[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1051-H1055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4297, TAX RELIEF EXTENSION
RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005
Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Tanner of Tennessee moves that the managers on the part
of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4297
be instructed, to the maximum extent possible within the
scope of conference, to insist on a conference report which
will neither increase the Federal budget deficit nor increase
the amount of the debt subject to the public debt limit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ryan) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this motion is very, very straightforward. It is a
motion asking our conferees to basically apply what is known as PAYGO
rules to the tax reconciliation bill that is coming over from the
Senate.
Just today, this morning, in The Washington Post, we are reminded
that President Bush said in March of 2001, ``Future generations should
not be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind
of responsibility to our children and grandchildren.''
Madam Speaker, since that time this Congress and this administration
have borrowed about $1.5 trillion in hard money in new debts. I have
been talking about this and writing about it for the last 3\1/2\ years.
We are facing a debt ceiling again and we will be forced to raise the
debt ceiling for the fourth time in the last 5 years since that
statement was made by our President about borrowing money that loads
the debt limits of all of us, including our children and grandchildren.
This new debt limit will raise how much money this country has
borrowed in additional new debt $3 trillion. I wish I was making some
of this up. But you can go to the Treasury Department's Web site at
www.PublicDebtTreasury.gov and see for yourselves. This is real. This
is happening. It is happening now. And if the budget that has been
proposed is adopted, we will go to $11 trillion dollars.
Now, Madam Speaker, I have got some more things to say about this but
last year, this is almost unbelievable but it is happening and I wish
the American public would focus on it because if they do they will be I
believe not only shocked but outraged at what the financial
mismanagement of this country has done to the financial balance sheet.
Last year the Federal deficit for 2005 was $319 billion. If you break
that down it means we here in public life in the name of every citizen
in this country borrowed $26 billion a month, $886 million a day, $36
million an hour, $615,000 a minute, and $10,200 a second.
{time} 2300
Contrast that with what our President said back in March of 2001, as
quoted in the Post this morning, when he said, ``Future generations
shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe
this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren.''
I could not agree with that statement more, but the facts absolutely
belie what that sentiment that was expressed back in 2001 was meant to
convey.
Now, if that was not bad enough, last year almost 90 percent of the
money that we had to borrow to operate the government of this country
came from overseas, came from foreigners who do not see the world as we
see it.
We are doing in this government, on behalf of the people of the
United States, something that none of us who were taught, like I was as
a young man, three things to live by. One is live within your means,
two is pay your debts, and three is invest in the future, whether it is
your own retirement, your kid's college or whatever.
This government, under this leadership, is doing none of those. We
are not living within our means, we are not paying our debts, and we
are certainly not investing in the future.
The more that we borrow, the more we degrade the tax base in this
country. We are now paying at 4 percent, since that statement was made
in 2001, we are now paying more than $55 billion a year in additional
interest checks, almost 80 percent of which is not even staying in this
country. This is not only outrageous, it is the most irresponsible
financial conduct of the fiscal affairs of this country that any
political leadership in the history of this country has engaged in such
a short period of time. That is without question.
So what is actually happening here is a weakening of our collective
ability, as expressed through the Federal Government, to do two things,
to keep this country strong, safe and, most importantly, secure. Strong
safe and secure, what do you mean when you say that?
First of all, there is no country in the history of recorded
civilization that without the ability to invest in infrastructure and
human capital remained safe, strong and secure. Infrastructure, that is
what the government must do to give private enterprise the ability to
congregate around clean water, sewer systems, highways, bridges, roads,
all of the things that go into the infrastructure of a Nation. We are
not being able to keep up with not only new infrastructure that is
needed but to repair the infrastructure we have got. If you do not
think that is important, go to any country on the planet earth that has
no infrastructure and see how many people are doing very well. Nobody
is because there is no infrastructure for private capital to invest and
to create jobs, to create the economy we all want.
