[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 16, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). Pursuant to House Resolution 331,
the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the further consideration of the joint
resolution, House Joint Resolution 103.
{time} 1417
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 103) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the U.S. Government
and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax legislation,
with Mr. Skaggs in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, we
were in general debate on House Joint Resolution 103.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the well of the House today
somewhat reluctantly but in strong support of the approach of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] to our monetary difficulties.
Since 1974, Mr. Chairman, the country, through the Congress, has
weighed this Budget Act for deficit spending over 600 times. We, as
history will conclude, collectively, both administrations, Democrat or
Republican, and the Congress, whether it was Democratically controlled
in the House or the Senate, both or one, have been unable, with the
collective advice and consent of the citizens of this country, the
voters of this country, to bring our financial house in order.
There are two factors about this debt that concern me. No. 1, it is
relative. A $4 trillion debt to a $7 trillion economy is one thing. A
$4 trillion debt to a $15 trillion economy is somewhat less severe.
{time} 1420
Our economy needs to grow and our debt needs to stay the same or
stable.
The second thing that bothers me most about this debt is that we have
mortgaged our country. In 1979 to 1980, about 8.9 cents out of every
revenue dollar went to pay interest on our national debt. Today we are
paying 14.5, almost 15 cents of every revenue dollar as interest on the
national debt. What we and others who have come before us and the
people who return us here have done is mortgaged our home, our country,
from an 8-percent rate in 1980 to an almost 15-percent rate today. That
cannot continue. We now, even with the Budget Act that was passed last
year, are headed toward a 15, 16, or 17-percent mortgage rate on our
country.
It has been suggested that we cannot get to a balanced budget if we
do just a yearly balanced budget by 2001. As the gentleman from Texas
has suggested, we still have a $4 trillion debt, and that will go to $5
or perhaps $6 trillion by the year 2000. So we have a debt, no matter
what we do here today. We just cannot continue raising the interest
rate and continue to mortgage our country. That is why I think the time
has come for us to collectively put everything on the table. I think we
are going to have to do something about our debt and our deficit, and
we are going to start today.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote that
if he could add just one amendment to the Constitution, it would be a
prohibition against Congress borrowing money.
Such an amendment, he reasoned, would defend the American people from
the tyranny of government by keeping the Federal Government within its
constitutional bounds. If Jefferson thought taxation without
representation was bad, he should see it with representation.
Unfortunately, Mr. Jefferson never got his amendment and the
Government we have now is the culmination of his fears--a bloated and
ineffective mass that stretches its constitutional authority to the
limit.
How bad is it? This year, with the introduction of his budget, Bill
Clinton claimed his administration's policies had solved the budget
crisis.
His Director of OMB, Leon Panetta, stated that Republicans would have
killed to be able to offer this budget.
And we have been exposed to Democrat after Democrat crowing about the
strength of the economy and their success at cutting the deficit.
What were they all cheering about?
According to Clinton's budget, the deficit will fall to $175 billion
next year. Then it will rise to $182 billion in 1997, $256 billion in
2001, and $365 billion in 2004.
In Washington, this is considered success.
Obviously, something stronger is needed.
Despite these awesome numbers, some groups still oppose the balanced
budget amendment.
First, they fear a balanced budget amendment will tie the hands of
Congress and force it to cut some programs in order to fund others.
In other words, they fear that Congress will have set priorities and
stick with them.
That is not an argument against a balanced budget amendment. It's an
argument for it.
If special interest groups object to the balanced budget amendment
because it would restrict Congress' ability to spend and make the
budget process less flexible let's pass it quickly.
Unrestricted, flexible spending is what created the deficit in the
first place.
Second, there are those groups who question the effectiveness of a
balanced budget amendment. They claim it is just a feel-good measure
which will fail to reduce the deficit and will add lots of unnecessary
detail to the Constitution.
Someone should get the opponents of the amendment together and let
them know their arguments contradict each other.
Which is it? Will the balanced budget amendment will work or not?
The answer is the balanced budget amendment will establish the
framework under which Congress will have to make its spending
decisions.
Congress will still have to make the spending decisions, but it will
be done without the open-ended funding option now available.
Mr. Chairman, this is the third time in the last 4 years the House
will vote on a balanced budget amendment.
Four years ago opponents of the balanced budget amendment argued that
Congress didn't need the amendment to balance our budget. We have the
power right now, they argued, to deal with our deficit without amending
the Constitution.
The House defeated the amendment by seven votes.
Since then, the Federal debt has grown by over $1 trillion.
Two years ago, opponents of the balanced budget amendment argued that
the amendment would demean the Constitution, tie Congress' hands, and
hurt the economy.
The House defeated the amendment by nine votes.
Since then, the Federal debt has grown by over $500 billion.
Mr. Chairman, let us end this deficit madness. Let us allow future
generations of Americans to decide for themselves how they want to
spend their money.
The balanced budget amendment is not the final answer to our fiscal
problems, but it will provide a measure of discipline that doesn't
exist now. For that reason, I applaud this effort and strongly support
the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend,
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
(Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise his remarks.)
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], or the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Barton]--any of those or all of the above.
Mr. Chairman, I have 23 grandchildren and not 1 of them has lived a
single day under a balanced Federal budget. That says something is
wrong. That says it's time to change the way Congress does business.
A balanced budget amendment would force us to change: force us to
make the hard choices we should have been making all along; it's the
right thing to do.
Still, there are those today, squawking away like dime store parrots,
who say we don't need a balanced budget amendment. Before you listen to
their song, take a close look at who they are and why they're
squawking.
Sure, the hogs on the bill--the Washington big spenders--say we do
not need an amendment. They say we can balance the budget without it.
Twenty-five years of red ink say they're wrong. The truth is that they
don't want to quit spending.
Plenty of other folks around the country; folks riding high on the
taxpayer gravy train, are squawking, saying we do not need a balanced
budget amendment. The truth is that pigs feeding at the trough never
like to be interrupted.
And then there are the so-called senior citizen advocates who are
peddling fear to senior citizens by telling them a balanced budget
amendment would threaten Social Security benefits. This is an outright
lie--an outrageous lie.
The truth is that a balanced budget amendment would be the finest
guarantee possible that the Federal Government will, in fact, be able
to honor its commitments to our senior citizens when we get down the
road 10, 20, or 30 years from now.
The largest threat to Social Security is and always has been deficit
spending.
We need a balanced budget amendment to protect Social Security; to
stop the gravy train; and to slow down the hogs on the hill.
But most of all, we need a balanced budget amendment for our children
and our grandchildren. Don't mortgage our children's futures and don't
bury our grandchildren's dreams under another 25 years of red ink and
broken promises.
This amendment is change. This amendment is reform. This amendment is
a bright neon promise to our children--our grandchildren--and to all
future generations that Congress has finally gotten the message--it's
the national debt stupid.
I urge my colleagues to ignore the squawking and vote for reform--for
change--and for a balanced budget for our children.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Levy].
Mr. LEVY. Mr. Chairman, with the Nation drowning in a sea of red ink,
the debate in which we engage this afternoon may be the most important
discussion that we have in this Congress. And I hope that the American
people are watching, Mr. Speaker, because today we find out who has
been sincere--and who has not--when they said that the Government
spends too much.
This is the day in which we learn who thinks that, like every
American family, the Government should stop borrowing to finance day-
to-day operations except in extraordinary circumstances.
It's the day on which we learn who believes that the Federal
Government ought to conduct itself like 90 percent of our States have
to--by balancing their books every year and reducing spending levels so
as not to exceed the moneys that are available.
Now, many people will come to the floor today to say that we don't
need a balanced budget amendment.
It's OK, they say, to routinely spend more money than we have. And
apparently, they do believe that.
We need a balanced budget amendment. It's the only way that we will
reduce the deficit that Congress has created.
Think about it: If every person in America sent Washington a check
for $17,000--if every family of four sent in $68,000 tomorrow--we'd
still be in debt. And that is true because the men and women who have
served in this Chamber--and in the Senate--haven't had the discipline
to say ``no'' when asked to spend money that their country did not
have.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address some comments to the senior citizens
who have been told that a balanced budget amendment threatens the
services and benefits that they receive from their Government.
In fact, my friends, your benefits are in jeopardy. But it is not
what we talk about today that threatens you. It is the rising Federal
debt. It is the interest payments we make on the debt--the hundreds of
billions of dollars that we pay because we have borrowed so much--that
threatens every Federal program. We have got to stop.
Let us bring an end to fiscal irresponsibility. Support the balanced
budget amendment.
announcement by the chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to remind the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Levy] that under the rules of the House he should address his
comments to the Chair and not to an audience outside the Chamber.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to say this:
I would just say for the benefit of the previous two speakers that
nobody disagrees that one of the best things we can do for all
citizens, including senior citizens, is to reduce interest and to keep
interest rates down, because reducing the deficit benefits everyone.
But I have to keep coming back and challenging them with this: I ask,
why do we not just give senior citizens the ultimate guarantee, and
that is take it off budget. We do deficit reduction and we take it off
budget, which is exactly what the Wise-Pomeroy-Price-Furse-Byrne-Eshoo
amendment does.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Virginia [Mrs. Byrne], who can speak knowledgeably on
that subject.
(Mrs. BYRNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
{time} 1600
Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Wise balanced
budget amendment and in opposition to the Stenholm and other Republican
amendments. As a former Member of the Virginia State Assembly Finance
Committee, I helped balance seven consecutive State budgets. We did not
do it because it was easy. We did not say to the voters that we had all
the answers. We did it because Virginians demand that we keep our
fiscal house in order and our Constitution says it.
Forty-nine out of fifty States balance their budgets. Millions of
businesses and families every year balance their budgets. I do not
think we even need to talk any more about whether the Federal
Government should be made to do the same. Of course, it should.
The question is are we going to give the Federal Government the same
tools that States, the private sector, and families use to balance
their budgets?
If we vote for the Stenholm amendment, I believe the answer is no.
These plans continue the same budgetary shell game that has been played
for decades. The Federal Government holds the notion that there is no
difference between the money they borrow to pay yearly expenses and the
money they spend on long-term investment.
No business, no family in the country, budgets this way, certainly no
State governments. Businesses borrow to build factories; families
borrow to buy homes; and States borrow to build prisons and roads. They
all make sure that their operating budgets are balanced, while their
long-term expenses are amortized over the useful lives of their
investment. They know the difference between investment and
overspending, but the Federal Government has never caught on.
Today on the floor we have heard at least three references to Mr.
Jefferson's abhorrence of debt. As a gentlewoman from Virginia, I can
tell you as President Jefferson, he borrowed $15 million for the
Louisiana Purchase and did so without congressional authorization, but
that is another story.
The fact is that Mr. Jefferson, as President Jefferson, knew that for
the expansion and the great necessity of this country, we had to make
investment. We had to do it. There are those times when we should do
it, and let us not confuse those times with our operating debt.
Including capital expenditures in the budget is an one-time, fits-all
approach to budgeting that will create a constitutional tourniquet that
will cripple our strong economy and cost jobs for this Nation. Even
worse, the Stenholm and other Republican amendments continue the
accounting trick that turns the Social Security trust fund into money
that government uses to offset the debt and to mask that deficit.
But, Mr. Chairman, Social Security is not the government's money.
Social Security belongs to the people who paid into the system. If you
are truly serious about saying that this will not affect Social
Security, then take it out of the picture. There is only one way to
take Social Security out of the picture, and that is to vote for the
Wise amendment.
The other plans that are available, let Government continue to use
more false numbers and make more false promises. Their supporters claim
they are doing just what other States do, but if we hold the Federal
Government to the same standards as the States, let us give them the
same rules. The only amendment that will allow Government to make
investments in the future, while keeping accounting honest, is the Wise
amendment, and I ask for its support.
Mr. WISE. If the gentlewoman will yield, I appreciate her statement
very much, and particularly her history lesson. Is it not a bit ironic
that there are some in this Chamber who would urge a balanced budget
amendment, and yet they are from the area encompassed by the Louisiana
Purchase. Had Jefferson carried out what they said he meant, they would
be using a voting card in Paris in order to vote on behalf of their
constituency.
Mrs. BYRNE. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman that I
am sure that President Jefferson knew that he had an opportunity to
make this country greater, and he took it. And when he looked at
deficit spending in theory, I am sure he did not anticipate those kinds
of capital expenditures when he did become President. So indeed it is
an irony that those same people who would support not having a capital
improvements budget, would also not be here if the Louisiana purchase
were not made, if they followed Jefferson's prescription.
Mr. WISE. If the gentlewoman will yield further, it is true as well,
and I thank the gentlewoman, that the only amendment on the floor
during this debate and that will be voted on that has a capital
budgeting provision and permits those kinds of expenditures that have a
long term economic return is the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Byrne-Eshoo-Furse
substitute.
Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is the only one
that has a capital budget and the only one that absolutely guarantees
that Social Security will not be a part of this discussion.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to congratulate the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Wise] and the Gang of 6 that have joined together in
this effort to offer a constitutional amendment that I think really
faces up to the problem that we have in this country of sustained long-
term annual deficits, but does it in a way that I think is very
realistic and fair in the traditional analogy that is always made to
the budgets of our States and localities.
Amending the Constitution does not provide a major stumbling block
for me personally. I think there is nothing inappropriate about having
in the Federal Constitution language similar to what exists in many of
our States on the question of annual deficits. Discipline might be
actually advanced if we had such a provision.
But what I am concerned about is the constant analogy that we face
that pretends that the budget that we have at the Federal level is
similar to the kinds of budgets we have at the State and local level.
In my view, that is just not the case.
So I have serious concerns about the Stenholm proposal, and I think
the proposal that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] and the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price], and others have put
together, really does go to some of the essential differences that
ought to be included in any amendment that we would adopt.
First of all, I think we all understand that many of our States have
general or operating funds which are in balance, but which have large
capital budgets which are accounted for in a totally different way.
We at the Federal level, of course, put them all into one pot. We
have I think, an impossible task in the short run, certainly, if we are
to take the concept of a balanced budget and apply it to our system.
Because not one, and this is really the bottom line, of the States has
a balanced budget requirement like the one that the Stenholm proposal
would mandate for the Federal Government.
Forty-eight percent of all total spending in 1992 was of the general
fund or operating fund type. That is, I think, a very different
environment than what we face here. And I would hope that all of us who
really believe that we have got to be more honest about the way we
budget would begin by creating a concept of a capital or investment
budget that is included in this proposal.
The reason I think this is the most intellectually honest one though
is that we should not take the annual cost of paying that debt off
budget. The Wise-Price budget amendment will make sure that we factor
into our annual operating budget, should their amendment be adopted,
the cost of servicing that debt, which should be considered every time
we incur it, just as it is at the State level when legislators vote to
put on the State ballot a bond act for any number of positive purposes.
In addition, I cannot support a super majority. A three-fifths vote,
or any vote beyond a majority, it seems to me, strikes at the
fundamental principles of majority rule.
My State of California annually ties itself in knots during the
budget process because, I think like only five other States, it
requires a two-thirds majority to pass a budget. In recent years, the
Governor, a Republican, has been unable even to get most members of his
Republican minority in the legislature to support his budget
resolution.
Last year, that impasse was resolved more quickly because the public
outcry over gridlock in Sacramento reached such a point that both
parties concluded it would be appropriate once and for all to put aside
the annual budget battle for the good of the order.
{time} 1440
But whether it be for personal or political or policy reasons, too
often a minority, for reasons perhaps even unrelated to the issue at
hand, the passage of the annual budget, can tie the process of
legislating, of governing, in fact, up into such a tight knot that
nothing gets done. And while that may serve the interests of a few, in
the long run it does nothing but undermine public trust in government.
If we were to take a step in the enactment of the Stenholm amendment
to further complicate the process of passing the most important
document anybody enacts in any given fiscal year, it seems to me we
would be taking not only a step back toward gridlock but moving in the
direction of further reducing public trust in the institutions that we
serve in.
It seems to me, as well, that last but not least, we really do need
to look at Social Security as a separate program. We understand that
Social Security runs surpluses at times in order to cover the needs of
the baby boom generation, perhaps, that is coming in the next century
and burdening us at a time when taxpayers will have enough on their
plate but to absorb a rapid increase in some sort of payroll tax.
So we adjust our income, our revenue from Social Security to fit the
demographics of the time we are part of. This is not a trust fund in
the traditional sense of a pension fund, but it is a revolving fund
that has historically meant to seniors, in fact, all who hope to become
seniors in our society, that we will, in fact, have money for them when
they are eligible. It seems to me that we ought not to expose Social
Security to the kind of cuts that would be perhaps required under a
draconian imposition of the Stenholm constitutional amendment.
I think we are all aware that it is going to take time for us to get
to a point where even any of these amendments could be adopted and
implemented, because, in fact, while we are moving in the right
direction, now with the lowest deficits since 1978 in real economic
terms, with a 40-percent reduction over the deficit anticipated under
the last administration for the next fiscal year, while we are moving
in the right direction for deficit reduction, we are going to have to
stay the course And we are going to have to avoid, frankly, spending on
many things that would be preferable and desirable in our society. But
we are not going to be able to get the ultimate point where any of
these amendments could apply without continued discipline. So what I
would suggest is that we pass the Wise-Price amendment, put in place a
timeframe in which we could begin to live with it, and at the same
time, stay the course on the economic policies that this administration
has in place, plus enact the additional restraints on entitlements that
we know are needed, particularly in the area of health care, which is
driving almost all our outyear spending, and then begin to learn to
live with a capital budget, with an investment budget that will more
honestly account for the way in which we set priorities among the
annual expenditures for the maintenance of government operations and
the entitlements, the efforts to maintain income in the private sector
that we are so heavily involved in as a society.
I want to congratulate those who have come together to put this
package together. I think it meets the challenge that the amendment of
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] presents us in a more
understandable and honest and realistic way. I do want to say, however,
that the contribution of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] is
clear to us all.
Not only on this issue but on all related spending matters, his
ability to galvanize the public and to speak to the conscience of his
colleagues here in Congress has been most helpful. And while I think I
come to a different point than he does on the solution to this problem,
I want to congratulate him for advancing his cause and a cause that we
are all caught up in and want to deal with. Regrettably, I think it
will be seen soon in a variety of different ways. But I do want to
conclude my remarks by particularly thanking those who have
intellectually and honestly addressed the challenge and have brought us
an amendment that I can strongly support, when it is voted on tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Wise substitute to House Joint
Resolution 103, the constitutional amendment to require a balanced
Federal budget.
Amending the Constitution to provide incentives for fiscal restraint
will give us the discipline we need if we are going to continue to
reduce our overwhelming deficits. But we need to ensure that our budget
process balances this critical discipline with the flexibility that
will enable us to make fiscal policy adjustments. That is why I have
serious concerns about the Stenholm proposal.
First, supporters of the Stenholm proposal like to cite the fact that
it requires the Federal Government to balance its budget just like
States have to. But we must be both honest and realistic when we look
at how States actually do balance their budgets. To begin with, States'
balanced budget requirements often do not apply to their total budgets.
They only apply to their general or operating funds which, in 1992,
only accounted for 48 percent of total State spending. And, in spite of
requirements to balance their budgets, we must remember that States
issue bonds, borrow money, carry funds over from year to year, and they
have the ability to cut programs and services unilaterally. The
bottomline is that not one State has a balanced budget requirement like
the one that the Stenholm proposal mandates.
Second, the Stenholm proposal requires that total Federal outlays for
any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year,
unless three-fifths of the total membership of the House and senate
vote for a specific deficit by a rollcall vote. This gives the
minority--the other two-fifths--the ability to control the process of
passing the budget.
I can well remember the California State budget crisis in the summer
of 1992 when the State legislature and Governor were held hostage
because a two-thirds majority was needed to approve budget changes made
by the Governor. This created gridlock. By example alone, this
represents the need for the majority, not two-thirds or two-fifths, to
control the budget process and to change our spending priorities. But
the Stenholm proposal would take us right back to where we were
before--enmeshed in the gridlock that plagued this Government for over
10 years.
Third, we must realistically confront capital budgeting--the critical
investments in essentials like our schools, our infrastructure, and our
national security that provide long-term economic returns--something
which the Stenholm proposal does not do. The Wise substitute, however,
deals with capital spending honestly and effectively. It sets up a
separate capital budget--just like States do--for these expenses, and
it provides that these investments be paid for over their useful life.
Last--but by no means least--the Stehnolm proposal leaves the Social
Security Program wide open for cuts. In these times of deficit
reduction and spending cuts, Social Security is a most appealing
target. But cuts in Social Security would deprive older and retired
Americans of critical benefits that are rightly theirs--benefits that
have been promised to them to help ensure their economic security in
their golden years. By not exempting Social Security, the Stenholm
alternative lays the groundwork for pulling the rug out from under
older Americans at the time in their lives when they are most
vulnerable. But the Wise option protects their interests by
specifically exempting Social Security from balanced budget
calculations.
I have always maintained that the budget must be balanced--that the
large annual deficits we are carrying are undermining America's future.
We cannot continue to perpetuate this burden on our future generations.
But, if we are to meet this challenge, we must do so responsibly,
honestly, and realistically.
