[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 15, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     THE BALANCED-BUDGET AMENDMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Georgia). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. 
Thomas] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I want to take my time this 
morning and take advantage of this opportunity to talk about the 
balanced budget, and more specifically the balanced-budget amendment.
  This week, the House will be considering a balanced-budget amendment. 
This is an issue, it seems to me, of utmost importance to the country 
and to the future, and I am glad that we are having the debate.
  I think the basic principle is we cannot continue to expect things to 
change as we do the same things over and over again. We have been 
through this year after year after year expecting different results by 
continuing to do the same things. Obviously that principle does not 
work.
  I hope Americans will watch this debate closely, because it clearly 
defines two different philosophies of Government, two different 
philosophies about the operation of the Federal Government.
  Frankly, as we come upon an election time, that is what elections 
really ought to be. There ought to be a great debate about choices, 
general choices of how we proceed, what we expect, what our 
expectations are.
  Do we want more Government? Do we want less? Do we want more Federal 
Government? Do we want less? Do we want more taxes? Or would we like 
less? Are there appropriate roles for the Federal Government to expand? 
Could we transfer more and more of that to local government? These are 
basic debates that ought to be carried on and carried into the election 
so that we have candidates that have a philosophy.
  Obviously voters will never know of all the kinds of issues that 
Members of Congress or other elected officials will deal with, but they 
should know the philosophy against which they measure those issues, and 
that is what this great debate is about.
  Opponents of the balanced-budget amendment will come back this year 
with the usual, I think, trite, wornout statements of opposition to 
doing something about the balancing of the budget. They will have scare 
tactics, half-truths, and twisted logic. But the American people will 
not be fooled by that.
  The Chicken Little arguments that the world will end and the sky will 
come crashing in, or watered-down substitutes, will not serve a 
purpose.
  What will we hear? First of all, we will hear the defenders of the 
status quo who will tell us the amendment is not needed. Wait a minute; 
wait a minute. How many times have we balanced the budget in the last 
55 years? I think about three or four. It has been 25 years since we 
have had a balanced budget, 25, so we say, ``Oh, it is not needed, all 
we need is the political will to balance.''
  They will say that the deficit is down this year, and it is. I am 
pleased for that. Why is it down? It is down because we had the largest 
tax increase in the history of the Congress. It is down because we have 
a continuation of the 1991-92 economic growth, and that is good. It has 
increased revenue.
  Look where it is projected over the next several years, back up, $1 
trillion added to the debt. Not needed?
  Give me a break. Of course it is needed. We have to have the 
political will to do something about the process.
  In my view, we need a balanced budget amendment. We need a line-item 
veto. Those are things that we need very, very clearly.
  We will hear the notion that it is a gimmick, the balanced budget is 
a gimmick, that it does not work. Let me tell you I can certify it 
works from my State of Wyoming. We have a balanced-budget amendment in 
the constitution. We have to balance the budget. You either raise taxes 
to get more revenue, or you cut the budget to make it fit. Those are 
the appropriate decisions you have to make. That is the kind of cost-
benefit ratio that each of us ought to consider and taxpayers ought to 
have a chance to consider.

                              {time}  1040

  Defenders of the status quo will say, ``Oh, we will need draconian, 
crippling changes in the budget,'' and, ``We just can't stand doing 
that.'' The fact is that it does not insist that it be done over the 
next 3 years or 5 years, I suppose even 10 years; the important part is 
that we are on a course of a balanced budget with the constitutional 
discipline.
  So, we can take some time, and it will take some time. It will not be 
as difficult as we think, however. If you ever take a look, go back 
home in your own town or county and try to decode all the Federal 
spending that takes place there and ask yourselves with each one, ``How 
is my life impacted by that? Is my life going to end if we do not do 
that one,'' there are plenty of places to cut. Remember, this budget 
that we are talking about, the President has talked about a lot of 
tough cuts; but there are no cuts, just transfers from one program to 
another. This budget is $30 billion more than last year. There are no 
cuts. So we need to remember that.
  The status quo-ers will tell us that economic devastation would 
follow; of course that is not true. We have to make a decision as to 
what the role of the Federal Government is, whether or not the people 
in this country can take their money and spend it as they choose--that 
is, the bureaucrats--or if the American public can take it themselves 
and make a better decision. This is one of the most important basic 
philosophical decisions we will have this year, certainly, or any year, 
because it has to do not with the numbers in a budget, it has to do 
with how do you get the Government's role out of your life, how do we 
deal with the increases in entitlements, those kinds of things, as 
opposed to solving problems by putting effort into certain sectors, 
more investment for jobs so people can own their own home, so people 
can pay for their children's education, have a retirement program of 
quality, secure employment which is created in the private sector.
  So these are broad issues, issues that I think should be addressed in 
a balanced budget discussion. I hope they are. I hope we are not fooled 
by all the ideas that it will not work. In fact, it will work.

                          ____________________