Human capital, what do I mean by investing in human capital to keep
our country strong, safe and secure? I
[[Page H1052]]
mean education and health care. There is no country in recorded
civilized history that has had an unhealthy, uneducated population that
was safe, strong and secure. It is not possible. It will never happen,
and the more we degrade the tax base, the more we are less able to make
sure that the future is invested in, as I said earlier.
One of the things that is not hard to figure, it is common sense, and
that is, we had in March of 2001, when the President said we owe it to
our children and grandchildren to pay our debts, basically, we had $55
billion out of the tax base. Without raising a dime in taxes, we had
$55 billion to do these investments that we do not have today because
we have engaged in such frivolity when it comes to spending habits,
when it comes to all of the things that go into sound financial
practices, we are doing none of them.
So I am at a loss to see how anyone could say when you are going to
do this tax reconciliation bill, you simply do it in a way by cutting
wherever else one needs to to be of a lower priority to make sure that
we do not dig this hole deeper.
The chairman of the Federal Reserve today said, ``I am quite
concerned about the intermediate-to-long-term Federal budget outlook.
By holding down the growth of national saving and real capital
accumulation, the prospective increase in the budget deficit will place
at risk future living standards of our country.'' These are not my
words. These are the words of the new chairman of the Fed.
There is no question every reputable economist knows that the more we
engage in deficit spending the more the tax base is degraded, the less
able the country is to meet the challenges to keep us strong, safe and
secure.
We voted earlier today about the Dubai ports deal, and that was a
matter of national security. We are going to turn around tonight, if we
do not adopt this motion to instruct and the conferees do not adhere to
it, we are going to turn around and continue to mortgage this country
to anybody on the planet earth that will let us have money on the
cheap. I believe it is a national security issue, as I have said many
times on this floor. At some point our creditors, particularly the
Chinese and perhaps the OPEC countries, the Caribbean banking center,
at some point they are going to get tired of taking our paper, and I
believe this Dubai thing is one of the first signs of it. They are
going to stop buying our debt, and they are going to want to buy
equity, and they will have the ability to do it because of the
profligacy of this Congress and this administration in refusing,
absolutely refusing, deliberately refusing to balance the books.
Let me say one other thing. The GAO reports that 16 of 23 Federal
agencies cannot produce an audit. You know why? Because there is no
check here. You have got a compliant Congress, a friendly
administration, money's leaving Washington through a fire hose, and
Congress is not even asking the administration what are you doing with
the money. If they did ask, they could not tell you.
There are four agencies of the Federal Government where the IG,
Inspector General, says on the front page of the audit, we disclaim any
knowledge as to whether or not what we are telling you is true. We
cannot balance the books. We cannot even tell how much money is being
spent for anything.
Do you think Congress is investigating any of that? No, not one
hearing with an Inspector General drug up here and say what did you do
with the money.
The Blue Dogs have a 12-point plan because the budget process around
here is so broken. I will not go into all 12 of them. Some of them are
less important than the others, but there are two that are particularly
important. One is accountability. Accountability, what did you do with
the money? If you cannot tell us, you are not going to get it next
year.
Every businessperson in this country knows what I am talking about.
When they go to their comptroller and say here is a $10,000
expenditure, what is it; if the comptroller said, I cannot tell you, he
would not be there and that company would not be in business. That is
what is happening here. Why would you not put up with that in your
private business, and yet the people of this country not only tolerate
it but, in some cases, encourage the behavior of this irresponsible
government as it relates to keeping up with the money we are already
taking away from the taxpayers involuntarily in the form of taxation
and not even asking what happened to it? Replete, replete with
instances of total incompetency.
FEMA, Hurricane Katrina, $10 million to rehab a military barracks and
house six people. This is insane, and that is what is going on here.
So all we are asking in this motion is whatever you do on the tax
bill, for goodness sake, do not continue to borrow money to cut taxes.
