Appointment of Conferees on S. Con. Res. 95, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 -- (House of Representatives - March 30, 2004)
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, with the House amendment thereto, insist on the House amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. THOMPSON OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. THOMPSON of California 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. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last week, the House passed a budget resolution for fiscal year 2005. They did so 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 in the Senate, also. They passed an amendment extending PAYGO 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; and if we are really going to reduce the deficit, bipartisanship is a must.
Spring is a time of March Madness and the basketball tournament. But when it comes to responsible budgeting, I feel like it is baseball season around here.
On March 17, the House Committee on the Budget voted down a PAYGO amendment on a straight party-line vote. Strike one.
On March 24, the House Committee on Rules ruled out of order a PAYGO amendment on a straight party-line vote. Strike two.
And on March 25, the House approved a budget that had no PAYGO rules by a straight party-line vote. Three strikes, and we were out.
When it comes to budget enforcement, the House of Representatives struck out, but, unfortunately, it is our constituents that are the real losers here today. And our constituents understand that deficits impact them directly. They know that a $477 billion deficit means that we are borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay our bills. They understand that a $7 trillion national debt means that $50 billion of their hard-earned tax dollars are being sent to other countries every single year in interest payments on that national debt. Our constituents understand that Washington expects them to balance their budgets and to pay their bills. What they do not understand is why Washington does not require the same of ourselves.
Families across America sit down every week to balance their checkbooks. Our government, unfortunately, has not balanced its budget in 3 years. We have maxed out our national credit cards not once but twice; and instead of paying down the debt, we have increased our spending limit on that national credit card.
Today, we can send a clear message that Congress needs to hold itself to the same standards that it holds American families. Congress needs to pay for what it does. It does not matter if it is an increase in spending or a reduction in revenue. If it is important enough to become law, we should be required to pay for it. That is the motion to instruct that is before us today.
The motion instructs the conferees to agree to the strongest possible enforcement rules for all spending increases and tax cut legislation in the House and Senate, and it instructs conferees to adopt the Senate amendment on PAYGO as applied to all legislation that increases the deficit.
Members of the Blue Dog Coalition have been calling for the reinstatement of PAYGO on both revenue and spending since the Budget Enforcement Act expired in 2002. And it is not a partisan concept. As a matter of fact, in its original form, PAYGO was part of a bipartisan budget agreement between the first President Bush and a Democratic Congress.
A Democratic President and Congress extended PAYGO in 1993, and a Democratic President and Republican Congress extended it again in 1997.
Members of both parties have long appreciated the PAYGO rules as an enforcement tool that helps Congress achieve and maintain a balanced budget.
Today, I urge Members of both parties to vote yes on this motion to instruct. Such a vote will tell our constituents that this House of Representatives understands that we are not sent here to play games with the budget, but we are sent here to balance the budget. It will say that we are serious about deficit reductions and that we are willing to reach that goal in a bipartisan fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to please vote "yes" on this motion to instruct.
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond briefly to my friend.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is not about tax cuts, it is about balancing the budget. In 1993, when we had PAYGO rules, we passed tax cuts. In 1997, with PAYGO rules, we passed tax cuts. This is merely saying if a bill is important enough to pass, it ought to be important enough to pay for. The American people deserve it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished Blue Dog colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me this time, as it is a very important debate that we have here today.
The gentleman from Hawaii referred to consequences, and that is important. As a younger Member of the House, I like to view things for the long haul. We talk about the consequences of the decisions that are made here, not just for the next election cycle or the next fiscal year, or to put a Band-Aid on this budget, but the long-term fiscal consequences.
Frankly, I have been encouraged by a great deal of the debate that took place throughout the budget hearings and throughout the debate on the floor, because the positive consequence of this rising Federal deficit has been that we have attracted a good deal more fiscal conservatives to the cause. But the consequences of the Democratic amendments in committee were 28 billion new dollars in new spending. The consequences of the amendments in that markup were nearly 30 billion new dollars added to the Federal deficit, the consequences that would be borne by the next generation of Americans and taxpayers.