For this reason, I support the Wise Price substitute to the balanced
budget constitutional amendment. It will not permit a minority in
Congress to overpower the majority for their own political or policy
interests. It will enable us to continue to make the critical long-term
investments that we need to ensure our continued economic health. And
it will not balance the budget on the backs of older and retired
Americans. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
its passage.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30
seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to reflect for a moment, the first
section of the Smith-Stenholm resolution states, section 1:
Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total
receipts for that fiscal year, unless there are three-fifths
majority of each House, House and Senate, which allows that
to happen.
That sentence strikes fear into the big spenders in this Congress.
That is the thing they cannot handle. And the reason it is very
difficult is simply because we indeed have masked this budget over the
years. Of $150 billion trust funds, there is $113 billion that is
masked. This takes the mask off. We have to identify every receipt and
every expenditure and, therefore, the mask comes off, not goes on.
Beyond that, this amendment will save Social Security. There is not
one person that supports Smith-Stenholm that does not support Social
Security, not one. And yet the threat here seems to be that we are
going to eliminate Social Security. How ridiculous.
And one other point here, the capital budget idea is a giant loophole
in this whole process. Congress will continue to spend money, calling
it ``capital expenditures.'' It is a way to duck the hard decisions
that we are all trying to make and to bring this budget into balance.
It is a method of getting out of the responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr.
Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am a firm believer that our States are
the laboratories of democracy--49 States have a balanced budget
requirement. This responsible fiscal policy has served the States
extremely well. It is time to require the Federal Government to play by
the same, sound financial rules that have proven to be so effective in
our States.
And, I know first hand the value of a constitutional balanced budget
amendment. As Governor of Delaware, I submitted and managed eight
consecutive balanced budgets. During times of prosperity in the early
1980's, we were able to cut taxes three times and fund some much-needed
social, children's, housing, and highway programs.
However, during a couple years of tough economic conditions,
Democrats and Republicans came together--tightened our belts, cut
spending--and, implemented a highly successful early retirement option
for State employees to reduce the government payroll. Due to the fiscal
discipline required under the balanced budget law, the State of
Delaware maintained its excellent bond ratings on Wall Street and
weathered the recession remarkably well.
As Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton knew the value of a balanced
budget requirement. On February 17, 1979, he told the Arkansas Gazette,
Arkansas was lucky that we can fall back on our
constitution that doesn't allow us to spend more than we take
in * * * I believe the government in Washington ought to
be run on a balanced budget too, unless there is an
economic emergency.
Unfortunately, President Bill Clinton has abandoned his support of a
balanced budget amendment. In a letter to congressional leaders dated
November 5, 1993, he expressed his, ``firm opposition'' to a balanced
budget amendment--saying it would, ``promote political gridlock and
would endanger our economic recovery.''
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree. A balanced budget amendment
has not promoted political gridlock or endangered economic recovery in
our States. To the contrary--from my experience as Governor of
Delaware, the need to enact and maintain a balanced budget brings the
two parties together--working toward a common goal, and promotes sound
fiscal decisions to sustain economic growth.
The bottom line is that since 1969, the Federal Government has spent
more money than it takes in. Congress has proven it is unable to
control its appetite to tax and spend. Make no mistake, simply enacting
a balanced budget amendment will not balance the books. However, I
believe it will impose the financial discipline needed to make the
tough decisions on how to cut spending and restructure Government
operations so we can stop charging billions and billions of dollars
every year on some imaginary credit card--leaving our children and
grandchildren to pay the bills.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Stenholm, Smith, Kyl, and Barton
balanced budget amendment substitutes.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 56
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has 36
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has 45\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] has
1 hour and 22 minutes remaining.
{time} 1450
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
(Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, Mark Twain used to say, ``Everyone talks
about the weather, but no one does anything about it.'' I would like to
paraphrase that, and say, ``Some of us talk about a balanced budget--
and some of us do something about it.''
In this case, we know who the talkers are. They are those of my
colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--who are advancing the idea that
amending the Constitution can balance the budget. With all due respect,
this is simply not the case.
We know how to balance the budget. We know it is not easy, quick, or
pleasant. It is done through painstaking scrutiny, not through broad-
brushed rhetoric. It is done through tough-minded decisions, not
through easy slogans. And above all, it is done honestly--by laying out
the options, explaining the consequences, and debating the choices.
This Congress knows how to do it, and has made substantial progress
in that direction. Last summer's reconciliation package is working,
moving us toward the lowest Federal budget deficit in a decade. Yet
many of my colleagues who are most dedicated to a balanced budget
amendment passionately opposed that plan. And now, some say they
opposed it because it did not do enough.
Mr. Chairman, how can a statement that we ought to do something--or
even a statement that we be required to do something--take the place of
actually doing something?
Of course, there is no guarantee that a balanced budget amendment
will ensure fiscal responsibility. In fact, there is every reason for
fear that, with an amendment, that goal will become more elusive.
Far from ensuring that a balanced budget must be passed, the
amendment simply ensures that a budget supported by three-fifths of the
House must be passed. Why? Why make it more difficult to enact a
responsible budget? Why make it more difficult to kill unnecessary
programs, to enact responsible reforms, to make unpopular choices?
As the Washington Post noted on Tuesday, a balanced budget amendment
would allow 40 percent of the House or Senate to hold the entire
process hostage. At what cost might that hostage's freedom be
purchased?
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the balanced budget amendment is more
than unnecessary. It could block our progress toward a responsible
budget, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], another one of the
courageous 56 who voted for the Leath-Slattery-Mackey amendment in
1985. Had that been in the majority, we would not have been here today.
(Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me. I rise in strong support of the balanced budget amendment, and I
want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman
from Oregon [Mr. Smith] for the work they have done on this balanced
budget amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the balanced budget
amendment and I want to commend congressman Stenholm and congressman
Bob Smith for the work they have done to bring it before us.
Amending the Constitution is not an easy thing to do. It requires a
two-thirds vote in both Houses and ratification by 38 States. It should
only be done on issues of critical national importance. I think putting
an end to deficit spending and forcing the Federal Government to live
within its means is such an issue.
We spend $816 million each day on interest payments. In 1993 the
Government paid $293 billion just to pay the interest on its debt. That
is more than we spend today on defense and it is more than the entire
Federal budget in 1974. This is a serious problem that will only grow
worse if we don't act now to turn it around.
This balanced budget amendment represents the strongest and most
binding incentive to force congress to address the issue. If we start
now, congress will still have the flexibility to set budget priorities
to protect social security and other vital programs.
But if we delay and allow the debt to continue to grow, no program
will be safe from drastic cuts in the future. And as growing interest
payments take more and more of the Federal budget, we will also be
threatened by higher inflation and worsening conditions throughout the
Nation's economy.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to delay any longer, passing this
balanced budget amendment is the right step to take today to start the
process of restoring fiscal responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Skaggs). The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, even if I believed the extraordinarily dire predictions
of doom and gloom that I have heard from some of my colleagues who
oppose the balanced budget amendment, I would still be in favor of it,
because the choice before us is quite simple. We either balance the
budget or we declare bankruptcy.
The current debt is $4.3 trillion. That is $17,495 per person. The
youngest baby born this minute owes $17,495. The oldest retiree, over
100 years old, owes $17,495, a crushing burden of debt. We are adding
to it daily. We are going to leave it as an inheritance for our next
generation and the generations to come.
Mr. Chairman, $816 million a day in gross interest payments, they do
not go to make any of the needed investments in education,
infrastructure, or health care. They go to pay debt. Those payments are
growing every single day. When I first came to Congress, I said I was
opposed to the balanced budget amendment because it was a gimmick.
Certainly, I said, our leaders in Congress and Washington realize the
imperative of restraining our spending.
In my third budget cycle a number of years ago I came to the bitter
reality that the temptation to borrow and spend is much more attractive
than fiscal responsibility. Since I have been here, we bailed out the
savings and loans to the tune then of $150 billion, off budget. It did
not count. We still have to borrow the money. We still have to pay it
back with interest, but it does not count. The California earthquake
relief, just a month ago, we are going to borrow the money, over $11
billion. We are going to have to pay it back, but it was a dire
emergency supplemental. It does not count.
Mr. Chairman, we added into the dire emergency supplemental $1.2
billion for the endless appetite at the Pentagon, and last week in the
budget we increased the authorization for the Pentagon by $2.4 billion.
We will never restrain the endless appetite for money at the Pentagon
until we have a balanced budget amendment. Vote for this amendment, and
set some hard guidelines.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raised the point
that I want to enunciate again, and that is simply by this Congress
declaring an emergency, somehow we do not count it. We do not count the
sham and the disguise of the trust funds, including the Social Security
surplus. Is that what I heard the gentleman say?
Mr. DeFAZIO. That is correct. We spend the money, we borrow the money
from the trust funds and elsewhere. Someone is going to have to repay
it some time, but we just pretend that it does not count.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the gentleman will continue to yield, should
this amendment pass, all those funds would have to be identified
exactly, would they not?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I believe Social Security would be more secure under
this amendment. I worry about the day when Social Security will owe the
entire debt of this Nation, which is coming in the near future, after
the next century, and the temptation of a future Congress to say, ``Why
should we pay ourselves $350 billion or $400 billion interest out of
the Social Security trust fund? Let us wipe it out and start all over
with some new tax to support Social Security.'' Of course we will have
to cut the benefits.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Baker].
Mr. BAKER of California. Opponents of the balanced budget, including
the old Democrat, President Clinton, claim it is a gimmick, that
Congress already has the power to balance the budget. However, Congress
has demonstrated it is incapable of balancing a Federal budget. Bill
Buckley, former editor of National Review, said what we need in
Congress is ``Spenders Anonymous.''
Look at this chart, and parents at home, you may not want your
children to see this. The budget was last balanced in 1969. Since then,
we have had six Presidents, 25 years, and every year since then we have
spent more money than we have brought in. Every year we have enlarged
the Federal debt burden on our children and grandchildren.
Mr. Chairman, debt levels have skyrocketed, thanks to our spendthrift
Congress. David Gergen, editor-at-large at U.S. News and World Report,
in 1992 wrote a letter saying, ``We can no longer flinch from reality.
We can no longer afford the illusion that we can borrow our way to
prosperity,'' in an article for U.S. News and World Report entitled
``Balance the Budget by Force.''
{time} 1500
Walk down the hall and tell that to the President, Mr. Gergen.
In 1993 Congress increased the national debt limit without my vote
$225 billion, from $4.1 to $4.3 trillion. That means $17,000 for every
man, woman, and child in this Nation.
Interest on the debt equals 57 percent of all of your income tax paid
this year. The second largest item in the Federal budget is interest on
the national debt, not the debt itself, for government we have already
consumed.
The balanced budget spending limitation amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] attacks the root of the deficit
problem: congressional spending. First it requires a balanced budget
unless three-fifths of both Houses vote to increase the debt limit.
Second, it establishes Federal spending limits of 19 percent of GNP.
I support the Kyl amendment.
I support the Barton amendment and I support the Stenholm amendment.
You balance the budget; I will vote for it.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York [Ms. Velazquez].
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
balanced budget amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I too am concerned about the Federal budget deficit. We
must make every effort to realign our national priorities and focus
limited Federal dollars on our most pressing national needs.
The problem with the balanced budget amendment is that it makes no
provision for social programs benefiting our most vulnerable
population, as in previous budget reduction measures. Under this
proposal it would likely be the sick, the poor, and our children who
will sacrifice.
If this amendment is adopted, today's health care crisis will become
tomorrow's public health disaster. Revenues earmarked for financing
health care reform--Medicare and Medicaid cost reductions-- would
instead be directed towards deficit reduction. With this constitutional
amendment, we will have no dollars for universal health coverage, too
few funds for HIV research and treatment, inadequate support for
community health centers, and scant attention to breast cancer research
and other urgent health needs.
This amendment would also force us to turn our backs on our most
precious resource--our children. Today, almost 15 million of our kids
live in poverty. Many have no chance for a meaningful, quality
education. More than 50 percent of eligible children are never reached
by Head Start. Federal dollars for educating our children, which have
dropped to a mere 2 percent of the budget, would drop further if the
balanced budget is adopted.
The constitutional amendment would also mean cut-backs for critical
antipoverty measures, such as low-income housing assistance and urban
revitalization. During the dark Reagan years the poor in our cities
were relegated to the shadows. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the primary vehicle for urban aid, saw its budget slashed
by more than any other Federal agency. With a new administration and
the strong leadership of Secretary Cisneros, our urban poor are again
getting the attention and support they desperately need. Passage of
this amendment would mean severe cutbacks for housing assistance and
the community development funds critical to the revitalization of our
city neighborhoods.
Mr. Chairman, we do need to make tough budget choices. We need to
turn billions for weapons into medicine for the sick, computers for
school children, and housing for the homeless. We must not balance our
budget with further tears in the safety net. Vote ``no'' on the
balanced budget amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Herger].
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the balanced
budget amendment, and in opposition to the Wise substitute.
Everyone is talking about the need to make tough choices, but its
clear to the American people that that is not happening. The system is
broken, and the only people who will not admit it are Members of
Congress. The balanced budget amendment is critical to fixing what is
wrong with the system.
Those who think Congress will make tough choices to control spending
without the amendment must have forgotten how this very Congress
refused only a few weeks ago to terminate a $10 million program for
native Hawaiians that even President Clinton said was unneeded and
duplicative.
Last week, we adopted a budget resolution that increased the national
debt from $4.6 trillion this year to $6.3 trillion in 1999, or nearly a
50 percent increase. This is even more debt piled onto the backs of
future generations to finance current consumption. We are literally
mortgaging the futures of not only our children, but also of our
grandchildren.
Moreover, the $203 billion in net interest we're paying on the debt
this year alone produces absoletly nothing of value for the American
public. It does not put one more policeman on our streets, or repair
one road or bridge.
Let us end this irresponsible practice by adopting the balanced
budget amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Franks].
(Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong
support of the Stenholm balanced budget constitutional amendment. I
also intend to support the Kyl and Barton amendments. These are all
serious proposals that would help Congress do what it refuses to do
now--spend the taxpayers' money with intelligence and restraint. The
Stenholm amendment would require a three-fifths vote to increase the
official limit on our national debt. With such a tool in hand, I
believe we in Congress could find the collective will to truly
challenge the special interests and the entrenched House leadership
with their business as usual mentality.
In response to the demand for real change, the Democratic leadership
has produced a phony balanced budget amendment, one which exempts major
elements of the budget and imposes no new requirements for approving a
deficit or raising the debt. This empty alternative gives nothing to
the American people; rather, it merely seeks to provide political cover
to those who vote for it.
In my home State of New Jersey, where we have a requirement to enact
a balanced budget each year, support for a Federal balanced budget
amendment is overwhelming. The people I represent know it will take
sacrifices if we are going to put the Nation on the road to fiscal
responsibility. But it must be understood that the people are way ahead
of their elected representatives in their willingness to try new ways
to tame the deficit monster.
Mr. Chairman, sooner or later Congress will have to put its spending
programs in priority order. With the $4 trillion national debt
projected to grow by at least 50 percent over the next 5 years, it
would be better for all of us to begin now. I urge my colleagues to
support the Stenholm balanced budget amendment.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Since the gentleman described my amendment as phony, I want to respond,
and I am sorry the gentleman would not yield, particularly when I was
offering to put my time on the line. But since he would not yield, then
I will go ahead and give the unexpurgated and uninterrupted version.
First of all, there is nothing phony about this. Members have to make
a decision as to whether or not they think Social Security should be on
budget or off budget. The gentleman has not been here in previous
years, but many of our predecessors, both from your State and other
States who have been here more than 2 years, have sworn, raised their
hands and sworn an oath in town meetings that they thought Social
Security was sacrosanct and should be off budget. So to the gentleman
who just spoke, I would say that I think that there is an honest
difference of opinion, but please, I would hope that no Member, Mr.
Chairman, would characterize an amendment as phony. We can have honest
differences of opinion, and that is valid, but not characterizations
which so far have not come into this debate, and I hope they will not.
But I do want to address some subjects the gentleman brought up. One
is capital budgeting. The gentleman is from New Jersey, and New Jersey
being a State of the Union, and having determined that almost every
State, at least 49 States of the Union have a form of capital
budgeting, now I know the form in West Virginia, and I suspect it is
similar in New Jersey in which you may borrow money for roads and
bridges and infrastructure, and you have a fund, and you probably sell
bonds. I am assuming that is what it is. I think it should be pointed
out that what the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment seeks to do is to
replicate that experience of the States. You say you want to have a
balanced budget like every State does. We give you that opportunity.
{time} 1510
Furthermore, I find it interesting, and I have heard others come from
legislative backgrounds, is there some kind of blinders that happens
when you get within the Beltway that you forget your State legislative
experience? The 2 years that I had the privilege of serving in the West
Virginia legislature I learned about the need for capital investment. I
learned about the need for a balanced budget. But we did it within the
context of being able to make the investments that were necessary for
our State to build the infrastructure to promote our economic growth.
In the amendment, the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment, what we do
is do exactly what many of the States do, and that is to take that
stream of investment and to take that which is debt service, that which
you either through depreciation or that which you pay for debt service,
and to make that part of the operating income.
There is no free ride with capital investment. Make no mistake about
it. But what you do is to account for it in the same way that a
business does and that a State does and every municipality.
I would hope we can avoid those kinds of characterizations. Honest
differences of opinion, yes, but phony, absolutely not, and we feel
that if you are serious about wanting to be similar to what the States
do and to have the same strictures that a State does then our amendment
actually gets you closer, because I am not aware of any amendment, and
I would be delighted to get into a discussion with the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm] possibly at some point on this.
I am not aware of any State that has a structure similar to either
the Stenholm amendment, the Kyl amendment, or the Barton amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I come from a small State, the State of Oregon. We have
a capital budget. We also have a little problem, a $6 billion budget
this year, and we are going to have to take $1 billion out of the
budget, $1 billion.
We are in the face of crippling higher education, education in our
State, beyond suspending the whole issue of a capital budget.
I only am suggesting that this is a way to spend more money which is
not allowed.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will point out to the gentleman that he has more time if he is
going to be exercising the other time.
My question simply would be this way: Does Oregon have some form of
capital budgeting? And I believe that it does.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WISE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly my point. We do
have a capital budget. It is the whole budget that is in jeopardy in
our State. Higher education is in difficulty, many times because of our
capital expenditures, which are stopped at the moment. They are gone.
So do not tell me that a capital budget is the epitome of success
budgeting. It does not work that way.
Mr. WISE. Does Oregon also have a balanced-budget provision?
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Absolutely.
Mr. WISE. And so somehow even with those structures in there
something has slipped, which tells me a balanced-budget amendment in
and of itself is no panacea.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I will be delighted to answer the gentleman's
question.
Exactly, we have a balanced-budget amendment to the constitution, and
we do spend for capital outside of it including bonding. The payment on
the interest of the bonds has us in so much trouble we are going to
have to strip $1 billion out of the budget of $6 billion.
Now, had we had a balanced-budget amendment that included capital
expenditures, we would not be in this shape.
Mr. WISE. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I would say obviously
you have to keep capital budgeting under control if you seek to control
operating expenses. At the same time, though, I think we enter into an
illusory world to think that a dollar of investment that can produce a
greater return should be treated the same as a dollar of everyday
consumption.
Now, I cannot speak to the experience in Oregon. But I can speak to
the experience in West Virginia, and the experience I have had in my
State legislative experience, which is that you have to be able to
promote those policies that provide growth; the reality of the
situation, Mr. Chairman, is that after all the charts, the red lines,
and seas of red ink and all of that are done, the reality of the
situation is you can pass umpteen balanced-budget amendments tomorrow.
The fact is that until you take some hard steps, you will not begin to
balance the budget.
You cannot tax your way out of this situation. You cannot cut your
way out of this situation. You are going to have to do a mixture of
both, but you are also going to have to have a strong element of
growth, and growth will not be facilitated by saying that you will not
recognize investment for long-term economic return. YOu will not
recognize that and make provisions for it, encourage it, but instead
you will stifle it even further than it already is in the Federal
budgeting process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Rhode Island [Mr. Machtley].
(Mr. MACHTLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the balanced-budget
amendment.
It is a resolution that I have supported since I came to Congress. I
have supported it because I believe it is the only way that we will get
the debt away from our children.
American families in my home State of Rhode Island and across this
Nation every year must make tough choices. They must live within their
own budgets. Federal, State, and local taxes, high mortgage payments,
car payments, tuition payments, medical bills, all of these are factors
in everyone's life, but they must live within their budgets. The
Federal Government must start doing that as well.
Even though we have tried, we have seen over the last 15 years our
expenses going up and our revenues going down. In fact, during the last
12 months, spending has been up 4 percent, and revenues have only been
up 0.2 percent.
Just 20 years ago, no Federal debt annually approximated $25 billion.
Now we casually treat an annual debt of $300 billion as if that is
acceptable.
It seems that if American families are going to have to have two
people working just to make ends meet, we in the Federal Government
have an obligation to our children to make sure we are not spending
their heritage.
But here in Washington things work differently. For far too many
years our Federal Government has assumed that somehow we can reap some
huge source of money in the future to pay for our expenses today.
Because we put people on the Moon and discovered cures for enormous and
difficult diseases, we have assumed we could have it all.
Unfortunately, we cannot. We must live within our means.
Since the 1960's we piled up a deficit amounting to more than $4
trillion. Unlike American families who would have to face foreclosures,
garnishments of wages, and other legal proceedings, the Federal
Government merely passes it effortlessly to our future generations.