That is a sure ticket to financial ruin, and not only that, it is not a
tax cut. It is a tax increase because next year we will begin to pay
interest on that, and that will add to the $55 billion. I tell you, it
is a road to financial ruin what we are on.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Scott), my dear friend.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank very much my
distinguished friend from Tennessee. It is a pleasure and, quite
frankly, an honor to be on the floor with you tonight to talk about
this extraordinary problem and crisis that this country is faced with.
Without question, you are absolutely right. We cannot have national
security if we do not have financial security, and we do not have
financial security today. Now, let me just tell you and I hope the
American people are paying attention to us tonight because we are here
to state some important truths and facts about the financial health of
this country, and our financial health is not well.
This President, this administration and this Republican-controlled
Congress is heading us straight down the path of financial ruin and
financial disaster.
Let me just give you one very salient point. Under this President,
this Republican-controlled Congress, we have borrowed more money from
foreign governments and from foreign interests than all of the
preceding 42 Presidents in the history of the United States. Hear me
again. If that does not wake you up and let you know that we are headed
for disaster, this President, this Republican-controlled Congress has
borrowed more money from foreign governments and foreign financial
institutions than all of the preceding past 42 Presidents.
That means that since 1789, the very beginning of this country, to
the year 2000, 211 years, through the Revolutionary War, through the
foundation of the country, through the Spanish-American War, through
the Civil War, through the Mexican War, through World War I, through a
depression, through World War II, the Vietnam War, through the Korean
War, through all of the upheavals, the economic downturns of this great
country, through all of that, yet this President in the last 5 years
has borrowed more money from foreign governments than all of our
previous Presidents in this history. That is phenomenal. That lets you
know that we are in serious, serious trouble.
As I have said time and time again, no greater founding father was
there than Alexander Hamilton who founded the financial system of our
country, and it was Alexander Hamilton who said, Woe be it unto this
country if we fall under the heel of our finances being controlled by
foreign interests. Alexander Hamilton himself was a foreigner, as were
many of the Founding Fathers of this country. They understood that, and
here we are today beholden on our financial security.
Here are the facts. In the last 211 years, from 1789 to 2000, under
42 Presidents, this country borrowed $1.01 trillion. In the last 5
years, under this Republican President and this Republican-led
Congress, we have borrowed $1.05 trillion. That is not healthy. That is
not the way you have got to go to have a solid country, and now we are
here saying we are going to raise the debt ceiling so that we can
borrow more. We are dealing with a budget that is ratcheted with
devastating cuts time after time.
As the gentleman from Tennessee pointed out, just look at how this
Nation is aching and hurting from the mismanagement of Katrina.
Families still devastated, an entire important coastline of this
country devastated.
[[Page H1053]]
{time} 2315
And we cannot even deal with that. And some of the very programs,
community block grants, being cut. Aid to our veterans, talk about
national security, being cut by $2.1 billion. Help to our farmers, to
help them with the drought, to help them with the devastation of
Katrina, cut, all for the purpose of making unwise tax cuts to the top
10 percent of the wealthy in this country permanent at a time of such
great uncertainty.
And then to borrow the rest of the money for the tax cuts from, guess
where, from China, from Japan, from India and from OPEC. Now, let me
tell you how serious this is, ladies and gentlemen. The U.S. is
becoming too increasingly dependent on foreign lenders for our debt. We
are handing over this country on a platter to foreign countries. The
Dubai Ports deal was just the beginning, just the tip of the iceberg.
And I just want to say how proud I am to say I am a United States
Congressman. Because finally this Congress stood up to this
administration, both Democrats and Republicans, and said no, no more,
and turned down that Dubai Ports deal. Can you imagine? How unwise, to
turn our port security over. Even the thought of it.
And that is what disturbs me so much when we talk about security.
When you talk about national security and financial security, that is
the number one issue on the minds of America today. Two things: Can
this government keep us safe as a country? Can they keep us alive? Can
they keep our lives safe, and then can they keep our money safe? Well,
you can't keep our money safe; you certainly can't keep our lives safe.
