armey: ``I am sitting here, and I am upset about 
the deficit. I am upset about spending. There is no way I can pin this 
on the Democrats. Republicans own the town now.'' Wise words, indeed.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

[[Page 8456]]


  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. It is a shame we cannot have a longer, more substantive debate on 
this. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) got up and criticized the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for his inconsistency. He is for 
middle-class tax cuts, as I am; but he wants to pay for them. The 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) in 1997 voted for the Balanced Budget 
Amendment, as I did, which had exactly the same PAYGO as is included in 
the Moore motion to instruct.
  Hear me, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). The 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) voted for exactly the same PAYGO as 
did 193 Republicans. Stick with your original convictions.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Moore) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Moore).
  It is our duty as lawmakers and the voices of our constituents to 
demand a budget resolution that is fiscally responsible and meets the 
needs of our country. This motion a very simple motion would require 
that any increase in spending and tax cuts must be subjected to a pay-
as-you-go rule.
  As this country faces record deficits, increased spending on homeland 
security and the war in Iraq, now is the time for fiscal discipline. 
The Federal budget deficit is fast approaching $500 billion and will 
only continue to grow. Unless we act now, our children and our 
grandchildren will be paying for our fiscal irresponsibility.
  Remember 1990 when America also struggled with record deficits. 
Congress faced the same choice that we do today. Ignore the realities 
of fiscal irresponsibility or confront it head on and resolve the 
problem. In 1990, the Democratic-controlled Congress made the 
responsible choice. It included PAYGO legislation as a part of 1990 
budget agreement.
  PAYGO was extended in 1993 and 1997 and was essential in restoring 
this country's economic health. The sky-high deficits of the late 1980s 
and early 1990s turned into substantial budget surpluses by the late 
1990s. When this administration took office, there was nearly a $400 
billion surplus and a projected surplus of several trillion dollars.
  Despite this success, the administration's irresponsible choice to 
allow the PAYGO rules to expire in 2002 has contributed to the record 
deficit we face today. The time to act is now, before our Nation slides 
further and further into debt. We must include PAYGO rules that apply 
to both spending and tax cuts in this year's budget resolution.
  If I could add something personal. My husband is not only a 
Republican, he is a Heritage Foundation Republican, a fiscal 
conservative in our personal life; and he believes that this is 
outrageous. He is astounded that the Republican-controlled Congress is 
behaving in this irresponsible fiscal manner. He will not have it and 
neither will I.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure everybody is very clear as we 
have this discussion that if this proposed provision were to become 
binding, the net effect is almost certainly a very, very major tax 
increase. All we are talking about is, what I want to do here is let us 
make sure we can maintain existing tax law.
  What the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) is proposing is that under 
existing law, unfortunately, taxes are scheduled to go up. If we 
prevent that by making sure we maintain the existing rate structure, 
the existing tax law, we would have to come up with these huge offsets, 
which we certainly are not going to get the votes over there to do that 
with spending cuts, so we would have to raise taxes somewhere else.
  So the net effect is a huge tax increase. What are some of the things 
that are scheduled to expire, some of the problems that we would have 
if this were adopted? Well, we would find we would get the marriage 
penalty coming back in full force. We get the child tax credit that 
would be diminished dramatically. The increase in the size of the 10 
percent bracket, that goes away. Small business expensing which has 
probably contributed significantly to this economic turn around. That 
goes away. Small businesses cannot expense items the way they can under 
current law.
  I think it is a bad idea when we have all the evidence suggesting we 
are well into a substantial and probably a sustainable economic 
recovery, why we would suddenly ratchet back up the taxes in the face 
of that and the fact that this has been a very successful tax policy, 
very successful in terms of turning this economy around and now in 
terms of getting people back to work, why we would want to undo all of 
that with a measure like this makes no sense to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman can say black is white until his face is 
blue, but it does not change the facts. You can talk about tax 
increases here. We are talking about fiscal responsibility and he is 
not. In fact, what he is doing and his policies would do is put our 
Nation deeper and deeper and deeper in debt.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, we have the largest debt, $7.1 trillion in our 
Nation's history. We have the largest 1-year deficit in our Nation's 
history, and the policies he is talking about, contrary to what 
Chairman Greenspan wants, will put our Nation in deeper debt and 
mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren.