That is the cruelest.
We have Gramm-Rudman, Gramm-Rudman 1 and 2, we have had amendments,
we have had the 1990 Bush budget agreement, we have had the 1993
Clinton budget agreement, but nothing seems to work.
This is like when the patient goes to a physician and has a terrible
case of cancer. When all else has failed and the physician says there
must be a dramatic surgery, the patient has to make that choice.
The balanced-budget amendment may not be perfect, but clearly after
20 years of attempting to maintain a budget for future generations,
something is needed.
Alexis de Tocqueville said in his writings and in his ``Democracy in
America,''
The American republic will endure until the politicians
find that they can bribe the people of the country with their
own money.
We are getting very dangerously close to bribing the people of this
country through entitlements and other spending programs with their own
money. We must in fact balance the budget, and I think this is the
appropriate method to do so.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I was not going to take part in this debate today, but
as I was in my office and heard one of the speakers, I felt compelled
to come here, because I have heard people say over and over again in
the 10 years I have been in this House, particularly when they are back
in their districts:
You are sending me to Washington, and I am going there for
one main purpose. I am going to balance the budget. I am
going to help the people in the Congress. We are going to
change things. We are going to do it differently, and we are
going to balance the budget.
I have heard that enough times to say that if I had $5 for every time
I have heard people say that, I could give that to the Government and
balance the budget. That is fact.
People talk about it all the time. But the fact of the matter is we
all come here with good intentions, and most of us do, but when we get
here, the process proceeds as normal.
I suggest, therefore, in order to get this job done, we need to
change the rules. We need to change the rules so we have to balance the
budget like many of the States do and like families and like people all
over our country in businesses do as well.
This chart is wonderful, and it demonstrates wonderfully exactly what
we do around here. All of these red lines all the way back to when we
had a balanced budget in 1969, and the year before that was 1960, and
it is kind of incredible. We sit here and argue about whether or not we
are going to balance the budget when, in fact, we have no choice.
Someday the budget has to be balanced.
I would remind everybody that one of the previous speakers said all
we need to do is have the intestinal fortitude to carry out this
mission so important to our country and our children, that is,
balancing the budget.
{time} 1520
That is balancing the budget.
Then the other Member from the other side of the aisle pointed out
that in 1990 we took a step toward balancing the budget and all the
progress that has been made because of what we do in the Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993. Let me remind you of something: In 1990 the
President's people, President Bush's people, and the leadership in the
House and the Senate went out to Andrews Air Force Base and they met
out there in a closed room, and they came back here and said:
Well, we got a deal. We got a deal. We're going to increase
taxes because we have to do something about this deficit.
Well, we projected then--CBO projected then--Congressional Budget
Office projected then, it was not our projection, CBO projected that
the budget deficit in 1995 would be $141 billion if we did not pass
this tax increase. Well, the years went by and we got to 1993. The 1993
Budget Reconciliation Act, ``We are going to raise taxes, we have got
to do something about this deficit.'' So, in 1990 we raised taxes by
$130 billion; in 1993 we raised taxes by $163 billion. Guess what CBO's
projection for the budget deficit in 1995 is this year, not $141
billion, it is $170 billion.
So we have had two tax increases, and yet the spending continues to
grow. And as I said in my opening statement, in order to get this under
control, we need to do exactly what Charlie Stenholm says, we need to
vote for the balanced budget amendment and change the rules around here
so we can get to where we need to be.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah [Mr. Orton].
(Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 103, the
balanced budget amendment. I support the basic concept of balanced
budgets. My record is clear on that both in votes here in the House and
in the Budget Committee.
The debate here today and in the other house last week on this issue
has focused on several particular objections that people have to
provisions of the balanced budget amendment. There are three, I think,
that have come up regularly: First, that the amendment would create a
supermajority; second, the provisions of waiver, just what and how the
Congress could in fact waive the provisions of this amendment; then,
third, whether or not this amendment would really be enforceable.
Now, I have to tell you that I can agree with many Members who have
spoken, that these are perils. I agree there are risks. I agree perhaps
there are refinements needed. There have been many attempts to resolve
some of these issues here on the floor today. Mr. Wise here, and in the
Senate, Mr. Reid, attempted to do that. I would like to commend the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] for the valiant attempt he is
making. I agree with the capital budget concept, and I have a bill to
do that. His bill would not create a super majority and would expand
those areas for which waiver would be approved.
In fact, I and several of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis have
worked, and worked very closely with Mr. Stenholm, trying to identify
some solutions to these particular three objections. I would like to
refer you to and I will submit into the Record a side-by-side
comparison of the Stenholm amendment, which is 103, and also House
Joint Resolution 103, which is an amendment very similar to this one
which I have filed which in fact differs only in three areas with the
Stenholm amendment; that of supermajority, waiver, and enforcement.
Let me just indicate that on supermajority, while the Stenholm
provision would require three-fifths' majority to either overspend
beyond the budget or to increase the debt limit, House Joint Resolution
133 would not create a supermajority. The Stenholm provision on waiver
would only provide for waiver in time of war. House Joint Resolution
133 would allow for a waiver for any purpose that Congress chooses to
waive with a majority vote, but would have to do so by statute, which
would then subject that statute to veto by the President and would then
require a two-thirds' supermajority to override the veto.
This would bring the legislative and the executive branch together in
actually balancing the budget and would avoid the need for
supermajorities.
Finally, on enforcement, while the Stenholm provision would require
future legislation to enforce, our provision would simply say that it
must be repaid in the ensuing fiscal year or be subject to
sequestration.
The document referred to follows:
Orton Amendment--House Joint Resolution 133
Section 1. Total outlays of the United States for any
fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts to the United
States for that fiscal year.
Sec. 2. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall
transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United
States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays
do not exceed total receipts.
Sec. 3. For any fiscal year in which actual outlays exceed
actual receipts, the Congress shall provide by law for the
repayment in the ensuing fiscal year of such excess outlays.
If Congress fails to provide by law for repayment, within
fifteen days after Congress adjourns to end a session, there
shall be a sequestration of all outlays to eliminate a budget
deficit.
Sec. 4. The provisions of this article may be waived for
any fiscal year only if Congress so provides by law by a
majority of the whole number of each House. Such waiver shall
be subject to veto by the President.
Sec. 5. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the
United States Government except those derived from borrowing.
Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States
Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Sec. 6. This article shall take effect beginning with
fiscal year 2000 or with the second fiscal year beginning
after its ratification, whichever is later.
Stenholm Amendment--House Joint Resolution 103
Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not
exceed total receipts, unless three-fifths of the whole
number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a
specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Sec. 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by
the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the
whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an
increase by rollcall vote.
Sec. 3. (Same as Orton, Section 2.)
Sec. 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless
approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a
rollcall vote.
Sec. 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this
article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is
in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for
any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in
military conflict which causes an imminent and serious
military threat to national security and is so declared by a
joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number
of each House.
Sec. 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this
article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on
estimates of outlays and receipts.
Sec. 7. (Same as Orton, Section 5.)
Sec. 8. (Same as Orton, Section 6, except uses year 1999.)
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Cox].
Mr. COX. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Why do we need a balanced budget amendment? I will suggest three
reasons. First is rather straightforward: Spending is out of control.
The second is that taxes are out of control, driven by the insatiable
appetite for more and more Federal spending.
The higher taxes are, themselves, the reason for economic stagnation,
the lack of new job creation and less individual freedom.
The third is that it is the right thing to do and that laying off our
obligation to pay for the spending that we occasion this year is the
wrong thing to do.
Since 1969, Federal spending has increased on an annual basis more
than 800 percent. Now, in 1969, it was a guns-and-butter year, and yet
the entire Federal spending from 1969 through 1973, 5 years, is less
than Bill Clinton's 1994 budget for 1 year.
Sixty percent of next year's deficit will consist of the new spending
that Congress has added to 1993 levels. Spending is running out of
control.
And yet the Clinton budget proposes additional spending of $1.475
trillion on top of the current levels for the years 1994 through 1998.
Spending is out of control, and record tax increases are occasioned by
this insatiable appetite for more and more spending.
We need not only a balanced budget amendment but we need a tax
limitation amendment such as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Barton], has proposed, and because spending is the problem, we
need a spending limitation such as my colleague, the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kyl] has proposed.
I mention finally that passing amendments like these would be the
right thing to do. I point out that President Clinton's chief
spokesman, David Gergen, wrote an editorial saying precisely this on
June 1, 1992, in U.S. News & World Report. The headline, ``Balancing
the Budget by Force.'' Here is what David Gergen said in 1992, just 1
year before he went to work for Bill Clinton, who is now fighting a
balanced budget amendment.
Mr. Gergen said:
The time has come to recognize that the right thing to do
is something we have long resisted, amend the Constitution so
that Congress and the President are required to balance the
budget.
Now it is David Gergen's White House that is long resisting a
balanced budget amendment.
We in this body must do the right thing. We must bring spending under
control, we must bring taxes under control. Today is the day we can do
just that.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Barton] who himself has a substitute which includes a
tax limitation and which I support.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding
this time to me.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the House of Representatives, this is a
historic debate. We should congratulate the balanced budget leaders,
Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Smith, and others, Mr. Tauzin, who helped on my
amendment and Mr. Kyl, for their efforts to bring this before the
American people.
There are a number of balanced budget amendments that will be voted
on this evening and tomorrow. They all have merit. I think that the
case has probably been made about the need for some sort of balanced
budget amendment, but I will add to the case very quickly.
As has been pointed out in the chart presented earlier, we have not
had a balanced budget in this country at the Federal level since 1969,
25 years ago.
I would stipulate that if we do not pass an amendment to the
Constitution requiring a balanced budget, we will never ever again in
the history of this Nation have a balanced Federal budget. And if we
never again balance the Federal budget, we are going to be in serious,
serious financial difficulty in the very near future.
{time} 1530
The national debt is now $4.6 trillion. The good news is that it is
not going up as rapidly as it has been. A year ago, Mr. Chairman, it
was going up approximately a billion dollars a day. It is now going up
at only half a billion dollars a day.
Having said that, the Clinton administration has dropped any pretense
that their policies would get us to a balanced budget. The budget they
submitted to this Congress in the 5-year budget plan shows the budget
deficit at $176 billion this year and then going up each year
thereafter.
The primary reason that the budget deficit has gone down is because
interest rates have gone down, and, as interest rates have gone down,
the Federal Treasury has refinanced the long-term public debt at short-
term rates. At the end of this year the average outstanding maturity on
Federal debt is going to be less than 3 years. As long as short-term
interest rates stay low, Mr. Chairman, that is fine. But if short-term
rates go back up and long-term rates stay as high as they are now or go
higher also every increase of one point adds $46 billion in interest on
the Federal debt that has to be paid in a given fiscal year. $46
billion would pay for two food stamp programs, or 1 year's spending on
the entire Federal housing program.
Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot condone that kind of increase in
spending just on interest on the national debt if interest rates go
back up. We simply must amend the Constitution to require a balanced
budget.
The question is today not whether we should balance the budget, but
how should we balance the budget, Mr. Chairman. Myself and many others,
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and 200 Members of the House,
last year voted that we should do it by doing everything that the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr.
Smith] do, but in addition require a super majority vote to raise
taxes, that is, a 60-percent vote to raise taxes. If our amendment had
been part of the Constitution this year, we would not have passed the
budget reconciliation bill that was passed by a two-vote margin in the
House of Representatives. We would have passed the budget
reconciliation bill; it just would not have had the tax increases in
it. We would have forced the Congress to cut spending, not to allow
taxes to increase.
Mr. Chairman, many, many States are adopting tax limitation
amendments to their constitution. In those States that have a tax
limitation requirement, a super majority tax limitation requirement,
the average increase in taxes has been 2 percent less than in those
States that do not. So, it is not impossible to raise taxes, but in
States that have the super majority requirement for tax increases, Mr.
Chairman, there tax rates have gone up an average of 2 percent less
than those States that do not.
I say to my colleagues,
When you look at the tax burden per taxpayer in those
States that have a super majority requirement for tax
limitation, the tax burden has actually gone down when
adjusted for inflation by 2 percent in the period from 1980
to 1989. In those States that do not have the super majority
requirement for tax limitation, the tax burden has gone up by
2 percent. So that is a 4 percent difference.
Now, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues may say, ``What's 4 percent?'' Well,
4 percent at the Federal level is an average of $20 billion a year in
lower taxes, I repeat, $20 billion a year, $20 billion would pay for an
entire year's spending on our agriculture programs.
Our problem in Washington is not insufficient taxes. In the time
period between 1980 and 1989, Mr. Chairman, the average revenue to the
Federal Government went up $55 billion a year. We doubled Federal
spending between 1980 and 1990. The problem was, Mr. Chairmen, as
revenues went up, spending went up even faster, and we have a number of
charts that we are going to show in the debate tomorrow on my amendment
that make that point very graphically.
The bottom line is:
We need to balance the Federal budget. There is no serious debate
about that. At least there has not been so far this afternoon in the
House of Representatives.
The question is how to amend the Constitution. We should build on the
approach the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Smith] are offering by going the additional step and
requiring the 60-percent supermajority vote to raise taxes.
Tax limitation works.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Fingerhut].
Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Wise] for yielding this time to me, and I would like to thank all
of the sponsors of the various balanced budget amendment proposals here
today for bringing this issue before the House and for enabling us to
have this significant debate.
I intend to support a balanced budget amendment. Indeed I intend to
support a number of different proposals in the hopes that at the end of
the day we will have a balanced budget amendment pass this House of
Representatives. I care about reducing the deficit. I have voted to do
so repeatedly throughout the course of the legislative process over the
last year and a half. The interest on the debt is killing us. It is
stopping us from doing a whole variety of things that we need to do in
this country, and we simply must get it under control.
But let me take just this moment to put in a word about Wise because
I think that the proposal that the gentleman from West Virginia brings
before us today deserves the serious consideration of this body.
When people ask me why I support a balanced budget, Mr. Chairman, I
tell them that more than any another reason it is because I care about
children. I do not want to run up bills today and have my children have
to pay for them. But I also do not want to leave them a country that is
impoverished of the basic infrastructure to enable them to build the
kinds of economy, and jobs, and growth that they need. If we leave them
crumbling roads and crumbling bridges because we squeeze out all of our
infrastructure and investing to consume more and more of today's
dollars on today's expenses, then we will have done our children an
equal disservice. If we do not set aside the funds to build the schools
and the recreational facilities that are necessary in this country, if
we do not protect our environment, then it will mean little if we have
left them with a balanced budget but require them to start from scratch
to build the basic infrastructure necessary in this country.
The second word about Wise that I would like to add is this. As I
have traveled throughout my district and talked to my constituents
invariably the conversation about the balanced budget goes something
like this:
``Why can't you balance the budget like we do in our home? Or, ``why
can't you balance the budget like we do in our business?'' Or a city
leader will say to me, ``Why can't you balance the budget like we do in
our city?'' Or a State will say, ``Why can't you balance the budget
like we do in our State?''
My answer to them is that we have a chance to do that today, to
balance the budget like we do in our homes, and our cities, and our
businesses, and our States, and that is to balance our operating budget
but set aside the necessary funds to invest in the future by separating
capital expenses from operating expenses and insisting that we balance
our operating budget, insisting so much that we put in the Constitution
insistence that we set aside something for the future in our capital
budgets.
I simply want to say, as I said at the beginning, that I thank all of
the sponsors of these constitutional amendments. This is an important
debate. I am going to support a number of the amendments that come
before us today. But I particularly wanted to rise and let this body
think through very carefully what the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr.
Wise] has put before us. The concepts behind it are important. They are
important to this debate about the Federal budget, and I urge support
in addition to a general balanced budget amendment, the Wise amendment,
today.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio].
Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House Joint
Resolution 103, the balanced budget constitutional amendment. My
constituents back on Long Island agree with me that such a measure is
necessary. In response to a questionnaire I sent to every household in
my congressional district, 85 percent of the respondents said they
support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
Some of my colleagues in this House argue that an amendment is not
needed because we are on the right path, citing the declining deficit
at least over the next 2 years. This misses the point. Even assuming
that all the projected revenues appear and spending cuts occur as
projected, the gross Federal debt increases by 35 percent to over $6
trillion in 1999. From 1995 to 1999, Federal outlays will increase by
almost $340 billion, and the deficit is expected to begin rising in
1997 unless we take further action. The Congressional Budget Office
projects that net interest on the debt alone will be over $200 billion
for 1994. This is almost 80 percent of what we will spend on all
domestic discretionary programs.
The path we are on imposes nothing less than a huge mortgage on our
children. Thomas Jefferson said it well 200 years ago when he said, we
must ``consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our
debts and be bound to pay for them ourselves.'' Our inability to make
the hard decisions necessarily lowers their standard of living.
Despite overwhelming demand from the American people, time and again,
Congress has shown it does not have the internal discipline to balance
the budget. Given Congress' dismal record, it is time for stronger
medicine. Deficits have become ingrained and their perpetuation has
become a structural pattern of behavior for Congress. Having tried
everything else, I am convinced that a constitutional amendment is the
only way to break this cycle of spending beyond our means.
In the 102d Congress, the House failed to pass a balanced budget
amendment by just nine votes. This year, the Senate has acted first and
with a disappointing result--four votes short. Some have argued that
this result renders the House vote moot or even symbolic. I disagree.
It is not moot, and as for reducing the House vote to symbolism, I
would argue that House passage of this amendment will clearly show, for
the record, our intent.
We must learn to live within our means, and not saddle our children
and future generations with our debts.
To my very small daughters, Molly and Kelsey, 2 years old and 6
months old, this vote is cast for you and your future.
{time} 1540
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Deal], an outstanding member of the freshman fiscal
caucus.
Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of a constitutional amendment to balance
the budget.
The United States of America is the demonstration project of modern
civilization whose purpose is to prove that free people can govern
themselves without the supervision of monarchs or dictators. Our pilot
project has entered its third century, but is still an infant on the
amortization table of history. Our success is not assured simply
because we profess noble purposes and lofty ideals. Others have shared
these dreams, yet they have failed.
The energy force of all governments is power--the power to take and
the power to give. Democracies take in the form of taxes and give in
the form of spending. Although taxes and spending are the opposite
sides of the same coin, one would assume that the law of averages would
dictate they would equally appear when the coin is tossed. For the last
25 years, however, the coin has always landed on the spend side,
because Congress has the ability to load the coin and to spend more
than it receives. In fact, we have done this for so long that some
would elevate it to a religious requirement with the perverted
admonition, ``It is more blessed to give than to receive.''
I believe this debate about a balanced budget amendment is really a
debate about preserving our Republic. The greatest inherent danger in
allowing free people to govern themselves is that the euphoria of
liberty will produce an addition that denies the necessity of self
discipline. Could we achieve the same result without this amendment by
just saying no? Of course! But telling an addict to just say no will
not work--and Congress is addicted to deficit spending. We have sold
our own possessions and mortgaged our children's inheritance to support
the habit. We have lost the ability to say no.
Anarchy is the twin brother of irresponsible democracy. The mystery
of the American drama on the stage of history is--when will the twins
swap places?
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this constitutional amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Oregon,
for yielding time to me. Let me say that I am going to miss the
gentleman when he leaves this body, because he is a voice of reason,
and we appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, we have a historic opportunity before us today. We can
start to make a lot of things right again by casting a vote for the
balanced budget amendment. No family or household in America can spend
more than it has, yet we allow the Federal Government to run huge
budget deficits every year instead of forcing them to make tough
decisions about Government spending. No father or mother can simply
decide to ignore the bottom line and spend their hard-earned money
recklessly or foolishly. Like almost everybody, American families and
businesses are held accountable for the spending decisions they make.
If they don't have the money, they don't spend the money. It is as
simple as that.
Mr. Chairman, it is time we return to that notion of spending
accountability. It is time for Congress to act like responsible
Americans do all across this country and end the pattern of spending
and borrowing this institution has tolerated for too long.
It is shameful that it has come to this--that the U.S. Congress has
to pass binding legislation in order to balance its budget--but the
balanced budget amendment we have before us today is the instrument we
need. We need it to put Congress' feet to the fire. In the past, we
have passed a multitude of budget laws--Gramm-Rudman-Hollings being the
best example--that Congress was able to routinely waive or ignore.
Today, we have an opportunity to cast a vote for legislation that, if
passed, Congress would be unable to ignore. The balanced budget
amendment will ensure that Congress must do what it has not done since
man first landed on the moon 25 years ago: pass a balanced budget.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to wait 1 minute longer. It took
America over 200 years to accumulate our first trillion dollar national
debt--that is one thousand billion--in national debt. The budgets for
the last three fiscal years alone increased the national debt another
trillion dollars. Interest payments on the debt are now the largest
item in the budget; in fact, 57 cents of every dollar in personal
income taxes is spent on servicing the national debt. In fiscal year
1993, the Federal Government spent more to service the debt--the
product of decades of budget deficits--than what the U.S. Government
collected in total revenues in 1976.
And our national debt is getting bigger by the hour. This time
tomorrow, it will be nearly one-half billion dollars more than it is
right now. Government spending is completely out of control. The
Federal Government hasn't ended a fiscal year in surplus in almost a
quarter-century and this profligate spending is expanding Government to
gargantuan dimensions. For the first time in our Nation's history,
there are more Americans working for Government than in manufacturing.