And that is the particular situation we are in today.
Let me just tell you how serious this issue is. Foreign lenders hold
a total of $2.174 trillion of our public debt. And quite honestly, in
the last 10 years, they hold 90 percent of it. In other words, every
dime that we are using for our government right now we are borrowing it
from China and India. Japan, for example, now owns $682.8 billion of
our debt. China owns $250 billion of our debt. England, the United
Kingdom, owns $223 billion. The Caribbean Banking Center owns $115.3
billion. Taiwan, $71.3 billion. OPEC countries, OPEC, already in the
Middle East we are so dependent on oil that they are holding us hostage
on that now, but some of these same companies are holding our debt.
America, wake up. We have got to begin to step forward and take
responsibility for our financial house. I am here to tell you there is
nothing more important than keeping our money straight. Lord knows, if
the American people across this country, if they ran their little
families, if they ran their businesses the way we are running this
government, it would be bankrupt.
So I am delighted to be here tonight to join with my distinguished
colleague, Mr. Tanner, to talk about this issue. Because I believe that
it is the number one issue facing the survival of this country. And let
me just say this. If you look through the history books, John, the
history books are cluttered with the wreckage of so many great
civilizations. And on the wretched bones of those great civilizations
are written those pathetic words: Too late. They moved too late to save
themselves.
Let us not move too late in this country. The American people are
expecting us not to move too late, and we must not. And one of the
first steps is to follow your lead and get some sanity. Let us instruct
the conference committee to not increase the debt and let us not raise
the debt ceiling limit.
Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to instruct. May I inquire as to how much time is left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Drake). The gentleman from Tennessee
has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 30
minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I appreciate a lot of what the two gentlemen have said, the gentleman
from Georgia and the gentleman from Tennessee. A lot of it I agree
with. And the Blue Dogs traditionally here in Congress have been
joining with a lot of us fiscal conservatives on this side of the aisle
to work for some of these budget reforms, and I hope in the future, in
this session, that we could see a merger on budget process reforms to
improve the quality of our budgets that we have here.
Tonight, we are talking about this motion to instruct. This motion to
instruct I think is misguided in a few ways. Number one, I think it is
hitting the wrong target. If the problem is with the budget that we
pass and the results of those budgets, then the target ought to be the
budget resolution. The budget resolution has already passed.
I think it is very noteworthy to point out the fact that last year's
budget resolution, and we are negotiating this year's now, but last
year's budget resolution, for the first time since modern budgeting,
actually reduced domestic spending. It reduced nonsecurity
discretionary spending. So we actually passed one of the most frugal
budgets ever passed since we created the 1974 Budget Act here in
Congress.
So we are on a path of being very frugal with the taxpayers' dollars.
But what this motion to instruct is about is the tax bill. More
importantly, this discusses cutting taxes. And the claim in this motion
to instruct or the inference in this motion to instruct is that we
shouldn't be cutting taxes; that we should take pressure off of cutting
taxes. It is very important to point out that this tax bill really
doesn't cut taxes, it simply stops taxes from being increased. It stops
tax cuts from going away.
What we did in 2003, and it is important to remember, we came in to a
recession in this country. We had the Enron scandal, the dot com bubble
burst, the recession hit, 9/11. We got hit really hard as an American
economy. The American people got hit hard. What is so wonderful about
the story that has occurred since 2003 is the resiliency of the
American people, the American entrepreneurs, the families, the farmers,
the businesses, and of the American economy.
But there is one thing that happened in 2003 to get that going, to
get our economy back on track, to get our budgets going in the right
direction, and that was the tax cuts. Now, this chart shows where we
were as an economy prior to the tax cuts that occurred in 2003.
Now, if you take a look at the left side of this chart, the average
economic growth rate in America, the 10 quarters before, going back to
2001, the 10 quarters before the tax cuts was 1.3 percent. This is
where the recession was. We had very anemic growth. We were losing
hundreds of thousands of jobs in America every month during this
recession.