  I was at a high school last week and I talked to a group of high 
school students, government students, about this, and I said, Why 
should you care about a $7.1 trillion debt? A girl raised her hand and 
she said, Because we are going to have to pay for it. And I said you 
get an A for today, and you should be angry about what folks in 
Congress are doing to you and your children and grandchildren because 
you are putting them in a hole they can never dig their way out of.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to this point because this is a 
very important point. We have created an environment, created a tax 
environment in which the economy can grow more rapidly and it is 
growing more rapidly. We have both CBO projections and the House budget 
resolution both forecast Federal receipts at $35 billion more this year 
than last year, despite the fact that we cut taxes last year; and now 
the monthly Treasury data that is coming in this year shows, and I do 
not think anybody is disputing this, that, in fact, we probably low-
balled that. The revenue was coming in at an even faster clip than the 
amount by which we thought it would exceed last year.
  So the fact is we have got a deficit that is too big. We all 
acknowledge that. It is getting smaller. The revenue is coming in 
faster because the economy is growing. And if we get spending under 
control, we can solve this problem. But the right way to do it is not 
to raise taxes.
  I know the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) does not like the 
characterization of this. But the fact is we have got provisions in law 
that will result in a tax increase if we do not do something about it, 
and what your provision would do would prevent us from solving that 
problem that results in a tax increase.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman has done is presided over policies 
that has created the greatest debt in our Nation's history and nothing 
he says can change that.

[[Page 8457]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey) did not deliberately attempt to misspeak to this body, but 
revenues in 2000 were $2.025 trillion, revenues in 2003 were $1.782 
trillion; projected CBO for this year is the $1.817 trillion. I 
understand that you are putting the best spin forward, on this year, it 
is going up, but look at what it has done under the policies that you 
continue to advocate.
  What we are talking about is what Chairman Alan Greenspan would like 
to see us do; what the Concord Coalition would like to see us do: Put 
some fiscal responsibility into all our actions.
  The gentleman keeps referring to the Reagan years. I was here. I 
helped pass the first Reagan tax cut. It did not work as was intended. 
It built up $1.8 trillion of debt in 8 years. The Bush 41 built up 
another $1.5 trillion of debt. In the 8 years of the Clinton 
administration debt went up $1.4 trillion; and it is estimated under 
the Bush 43, debt will go up $2.4 trillion. That is what we were 
suggesting doing something about. It is called fiscal responsibility. 
It is called living within your means. It is called making tough 
decisions.
  Yes, there are tax cuts that grow the economy, but there are also tax 
cuts that increase the deficit. Let us make that decision, instead of 
just coming here and rhetorically talking about things that just are 
not so. With all due respect, it just is not so from the standpoint of 
the deficit coming down.
  If you talk about spending, I just have to smile and get myself under 
control, every time I hear a Republican stand up on this floor and talk 
about spending, and I would yield to the gentleman to answer to a 
question, who has been in control of this House since 1994?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been the first one to say that 
excessive spending is a bipartisan problem.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Then if it is a bipartisan problem, that is what we are 
suggesting today is a bipartisan solution.
  Mr. TOOMEY. With a tax increase. That is not a good solution.
  Mr. STENHOLM. No, with all due respect, well, if you want to fight 
the war by shortchanging the troops in order that you can have your 
rhetorical answers on that, fine.
  I will be happy to yield for a simple discourse, but every time you 
start that rhetoric that has put us into a $2.4 trillion hole in 4 
years.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. First of all, I think the gentleman will acknowledge that 
Republicans have not short-changed our troops; that we have advocated 
and passed legislation that would provide the necessary resources; and 
we had a budget resolution that took the non-security portions of our 
budget and we froze that. We said, these areas that are not critical to 
American security should grow at zero.