Government employs more people in my neighbor state, Michigan, than the
entire automobile industry.
Mr. Chairman, Government spending is a runaway train careening out of
control. The full throttle of multibillion dollar budget deficits has
powered an unprecedented growth in Federal spending, and entire
generations of Americans stand to suffer as a result.
We must balance the budget now and attack the problem of the national
debt before we further mortgage our children's quality of life.
Congress can simply no longer live beyond its means, and the balanced
budget amendment will force this institution to be responsible and
accountable in their spending.
Do not let anybody tell you that it cannot be done either. If every
American family can manage to balance their budget, then the Congress
of the United States can do so as well. In fact, some of us already
have. This past month, I joined Congressmen Solomon, Fawell, and Upton
and others in drafting a budget that would eliminate the deficit within
5 years. These three, along with the entire balanced budget task force,
deserve a great deal of credit for the leadership they have shown in
cutting the deficit. Our budget, with almost 500 specific spending cuts
slashing over $600 billion in Federal spending, managed to balance the
budget without reducing Social Security, cutting earned veterans'
benefits, gutting defense, or raising taxes.
These exceptions are important: The budget cannot and should not be
balanced on the backs of seniors and Social Security recipients. Our
budget cut the deficit without raiding the Social Security trust fund.
We were successful: Our budget represented the largest and most
specific deficit-cutting proposal ever considered by the House of
Representatives, and the only one that ever actually resulted in a
balanced budget.
The Solomon-Fawell-Upton budget is proof that balanced budgets are
possible, and that all that is lacking is the political will and
courage to restrain spending. The balanced budget amendment will give
Congress that will because the American people demand it.
Just this month, a CNN/USA Today poll found that 66 percent of
Americans support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
This past December, a survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce showed
that over 91 percent of businesses believed in the necessity of a
balanced budget amendment. My constituents in Wisconsin want a balanced
budget too; I have an annual questionnaire where people indicate to me
their most pressing concerns. This year, as in years past, the single
greatest worry to the people of my district is wasteful Government
spending.
America needs the balanced budget amendment and Americans want
Congress to pass it. Let us heed the wishes of the American people, and
let us address the concerns of generations of future Americans. Today
represents a historic opportunity to end a quarter-century of budget
deficits, fire the first shot in the war against the national debt, and
take the bold step of forcing Congress to act as fiscally responsible
as every household in America. All with one vote. Cast that vote
wisely--vote in favor of the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
(Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard it argued over and over again that it
isn't necessary to have a balanced budget amendment to our U.S.
Constitution. Opponents of the amendment argue: ``Trust Congress'' to
balance the budget and protect the basic right of future generations
not to be saddled with debt for which they had no part in creating--but
for which they will have total responsibility for paying.
The argument that we don't need constitutional safeguards was made
over 200 years ago against the first amendment to the Constitution,
guaranteeing free speech. They said ``Trust Congress'' to not pass laws
infringing on freedom of speech. But, wisely, the people of the
original 13 States, in ratifying the Constitution, did not trust
Congress to protect this basic right. In the ratification process of
the Constitution it was agreed that a bill of rights, including the
first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, would be added to the
Constitution.
Why, in light of the dismal and profligate decades-long record of
congressional overspending should anyone now trust Congress to balance
the Federal budget without a constitutional obligation to do so?
Congress has not balanced a budget for 24 years in a row and has run
deficits in 56 of the last 64 years. This year, $300 billion will be
incurred in order to service that debt.
When I came to Congress in 1985, the national debt was $1.4 trillion.
During my 9 years in Congress I heard cumulative promises of trillions
of dollars of deficit reductions in the form of all kinds of 5-year
deficit-reduction agreements--the last two of which, in 1990 and 1993,
were front-loaded with $414 billion in new taxes over 5 years.
And what did we get? Literally trillions of dollars of new debt. The
national debt is now $4.4 trillion and growing. Worse, by 1999 even the
administration admits there will be new debt of $1.9 trillion, for a
1999 national debt of $6.3 trillion. Worse, the OMB and CBO agree the
deficit for 1999 will be over $200 billion and that--combined with
estimated trust fund borrowing of $145 billion--gives us over $350
billion of new debt in the year 1999, with nothing but $350-billion-
plus of new debt per year in the next century for as far as the eye can
see.
And look what happened last week when Congressman Solomon's CBO-
scored balanced budget was presented to this body--with $698 billion in
cuts, producing an $8 billion surplus in 1999, with no cuts in Social
Security or veterans' benefits. Yet there were only 73 Members of the
House with enough courage to vote for the cuts required under the
Solomon balanced budget resolution for fiscal years 1995 through 1999--
56 Republicans and 17 Democrats. Ironically, some in news media are
using that vote to argue against the constitutional amendment. But,
obviously, that vote is the best argument for a constitutional
amendment--it proved that Congress is incapable of balancing the budget
without a constitutional amendment requiring them to do so.
So here we are, drowning in decades of red ink with no plans in this
century or the next century to balance the budget. This body is like
Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
If Congress cannot, under these circumstances, vote for a real
balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or, more
accurately, to simply start the constitutional amendatory process to
begin for ultimate approval by a sufficient number of State
legislatures, it is painfully obvious that the leadership of Congress
simply doesn't care about the basic rights of our Nation's children to
be free from debilitating debt.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kyl, Barton, Stenholm balanced
budget amendments.
{time} 1550
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the lovely
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Bentley].
Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me and for leading us in this battle.
Mr. Chairman, the time has come to pass a balanced budget amendment.
Opponents say that the Constitution should not be trifled with, and
that because we as a body have failed, we should not pass the buck to
the Constitution.
We also hear that economic policy should not be incorporated in the
Constitution.
Such statements overlook the obvious and forget our heritage.
The Constitution is a contract between the Government and the
governed. Like any contract, it has economic provisions.
The Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate foreign and
interstate commerce--that is an economic provision.
The Constitution prohibited the Congress for levying direct taxes on
the people. I might remind this body that this country's economy grew
quickest when Congress only levied tariffs and this country's growth
slowed only when Congress started to collect income taxes.
The Constitution permitted slavery, which was an economic provision
that had to be repealed by a civil war.
History shows that the Constitution is an economic document.
We are debating this amendment because Congress will not balance the
books.
For all the talk of hard choices, the Democrat leadership
consistently muzzles any serious consideration of balancing the budget.
Last week during the budget debate, the Rules Committee disallowed
discussion of blanket freeze budget proposals.
Why? Because they were fair and might pass. All budget proposals with
hundreds of cuts are doomed to fail, because each cut represents a
special project for a Member. Only an even-handed freeze can pass--
which is why the leadership precludes any vote on such an approach.
This resolution itself reaches the floor only by way of a discharge
petition.
Hard choices are not being made, which is why over 30 States have
called for a constitutional convention. If we cannot do our job, the
buck will be passed to that convention.
The only way we can continue to provide Social Security for current
and future recipients is to pass a balanced budget amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Hampshire [Mr. Swett].
(Mr. SWETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and the balanced budget amendment.
I salute his determination and skill in bringing about this amendment,
in bringing it to the floor of the House of Representatives, and extend
my personal thanks for his leadership in this critical and crucial
issue. I am proud to be cosponsor of the gentleman's amendment.
Today's action I find to be a little bit confusing, because we are
debating among several different substitutes for a balanced budget
amendment, and there is a great deal of angst and concern among those
speaking about the differences between the two of them, whether or not
we should have a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
And what we really ought to realize is that no matter what happens
today, no matter what vote is cast, we will not have any impact on the
U.S. Constitution. The Senate has already destroyed that opportunity
with the vote that they cast several days ago. So it seems to me our
real issue here is not to debate what kind of a balanced budget
amendment we need to have on the U.S. Constitution, but whether in fact
we support the concept of balancing this Nation's budget.
Now that, I think, is a very elemental issue and ought not to have a
whole lot of partisan or ideological disagreement involved with it. But
it seems to have engendered that, and I am just trying to clarify and
simplify the debate.
Every substitute that is on the floor ought to be supported. This is
a golden opportunity for Democrats to support the idea of balancing
this Nation's budget.
We are not going to implement an amendment to the Constitution. We
are going to send a strong message back to our constituents, one that I
think we are hearing from them, that we ought to get our fiscal house
in order, and next term, next year, when we have an opportunity, we
should work seriously to craft an amendment to the U.S. Constitution or
to craft legislation that has to do with appropriating moneys that will
effectively control the budget of this country and brings us to a point
of responsible fiscal policy, balancing the budget, eliminating the
deficit.
Democrats have this opportunity to make this statement today. We do
not need to stand and let the other side of the aisle control this
debate. That is why I think my colleague from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], has
done the responsible thing. That is why I think we ought to support
every substitute on the floor today. That is why I think they ought to
all pass unanimously. Because then the real educational debate begins,
how is this going to be crafted. We know we want it.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for all of my colleagues to support all of the
substitutes on the floor.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon, and rise
today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 103, the Stenholm-
Smith balanced budget amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as I stand here, I am reminded of the James Taylor
song, ``That's Why I Am Here'' because in fact this is one of the
fundamental reasons that I was sent to Congress, to balance the budget.
Mr. Chairman, nearly 220 years ago the colonial subjects of King
George III were energized, inspired, and finally incited to revolution
by the slogan ``No taxation without representation.'' It was the
central, unifying theme of the Declaration of Independence. Taxation
without representation was the straw, if you will, that broke the
people's back. It was the single most inflammatory, unacceptable, and
abhorrent characteristic of England's colonial domination and dominion
over the fledgling colonies. Taxation without representation was the
fundamental cause of the American Revolution.
And here we stand, fully two centuries later, having indulged for the
past 25 years in the subtlest--and yet all the more insidious--kind of
taxation without representation ever perpetrated. That is--a tax which
we in this Congress and Congresses past have levied on our children,
and our children's children--and perhaps their children too--without
any representation at all.
They have no vote; they have no choice; They cannot speak; and who
will speak for them?
The special interests who oppose this amendment--the guerilla
warriors of intergenerational feuding and class warfare.
Who will speak for these children? Will it be the politicians who
cynically continue to vote staggering deficits, deficits which are in
effect nothing more than public financing of their own re-election
campaigns--and which give them the ability to provide largesse and
benefits to their special interest beneficiaries on the backs of future
generations--those generations not represented.
That is, after all, what this debate is really all about. It is no
less compelling, it is no less inflamming, it is no less true today
than it was 220 years ago.
We cannot accept and will not tolerate for our children and
grandchildren any form of taxation without representation.
{time} 1600
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. Ravenel].
Mr. RAVENEL. Mr. Chairman, Members have all heard about the straw
that broke the camel's back. They just kept piling one straw on top of
another straw, on top of another straw. And then, all of a sudden, the
camel's back was broken.
Well, what dollar is going to be the dollar that breaks the back of
the Federal Government?
If we do not get a handle on our deficit situation, let me tell
Members what is going to happen. It happened on October 19, 1987, a lot
of Members remember it, when all of a sudden for no apparent reason,
the Dow just dropped out of bed and went on down and down and down. And
when the bell rang, it was down 500 and 8 points. The next day, it went
down 300 points more. And at 11:22, IBM, which at that time was the
greatest common stock in the world, quit trading. The reason it quit
trading was because there were no bettors.
Let me tell Members what can happen, if we do not pass this balanced
budget amendment, and it is coming, folks, I am telling Members, it is
coming, one of these Monday mornings when the Treasury goes in there to
refinance the debt and raise $200 million or $300 million more dollars
to cover those checks that they sent out on Friday, something is going
to happen in this country or somewhere in the world. And the bond
market is going to fall out of bed. And all those government checks,
retirees' checks, pension checks, contractors' checks, all the checks
will start flipping all over the country like a bunch of rubber checks.
And it is going to be, ``Kitty, bar the door'' for the financial
collapse will have occurred.
So I say to all my colleagues, for the sake of our country, for
crying out loud, please, this day vote for this balanced budget
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith-
Stenholm balanced budget amendment.
I also want to congratulate Bob Smith, he has done yeoman's work on
this issue over the years, and when he leaves this House in a few
months, his constituents will miss him but this institution will miss
him even more. This House needs more men like him.
Mr. Chairman, I have spoken out many times on this floor about out
of control Federal spending. I have brought to this house the message
that my constituents in east Tennessee keep giving me, and that is:
stop putting all of this spending on our children and grandchildren and
get Federal spending under control.
Yet, year after year, our deficits keep growing and our enormous debt
continues to mount.
We hear speakers opposed to a balanced budget claiming that Social
Security and Medicare will be cut if a balanced budget amendment is
approved. This is totally ridiculous.
In fact, we can reduce our enormous debt without touching either of
these programs.
I would like to share with my colleagues a letter to Senator Paul
Simon from Robert J. Myers, a former 37-year employee with the Social
Security Administration who served as Chief Actuary from 1947 to 1970,
and as Deputy Commissioner from 1981 to 1982.
Mr. Myers states:
In my opinion, the most serious threat to Social Security
is the Federal Government's fiscal irresponsibility. . . .
Regaining control of our fiscal affairs is the most
important step that we can take to protect the soundness of
the Social Security trust funds. I urge the Congress to make
that goal a reality and to pass the balanced-budget amendment
without delay.
I agree with Mr. Myers. Furthermore, most national polls show that 75
to 80 percent of the American people want us to balance the budget.
Almost every leading economist tells us our staggering national debt
is holding us back economically and that we would be booming if we were
not so far in the hole.
We are really hurting the poor and working people of this country
with our fiscal irresponsibility.
Since the political will in this Congress will not let us balance the
budget on our own, we must have a constitutional amendment that will
force the majority here to make the tough decisions that must be made.
Most States across our Nation have balanced budget requirements in
their constitutions. It makes sense, it is responsible, and it is what
the American people want.
We are spending over $50,000 a second, every second of every day,
Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays included. We will take in one
trillion, four hundred billion this year alone at the Federal level.
This is enough to operate a strong, active, vibrant, Federal Government
without going deeper and deeper into debt. I urge passage of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter to which I
referred.
Hon. Paul Simon,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Simon: I am pleased to have this opportunity
to express my support for the Balanced Budget Amendment.
For 37 years I worked for the Social Security
Administration, serving as Chief Actuary in 1947-70, and as
Deputy Commissioner in 1981-82. In 1982-83, I served as
Executive Director of the National Commission on Social
Security Reform. And I continue to do all that I can to
assure that Social Security continues to fulfill its
promises.
The Social Security trust funds are one of the great social
successes of this century. The program is fully self-
sustaining, and is currently running significant excesses of
income over outgo. The trust funds will continue to help the
elderly for generations to come--so long as the rest of the
federal government acts with fiscal prudence. Unfortunately,
that is a big ``if.''
In my opinion, the most serious threat to Social Security
is the federal government's fiscal irresponsibility. If we
continue to run federal deficits year after year, and if
interest payments continue to rise at an alarming rate, we
will face two dangerous possibilities. Either we will raid
the trust funds to pay for our current profligacy, or we will
print money, dishonestly inflating our way out of
indebtedness. Both cases would devastate the value of the
Social Security trust funds.
Regaining control of our fiscal affairs is the most
important step that we can take to protect the soundness of
the Social Security trust funds. I urge the Congress to make
that goal a reality--and to pass the Balanced Budget
Amendment without delay.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Myers.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
I rise in strong support of the Stenholm-Smith balanced budget
amendment. I believe that the amendment is needed for two reasons:
First of all, we need it for the necessary discipline to cause this
House to do what we cannot seem to do on our own in the ordinary budget
process. We need the discipline of a constitutional requirement of
balancing the Federal Government's budget. That is the first reason.
The second reason is that we need, frankly, to create a crisis by the
passage of the balanced budget amendment. Make no mistake about it. As
a member of the Committee on the Budget, I am well aware that passing
the balanced budget amendment will create a crisis in our budgetary
process, because it will mean that all of us will have to come to the
table to figure out how to balance a budget that is terribly, terribly
out of balance.
That will require, that crisis will create an environment where we
will come together, I believe, just as this country has come together
before with other crises, where we have been faced with an outside
threat. We will forget Republican and Democrat differences. We will
come together at a table where we can figure out together how to
balance the budget and do what we all know we need to do.
Yesterday I was in Greer, SC, doing what I call a walking town
meeting, which basically means picking out a street, walking down and
finding out what America thinks. The interesting thing I found out
yesterday in Greer is that on that street of ordinary Americans,
everyone there is living currently under a balanced budget amendment in
their homes. They cannot do what we do here, spending and spending and
writing new checks. Because as Members know, in that neighborhood in
Greer, SC, eventually the sheriff comes for those folks who do that
sort of thing. But here in the Congress, we can get away with it
forever and ever, continuing to run imbalanced budgets.
Actually, though, we cannot get away with it forever, because sooner
or later we will have to pay the piper. I think that for my sake and
for, I hope, the other Members here, what we have got to do is make
sure that we do not expect our grandchildren to pay the piper. We have
got to deal with it now. We have to pass the balanced budget amendment
now, create the crisis, get everyone to the table and figure out how to
balance this budget.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield
that 1 minute to the gentleman from California. [Mr. Gallegly].
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be added to the time of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
There was no objection.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Stenholm-Smith balanced budget amendment.
During my service in Congress, I have stressed the need for reform in
Government. To me, there is no more significant reform Congress can
take than to enact a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.
As it currently stands, our national debt currently exceeds $4.3
trillion--that works out to $17,495 for every man, woman, and child in
the United States.
In 1993, our gross interest payments equalled $293 billion. This is
greater than the total outlays of the Federal Government in 1974. These
interest payments consumed 57 percent of all personal income taxes.
More ominously, 43 percent of national income is being consumed by
all levels of Government. We have almost reached the point where
Government is taking half of what we generate in income. This trend
must stop or our economy will no longer be able to generate the growth
necessary to create new jobs and maintain our standard of living.
Failure to enact the Stenholm-Smith balanced budget amendment will
make it impossible for the procedural changes necessary to control
spending to be put in place.
Congress must restore some degree of sanity in our spending and
demonstrate to the American people that we can get our own house in
order. Deficit spending is not acceptable and Congress must kick its
deficit spending habit.
Under the alternative, it would be possible to continue to run
deficits as large or larger than our current deficits. Enacting a
balanced budget amendment that allows us to continue burdening future
generations with a rapidly increased debt will undermine public
confidence in the Constitution and Congress--confidence that is already
at an all-time low.
There has been a lot of talk about Social Security being harmed by
enactment of a balanced budget amendment. The truth is the largest
threats to Social Security are deficits and debt.
Ballooning interest payments on the national debt already are
squeezing out other fiscal priorities. Spending more and more on
interest eventually threatens all programs--even Social Security.
There is nothing in the alternative amendment that would prevent
Congress from balancing the budget on paper by altering definitions to
classify spending as capital investments or Social Security. It would
be possible to evade the amendment by funding any number of programs by
draining the Social Security trust fund.
Without the backdrop of enforcement of a requirement for three-
fifth's vote to increase the debt limit, it will be easy to move items
off-budget to evade the balanced budget requirement.
It is time for Congress to stop playing games and pass a true
balanced budget amendment. Support the Stenholm-Smith amendment and
help us to restore some fiscal sanity to the budget process.
{time} 1610
Mr. Chairman, let us all remember, the debate today and tomorrow is
not about how to balance the Federal budget. It is about whether we
should begin to balance the Federal budget. That is a very important
distinction that we are going to hear more and more about tonight and
tomorrow, that this will not balance the budget. But like an alcoholic
who wants to quit drinking, the first step in that process is the
commitment, the decision and the commitment to stop. Then after that,
it is day by day, the effort to stay off of that substance. That is the
commitment that we are debating, that is the commitment that this
Congress should make.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Upton].
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my good friend from Arizona, Jon Kyl.
The opponents of a balanced budget amendment say that we don't need
it, well, 24 straight unbalanced budgets says we do.
The opponents of a balanced budget amendment say that we don't need
it, well, $200 billion deficits says we do.
The opponents of a balanced budget amendment say that we don't need
it, well, a $4.5 trillion debt says we do.
The opponents of a balanced budget amendment say that we don't need
it, well, a 73 to 342 vote against the Solomon-Fawell-Upton balanced
budget last week says we do.
My constituents in southwestern Michigan not only say that they want
Congress to balance the budget, but also they want, less Government
spending and a Presidential line-item veto--that's exactly what we have
in the Kyl spending limitation amendment.
The Kyl amendment is very similar to the Stenholm proposal--except
that it places a specific spending limit on the Federal Government and
gives the President a line-item veto.
Under the Kyl amendment, Federal spending would be limited to 19
percent of the gross domestic product, which is about the average level
of tax dollars collected by the Federal Government over the last
generation.
Let us give our constituents what they want: a balanced budget, a
Federal spending limit, and a Presidential line-item veto.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Kyl spending limitation
amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman
from California, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, the balanced budget amendments being offered by
Representatives Kyl, Barton, Stenholm, and Smith deserve our support.
The alternative being offered by Representatives Wise, Price, Pomeroy,
and Furse is just a diversion. Political cover is no substitute for
fiscal responsibility.
When you threaten the Washington power structure, you can expect a
powerful response. This is what the authentic balanced budget
amendments do.