So what did Congress do to respond to this? Congress did cut taxes
and cut taxes across the board. We cut taxes on families, cut taxes on
businesses, cut taxes on savings for seniors, cut taxes on capital
formation which creates jobs, like capital gains and dividends and
business expensing. But what happened after those tax cuts? Since the
enactment of these tax cuts, the unemployment rate fell from 6.3
percent in June of 2003, the high, to 4.8 percent. Since the enactment
of these tax cuts, we have gained nearly 5 million net new jobs in
America. What this shows you is the average growth rate of our economy
for the 10 quarters since the tax cuts has been 3.9 percent.
So take a look at what happened in America. We had the recession, the
dot com bubble, the 9/11 terrorist attack, and we went into a recession
and our economy was sputtering. We were growing at an average of 1.3
percent and losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. When we cut taxes on
the American people, on the American economy, we had a huge rebound
right away. Right away the economy kicked into gear, produced jobs and
has grown at an average rate of 3.9 percent, faster than the national
average for the history of our economy. Five million new jobs were
created.
Now, one of the other things that occurred was during that time,
because of the dot com bubble, because of the Enron scandal, the stock
market really fell. And who really got hit by that were seniors and
savers. There are so many seniors that I have talked with in my
district, in the first Congressional District of Wisconsin, who
literally saw their savings portfolio, in
[[Page H1054]]
that period of 2001 to 2003, cut in half; wiped away by 60 percent.
One of the things we were so worried about was the fact that senior
citizens and their pension plans and their 401(k)'s and their IRAs had
so much less value in their savings that they had much less to live on.
So we went immediately to act, and what we did was we reduced tax rates
on capital, tax rates on the things that stocks matter, which is
capital gains and dividends.
What happened after that? Since the enactment of these 2003 tax cuts,
the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased by 27 percent and now is
back to where it was before the crash of the market. So we were able to
build back that growth in savings for most of the seniors who rely on
that, for the pension funds, for the 401(k)'s, so people could get
their retirement savings back.
Those are some of the fundamental tax cuts that are in this tax bill.
See, if we do nothing, taxes go up. If this motion to instruct would
see its way through, taxes would go up. The effect of this motion to
instruct is to say, do not prevent these tax increases. And if you do
want to prevent these tax increases, you will have to raise taxes
somewhere else to prevent these other tax increases. I think that is
bad economic policy.
Now, where we need to improve is on spending. We need to bring the
deficit down, and that is where the three of us are going to agree.
That is where the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from
Tennessee and I will clearly agree. Our deficit is too high. Our debt
is far too high and we have to get it going in the other direction.
But, what has happened since 5 million net new jobs were created
since 2003? What happened since the economy grew at such a faster rate?
What actually happened was revenues increased. So when we cut tax
rates, you would have thought that revenues would have gone down. In
fact, the budget estimators here in Congress and in the administration
said, we know that if you cut taxes, we think revenues will go down.
Even though that may happen, it is important to get us out of the
recession.
So back then we used this estimating measuring stick and our
estimates predicted that revenues would go down if we cut taxes. We
still cut taxes because we wanted to get people back to work. But what
happened was the opposite occurred. Revenues went up. Revenues from
capital gains taxes went up, even though the rate was lower. Revenues
from marginal income tax rates went up, even though the rate was lower.
Revenues from corporations surged by 47 percent last year alone, even
at lower tax rates.
What happened was, just last year alone our tax revenues went up 15
percent. The year before they went up. So as a consequence of that, the
budget deficit went down by 23 percent in 2004 and went down by 25
percent in 2005 from their projections. So the budget deficit
projections actually went down because revenues went up, because people
went back to work. They went from collecting unemployment to having a
job and paying taxes.
That is good economic policy. It is good budget policy. And to
reverse that by raising taxes would be bad economic policy but also bad
budget policy. Where we need to focus is on the spending side of the
ledger.
