Charles W. Stenholm: “Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic but this is a very straightforward motion. It simply says to this body that if Members…”

“Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic but this is a very straightforward motion. It simply says to this body that if Members want to take credit for cutting taxes we need to take the responsibility for the increased debt as well. Or I would put it in light of the last announcement, the three new little Rohrabachers I am concerned about today and I do not want us to add $95 billion additional debt to the three new little Rohrabachers that we just applauded. This debate is not about whether or not we should end the marriage tax penalty. Every Member of this body supports marriage penalty relief. The debate is whether we should do so with borrowed money, adding more debt on top of our $7.1 trillion national debt, or paying as we go. PAYGO worked in the nineties, 1990 and 1997. I believe it will work today if we can just start enforcing it. I do not believe we should pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future. That is why I supported the Rangel substitute, which would provide for a full and permanent elimination of the marriage penalty without increasing the deficit. Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make things fit within a budget just like families across the country do every day. Unfortunately, the leadership of this House seems to have forgotten that common sense principle.”