  Now, most if not all Members on the gentleman's side of the aisle, 
thought that that was somehow unreasonable, because we did not grow 
spending. So I do not think you can accuse us at this point of not 
dealing with this problem.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield me some time.
  Mr. Speaker, if not, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. The short-
changing of our troops is bipartisan. I am \1/435\ of this body and 
anything we have not done, I accept my share of the blame for; but I am 
not in control. I am not in the majority. And the minority has been 
totally ignored on most of these issues, but I still have to take my 
responsibility for that action. And the fact is we have not done a real 
good job.
  On the question of providing for spousal benefits for military 
retirees, we have a bill that has 300 cosponsors of and we cannot get 
it on the floor of the House in order to debate.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Reclaiming my time, we are getting a little bit far 
afield from the discussion.
  Mr. STENHOLM. We are talking about pay-as-you-go.
  Mr. TOOMEY. We are getting a bit far afield.
  I think one of the fundamental areas of disagreement that we have is 
the idea that my colleagues who offered the proposal, equate new 
spending with new tax relief, including maintaining existing tax law.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, that is not the intent of this amendment. 
It is not to get into taxes or spending. It is just to say to this 
body, we have to make a decision regarding how much more we borrow on 
our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Reclaiming my time, but the mechanism by which you choose 
to make that decision is precisely this, it is to say that we have to 
treat, even maintaining existing tax law, as though it were equivalent 
to launching a new spending program because you want to impose the 
exact same mechanism on both those activities as though they are 
equivalent. And my point is they are not equivalent.
  One, the new spending, leads to lower economic growth, lower 
productivity, fewer opportunities for American workers; and the other, 
maintaining this lower tax burden that we managed to pass in recent 
years, leads to stronger economic growth, more jobs, higher wages, and 
we are seeing it in the numbers. We are seeing that this economy has 
turned around. We are seeing the strength of this economy. We are 
seeing it producing new jobs. And, in fact, as the gentleman has 
acknowledged in recent months, we are even seeing a growth in revenue 
to the Federal Government. It is true.
  It has not yet reached the level that it was at before the recession 
and before the war and before September 11. It will get there. It may 
take a little bit longer but the fact is revenue to the Federal 
government is growing. It is growing at an accelerating pace. But, 
frankly, that is not my highest priority in life. My highest priority, 
and what I think it should be here is, are we creating an environment 
where we create the maximum opportunity for Americans, the most job 
opportunities, the greatest chance for new businesses to flourish.
  I know that is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) would 
like to see accomplished. I think we differ about how to get there. But 
I strongly believe that making it essentially impossible to maintain 
the existing tax law and instead having a higher tax regime does not 
get us there.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Because nothing in PAYGO precludes tax cuts, nothing 
does.
  Mr. TOOMEY. They have to be offset with equal tax increases or 
spending cuts; is that correct?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Right.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Do you think that there are the votes anywhere in this 
Chamber to have spending cuts when the Democrats in this Chamber would 
not vote for a Republican budget?
  Mr. STENHOLM. We did it in 1997. It was Democrats like me that stood 
up with Republicans and got it done.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Reclaiming my time, I would be thrilled if you and your 
colleagues would vote with us on this budget resolution that freezes 
non-security spending, that just says let us hold it at last year's 
level because we really cannot afford more than that. But we never got 
the votes to do that.
  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 would respond to the gentleman simply by saying that 
we have, on this side, coined a phrase called the debt tax, not the 
death tax, D-E-A-T-H, but the debt tax, D-E-B-T.

[[Page 8458]]

And the debt tax is the interest we pay on our national debt and the 
debt tax is going up just as the deficits are going up and the debt is 
going up.

                              {time}  1530

  It is the policies of the gentleman across the aisle that are causing 
this to happen, and it has got to change. People in this country know 
in their hearts and they know right in their heads that we cannot give 
like this forever. We are the strongest Nation on the Earth. We are the 
freest Nation on the Earth, but we cannot be strong and free and broke, 
and that is the policy advocated by the gentleman from across the 
aisle.