If you want to put it into perspective, the size of these tax cuts,
and I want to rephrase that again, the tax cuts are simply preventing
tax increases, the size of these tax cuts are $70 billion out of a 5-
year budget that will spend $14 trillion. Next year's tax cuts, or to
put it another way, to prevent tax increases from occurring next year
amounts to $11 billion out of a budget that will spend $2.7 trillion.
Let me just read a list of some of the tax policies that would go
away if this were to see its way through.
{time} 2330
AMT relief for personal tax credits; State and local sales tax
deduction. That is a huge issue in States like Tennessee and Texas and
others. Research and development tax credit, a big job producer. Above-
the-line deduction for higher education expenses; work opportunity tax
credit; the welfare-to-work tax credit; savings accounts; enhanced 179
expensing for small businesses that allows small businesses to write
off investments in their plant and equipment so they can create new
jobs. Brownfield expensing to clean up environmental catastrophe areas;
capital gains and dividends, the very tax cuts that have actually
increased economic growth, produced jobs and increased tax revenues to
the Federal Government.
So, at the end of the day, I think we are going to have a difference
of philosophy when we talk about this. We may agree on the need to
reduce spending. I hope we have agreement. But what we do not agree on
this side of the aisle is the wrong thing to do to the American
taxpayer today is to raise their taxes.
The problem here is not that Washington taxes too much; the problem
here is that Washington spends too much. That is what we should focus
on. The pressure should be on spending, not on raising taxes. I am
sorry, but the effect of this motion to instruct would be to do just
that.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We do agree on some things, but part of what we heard is Lewis
Carroll: What is up is down and what is down is up. This is Alice in
Wonderland.
When he says the budget deficits are going in the right direction
because they are less than the projection, they are the largest budget
deficits in the history of the United States.
Let me read something. He talks about spending. The Republicans have
had total control of the Federal Government here for the last 5 years.
This is from the CATO Institute. President Bush has presided over the
largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted Federal spending since
the late 1960s. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland
security, President Bush is still the biggest spending President in
over 30 years. His 2006 budget does not cut enough spending to change
his place in history, either. Total government spending grew by 33
percent during Bush's first term. The Federal budget as the share of
economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton's last day in office
to 20.3 percent by the end of President Bush's first term. The
Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat.
Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest
programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent, and
yet somehow they say spending is a problem.
They have total control. The Democrats have not spent any money in
this House in over 10 years. We cannot. We do not have enough votes.
This motion says nothing about raising taxes. It says offset whatever
tax revenue reduction you are going to make by spending cuts. That is
what has not happened. In fact, it has gotten worse.
When President Bush came to town in 2001, in July of that year this
country embarked on President Bush's economic plan for the country.
Based on a series of assumptions over the next 10 years that would
yield a $5 trillion surplus. Well, 2 months later, we had 9/11. Instead
of readjusting the economic game plan because every assumption that was
made in July of 2001 was suddenly not valid months later in September
of 2001, instead of adjusting, what has happened, a compliant Congress
and a friendly administration have simply borrowed the difference. We
are doing something that people have tried to do since the dawn of
civilization and that is borrow themselves rich. It is impossible.
When you cut taxes with borrowed money, you are actually raising
taxes. We have raised taxes $55 billion a year every year from now on
under this economic game plan because it is interest that we have to
pay, and we have to pay it off the top. It is not unlike a credit card.
You run your credit card up, you can live pretty good for a little
while. But when you have to pay that monthly interest and your monthly
payment is only covering the interest, suddenly you cannot invest in
anything using that credit card because the service charges are eating
you alive. That is exactly what is happening with this government.