Critics claim an amendment would ``lock-in'' Congress to draconian
deficit reduction that would burden the economy. In the event of a
recession, an amendment would supposedly have adverse effects--keeping
taxes up when the economy needed just the opposite from the Government.
But, these amendments are not inflexible. They can be overridden with
sufficient votes, and I am sure they would be with sufficient cause,
such as a dramatic economic downturn or national emergency. Getting
congressional support for spending has not been a problem. If it had
been, we would not be debating this legislation today.
Is the amendment too draconian? Does it cut too deeply, too quickly?
There is a fundamental flaw in the critics' assertion that less
Government spending equals less national spending. The money the
Government does not spend will still be spent and invested. The only
difference is, it will be spent and invested by those who earned it,
and no doubt, more carefully and more productively than by the
Government.
Will States suffer under a real balanced budget amendment? There
probably will be less money from Washington--the whole idea being to
cut Federal spending. However, State and local governments will see
their tax base increase from more retained earnings of their citizens
and from greater local investment.
The real complaint of critics is not that it hurts vulnerable groups,
but that it hurts federally funded special interests claiming to
represent these groups. This is the Washington status quo and it is
little wonder they are frightened by the balanced budget amendment. In
contrast to those who earn and invest, the only economic system special
interests know is to receive payments from Washington.
Is a balanced budget amendment a substitute for tough choices, as
critics say? On the contrary, it will only be a substitute for tough
choices if it does not pass. If it passes, then the tough choices will
have to be made, and no one will be held more accountable than those
who supported this amendment.
Finally, what is the solution being proposed by those opposing the
balanced budget amendment? Presumably we are to count on the economy to
grow us out of the problem.
The question then becomes: What will improve the American economy
faster: a government spending more than it takes in, or a private
sector that gets to spend more of what it takes in? I believe the
latter will, and I believe my colleagues who support the amendment, and
the American people, who pay the bills, agree with me.
While I support a balanced budget amendment, I do not support every
amendment that calls itself by this name; specifically, the amendment
being offered by Representatives Wise, Price, Pomeroy, and Furse.
Rather than solving the root problem of the deficit--uncontrolled
Federal spending--their amendment will seek to redefine it out of
existence. They will do so by calling some spending capital investment.
If this passes, the category of capital investment will grow hand-in-
hand with Federal spending.
The only thing their amendment will do is to give Members who are
afraid to tell taxpayers that they couldn't say ``no,'' a flimsy excuse
to hide behind.
I urge Members to oppose the amendment being offered by
Representatives Wise, Price, Pomeroy, and Furse. This contrived sheep
in wolf's clothing will do nothing to solve the problems arising from
our irresponsible spending. Instead it will provide cover for it in
every sense of the word.
Instead I urge my colleagues to support a true balanced budget
amendment and vote for the versions being offered by Representatives
Kyl, Barton, Stenholm, and Smith.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
{time} 1620
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support an amendment to the
Constitution requiring a balanced budget.
This dramatic, historic step is necessary. We cannot continue down
the path of never ending, ever increasing debt.
The buck must stop here, today, in this chamber, and with this
amendment.
We all know of national polls that show overwhelming public support
for this amendment, but perhaps that only reflects the frustration the
American people feel about the inability of this institution to deal
with many difficult problems.
The fears of the American people are reaffirmed every budget and
appropriation cycle. Forty-nine States have balanced budget amendments
to their State constitutions, and no one cries calamity in those 49
States. Yet some Members of this body act as if adding one here would
bring the end of the world.
It is remarkable that the Federal Government has not posted a surplus
since 1969. The Federal Government has in fact run a deficit for 56 of
the last 64 years.
Only last week, this body debated and passed a measure that purported
to take tough action on the deficit. However, that supposed tough
action still increases the public debt by $1.2 trillion over the next 5
years, for a staggering total debt of $4.7 trillion. No wonder the
American people have lost confidence in the way the decisions are made
here and the decisions themselves.
Thomas Jefferson viewed the frugal management of money as ``among the
first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest
danger to be feared.''
Amending the Constitution is not an endeavor that I support lightly.
But the Framers of the Constitution never envisioned that the Federal
Government would violate the trust of the people my mortgaging away the
future of not only their children, but also their grandchildren and
great-grandchildren.
What is the result of doing nothing? The result, simply stated, would
be economic disaster.
Even if interest rates remain steady, we as a country are rapidly
approaching the day when interest on the debt will consume nearly all
personal and corporate income tax receipts. And should interest rates
rise, the results will be even worse. Moreover, huge Government
borrowing to finance this deficit spending is thwarting investment in
new enterprises and new jobs.
Not for the sake of political expediency--but for solid economic
reasons--this amendment must pass.
Our obligation today is to put our Nation's fiscal house in order.
The reason we need a constitutional amendment is that previous
statutory efforts have failed, whether Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, zero
based budgeting, or any other attempt during the past quarter century.
The serious step of amending the Constitution is warranted: The
consequence of doing nothing is economic calamity. Let us do the right
thing and pass the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Valentine].
(Mr. VALENTINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I compliment him for the work that he has done in this
endeavor over the past over 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Stenholm version
of the balanced budget amendment.
Today, we in this body are considering exercising our most powerful
legislative option--an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Only 27
times in our history have we amended the Constitution. Our Founding
Fathers made this procedure difficult. We should never act in haste or
frivolity when tampering with our Constitution.
I could stand before you today and reel off the financial figures our
Nation faces today--a debt in excess of $4 trillion, and deficit which,
thanks to the diligent efforts of President Clinton, has been
drastically lowered, but still comes in at the astounding figure of
$180 billion. We have reached the point where our debt is discussed in
figures which were beyond our imaginations just 50 years ago. My
colleagues, the time to stop this debt spiral is long passed.
The Stenholm balanced budget amendment is strong medicine. It
requires a balanced Federal budget by fiscal year 2001. It requires a
super-majority of three-fifths of each body in order to operate a
deficit. Unlike the various Republican substitutes, it recognizes that
a realistic balanced budget will, in all likelihood, require a
combination of deep cuts in Government services and increases in
revenues. Unlike the leadership substitute, the Stenholm plan forces us
to make the tough decisions that will be necessary to bring fiscal
responsibility to our Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, make no mistake. Passage of the Stenholm balanced
budget amendment will mean pain. Our constituents will likely be
shocked at the sacrifice that will be required in order to balance the
budget. And Members of Congress will feel the pain of not being able to
say yes to every spending request that comes down the pike.
There are no magic pills, no golden eggs which can cure our deficit
problem. Our national debt is not a bad dream that we can simply wake
up from to find things okay. It is a serious problem which requires a
serious solution--something that had eluded this body, and other body,
and every administration in power, over the last two decades. We will
not make the tough decisions without the power of constitutional
restraint.
Mr. Chairman, the pain we will have to face to balance our budget
today does not compare to the pain that will be forced on my grandson,
Carr Valentine, his generation, and future generations if we do not
make the tough choices today. We are, I say to my colleagues, spending
our children's inheritance. We are living high, and leaving them the
bill. That practice must stop, and it should stop today.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Stenholm balanced
budget amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is an irresponsible and immoral practice which must
cease, and the only way to cease it, in my judgment, is to adopt the
Stenholm balanced-budget amendment.
I urge my colleagues to join us in this crusade.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Andrews].
Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, we have an extraordinary opportunity before us today,
and when we vote on these measures tomorrow.
We have a breath of fresh air that has entered into this debate, and
that breath of fresh air is the Wise substitute that says that it is
time that we stop rehashing the tired old balanced-budget-amendment
debates year after year, session after session of Congress, and decide
instead that we are going to fundamentally reform the budget process in
this country, and we are going to start by telling the Federal
Government in Washington that it has to start looking at its budget
like every successful business in America looks at its budget and every
successful household looks at their budget across the country, and that
is simply to recognize the fact that there is a fundamental difference
between capital investment for growth and economic productivity and
strength on the one hand, and an operating budget to meet your day-to-
day, week-to-week expenses on the other hand. That is exactly what the
substitute that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is
presenting to us will do.
We have a chance, ladies and gentlemen, to look forward in this
country. to recognize that the way we get this budget finally under
control is through economic growth and strength, and that if we realize
that investment, planning ahead, building a strong economic foundation
is important, then we need a vehicle. We need a budget that will allow
us to make those critical investment decisions.
You know, in my State of Maine, we have been suffering and continue
to suffer from a recession, tremendous problems all over our State,
with people who are out of work and unemployed and without hope,
looking for an opportunity to turn their lives around, looking for a
chance for a future and to build a future.
They turn to us to say, ``What are you doing about it,'' particularly
those who have been involved in the area of defense who have helped
through their labor this Nation win the cold war and are now asking us
in the post-cold-war era what are we, as a nation, going to do to help
them.
Well, I will tell you something, ladies and gentlemen, we need them.
We need that defense industrial base. We need that skilled work force.
We need those communities and those neighborhoods to go to work, to
rebuild the foundation of this country's economy.
But we are not going to have it if we continue to be locked into this
Federal budget process that does not recognize the difference between
investment for economic growth on the one hand and operating expenses
on the other. If you took over a business today and you were asked to
turn that business around that was failing because of bad
mismanagement, you would probably do two basic things: First of all,
you would look at what spending you are incurring that has no
relationship to the productivity and success of your business, and as
painful and as difficult as it may be, you are going to cut that
spending. That would be obviously important.
{time} 1630
But the second thing you are going to do, which is just as important
as the first, is you have got a business plan. You are going to set
goals for your company, have a strategy to reach those goals, and you
are going to invest capital in that strategy so that you can realize
those goals.
Ladies and gentlemen, why can we not as a nation, why can not the
politicians in Washington, DC, do exactly the same thing? Let us set
our goals on strong, robust economic growth; let us set a strategy that
we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, the foundation of this
country's economic strength.
Put people to work rebuilding that foundation and then put people to
work from the success that we will generate from that revived
foundation. Then, ladies and gentlemen, we will get a return on
investment in economic growth, increased revenues, increased numbers of
people and families working, and we will turn this budget around in the
correct way.
The Stenholm balanced budget amendment, ladies and gentlemen, is
flawed, for a fundamental reason: It locks us into the status quo. It
fails to make that critical distinction between investment looking
ahead, planning and growing our economy, and operating budgets on the
other hand. The way that we can--and this is the first time that I as a
Member of Congress will have an opportunity on this floor of this House
to vote for this basic budget reform--I am going to take advantage of
that and I urge all of you to do the same thing.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. He is absolutely
correct. I suspect that, just like West Virginia, does the State of
Maine have a capital budget program?
Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. Yes, it does.
Mr. WISE. Does it treat operating income in one way and capital
investment another?
Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. Exactly right. We look at what our basic
capital investment needs are, we establish a budget for that, and we
invest. That is separate from the operating budget of our State. That
is exactly right.
Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman for making that point, because that
is simply what we are trying to do in this amendment, to make the
Federal policy much more in common with that of the States, which some
people who have trooped down here in the well say they want to do.
Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership. I went
to the Committee on Rules last year to try to bring up on the floor
exactly what the gentleman from West Virginia is doing today.
Mr. WISE. The gentleman from Maine has been a leader in this effort,
and I thank him for supporting us as aggressively as he has.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the balanced budget
amendments put forth by Congressmen Stenholm, Smith, Barton, and Kyl
and against the Wise substitute.
Listening to what has been said about the balanced budget amendment,
I cannot help but be reminded of the ``Chicken Little'' fable.
Recall that Chicken Little was struck in the head by an acorn while
walking though the woods one day. Believing that the sky was falling,
Chicken Little ran to warn the King of the imminent danger. On his way
to see the King, Chicken Little convinced other animals of the apparent
tragedy, except one--the wolf--who saw through their foolishness and
took advantage of their fears.
What does this all mean in the context of the balanced budget debate?
It means we can imagine many of our fears into existence. ``Courage,''
said Plato, ``is knowing what to fear''--and we most certainly should
not fear the balanced budget amendment.
Administration and Democratic leaders want us to believe the sky will
fall if the BBA were to pass. They are using scare tactics--targeting
various groups and segments of the population--seniors most notably--
arguing that the amendment would wreak havoc, causing massive cuts if
not outright repeal of programs.
They have convinced themselves and others that the amendment is a
``sham,'' ``horrendous,'' ``harmful,'' and ``terrible.'' The
administration itself said, ``We need to save the country from this
disaster.'' But I ask: Are not $200 billion deficits, $4.5 trillion
debt, and mortgaging our grandchildren's future the real disaster?
Americans are not buying this Chicken Little foolishness. That is why
a vast majority of Americans when polled support the balanced budget
amendment. These scare tactics are wrong. Ratification of the balanced
budget amendment will not be a disaster--particularly for seniors.
There can be no denying that very hard choices will have to be made
by all Americans if we are to balance the budget by the turn of the
century. If the BBA is passed by Congress, it will take at least a
couple of years before the amendment is ratified by 3/4ths of the
States, as required.
According to the amendment language, Congress then would have 2 years
before the amendment would take effect. Since the balanced budget
amendment is not going to take effect until at least 1999, Congress
effectively has 5 years to bring deficit spending under control.
Some of us have put forth spending cuts plans that would put the
budget in balance or on a downward path by the turn of the century--
without touching Social Security--Republican budget alternatives and
Penny-Kasich to be specific. So it can be done.
More importantly, the real threat to Social Security is interest on
the debt which is squeezing out other fiscal priorities. Spending more
and more on interest eventually threatens all programs, even Social
Security.
Because the numerous legislative opportunities to lock-in deficit
reduction have led nowhere but up--in both deficit and debt terms, we
are left to conclude that amending the Constitution is the only
remaining hope to impose fiscal responsibility on this Nation.
Because a majority in Congress continues to buckle under special
interest pressures--which is what is driving the opposition--we must
pass a constitutional amendment.
Because the myriad of interest groups feeding at the public trough,
are not persuaded by arguments on behalf of the public interest--we
must pass a constitutional amendment.
The balanced budget amendment is not draconian. It allows for orderly
transition to get us to balance. And it provides enforcement teeth.
It reestablishes a level playing field, forcing Congress to place
higher priority on balancing the budget than spending and taxing.
It restores the Constitution's limited government concept.
The balanced budget amendment will help us achieve the objective all
of us agree with. Let us not allow the wolf to see through our
foolishness. Vote for the real balanced budget amendment. The sky will
not fall.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, although it may not seem so now, this discussion
surrounding the balanced budget amendment is truly one of the great
debates of our time.
For over two decades, the Federal Government has suffered from severe
fiscal hemorrhaging. We all know it, we can all see the inevitable
consequences. The question we face is whether to finally apply a
tourniquet, or continue using Band-Aids.
Like a tourniquet, the balanced budget amendment is an imperfect
tool. It would be great if we could make the tough choices on our own,
but we have proven over and over again that we cannot or will not.
We have not balanced the budget in 25 years, and there is no evidence
we ever will without a balanced budget amendment.
We have three very thoughtful alternatives before us today.
The Stenholm-Smith amendment is the classic approach, both tough and
enforceable. The Kyl amendment builds on the good work of Stenholm by
providing important safeguards against a creeping welfare state. And
the Barton amendment protects the American people by requiring a
supermajority of Congress to raise their taxes.
Any one of these three would be a giant step on the road to fiscal
sanity.
But let us not lose sight of the real issue here.
Congress has a spending problem. The entire country knows about it.
The American people have tried time and time again to tell us. But many
of us are not listening.
That is because we are in denial. Spending makes us feel good--it
gives us a feeling of importance. And let us face it, it is easier to
spend than to say ``no'' to the many groups who come through our doors
with opened hands.
So we tell our critics, ``Hey, it's okay, we've got our spending
under control. Just give us a few more years, we'll balance the budget.
But we are not making the grade. The CBO numbers show it. The OMB
numbers show it. The only question left is how far will we go before we
hit bottom.
The real choice we face is this: Should Congress admit that it is
powerless over its addiction? Should we cede our control to the higher
authority of the Constitution?
I say yes. It is time we face our problem. We do not need to figure
out today exactly how we are going to do it. We only need to make the
commitment.
I implore my colleagues, let us pass a balanced budget amendment. Let
us make that commitment. We are hurting the people we represent. We are
ruining our childrens' future.
And in our heart of hearts, every one of us knows that it is the
right thing to do.
So remember why we are here. Remember your responsibility to our
children and grandchildren. Vote for a balanced budget amendment.
Mr. WISE. Before I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Borski], I just want to go on record: Ours is an alternative, and we
are saying that we are prepared and want to craft a reasonable
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
But I do want to disassociate myself from the remarks of some who
want to join the stop-me-before-I-kill-again club. The reality is, I do
not think Members of Congress are powerless to do something about
deficit spending or economic growth.
{time} 1640
We think that our amendment, the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment,
goes a long way toward putting responsible policy into the Constitution
and yet still leaves up to Congress its basic authority.
Someone earlier today in a debate I was in talked about the need to
inject spine into Members of Congress. This was another Member. My
feeling is that the taxpayers do not look at us as needing to inject
spine. They are quite capable of kicking us in the backside when they
think the job is not being done, and they expect the job to be done.
So my message, Mr. Chairman, is that this is a very important debate.
We have legitimate reasons why we think there should be language in the
Constitution or those who do not think it should be in the
Constitution, but I would just ask Members not to portray themselves as
powerless in this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Borski].
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong support for the
Wise amendment. A forward-looking and realistic balanced budget
proposal that will attack our true deficit problems while protecting
important investments that have long-term economic benefits.
The Wise amendment will not only bring us a balanced budget but it
will, for the first time, give this Nation the sensible and rational
approach of long-term capital budgeting.
I support the Wise amendment because, unlike all the other proposed
constitutional amendments, the Wise amendment will create a capital
budget and protect senior citizens.
The Wise amendment will protect long-term economic growth and our
Nation's senior citizens. Unlike the Stenholm amendment, the Wise
amendment would take Social Security and veteran and disability
programs off budget.
Under the Wise amendment, Social Security is protected. Under the
Stenholm amendment, the average senior citizen in Pennsylvania could
face an annual Social Security reduction of $1,136.
We should not attempt to balance our budget by squeezing those who
can least afford it--our senior citizens and the disabled.
By exempting capital investments that have long-term economic
benefits and Social Security from the balanced budget calculations, the
Wise amendment will allow a true accounting of the operating budget.
It would allow us to make needed investments in our physical
infrastructure--highways, airports, transit systems, wastewater
treatment systems, ports and inland waterways.
These investments are absolutely critical to our Nation's economic
growth and to our ability to compete effectively in the global economy.
The Wise amendment would allow needed infrastructure investments
under the type of accounting procedures used by most State governments,
by local governments, and by virtually all businesses in this Nation.
In contrast, the Stenholm amendment would continue to use our
Nation's infrastructure trust funds, supported by dedicated taxes, to
balance the budget.
By forcing cutbacks in capital investments, by limiting what we can
invest in highways, transit, airports, ports, inland waterways and
environmental infrastructure, the Stenholm amendment would ensure that
America would not be competitive in the global economy.
Unlike the Stenholm amendment, the Wise amendment would not require
super-majorities to allow deficit spending when it is absolutely
necessary--in time of war, imminent security threat, or recession.
The Wise amendment would maintain the long tradition we have in this
Nation of majority rule, not minority veto.
The Stenholm amendment would use the Social Security trust fund, the
highway trust fund and the aviation trust fund to shield those very
operating programs that should be reviewed annually to balance the
budget.
For 20 years, our Nation's investment in the infrastructure has
declined when compared to other spending. The result has been declining
productivity and a decline in the American standard of living.
The Wise amendment would apply the same accounting principles of
long-term capital investment to the Federal Government that a
substantial majority of States use.
Most important, the Wise amendment would apply the same accounting
principles to the Federal Government that virtually every American
family uses.
Just as the American family does not include its mortgage balance and
other total, long-term obligations in its annual accounting, the
Federal Government should not be required to include infrastructure
investments in its budget.
Just as the American family balances its yearly income and expenses,
the Federal Government should balance its operating budget.
I urge passage of the Wise amendment as the only proposal before us
that will lead to a true balance budget while protecting our senior
citizens and maintaining our ability to invest for long-term economic
growth.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Collins].
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of all
amendments, the Stenholm, the Kyl, the Barton, and the Wise amendments.
The message has been clear from working people and those who have
worked all their lives and now are enjoying the fruits of their labor
from all across this Nation, and that message is: ``Stop spending more
money than you take in. Cut spending. Treat the Federal budget the same
way that we have to treat our home budgets.''
Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the majority of the Members of
this body have not received that message and are not willing to face up
to true responsibility, and that calls for a balanced budget amendment
as being the only way.
Mr. Chairman, it kind of reminds me of holding a shotgun wedding. As
my colleagues know, we know what our responsibilities are. We are just
not willing to walk down the aisle unless we are forced to.
I regret that we have opponents of the balanced budget amendment who
are using our senior citizens by implying that a balanced budget
amendment threatens Social Security. A balanced budget amendment, I
believe, is the only way that we can ensure not only Social Security
but programs that we have--very worthwhile programs--are maintained and
continued.
I am going to vote for the balanced budget amendment, only I wish we
would face that responsibility without such because we could do it in
much shorter time. But also I hope that this body will face up to the
responsibility of looking at the tax codes and changing those tax
codes. It will put in place incentives, incentives for business to
invest and to create jobs, encourage investment, and I hope again we
will go back and look at the tax codes to see how we can help the
middle class, how we can put more money back into their pockets and
their home budgets and help them, as they are the working force and the
real cash flow of not only the country but of this Government.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support each and every
one of these balanced budget amendments.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], one who has been a very aggressive
Representative for capital budgeting and the need for investments.
