Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees. 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…
Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
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.
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.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished Blue Dog colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
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
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the distinguished policy chair of the Blue Dog Coalition.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to respond.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), a distinguished Blue Dog colleague and member on the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), our Blue Dog colleague.
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. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
We are prepared to close.
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.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.