  That is going to happen if we keep going the way we are. Our Nation 
will end up owing so much money it will be financially unsustainable 
for our children and grandchildren. I do not want that to happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey) has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Moore) has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kansas has the 
right to close.
  Mr. TOOMEY. May I ask a question of the gentleman from Kansas. Does 
the gentleman have any additional speakers?
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to grant some additional time at 
the appropriate time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just make one additional point, and that is the point that 
has been made for us at our committee by CBO Director Crippin, and I 
think this is a very important one. When we look at how best to get our 
deficit under control, he makes the observation that a one-tenth of 1 
percent increase in GDP growth accounts for about an additional quarter 
of a trillion dollars, $250 billion, in additional Federal revenue over 
a 10-year period. This is why economic growth is so important.
  The real reason it is mostly important is for the benefits that 
accrue to the American people who produce this growth; but if we want 
to figure out how do we get our budget house in order here, a strong 
economy gets us there. One-tenth of 1 percent, going from 4 percent 
growth to 4.1 percent growth, just that small difference amounts to an 
extra quarter of a trillion dollars in Federal revenue. If we can 
maximize economic growth and have some discipline on the spending side, 
we get this budget back to balance. We are moving in that direction, 
and I think that is a direction we should stay in.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago is when this debate began and 
those of us that believed that we had a little better plan, we lost 
that battle; and today, we are still fighting the same battle we did 3 
years ago. We were told if we instigated the tax cuts that we would 
balance the budget in 4 years. It did not work out quite that way. We 
cannot argue with the fact that the budget, that is somewhere out there 
in never-never land between the House and the Senate, includes an 
increasing of the debt ceiling, the amount which this country can 
borrow, to over $8 trillion.
  In the last 2\1/2\ years, we have borrowed $1 trillion. In the next 
year and a half, we are going to borrow in excess of another $1.5 
trillion. We cannot escape that those are the facts. We all know the 
reason why.
  This amendment today just suggests that this generation ought to be 
doing some of the paying rather than just blindly following a theory 
that does not work, the theory that we can balance the budget by 
cutting the amount of revenue when we are at war.
  This is the first war in the history of our country that we have 
fought by cutting taxes, and the results are predictable. It is 
amazing. Most main-line economists agree with what we are talking about 
today, making it tough to raise spending, being very scrupulous on the 
manner in which we spend our taxpayer dollars, but also take a good, 
hard look at what we are leaving our children and grandchildren and 
take a good, hard look at who is buying our debt.
  The Japanese will soon own over $600 billion of our debt. The Chinese 
are at $200 billion and going up rapidly; and if that does not bother 
my colleagues who is the banker of the United States, then continue to 
say, as some so-called conservatives continue to say, deficits do not 
matter as long as we are following the great game plan that has been 
totally rhetorized today by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey); and he does a good job, and I respect the fact he is sincere.
  That is something that I can respect on this floor because he puts 
his money where his mouth is. The problem is there are not 218 
Republicans that agree with him, but there are 218 Members of this body 
that would agree on pay-as-you-go and would get our fiscal house in 
order as we did in 1990 when Democrats were in control and a few of us 
voted with Republicans to put some fiscal order, and as we did in 1997 
when Republicans could not pass their budget in 1997 without Democratic 
support, and I was there and I helped because I believed in that 
compromise legislation that then ultimately gave us the economic growth 
and expansion that we saw in the 1990s.