(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I urge that we reject the balanced budget
amendment and go no further than the amendment offered by the gentleman
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. Chairman, there have been 10,938 amendments to the Constitution
introduced since our founding as a nation. Only 27 of them have become
amendments. Ten of these were added by the Founders, and only two-
tenths of 1 percent, or 17, by those of us who have followed the
Founders. One of these was a repealer. We see in this small number the
wisdom of the Founders, the wisdom of our fellow Americans, and the
understanding that we must not trivialize the greatest Constitution
ever written by trying to get everyone's pet issue into it.
I speak, Mr. Chairman, as a constitutional lawyer with special
respect for the Constitution. I respected it as a document even before
I was in it, and I must note the irony that we are talking about
putting the annual budget, as it were, in the Constitution when half
the population isn't in the Constitution yet.
I oppose putting in the Constitution even those matters with which I
agree. In the District of Columbia there was a referendum this past
election approving a constitutional amendment to direct resources to
domestic concerns following the end of the cold war. I interpreted that
to mean that I could put in a piece of legislation, and I refused to
put it in as a constitutional amendment.
I pulled out my Constitution before coming to the floor to look at
its provisions. All that one has to do is look at the document to see
how radical is the idea of a balanced budget amendment. There is almost
nothing in the Constitution about finances or taxes. The most important
is the 16th amendment generally giving us the ability to raise money
through the income tax. It is a schoolboy's exercise to dictate annual,
unforeseeable financial matters in the founding document of our
country. It is unworthy of a sophisticated National Legislature.
The Wise amendment is surely as far as we can safely go, and its most
important provision is a structural provision of the kind ready made
for constitutions--its capital budget section.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, this amendment comes at an ironic moment,
when we have already reduced the deficit by $80 billion since the
Clinton administration came to power.
{time} 1650
Thus, we have already shown that we can do it. Yet here comes this
constitutional amendment to do for us what we are resolutely showing,
finally, we can do for ourselves. Moreover, even what we are doing in
the next 5 years is already causing pain and is going to cause even
greater pain.
Imagine the kind of pain we will get if we rush blindly toward a
balanced budget. We have seen a preview of what we would get--in the
California debacle of 1992. California needs a two-thirds vote to pass
a budget. For months they went with IOU's to their employees. Can you
imagine millions of Federal employees with IOU's of the same kind? This
would be a self-inflicted wound.
Moreover, we would, in effect, pass many of the expenses of the
Federal Government to the States and localities. Watch out, America. A
balanced budget here means regressive taxation for you. One of the best
kept secrets is that your taxes at the State and local government
levels will go up because we have decided to balance our budget on your
backs.
Moreover, this is a rigged amendment. As to revenue increases, there
will be rollcall votes of the full membership of the House. For program
cuts, we need only those present and voting.
In 2001 we would get a balanced budget at the expense of a wrecked
economy. If we pass this amendment, we will soon see the first repealer
since prohibition. Not every bright idea belongs in our Constitution,
and this is a very bad one. I ask my colleagues to reject it.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a strong balanced
budget amendment.
The House debate on the 1995 budget last week confirmed once again
our need to halt Congress' terrible addiction to deficit spending.
Unless we do, we will give our children, and our children's children, a
future with little hope for economic prosperity.
The debate today carries with it significant ramifications. Amending
the Constitution that has served this Republic well in so many ways for
205 years should not be taken lightly.
But a review of our spending patterns for the last 6\1/2\ decades
provides powerful arguments in favor of this strong medicine. The
Federal Government has run a deficit for 56 of the last 64 years. Our
Nation is nearly $5 trillion dollars in debt. The interest we paid on
the accumulated debt last year was almost $300 billion.
I should note that some special interest groups are using fear
tactics to scare senior citizens on this issue. The balanced budget
amendment does not mena our seniors need fear a reduction of Social
Security or other benefits. In fact, our current policy of borrowing
from the Social Security trust fund to finance our debt represents the
greatest threat to the fund's solvency.
Mr. Chairman, our runaway spending represents a danger to the future
prosperity of our Nation and to all Americans. A balanced budget
amendment will require sacrifice, but without it we will never achieve
fiscal sanity. I urge my colleagues to support the Kyl, Barton, and
Stenholm amendments.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the three real
balanced budget amendments, the Stenholm-Smith, the Kyl, or the Barton
balanced budget amendments.
It is time that we really address the problem. It is interesting for
me as I listen to the debate that says we can solve the problem in
other ways, rather than passing a balanced budget amendment. But being
a freshman in Congress and watching what we have done over the last 2
years, the record that this Congress has accumulated over the last
number of years, listen to the numbers. Today the country is in debt to
the tune of approximately $16,000 per individual. In 1995, we will add
another $700 in debt per individual, another $2,800 per family of four.
This Congress is not disciplined. It is like many of the ones that
have come before it. We continue to spend more than we take in, and we
can no longer continue that process.
The willingness of Congress to spend more than it takes in proves
that we need the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Our
ever-growing national debt is the legacy of shame that we are leaving
to our children and our grandchildren. As a father of three, I cannot
stand idly by and watch this Congress continue to threaten my
children's future and the future of this country.
The balanced budget amendment is not a threat to the lifeblood and
the health of this country over the next 5 to 7 years. The lack of
having a balanced budget amendment is the threat to what this country
and this economy will look like in 5 or 7 years.
The American people will no longer tolerate wasteful and unnecessary
spending in Washington. A balanced budget amendment, sorry to say,
provides the only mechanism to help Congress reduce the deficit now,
rather than later. I rise in support of these three balanced budget
amendments. We need to impose more needed discipline on Congress.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to some of the Members who have
spoken ahead of me. A balanced budget amendment in an of itself solves
nothing. I spoke earlier about folks who want to get a spinal injection
of some kind of courage. I would point out to the gentleman who just
spoke, who wants to lament about Congress, when it enacted the budget
package in August, which no one on his side of the aisle, including
himself, voted for, Congress put into place a program which so far has
defied every projection that was made from the other side of the aisle
about job killing economy, putting us in the economic tubes, about all
sorts of maladies, economic maladies that would happen.
Indeed, what we have seen is the highest amount of deficit reduction
and the lowest deficit in 6 years, a deficit that this year is
projected to be 40-percent lower than last year, and far lower than
anyone projected; a deficit that is on track with what the President
originally proposed, which is to have the deficit as a percentage of
our budget reduced by one-half. And that is happening.
Now, I agree with all Members in this Chamber who say that is not
satisfactory, that that is only part of the job. More must be done. But
I think it is wrong to say that Congress has not done anything and is
incapable of doing something.
Second, I do want to share with Members why it is that I am here in
the well supporting an amendment to balance the budget. And I will be
honest, I come here reluctantly, because from a lot of the debate this
year and past years, I find myself wondering whether I really support
an amendment to balance the budget, as I would like an amendment to
require balance rhetoric. Because what I have heard today here is do
not worry, senior citizens, Social Security will be on budget. You are
not going to be affected. Do not worry. To those of you concerned about
massive program cuts, there will not be cuts that affect you or hurt
you. Do not worry. And no one mentions the T word: The reality of the
situation is if any of these amendments pass, including the one I am
sponsoring, there will have to be tough steps taken to get to a
balanced budget in 7 years.
I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] who
last year, after his amendment failed, went to work with the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget, then Leon Panetta, and crafted, along
with others a legislative approach that laid out how you would get a
balanced budget. Basically it would have required cuts across the
board, and I believe it was roughly $4 of cuts for every dollar of tax
increases, but it would have gotten there.
I still remember the meeting of many of the ones who were in here
today beating their breasts proudly about how much they support a
balanced budget amendment when they saw the figures of what it would be
under that legislation, how much you would have to cut from
entitlements, for instance, in the out years. I still remember the
priceless quote of someone who will remain nameless forever, but
forever identified in my mind, of saying Leon, could we not just slip
the years a few? Could we not just change it and make it effective in
the out years, because these cuts in the first few years are too tough.
The reality of the situation, the chairman then looked at him and
said, you just voted to put this in the Constitution. What did you
think you were going to do?
I am here because I believe that you can craft a balanced budget
amendment. I believe the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse is a proper one. But
once again, Mr. Chairman, this is not a powerless body, and we have to
understand that by enacting this budget, it is a first step, a tough
step, but the really tough votes come right after it, and that is how
you actually implement it.
I will finally leave this challenge once again, which I have not had
answered yet: If you believe that Social Security is not going to be
affected, and I do not make the claims that some have made about great
cuts in Social Security, if you believe it is not going to be affected,
fine. Then let us make that clear to everybody and put everybody's mind
at ease and take it off budget.
Second, if you believe this budget ought to be like the States from
which we all come, then put capital budgeting in as your State has.
{time} 1700
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cox].
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
We need a balanced budget amendment, because spending is running out
of control. Take a look at this chart.
In 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973, a 5-year period, the total
Federal spending was $1.1 trillion. In 1994, Bill Clinton's budget for
1 year is far more than the 5 years from 1969 to 1973, the guns-and-
butter years of Vietnam, the height of the Vietnam war.
Look at this number, 1994 through 1998, the Clinton budget, $8.1
trillion in spending compared to what George Bush and this Congress
did, $6.6 trillion in spending over 4 years.
We are not cutting things. They are getting more and more and more
expensive. And we are financing it, yes, with the largest tax increase
in American history, because that is what happens when we spend this
rapidly, but also, with increased borrowing from the Treasury, that
gives us a national debt that is setting a record.
We are told that we should not have a balanced budget amendment. What
we should have is a capital budget. A capital budget would let us
achieve the appearance of a balanced budget by moving the goal posts.
We would define away most of our spending and call it investment. And
if spending is investment, then we get to borrow in order to pay for
it. In short, a capital budget would provide the intellectual
underpinnings for still more deficit spending.
Since 1969, the annual budget of the Government, the appropriations
by Congress, has increased by 800 percent, 800 percent on an annual
basis.
Sixty percent of next year's deficit will be represented by increases
that this Congress has made to 1993 spending levels.
The Clinton budget calls for $1.475 trillion of additional spending
on top of current levels.
Spending is the problem. If Members think that the status quo is
acceptable, if they think this trend is acceptable, do nothing and vote
against a balanced budget amendment. If Members think that the Congress
does not spend enough under the status quo, vote for a capital budget.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the distinguished chairman of our Committee on
the Budget.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, today we will begin to vote on a series of proposals to
add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I oppose putting
this type of requirement in the Constitution and I would like to tell
you why.
The Constitution did not create our budget problems and changing it
will not solve them. Rather--solving our budget problems will require
an exercise of political will which is not dependent on the
Constitution and cannot be engendered by the Constitution. The
Constitution is our most valuable governing document and it should not
be altered without extreme care.
I believe there are three very fundamental problems with putting a
balanced budget requirement in the U.S. Constitution. My first
objection concerns the manner in which this addition would change the
nature of our Constitution. The second involves the change in the
balance of powers between the three branches of government which I
believe would result from this type of constitutional requirement. And,
my third objection relates to the change in the balance of power within
the legislative branch under some of the proposals.
i. the balanced budget amendment is fundamentally different from
existing constitutional provisions
The Constitution is about fundamental rights and basic limits on the
power of Government. The balanced budget amendment is essentially
different from the other limits on Government powers found in the
Constitution. The existing limits tend to be commands ordering some
branch of government not to do something--for example, not to pass laws
abridging freedom of speech. This proposal, however, seeks to command
Congress and the President to do something very specific each year,
namely to enact a package of spending and taxing legislation that
balances the budget.
I believe it will either prove to be an unenforceable promise, or its
enforcement will shift unprecedented budgetary powers to the courts and
the President. Adding an unenforceable promise to the Constitution
could undermine respect for the Constitution itself. On the other hand,
making it enforceable creates a new set of problems, which brings us to
my second objection.
ii. its enforcement will dramatically alter the balance of powers among
the three branches of government
Enforcement of this type of amendment could require an exercise of
unprecedented powers by the President and/or the Federal judiciary. One
concern is that a President could assert broad powers to withhold
spending or modify programs and benefits using the balanced budget
amendment as justification. This could occur even if Congress, acting
in good faith, had passed a balanced budget but the President did not
believe it was balanced. This shift of power is in direct contradiction
to the basic plan of the Constitution which assigns primary power over
the purse to the people's elected representatives in Congress.
Second, I believe a balanced budget amendment could give rise to a
flood of litigation. I realize that there are some proposals that try
to include language limiting the power of the courts, but I am not sure
that is possible in this type of situation. And, if the courts do have
to enter this area, they could find themselves embroiled in matters of
spending and taxes that have always been the province of elected
branches of government. This is a profound change in our system of
governance.
III. several of the proposals would result in a significant change in
the internal balance of power within the legislative branch of
government
In three of the four proposals before us, the amendment would greatly
increase the power of minority blocs within the House and Senate. This
is because they require a super-majority to waive their various
requirements. Consequently, in any year when Congress and the President
are unable to completely eliminate a deficit, a minority of either
Chamber would be able to block budget-related legislation. This is
contrary to the basic constitutional principle of majority rule, and
could lead to brinksmanship and gridlock.
The Constitution requires a super-majority vote in both the House and
the Senate in just three situations: Approving a constitutional
amendment, overriding a Presidential veto, and declaring the President
unable to perform his duties. All three situations involve action by
Congress without the President's participation. The requirement for a
super-majority of both Houses and the President's signature is without
precedent in the Constitution.
IV. conclusion
In addition to the basic philosophical problem I have with amending
the Constitution for this purpose, I have several practical concerns.
In my judgment, two of these concerns are very important.
First, national governments have special roles to play, including
economic stabilization and responding to emergencies at home and
threats from abroad. All of these functions require some flexibility in
budgeting. This is inconsistent with a rigid balanced budget
requirement in the Constitution.
My second concern involves the way we finance Government debt.
Interest costs are the only totally uncontrollable costs in our budget.
This year they will account for 14 percent of our total spending. A
requirement to balance the budget every year could create real
pressures to finance all Government debt over the longest possible
terms. This could have the effect of making Government much more costly
than it already is.
I fear that we may do serious, although unintended, damage to our
finances and to the institutions of democracy if we add this to our
Constitution. In flirting with this amendment, we are indeed playing
with fire.
{time} 1710
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the balanced budget
constitutional amendment.
The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by
the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it
among the fundamental principles of Government.
We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with
our debts, morally bound to pay them ourselves. Thomas Jefferson's
words ring just as true today as they did 200 years ago. As the
guardians of the people's treasury, we are already constitutionally
bound to govern responsibly. We, as a body, have failed to do that.
Mr. Chairman, when I first came to Congress 16 years ago our
Government carried a deficit of only $60 billion. Today, our deficit
postures at $223 billion, scheduled to balloon again after 1997 if
Congress continues down the same path.
Time after time, legislative solutions have been brought to this
floor, debated and even passed, yet deficits continue to exist and the
debt continues to compound.
A constitutional amendment would institute fundamental reform in the
Government's fiscal practices. By constitutionally forcing Congress to
make the tough decisions, we will have to devise a real solution.
Yes, a constitutional amendment does not in and of itself deal with
the problem. But, it sets us on the right path. Balancing the budget
will ultimately require specific provisions, not merely constitutional
mandates. That is why last week along with a number of my colleagues, I
brought a package of specific yet responsible budget cuts to the floor
that would have balanced the budget over 5 years by cutting Government
spending $698 billion. Those were the hard choices. The fact that this
balanced budget package received only 75 votes vividly demonstrates why
a constitutional amendment is necessary. Congress won't do it if it has
a choice to vote no.
In conclusion, let me address the cries of many Members of Congress,
seniors' organizations and even the President who claim that a balanced
budget amendment would devastate seniors programs and massively
increase taxes. First, the balanced budget we brought to this floor
last week proved that the budget could be balanced without touching
Social Security or earned veterans benefits; without slashing Medicare
and without gutting defense.
It can be done and every senior in this country must realize that a
present debt of over $4 trillion and yearly debt interest payments of
over $200 billion are the real threat to the existence of all seniors
programs. Contrary to its opponents, a balanced budget amendment would
protect the sanctity of these programs, not result in massive funding
cut backs.
Over 200 years ago, while we were still a British colony, professor
Alexander Tytler wrote ``A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form
of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can
vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on,
the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most
benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy
always collapses over loose fiscal policy.''
We can only pray that this is not the case. A vote for a real
balanced budget amendment is a vote for the preservation of our
democracy. Previous generations have sacrificed and struggled to assure
that our democracy endured through the past 200 years. We owe it to
them and to our grandchildren to continue this battle.
Vote for a real balanced budget amendment. Vote for the Kyl, the
Barton and the Stenholm balanced budget amendments. The founding
fathers and America's future fathers and mothers are demanding it.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to debate this matter today, because
of a hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary, until I heard the
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Ravenel] give his
speech using the analogy of the straw that broke the camel's back. It
was his speech that prompted my presence here.
When I return home to my district and visit with church groups, civic
clubs, business meetings, meetings with working men and women who work
hard for their money, I remind them that in my opinion, we in this
country are now standing in the shadow of fiscal bankruptcy. I dislike
disseminating seeds of fear, gloom and doom, but not unlike the
gentleman from South Carolina, I believe we may well be in our final
days, unless and until we address the consistent problem that plagues
us daily, and I refer to the reckless, imprudent practice that appears
to dictate the manner in which money is spent in this House.
Mr. Chairman, I dislike rushing to the Constitution each time the
urge to do so strikes me, but given the obvious absence of discipline
in this body, I believe a balanced budget amendment is a necessary
prerequisite if we are in fact serious about resolving the deficit
problem. Our constituents must balance their checkbooks. We should
apply no less standard to ourselves, as we go about the business of
spending our constituents' tax moneys. A move in the right direction to
this end, Mr. Chairman, is a vote for the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], who has been very involved in
this entire issue.
Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me
Mr. Chairman, from time to time, under the duties and obligations the
Constitution gives us, we revisit one of the abiding questions of this
democracy, that is, whether the Constitution itself, a document
conceived in another time and under fundamentally different
circumstances, is still capable of doing the job it was intended to so.
The Federal deficit, which has more than quadrupled since 1980,
continues to act as drag on the Nation's economy, compromising our
efforts to deal with our fiscal problems and indenturing our children,
and their children, for decades to come.
I'm deeply concerned--all of us are--about this problem. It has
brought us to this point, where we consider exercising one of our most
solemn powers, the power to amend the Constitution itself.
No attempt to amend the Constitution has succeeded in more than 20
years. The founders intended it to be a difficult process, so that it
would also be a well-considered process. And rightly so. Put simply, we
have to be absolutely certain, when we take the extraordinary step of
an amendment to the Constitution, that the amendment would actually
achieve its purpose. More than that, we need to be extraordinarily
confident that any amendment not lead to unforeseen consequences that
would make things even worse; confident that the remedy will really
work.
While the intent of the Stenholm amendment deserves our praise, it
fails this critical test in several respects.
Most troubling is that only a declaration of war, or a vote of three-
fifths of the Members of the Senate and the House could suspend the
provisions of the amendment. The requirement for a supermajority,
particularly is a prescription for gridlock and failure. The whole
point of balanced budget amendment is to prohibit deficit spending, but
we all know that we're faced from time to time with situations that
require extraordinary measures. During periods of recession, for
example, it's the responsibility of the Federal Government to develop
economic policy to counteract these inevitable downturns and to ease
the harsher impacts of recession on the American people. In these
situations, it's critical that we be able to act to help turn the
economy around. But we have a bad enough record of achieving even
simple majorities, much less three-fifths super- majorities, on matters
like budgets and reconciliation packages. So I'm afraid that as a
practical matter this amendment would act as a straitjacket in those
times when action is needed most. We could well be stuck with a policy
by default that would aggravate an economic downturn and turn some
future recession into a depression.
This amendment contradicts our constitutional reliance on majority
rule--which Madison rightly called the fundamental principle of free
government. It's not difficult to imagine a worst case scenario. In the
midst of a recession or some other national emergency, an attempt to
raise the debt ceiling or raise additional revenue could be supported
by strong majorities in both bodies, but be blocked by a minority of
only 41 Senators, aligned by some particular regional interest or
political ideology.
Imagine a situation in which a badly needed measure was blocked by
the Senators of the 21 least populous States. Senators from States with
fewer than 30 million people--less than 12 percent of the country--
could effectively thwart the will of the remaining 88 percent. The
amendment, in short, would give exaggerated power to small States, and
would effectively give 41 Senators the power to hold the country
hostage. Recent experience gives us plenty of evidence that there are
those who are willing to do so.
We should also worry about enforcement. Were events to leave a budget
in violation of the amendment, no enforcement mechanism exists to
resolve the issue. Disputes would inevitably come before the Federal
courts with their inherent power to enforce the Constitution. Here
again we should foresee a result that is contrary to one of the
fundamental purposes of the Constitution. We'd effectively give away
one of our primary responsibilities as representatives of the people to
a small group of unelected judges, who, for good reason, are not
accountable to any constituency. Do we really want Federal judges
making decisions about raising taxes or cutting spending?