This debate centers around core values. Everyone, I think, is coming around to the idea that the deficit is a great, great problem that has to be dealt with. But when we get down into the details, the other team's plan wants to focus on making it more difficult to lower the tax burden on the American citizen, the American entrepreneur, the American homeowner, investor, worker; make it easier to increase the tax burden on that same group of hard-working, hard-charging, thoughtful, innovative Americans, and not deal with the real issue, which is spending. Nearly two-thirds of the Federal budget now is mandatory spending. It is on auto pilot. The debate, the fights, the arguments, the outstanding eloquent rhetorical discussions that take place on this floor are about over one-third of the Federal budget. That is it.
Our plan and the Spending Control Act, which has the force of law that was marked up in the Committee on the Budget and will be on this floor before Memorial Day, deals with mandatory spending. It deals with the fact that Congress has failed to make some of the tough decisions over the past generations to get their arms around spending; and as a consequence, we have been far outpacing the spending of the American household.
Now is not the time, when we have a dual challenge, the challenge of getting the economy going, putting people back to work, bringing small businesses the opportunity to have a piece of the American dream, now is not the time to make it easier to raise taxes. And for us to adopt as a consequence, for us to adopt the other body's half-baked, cockamamie, crazy schemes to deal with this issue is nuts.
All of us have a difficult time explaining why the other body's rules require us to phase down the death tax on farmers and small businesses and then, boom, miraculously it is reborn 10 years from now in its old, in its old full, former glory of the highest rate possible. All of us have a difficult time explaining why it was such a great idea to end the marriage penalty, but we have to vote on it again this year; otherwise, it comes back, or that the American people will lose the expanded child tax credit. It is because of the other body's cockamamie rules that we do that, and now we want to adopt another one of their cockamamie rules and make it even easier to raise taxes on the American people.
Now is not the time to turn back that clock, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to just make sure everybody understands, this does not make it more difficult to raise taxes. This merely makes it honest to raise taxes. My friend from Iowa is correct, taxpayers pay all right. They pay $1 billion a day in interest on the national debt, $50 billion a year in interest to countries like China and Japan and the OPEC nations.
When budgets do not balance, taxpayers do pay. That is why we need PAYGO.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, again, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1997, we cut taxes by $100 billion as part of the Balanced Budget Agreement. This does not do anything to hamper tax cuts. It just says we have to be honest. We have to pay for them. Pass the tax cuts, but pay for them.
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to respond.
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), a distinguished Blue Dog colleague and member on the Budget Committee.
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), our Blue Dog colleague.
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I briefly yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, to respond to some comments that were made regarding national defense.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget's comments.
We simply looked at our budget today, and we see that if we take all nondiscretionary spending that we are going to vote on in the 13 appropriations bills and we just eliminate all nondefense homeland security, we are not paying for the defense of homeland security portion of our budget. That is how bad a shape we are in.
So I would say it is fair to say we are not paying for defense, we are not paying for the conflicts that we are facing.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, in the Democratic budget resolution, let me remind the gentleman, we incur a lower deficit than their resolution. Every year for 10 years, we incur $1.2 trillion less debt than the President's resolution, and we merely bring spending back to baseline so that we can restore what is needed for priorities like education and veterans health care.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) has 4 ½ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 3 ½ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has the right to close.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 ½ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
Mr. THOMPSON of California. We are prepared to close.
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
This has been a very interesting and very telling debate. It has been a debate about paying our bills. Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle have tried to make this into some bogeyman about tax cuts, and there is nothing, nothing that could be further from the truth.
This is about balancing our budget and paying for what we spend. My friend from Iowa's constituents in his district and my constituents on the north coast, if they go in to get a farm loan or a car loan or a home mortgage loan, the bank looks at both their spending patterns and their revenue source. That is because they understand that the difference between spending and revenue is the deficit, something we all agree we have to get under control.
The chairman and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) understood this, too, back in 1997 when they joined 217 other Republicans to vote for a measure that put PAYGO in place; and I might add that PAYGO that they voted for in 1997 was actually stronger than the language that we are voting on today. It was statutory and they voted on a measure with Democrats, bipartisan measure, that passed a $100 billion tax cut as part of that budget agreement.
I would be interested in knowing what has changed today other than the fact that our deficit and our debt is much higher than it was back then.
Mr. Speaker, if this Congress is serious about deficit reduction, this Congress needs to stand together, and we need to vote to support the PAYGO rules that apply to both revenue and spending. Our constituents today deserve it, and future generations deserve it. I urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on this motion to instruct.
-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-
Mr. THOMPSON of California. 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.
END