Motion to Instruct Conferees on S. Con. Res. 95, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 -- (House of Representatives - May 05, 2004)
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
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 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.