In addition to these broader questions, this amendment also comes
fraught with subtler, but no less troubling, problems of definition and
workability.
We should ask ourselves, for example, if the provision, for deficit
spending only after a declaration of war, makes sense. None of the
national security crises we've encountered since World War II have
involved an actual declaration of war. Given this recent experience, we
ought to have the budget flexibility to deal with a future security
crisis that stops short of declared war.
Then there's the question of estimates. The level of accuracy we've
seen in revenue and spending estimates is rarely equal to the job of
making budgets to which we must adhere, on penalty of judicial
enforcement, during the course of a fiscal year. There are Members here
who well remember 1981, when we started to dig this deficit hole in
earnest. The first Reagan budget rosily forecast economic growth of 4.2
percent in the year ahead. The economy, apparently not in a mood to
obey the President, proceeded to decline by 1.9 percent.
The relevant lesson is that when we make projections, often 18 months
or more into the future, our actions are based on economic models that
are not perfect. And a lot can happen in the space of only 18 months to
overtake the best projections. Given the difficulty inherent in
achieving a supermajority to allow us to act correctively, this
amendment could well leave us stranded.
And, finally, we should remember to take into account the critical
distinction between operating and capital expenditures, as this
amendment does not. Balancing an operating budget makes sense, and
States are statutorily required to do it. The more difficult issue is
investment: something that all States, municipalities, and individuals
do regularly when they build a bridge or buy a house. By effectively
prohibiting borrowing for investment on the Federal level, we'd force a
wholesale shift in investment responsibility to the States and
localities. We regularly borrow from future revenues to invest in
future well-being, but this amendment would blind us to the needs of
the next year, much less the next decade.
Ultimately, the irony of this discussion is that it comes at a moment
when, after a dozen years of profligate spending, we're finally moving
in the right economic direction. Over the past year, Congress, led by
the President, has finally achieved a level of fiscal discipline it
hasn't seen in a long time. We've approved a hard freeze on
discretionary spending. We've reduced the rate of increase in most
entitlements, and actually cut some. We've joined the battle to find a
way to lower health care costs. It would truly be a shame if, at this
promising moment, we were to wave the rhetorical wand, pass this
amendment, and allow ourselves to believe that we've won the battle,
only awaiting State ratification of that amendment. Rather, there can
be no letup in the hard work needed to produce sensible budgets over
the next several years.
In the end, we should be mindful that when we amend the Constitution,
history will judge our actions with an especially critical eye. The
Constitution grants primary responsibility for the budget to Congress
for a reason: The decisions we make ultimately reflect the needs and
preferences of the people we represent. The progress we're finally
making is proof of the ability of this body, at its best, to discharge
its responsibilities. We must continue and strengthen the discipline
recently shown here. That is the best way for us to honor both our
fiscal responsibility and our obligation to preserve and protect the
Constitution.
{time} 1720
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kyl substitute,
House Joint Resolution 103.
Mr. Chairman, millions of American families abide by the simple rule
that you don't spend what you don't have, but today we are being told
that Congress somehow knows better. You can spend more than you have;
you don't have to watch your wallet--especially if you're spending
someone else's money.
In 1776, our country was founded. Providentially, that same year, a
great book was published entitled ``Wealth of Nations'' by Adam Smith.
Adam Smith once wrote that ``what is prudence in the conduct of every
private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom.''
My colleagues: our national debt currently exceeds $4.3 trillion--
that's $17,495 for every man, woman, and child in the United States.
Under current policies, future generations are projected to face a
lifetime net tax rate of 82 percent in order to pay the bills that we
are leaving them.
In 1993, gross interest payments equaled $293 billion. This is
greater than the total outlays of the entire Federal Government in
1974. Make no mistake, if we don't require some fiscal discipline we
will, we are sowing our children's fiscal future to the wind.
Mr. Chairman, the Kyl substitute requires a balanced budget, limits
Federal spending to 19 percent of GNP, and provides a real line-item
veto for the President. This is simple commonsense approach to the debt
and deficit. It encourages economic growth and responsible Federal
expenditures. Maybe that's why the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens
for Sound Economy, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Americans for
Tax Reform have all endorsed the Kyl substitute.
I urge my colleagues to examine and vote for this proposal.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, during this time of year, as Hoosier and
other American families are setting down to prepare their taxes, they
wonder why Congress is incapable of balancing the country's budget.
After all, common sense dictates that if they have to live within their
own budgets, so should the Government.
Since 1969, Congress has failed to balance its spending with its
revenues--and the solution has always been to increase taxes on hard-
working families or to raise their burden of debt. Unfortunately, with
more revenues, Congress has simply increased spending and neglected its
fiscal duty. As history has proven, Congress cannot limit its spending
practices and Government continues to grow.
As the Federal debt continues to rise out of control, above $4.3
trillion, it is obvious that America's long-term fiscal woes can only
be solved with the enactment of a strong balanced budget constitutional
amendment. Such an amendment would provide necessary protection to the
American people from the continuing fiscal abuses of big government.
The expansion of our Government and its intrusion into the daily lives
of the American people has resulted in the frequent levying of more and
more taxes to pay for Congress' inability to curtail Federal spending.
After witnessing the budget resolution vote last week, this year is no
exception to the disreputable policy of keeping hard-working Americans
burdened with oppressive taxes.
The Stenholm-Smith balanced budget amendment imposes the fiscal
responsibility that Congress has forgotten. The amendment compels
Congress and the President with constitutional authority to only spend
an amount not exceeding revenues. Deficit spending could only occur
with the approval of a three-fifths majority vote of both the House and
the Senate in time of national emergency and economic distress.
Additionally, the amendment requires the reduction of existing Federal
debt but does not sacrifice the security of our senior citizens or our
national security.
Some opponents of the amendment have spread the myth that a balanced
budget amendment would threaten the existence of Social Security and
Medicare. The amendment would not force automatic across-the-board cuts
in Social Security or any other program. Current statutory protection
would not be changed or reduced. Social Security has a long history of
special budgetary protection which will not be compromised because the
trust fund would still be maintained as separate from general funds. It
won't threaten the security of our senior citizens.
Critics also claim that a constitutional mandate is unnecessary, but
they ignore the simple fact that all less substantial measures have
failed--and failed miserably. Deficit spending must only be used for
short-term national emergencies such as war or substantial economic
decline. Deficits must be paid, and paid promptly. Over 200 years ago,
Thomas Jefferson stated,
The question of whether one generation has the right to
bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such
fundamental importance as to place it among the fundamental
principles of the government. We should consider ourselves
unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally
bound to pay them ourselves * * *.
Congress has lost its political morality. Authors of the Constitution
did not add fiscal constraints because they had such a strong moral
sense that you do not saddle future generations with debt incurred by
the present generation.
You do not pull out a credit card and use it to buy a television,
clothes, car, and a vacation to Hawaii and then give the bill to your
children and grandchildren. You only have to look into the face of a
child to understand why we must pass a balanced budget amendment.
We now have the opportunity to take a giant step toward compelling
Congress to fulfill its obligation to fiscal responsibility and limit
the size of our expanding Government. I urge my fellow Members to not
let this moment escape us. Protect our children and our children's
children from the burden of debt. The balanced budget amendment will
give freedom to our children, rather than shackles of debt.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in support of a balanced-
budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For far too long, deficit
reduction has been ignored by Congress, but we now have the opportunity
to vote on several different amendments which will truly mandate that
Congress balance its books.
The long-term health of the Nation demands a balanced-budget
amendment. Congress has shown time and again that it is prepared to
waive any inconvenient statutory spending limit that it has imposed
upon itself.
Two decades of failed attempts to balance the Federal budget has
resulted in nothing but gimmicks, deceptions, and ever-higher deficits.
Just look at how well these past restraints have worked: The national
debt currently exceeds $4.6 trillion. That means that every man, woman,
and child in the United States owes over $17,000 because of the
extravagant spending habits of this institution. Clearly, if we ever
hope to balance the budget, Congress needs the additional weight of the
Constitution bearing upon it.
Many skeptics claim that we can't balance the budget without
decimating Social Security and other important Government programs. I
am here today to tell you, the skeptics are simply wrong. Congressman
Penny and I have proven that, with our introduction of H.R. 3958, the
Fiscal Responsibility of 1994.
This bill, which is a comprehensive set of specific budget cuts
totalling $550 billion, will bring the Nation within striking distance
of a balanced budget, without raising taxes and without decimating
Social Security. So before reacting to the alarmists' claims about the
draconian impact of a balanced-budget amendment, I recommend that my
colleagues take a close look at the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
The Schaefer-Penny bill shows that the budget can be balanced.
Congress, however, has to have the political fortitude to do it.
Unfortunately, only an amendment to the Constitution will enforce that
discipline. I encourage my colleagues to return some fiscal sanity to
this institution by voting for a balanced-budget amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Stenholm balanced-budget amendment.
I would like to specifically address four of the key arguments I have
heard today used against this amendment.
First, the opponents say we have to have the ability to spend and to
have deficits and recessions. They are basically referring to the
philosophy of that economist, John Maynard Keynes. The problem is the
opponents to the balanced-budget amendment forget the other half of
what Mr. Keynes had to say.
{time} 1730
And that is in good times we are supposed to not have a deficit, you
are supposed to have a surplus in the budget. They want to have their
cake and they want to be able to eat it too. They want to have deficits
and recessions, but they do not want to have to make the choices
necessary to have a balanced budget or surpluses in good times. You
cannot have it both ways.
The second argument the opponents to a balanced budget amendment make
today is that all we have to do is make tough decisions. Well, they
have been saying that for 25 years. For a quarter of a century people
have been coming down to this well and telling the people of America.
``All we have to do is make tough decisions to balance the budget.'' It
has not happened. That is the reality, not the theory.
Why has it not happened? I do not think it is because everybody in
this body wants to have a deficit or to spend our children's money. I
think it is a flaw in the process. If you are from an urban area, it is
easy to vote to cut agricultural programs; if you are from a rural
area, it is easy to cut mass transit in urban areas; if you are from
the Southwest, it is easy to vote against Amtrak subsidies; if you are
from the Northeast, it is easy to vote against the super collider and
the space station in Texas. And then all of these people can go home
and in good faith say, ``I voted to reduce the deficit.''
The reality is, and it has been reality for a quarter of a century,
that the process is not working. It is time for us to recognize that
and to change it.
The third argument that the opponents to the balanced budget
amendment offer today is that it is a gimmick. I find that interesting
because they say it is a gimmick on the one hand and yet it is going to
devastate social security and other critical programs on the other.
Once again they are trying to have it both ways.
But I think people can see through that.
People said another thing was a gimmick--the base closing process
this Congress set up a few years ago. They said, ``Don't change the
process. Make policy choices.'' And yet year after year bases were kept
open that should not have been kept open. That added to our deficit and
hurt our national defense.
We changed that process on closing military bases, and it has worked.
We closed bases in the districts of key and powerful congressional
Members' districts that never would have been closed had we not changed
the process.
The point is this: The best way to drive good policy is to change our
process. And by changing the process, by building fiscal discipline
into this fiscal process of Congress, we will have better decisions and
we will not mortgage our grandchildren's future away.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, they say this should not be in the
Constitution. I would agree, but we have been left with no other
alternative.
I think what we are really talking about here today and why it is
important enough to put in our Constitution is that we are talking
about the property rights of our children and our grandchildren, and
property rights are a key fundamental right in this country, built into
the very heart and soul of our Constitution. It is not right for us to,
year after year after year, take our children's and grandchildren's
money, spend it today for the policies that we will enjoy that they
will have to pay for.
I strongly urge support of the real balanced budget amendment today,
the Stenholm balanced budget amendment proposal.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
Mr. KYL. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
So far today in this debate I have spoken in support of three of the
amendments.
In about an hour or so, I guess I will be proposing the first of the
amendments that we will be voting on, that we will be voting on
tonight, my balanced budget amendment spending limits proposal.
I have been suggesting to our colleagues that we should be supporting
three of the four amendments, the Kyl amendment, the Barton-Tauzin
amendment, and the Stenholm-Smith amendment.
I would now like to talk just a little bit about the Wise and others
amendment, which I think should be opposed. There are three basic
loopholes in this bill which I think we should be very, very careful
about. The first of these was just spoken about by the gentleman from
Texas, the idea that during recession times or negative growth periods
we would be able to override--not override, but automatically the
provision would not apply.
According to my calculations, that would mean that we would have had
unbalanced budgets for 17 of the last 38 years. Now, if that is true,
Mr. Chairman, that means that almost half of the time we would not have
a balanced budget. We are not talking here about an override, it is an
automatic provision.
So, the first loophole would provide for about half of the time not
having a balanced budget at all.
I am curious as to why it would be necessary to have this provision
in the first place. I think we have gotten away from the idea of
Keynesian economics, as the gentleman pointed out. It is unclear why
this automatic provision would need to exempt us from the balanced
budget requirement during periods of negative economic growth.
In any case, that is one of the loopholes.
The second loophole discussed here is the social security program. I
will only say, with respect to that, that by statute we could define
other things as falling within this exception. And therefore, I think
that represents a second important loophole.
The third loophole, and this is really a big one, is the idea of
capital budgeting. I understand our colleagues' concern about capital
budgets with reference to the States. But I think that by not further
defining this, they have really made it impossible. Let me get right
into the language here. The idea of a capital budget is to protect
investments with long-term economic return, to quote from the amendment
directly.
But the Clinton budget this year specifically has an entire section
entitled ``Investing for Productivity and Prosperity,'' setting
priorities under budget discipline. Among the items discussed in that
section on investments are insuring that children start off healthy and
are prepared to enter school and receive good parenting; specific
programs including WIC, Head Start, child immunization. Among other
items are: improving education, training disadvantages, and retraining
workers, and a whole series of other things.
Mr. Chairman, these things are all important, but I think it points
out the fact that under the rubric of investing for long-term economic
gain, we could write just about anything we want to under the capital
budget requirements and thereby create a third, very, very large
loophole.
For these and other reasons, I would suggest to my colleagues that
they oppose the Wise and others amendment and support the other three
amendments when we have an opportunity to vote on them.
Mr. WISE. I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to the gentleman from
Arizona. I am delighted, I guess, to be singled out.
But let me quickly respond. First, his first point on the recession
waiver: The gentleman regrettably has not read fully the text of our
amendment, because what it says is that you can waive the provisions of
the balanced budget amendment in only two circumstances, and only two;
one of which is in case of military conflict, the second in case of
recession, defined as two quarters of negative growth. Then it requires
a majority vote. There is no automatic waiver.
I might add, it is my impression reading the other amendments,
certainly the Stenholm amendment and, I believe, the gentleman from
Arizona's as well, that you can waive the provisions of the Balanced
Budget Act at any time with 60 percent of the vote, a supermajority. We
say you can waive it for only two circumstances.
In terms of the Keynesian economics--I never have pronounced that
very well--in terms of Keynesian economics, the reality of the
situation is that recession is when administrations, Republican and
Democrat, recognize they need to do some increased spending to get the
economy moving.
The Reagan administration did not use traditional public works
programs, although a small bill did pass the House. It used defense
spending, but used it in a very Keynesian way.
So, I would say that you do want the ability to respond to any
recession.
Social Security: I issue my challenge again to the gentleman from
Arizona, if you do not think Social Security is affected under your
amendment, the Kyl amendment, or the Stenholm or the Barton, then take
it off budget as we do and be honest with people and say we are going
to guarantee that it is not going to be affected.
Nobody is going to lose additional programs.
Can you imagine the outcry that would happen?
Finally, in terms of capital budgeting, we are accused of not
defining capital budgeting as being too rigorous in the Constitution;
and yet if we try to define what capital budgeting is, we would be
accused of being too detailed. I think it is much better left to a
commission that reports back and Congress will write that definition.
But I would point to the language in our amendment that says capital
budget must apply only to long-term economic return.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman].
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Stenholm and Wise balanced budget
amendments.
It has become a cliche to say that there is no easy way to arrest our
deficit problem. We've learned that reducing our borrowing levels is
about making tough, unpopular choices. Passing last year's deficit
reduction package--which has had dramatic effects--was a hard choice.
Including the deficit reduction trust fund, which insured that all the
net savings from the budget plan went to deficit reduction, was another
hard choice. Voting for the imperfect yet necessary Penny-Kasich
amendment, which would have made an additional $90 billion in spending
cuts, was, for many of us, a very tough choice.
This debate confronts us again with imperfect options, and, again, I
urge my colleagues to make the choice toward further deficit reduction.
There is nothing that focuses attention like a hangman's noose.
Though the balanced budget amendment is not the perfect solution to our
problem, it does focus our attention to the highest degree.
Constitutional prohibitions against deficit spending will compel the
Congress to make the hard choices, even when the debate focuses, as it
inevitably must, on political untouchables like entitlements and
subsidies.
Although I respect the work of Representatives Kyl and Barton on
their constitutional amendments, I am worried about burdening the
Constitution with the unprecedented economic measurements that their
amendments include. The Kyl amendment would impose new constitutional-
level requirements integrated with the calculation of gross national
product and the scoring of ``items of spending authority,'' while the
Barton amendment requires the Constitution to govern the raising of
revenues at a ``rate faster than the rate of increase in national
income.'' Amending the U.S. Constitution should be done with extreme
care, and only in ways that minimize legal entanglements down the road.
Going too far with injecting economic calculations into the
Constitution is unprecedented and risks political crisis, as every such
calculation is political in nature. We need a framework that forces us
to make decisions, not one that makes too many of them for us.
Voters in my home state of California chose a balanced budget
amendment to its constitution that excludes long term investments like
bond issues for school, highway, and prison construction. No one
doubts, however, that the California requirement dictates tough choices
that have led to drastic cuts in spending to erase the state's deficit.
We can and must do the same at the Federal level.
Even though it is unlikely that we will be able to send a balanced
budget amendment to the states this year, I believe that consideration
of these several options by this House is a positive step. We must work
harder to make the hard choices to cut spending, and to design a
mechanism to force us to do so if the political will cannot be found.
{time} 1740
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to both my colleague from
West Virginia and my colleague from California.
The gentleman from West Virginia is correct that it is not
technically automatic that in periods of negative economic growth the
amendment would have no effect. Congress would have to waive that, but
it could be done by majority vote. The practical effect, I think, is
the same as has been demonstrated by our waiver of Gramm-Rudman, the
Budget Act and other laws in the past.
With respect to the comment by our colleague from California that we
need an amendment under which we can make decisions rather than
provisions that make them for us, it seems to me that, while that may
be true in the abstract, it has been demonstrated that Congress has not
been able to make the decisions without the encouragement, shall we
say, of a requirement that it do so, and that is why I think we have to
set an upper limit, such as my proposal does, and then prioritize
within that upper limit. If instead, as under the Wise amendment, we
have terms such as investments with long-term economic return, we are
going to get into defining that by statute as job training, education,
Head Start, lots of other things which simply expand the loophole to
the point that the constitutional provision does not mean anything in
the first place.
So, that is why I think my proposal meets the test better and that we
still should oppose the Wise amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, in the past Congress passed provisions
to set up firewalls between discretionary and entitlement spending in
attempts to balance the budget. It did not work. Then we tried pay-as-
you-go provisions. They did not work. Just last week we had a chance to
approve a budget that would have balanced the budget in 5 years. We did
not pass it. When are we going to face the reality that we need
something more than empty promises, we need a balanced budget amendment
to our Constitution.
Obviously, the current budget process has failed to bring the deficit
under control. We can no longer tolerate the practice of freely
granting exceptions to budget rules in order to accommodate funding
demands. We must respond to the call to cease runaway spending and
begin the kind of reform that the balanced budget amendment dictates.
Lawmakers know full well that chronic deficits threaten the Nation's
long-term prosperity. Unfortunately some believe that their short-term
interest lies in spending more and more on the demands of various
special interests. Still others know that we can't keep demanding
American families to spend more and more in higher taxes. Therefore
deficit spending provides an easy way out. The balanced budget
amendment forces lawmakers to do the right thing instead of the easy
thing.
The Stenholm-Smith amendment injects much needed accountability into
the appropriations process by establishing procedures that will force
each and every Member of Congress to put his or her name on the line in
order to initiate deficit spending.
Some may argue that we do not need to amend the Constitution. After
all, they claim the Constitution did not get us in this problem,
changing it certainly won't solve it. But we have tried to regulate
ourselves with every type of House rule change that we could dream up.
None of them have worked. Congress has shown time after time that it is
unwilling and unable to balance the budget on its own accord.
Others may try to take accounts that fund pork projects for their
district off-budget. We increase the deficit every time we spend money
we do not have, regardless if it is accounted for in the budget or not.
For my colleagues who have an insatiable thirst for spending I say
lets erase our deficit and in doing so, stop increasing the billions of
dollars we are spending every year to finance the deficit. If we are to
preserve our Nation's good credit, the ability to provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and save for our children
and grandchildren the opportunities to enjoy the blessings that this
great land has bestowed upon our generation, we need a balanced budget
amendment added to our Constitution. I strongly urge my colleagues to
vote for the Stenholm-Smith balanced budget amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Barton].
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long debate today on
the balanced budget amendment in general. There has been some debate
about the specific alternatives that are going to be considered later
this evening and tomorrow. I have listened to the debate over the
television in my office when I was not in committee, and I think there
are several points that have not yet been totally highlighted.