All this motion to instruct says, whatever you do with the tax
reconciliation bill, do not add to the Federal deficit and do not pile
more money on
[[Page H1055]]
the debt of our citizens. It is that simple. If they cannot figure it
out, maybe they should not be running the place.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, first, I want to respond to
something my distinguished colleague from the other side said. Now you
talk about smoke and mirrors. For him to say on our side that we are
talking about raising taxes is so disingenuous. Nobody is talking about
raising taxes. We are talking about fiscal responsibility and pay-as-
you-go responsibilities.
We are saying that we do not want to cut vital services to the
American people and then go borrow more money that we have to pay
interest on. That, in effect, when you put it altogether, if anybody is
talking about raising taxes, it is the Republicans. Somebody has to pay
for this. You know who is going to pay for it, our grandchildren and
our children based on their proposals.
No, sir, you are not going to be able to depend on Democrats this
night that we are talking about raising taxes. Democrats are talking
about keeping our taxes low and bringing fiscal responsibility back to
this House.
You talk about responsibility. When Democrats were in control, when
President Clinton was there, he left a several trillion dollar surplus.
In just 5 years, this President and this Republican-led Congress has
squandered that surplus. So when you talk about who is more responsible
for the taxpayers' money, it is Democrats, not Republicans. And the
American people are not going to be fooled by this smoke and mirrors of
consistently trying to paint the Democrats as being for raising taxes
and they for not. The Republicans are for raising taxes and raising the
debt ceiling.
Madam Speaker, I want to show this chart. It is not as big as your
chart, but the Republicans have increased the debt limit by $3
trillion. I have been here 4 years, and this is the fourth time that
the Republicans have asked to raise the debt ceiling so they can borrow
more money.
In June, 2002, they asked to raise the debt ceiling by $452 billion.
In May, 2003, they asked to raise the debt ceiling by $984 billion. In
November of 2004, they raised the debt ceiling by $800 billion, all of
which we are borrowing against, against the best national security
interests of this country, against the best financial security
interests of this country.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I hope the gentleman appreciates the fact that I yielded him a minute
to beat me up some more.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, let me assure the gentleman it
was not beating him up. He is a great gentleman, but it is some of the
policies that have been emanating from the gentleman's leadership.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, a couple of points.
Number one, as a percentage of this economy, this is not the largest
deficit we have had in history, which is the statistic that matters.
But you know what? This deficit is too big because it is a deficit,
period.
Number two, if you do not pass this tax bill, taxes automatically go
up. That means they are increased. Here is what this tax bill does: It
prevents these tax cuts from going away. Said another way, it keeps
taxes where they are so they do not automatically increase because the
law requires that taxes go up next year, the year after, and the year
after that.
So the concern we have is that because we lowered taxes, got economic
growth going again, created new jobs, it actually increased revenues to
the Federal Government and lowered our deficit projections. The concern
we have is let us focus on spending, not taking more money out of the
pocketbooks of our constituents. Let us not take a bigger bite of the
paychecks of the workers of America by taking more of their tax
dollars. Let us prevent these tax increases from hitting the American
people and let us focus on the real problem, spending.
So if you try to defeat this tax bill, you are basically saying we
want taxes to increase. Or if you want to offset it, you are saying to
prevent tax increases we need to increase taxes. That does not make a
lot of sense.
So the point is we have probably a fundamental disagreement. We
believe that we should not raise taxes on people. We believe that the
more money a person has in their paycheck, the more money a person has
in their pocketbook and wallet and their business, the more successful
they are going to be, the more freedom they have, the more prosperous
they will be and the better our economy will be. And its impact on our
budget deficits is a beneficial one, usually, because it means there
are more revenues coming to the government.
Nevertheless, we should not look at it as an opportunity to spend. We
should look at this good economic news we have right now, the fact that
the economy is growing, people are going back to work and paying taxes,
we should look at this as a moment to make sure we do not spend as much
money so we can reduce the deficit and pay down our debt. That is what
it is all about at the end of the day.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the dialogue and the debate. I urge a no
vote on this motion to instruct.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Drake). 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 Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. TANNER. Madam 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.
____________________