  Now, we are arguing a theory today, and I understand there are some 
that just cannot say, I was wrong, I did not make a mistake, I am 
perfect, everything we are doing we have just got to keep on plugging 
and we can send that debt to our children and grandchildren and look at 
them with a straight face. I have three grandsons, and I cannot do it; 
and that is why I will continue to say we will reach out the hand to 
the folks on the other side of the aisle, and we will work together to 
bring our fiscal house in order; but we cannot do it with the game plan 
that they are advocating.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have had a spirited debate here this afternoon about this, and I 
would simply close by reminding my colleagues that if we were to pass 
the provision that is proposed here, it would certainly result in very, 
very large tax increases in this year, next year, the following years 
of a very huge magnitude; and I am gravely concerned that the result of 
that would be to, at a minimum, diminish the growth of our economy and 
quite possibly even turn us down into an economic downturn, back from 
whence we came.
  We are on the right path. The economy is growing. It is growing 
strongly. It is actually growing at a nearly record pace. We have job 
growth that has kicked in in a very impressive way, and that is the 
most important part of this; and that is really manifesting itself in 
recent months, likely to continue, likely to generate a self-sustaining 
momentum for the economy.
  This is exactly what we should be trying to work for. It is the tax 
cut package that helped us get here. We have now seen so much economic 
growth that, as my colleagues on the other side have acknowledged, even 
in recent months and recent quarters, revenue collected by the Federal 
Government is growing. It is accelerating. That means if we stick to 
the budget resolution that we passed with votes on this side of the 
aisle alone, where we put a freeze on nonsecurity discretionary 
spending, if we maintain that spending discipline, while we continue to 
have the strong economic growth, we will, in fact, see a dramatic 
reduction in this deficit. That is what we should be working towards, 
maintaining the tax law, keeping the tax burden as low as we possibly 
can on the American people, with some spending restraint.
  Again, we proposed that we freeze this nonsecurity spending, 
unfortunately. My colleagues on the other side would not go along with 
that freeze. That is the kind of discipline that will get our budget in 
order.
  What we need to do is reject this proposal today, vote ``no'' on the 
motion of the gentleman from Kansas, and stick to some discipline on 
the spending side.

[[Page 8459]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  PAYGO, the PAYGO rule that we are proposing here today, does not stop 
new tax cuts. All it says is that if we are going to have a new tax 
cut, we have got to cut spending; and if he talks about discipline, he 
should practice what he preaches. If he talks about discipline, he 
should practice what he preaches; and if he wants a new tax cut, he 
should say here is how we are going to pay for it. If my colleague 
finds a way to do that, then I am all for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), but he is not doing that. He is just talking 
and not practicing reality here.
  I voted for the President's tax cut 3 years ago. We were in surplus 
mode at that time, but now we are in deficit mode. Now we are in 
deficit mode. We are no longer in surplus mode.
  Chairman Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Board has testified 
before the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Financial 
Services, on which I serve; and he said consistently, if we are not in 
a fiscally responsible position when this economy takes off, interest 
rates could climb rather dramatically, and we should not let that 
happen. It could be devastating for business, for the real estate 
industry, for consumer borrowing, and for people in this country. 
Chairman Greenspan has said over and over, we should have budget 
enforcement rules, PAYGO rules, that apply not only to new spending but 
to tax cuts.
  I understand the gentleman thinks he knows more than Mr. Greenspan, 
but I do not believe that is true. I do not believe that is true.
  We are going to have soon an $8 trillion national debt at 4 percent. 
The interest on that national debt will be $320 billion a year. It is 
digging us deeper and deeper in this hole. If that interest rate went 
up to only 5 percent, it would add another $80 billion, another tax 
increase; and that is what we are talking about here is the debt tax, 
the interest on our national debt.
  They will put us, the policy advocated by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), deeper and deeper in the hole; and the 
problem is, they do not want to pay for it now. They want to pass the 
bill to our children and grandchildren; and our children and 
grandchildren if they are watching television today and they have heard 
this debate, they should say, enough, we are not going to take that 
anymore; it is not fair; it is really not American.
  We should end this today by saying common sense. If my colleagues 
want a tax cut, they have a new spending proposal, find a way to pay 
for it; and if they cannot do that, we will not do it because it is not 
fiscally responsible. It is not the right thing to do. It is not how 
American families live, and we are going to start living like American 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). All time has expired.
  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 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, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________