First, when the Constitution was propounded in the late 1700's, Mr.
Chairman, the Founding Fathers were very specific in what spending was
allowed for. My recollection is that in the Constitution itself there
are only 18 items that are specifically enumerated that money can be
spent for. I say to my colleagues:
If you look at the history of government at the Federal
level, you see that for the first 150 to 175 years there were
many, many items that the Federal Government spent no money
for. Education would be an example of that. Public health
would be an example of that. With the beginning of the New
Deal in the 1930's, continuing on into the present era, the
Federal Government began to expand its role. Well, one can
argue that there may not have been a need for a
constitutional amendment for the first 150 years because
Congresses and Presidents were very specific in what hey were
willing to spend Federal dollars for.
Mr. Chairman, as late as the 1950's, when the Interstate Highway Act
was passed, it was labeled the Defense Highway Act because defense was
something that was enumerated specifically in the Constitution that
money could be spent for at the Federal level. Well, as we all know
today, that enumeration, that limitation on what Federal dollars can be
spent for, has been totally erased, and Federal dollars, for all
intents and purposes, can be spent for anything. So, for that reason
there is every reason to amend the Constitution to in some way try to
limit Federal spending; in other words, to require a balanced budget.
{time} 1750
Both the Stenholm-Smith amendment, the Kyl amendment, and the Barton-
Tauzin amendment, all three of those, we attempt to do that in a very
straightforward and serious way.
There are differences in the amendments. The Kyl amendment says there
should be a spending limitation as a percentage of GNP. The gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] supports that amendment because it is in effect
in his home State of Arizona at the State level and has been effective
in limiting spending at the State level.
I have chosen to say we should try to limit the ability to raise
taxes by the requirement of a 60-percent vote to raise taxes. My
amendment does not make it impossible to raise taxes. It allows that
taxes could be raised no higher than the rate of growth in GNP the year
before, and if you want to go higher than that, you have to have the 60
percent vote. We also require the 60 percent vote to increase the
national debt ceiling.
These supermajority votes are required quite simply because the
specific enumerations of what funds can be spent for at the Federal
level have been broken down. We can spend money at the Federal level
for anything. I can give you horror story after horror story about what
that spending has occurred for.
In terms of tax limitations, as I said earlier this afternoon, tax
limitations provisions in constitutions at the State levels work. On
average those states that have some sort of super-majority requirement
for tax limitations have a tax burden that is 2 percent less than
States that do not have such a super-majority. In fact, in States that
have no kind of limitation on tax increases, their tax burden as a
percent of State GNP has gone up about 2 percent. That is a total of a
4-percent gap.
So in the debate tomorrow on the Barton-Tauzin amendment, I will
bring that out in much more detail. Suffice it to say, we need to
balance the Federal budget, we need to pass an amendment to the
Constitution in order to mandate that, and I hope that we decide
collectively that we need to do it by limiting taxes.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
(Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of House Joint
Resolution 103, I rise in very strong support for the constitutional
amendment to balance the budget proposed by my colleague, the gentleman
from the great State of Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a true cost cutter.
I have had the opportunity since I have been a Member of Congress
twice to vote on the balanced budget amendment. We lost the first time
by seven votes in the U.S. House of Representatives. We lost the second
time by nine votes. And I hope everyone, as these campaigns get hot
this summer and if we fail by a few votes, which I hope we will not,
will ask every candidate running for public office, where do you stand
on the balanced budget amendment?
The U.S. Senate just voted on it recently. We lost by four votes
there. So we are very, very close. And I assure the American people
that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and myself, and other
colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives, are not going to let
this issue die. We are going to keep it alive Congress after Congress
until it becomes a reality.
Mr. Chairman, many Members will come to the floor to say that this
amendment is not needed. Sure, we have done a pretty good job the last
several years. We have brought down the budget deficits. We were
running budget deficits as high as $400 billion. Now we are bringing
them to the level of $200 billion. But $200 billion is still an awful
lot of money, and it still does not do what we want done in this
country, to revitalize this economy and bring about a strong economy
where people have good jobs and better paying jobs. As long as we are
being strangled by these budget deficits, it causes us great pain. We
can do something about it by working together.
I know recently I have gotten hundreds of letters, thousands of
letters since I have been here, from senior citizens and others,
talking about the Social Security system and why we are borrowing
against it and what that is doing for us for the future.
I get calls and letters from young people that want a future, and yet
they feel like we are mortgaging our future, and we are doing just
that.
Mr. Chairman, let us stand up and be counted. Every one of us knows
that every Member of Congress has a different laundry list of where to
cut costs. Unfortunately, all of our laundry lists are different.
Therefore, we do not cut anything.
This is the time to stand up and be counted, and let us stand by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and this balanced budget
amendment, and let us pass it this time.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few comments as one of the
authors of several of the different balanced budget amendments
proposals. One of the things I get an opportunity to do in the First
Congressional District of Georgia is speak to a lot of school groups. I
often ask children in the fifth grade classes, how many of you are on
an allowance? Most of them raise their hands.
I say what do you make, $2, $3 a week, and so forth. And I say look
let me just pick on you. And I usually pick on one little boy or girl
in the class, and I say if you make a dollar a week, how much do you
spend? They say 75 cents, maybe 80 cents. If it is Christmas, I might
spend the whole dollar.
Then I ask these 10-year-olds, how many of you ever spend more than
you get for your allowance? They look at me, and I have completely lost
them with that sentence. And I say if you make a dollar a week, do you
ever spend a $1.05, $1.25, or $1.30? They say Mr. Congressman, we don't
know what you are talking about. And I say, I just want to say, sadly,
that is what has been going on in the U.S. Congress since 1969 when we
had our last balanced budget. And I point out to them while there is a
lot of partisan politics in Congress, this is not a problem that you
can blame on the Republicans, the Democrats, the President, the other
body. This is a problem that is a bipartisan problem, and we have to
resolve it in a bipartisan fashion.
One of the interesting things that I learned as a new Member of
Congress is that in 1980, the revenues of Congress were $517 billion.
By 1990, the revenues were over $1 trillion. Yet during that same
period of time, our expenditures outpaced revenues. So rather than
freezing or slowing down the rate of new expenses, we allowed it to
stay way out in front of the revenues. So we continued deficit
spending. And now we have I think on February 9, a $4.5 trillion debt.
Again, during that period of time you had Democrats and Republicans in
charge of various bodies in the executive branch and so forth. So it is
a bipartisan problem.
Let me say this: I served in the Georgia General Assembly for 8
years. We always balanced our budget. In my congressional district, or
the one I represent, it is certainly not mine, there are 22 counties.
Every one of them has a balanced budget. All the cities, and I have
about 35 municipalities, every one of them has a balanced budget. We
need to operate on the same constraints. Because if it is good enough
for Hometown, U.S.A. it is certainly good enough for Washington, DC.
For further reading I would certainly recommend ``The Coming Economic
Earthquake'' by Lloyd Burkett, or ``Bankruptcy 1995'' by Harry Figgie,
because it is will keep you up at night. This is a huge problem. We
have got to get the debt under control and we have to start with the
deficit in order to do that.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank my
colleagues, Mr. Smith and Mr. Stenholm and others who have had the
courage and provide the leadership on this most important issue.
As the freshmen Republican coordinator of Stenholm-Smith balanced
budget amendment, I want to thank every new Republican Member, all of
whom support this amendment.
Balancing our national budget by enacting a constitutional amendment
is the most critical issue to come before the 103d Congress.
As a new Member, I have been shocked and appalled at the reckless
manner in which taxpayers' hard-earned dollars are spent here.
After only 1 year in these halls, I am convinced more than ever that
we must pass a balanced budget amendment.
Every legislative attempt to curtail Federal spending has failed. If
the people really knew how their money was being spent they would
charge up the Capitol steps and drag out the guilty parties.
Unfortunately, the average citizen and taxpayer is so busy paying the
bill, complying with Government regulations, and trying to keep afloat,
they have not taken measures into their own hands.
But, I remind my colleagues, they have sent us here to make sense of
the mess Congress has created. Do not believe those who attempt to
scare people by saying that a balanced budget will hurt this or that
special interest group.
This amendment will not hurt anyone today. This amendment will not
hurt anyone tomorrow. What this amendment will do is secure the future
financial stability of our country.
Here is a copy of our Constitution. It starts off by saying that the
primary purpose of bringing our States together was to provide for the
common defense.
Mr. Chairman, in the not too distant future we will be paying more
for interest payments on the national debt than we pay for national
security.
Because of the reckless spending here, because of the lack of fiscal
constraint, we have no other course but to amend this rarely altered
document.
Nearly every State operates under a balanced budget provision. Almost
every city, local government and school board work under strict
spending constraints.
There is no valid reason why our national Government should operate
without reasonable limits on spending.
Quite frankly, my colleagues, the question before us goes right to
the heart of whether or not a Republican form of government and
democracy can survive.
Have we created a Congress that will vote such largess that it will
eventually bankrupt our country? Have the beneficiary's of Government
programs so outnumbered the taxpayers that there is no hope for the
future? Will we spend this great Nation into oblivion?
Today we have one chance to change the course of our own history. I
ask you to join me in support of the balanced budget amendment.
{time} 1800
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
(Mr. BACHUS of Alabama asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of
House Joint Resolution 103, I compliment the distinguished gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] for his tireless efforts to bring our fiscal
house in order by proposing this much-needed legislation.
Mr. Chairman, it is simply unconscionable that we would continue to
heap debt on our children and grandchildren, billions of dollars each
day. These children have no recourse. They have no voice in this debt.
This child abuse must end.
As elected Representatives of the people, we should have the courage
and the foresight to make the tough decisions other Americans make
every day. Regrettably, Congress has chosen a different course,
continuing to spend and spend and spend and spend without making the
necessary cuts to bring the Nation's budget in balance.
Every day, families across this great Nation balance their household
budgets, and every year 48 of our Governors balance their State
budgets. They are following a simple, commonsense principle. We should
not spend more money then we take in.
They do it for our children, their children. If this Congress had
this same discipline, this discipline that the American people must
demonstrate each day, we would not be debating this issue today. But it
is this very lack of discipline on the part of this body in the past to
exercise fiscal responsibility which brings me to the well today.
Mr. Chairman, deficit spending must stop. A balanced budget amendment
to our Constitution will compel Congress to demonstrate fiscal
responsibility for a change.
The American people want action now. As their Representatives, we
must not miss this historic opportunity to act. I urge my colleagues to
pass the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, the greatest threat to our Nation's long-
term economic well-being is the rapidly increasing Federal debt, which
has reached over $4 trillion. The interest payments on that debt now
consumes nearly 15 percent of the Federal budget. If we maintain the
spending status quo, the interest on the national debt will become the
largest Federal expenditure in the budget where interest payments will
crowd out all other Federal programs include Medicare, Social Security,
and other vital programs.
This is precisely why this House must vote in favor of the balanced
budget amendment so we can eliminate this drain on our budget. A
balanced budget amendment that will finally limit excessive Government
spending is necessary to force Congress to begin to set spending
priorities instead of just pushing the current debt on to future
generations of Americans. As history demonstrates, statutory approaches
just have not worked. The balanced budget amendment provides the
necessary flexibility to deal with national emergencies. We must enact
the balanced budget amendment to stop outrageous Federal spending
patterns and, more importantly, to stop mortgaging our children's
futures.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I simply want to add my words of support for the Stenholm version of
the balanced budget amendment. During the next number of hours, we will
debate several alternatives. I believe the Stenholm approach is the one
that should be commended to this Congress and to the country.
Clearly, we need to change the rules here at the national level.
Presently, there is no expectation that a budget should ever be
balanced. That is one of the reasons that we seldom see presented to
the Congress any proposals that seriously address the deficit issue.
We did, however, have one opportunity last week, a budget alternative
presented by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] would have
challenged us to cut upwards of $660 billion over the next 5 years in
order to attain a balanced budget by the time this constitutional
amendment, if passed, would take effect.
Sadly, far too few legislators chose to cast their votes in support
of a real balanced budget initiative.
Nonetheless, today we are called upon to vote for a policy change and
to place this basic budgeting principle right in the Constitution of
our land.
It is my hope that in the future, if this amendment is adopted, that
we will no longer debate whether we should balance the budget but,
rather, how we ought to go about balancing the Nation's budget.
This is an amendment that has been around in various forms in the
past. Every time we bring it to a vote we do better. It is my hope that
this vote will be the charm that will secure the two-thirds necessary
and that we will present to the country a new policy to govern our work
here in Washington, a policy that says that balanced budgets are the
order of the day, not the exception to the rule.
{time} 1710
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair how much time I
have remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 7
minutes remaining.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both the gentleman from California [Mr.
Gallegly], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], who preceded him in
yielding time, as well as, certainly, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm], who has permitted us a fair debate today, who structured
this rule, brought it to the floor, and structured this debate. I think
it has been a very important debate, and I think that we are going to
probably see it even pick up in intensity as we move into the
individual amendments, but to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]
particularly, I want to commend him for the way he has handled this and
brought this matter to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Stenholm
amendment and in favor of the so-called Wise-Pomeroy-Price-Furse, and
others who have cosponsored it, balanced budget amendment. We are going
to say if you are going to put an amendment into the Constitution of
the United States, it ought to have certain provisions.
There has been eloquent testimony here tonight about our children and
our grandchildren and passing on debt. Certainly that is something we
are all very, very cognizant of, the need to give them every
opportunity to be unencumbered, or as unencumbered as possible.
However, while we have been talking about wanting to avoid passing on
debt, I think it is important as well as to talk about passing on
opportunity, passing on those opportunities for a full life that can
only come because their parents and their grandparents made certain
decisions, made certain investments, put this country on a path that it
could grow instead of contract.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, in the likening of the family
budget, or the comparison, actually, of the family budget and the
Federal budget, I think it is important to note, how would you like
going to talk to a family and saying, ``You want a balanced budget,
don't you?''
The family would say, ``Of course we do. We sit down every month and
we work out our costs. We have a budget. We know how much we can
spend.''
``Good. Do you know that you will have to pay for your house all in
one payment, all in 1 year? You won't be able to get a mortgage for 20
to 30 years.''
``Oh?''
``Do you know that the car, the $10,000 or $15,000 automobile that
you need to get to and from work, to take the children to school, do
you know that you are going to have to pay for that in 1 year, you are
going to have to put cash down totally?''
``Oh?''
``Do you know that the education that you want to get for your child,
to send that child to college so their income, according to most
statistics, will probably be double to triple that of the child who
does not finish high school, do you know that you are going to have to
pay for all that tuition in 1 year, actually in probably one payment?''
They would say, ``Oh?''
That is what you are asking the Federal budget to do if you do not
have capital budgeting. I think most families would say, ``We want
responsible budgeting, but we also want the Federal Government to be
able to invest in those things that are important.''
Just as in families, we finance those long-term investments that are
crucial to the growth and development of the family, so it is
reasonable to expect the Federal Government to. What is not reasonable
to expect the Federal Government to do is to run up so much debt,
particularly in areas that do not produce long-term economic return.
What the so-called Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment does is to say
that the debt service will be part of the operating income, and so
indeed it will come under the balanced budget provisions.
Most States, every State, to my knowledge, require a balanced budget,
but also have capital investments. Everyone who stood on the floor
tonight is from a State that has capital budgeting in some regard, and
yet the Federal Government does not. Every business knows that it has
to make investments, but chooses to spread the cost of that investment
out over the life of the asset.
How would it go if a factory could not borrow for growth, but instead
had to pay for that piece of vital equipment that increases
productivity many fold, and yet would have to pay for it up front? The
reality is many factories could not.
I implore this body, as it is drafting a constitutional amendment,
not to put the Federal budget into a fiscal straitjacket, but to
recognize the important role of capital budgeting.
I think it is important to point out that our amendment, our
alternative, is the only one that does two things, the only one that
takes Social Security off budget. I have heard a lot of discussion
tonight about, and happen to agree that most Members here, I do not
know if any Member here would vote for cuts in Social Security. But if
that is the case, then why the harm, why the bother in taking Social
Security off budget, as many Members have said they thought out to be
done, and providing senior citizens that security of knowing that it is
secure?
We are the only amendment that does that. We are the only amendment
that provides for capital budgeting. Many colleagues have told me they
like the idea of capital budgeting, perhaps it is something that ought
to be done in legislation. My concern is that if any of the other
amendments pass, we will not be able to do capital budgeting in
subsequent legislation. Here is a chance now to put it into place,
particularly in the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues that here, with the Wise-
Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment, the alternative amendment, that you have
an opportunity to guarantee to senior citizens the security of Social
Security by taking it off budget. You have an opportunity to stop
passing on debt. We have exactly the same limitations, exactly the same
effective date as the so-called Stenholm amendment and the other
amendments, the year 2001.
Finally, you have the opportunity to pass on to your children
something positive. You have the opportunity to pass on the recognition
that investments in their future are going to be considered and given a
priority status, and that will not be discouraged by the language in
the Constitution or in other legislation that would preclude those
types of investments. We want to encourage investing, we want to
encourage those things that make us better, we do not want to
discourage them.
Finally, going back to the family, the family knows well that you do
not go and borrow money to drive through a fast food restaurant drive-
through. That is silly. You want to make sure that part of the budget
is balanced, but the family knows well the importance of long-term
investments: their mortgage, their house, their car, their children's
education.
We in the Federal Government can take that lesson to heart as well. I
urge adoption of the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment so that you can
protect Social Security by moving it off budget, provide for capital
budgeting, and provide for those future opportunities for the children
and grandchildren that have been the subject of all the discussion here
tonight.
I thank the Chair and I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, i yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, Mr. Chairman, I want thank all of the people who have worked
so hard on this effort, from the balanced budget coalition of groups to
our internal BBA whip organization, to all of our Members and their
staffs that have worked so hard in corralling the votes to pass the
balanced budget amendment this time.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot say enough about my colleague, the gentleman
from Oregon [Mr. Smith] and the work he has done on his side of the
aisle; the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne], the gentlewoman from
Maine [Ms. Snowe], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], and I particularly want to
commend my friend, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] for the
job that he has done.
Second, Mr. Chariman, I want to commend the Members who have
participated in the debate today, virtually all of whom have made that
wish I made during the rules debate come true. It obviously has been a
valuable debate conducted on a high plane, for the most part.
Third, I want to commend all the authors of the amendments being
offered today for their sincere efforts and hard work: again, the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Barton], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], all of whom have contributed responsibly
through the proposals that they are offering.
One of the most encouraging things to me is that while there is
disagreement about the best amendment, there is a growing agreement
that we need a constitutional amendment. In fact, I cannot help but
observe that over these last 10 or 12 years, time and time again, we
have passed statutes, time and time again we have made efforts to
reduce the deficit; time and time again we have stood in the well at
the mikes and said we are all in favor of balancing the budget, but
when the tough ones come up, we always seem to be a little short, as my
colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee, mentioned a moment ago.
Now it appears, at least listening to the debate today, that we now
have well over two-thirds of this body, including, I believe, a
majority for the first time on my side of the aisle, that believe we do
need to amend the Constitution for purposes of bringing about a
balanced budget.
{time} 1820
Unfortunately, trough, we have a difference again as to which one. We
always manage to have that small difference that provides that reason
for us not doing anything, and once again, that is what is happening to
us.
Again, where we have honest differences, I can certainly go along
with that.
I want to correct a few errors, though, and I believe there was a
misstatement on the part of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise]
a moment ago when he said that his was the only amendment that provides
for capital budgeting. That is not exactly true.
House Joint Resolution 103, our amendment, does not prevent the
creation of separate operating and capital accounts. But the total
budget must remain in balance. This is consistent with the
recommendations of the GAO which stated the creation of explicit
categories for Government, capital, and investment expenditures should
not be viewed as a license to run deficits to finance those categories.
The choice between spending for investment and spending for consumption
should be seen as setting of priorities with an overall fiscal
constraint, not as a reason for relaxing that constraint and permitting
a larger deficit.
Similarly, the national performance review concluded that a capital
budget is not a justification to relax current budget constraints. One
of the reasons that I will oppose the Wise amendment, I think it has
been good to raise this issue of capital budgeting, but I am not sure
we are ready to put this version into the Constitution.
You know, a lot has been talked about while the States have capital
budgets which allow them to finance large capital expenditures, they
also have several mechanisms which regulate these budgets. These
include referendum votes on bond issuances and strict bond quality
ratings by private ratings services. Also, debts incurred for capital
expenditures must be paid back systematically within the operating
budget. Abuse of State capital budgets is limited by these votes and
ratings.
These controls do not exist at the Federal level. Creating a Federal
capital budget would invite moving spending items which clearly are not
capital expenditures from the operating to the capital budget, and I
will only list the President's budget that was submitted to us this
year. I will list just a few: major Federal investments outlays,
direct, national defense, $76.1 billion; nondefense, 19.1; grants to
State and local governments, 31.2; conduct of research and development,
national defense, 40.4 billion; nondefense, 28 billion.
There are so many different views that we could have, and that is
something that needs to be spelled out, but certainly not enshrined in
the Constitution.
We have heard speakers talking about the necessity of borrowing and
using the Louisiana Purchase as an example. Well, I wish we would
emulate the Louisiana Purchase. This was something that was bought and
paid for within a relatively short period of time. And just
interestingly, if we were buying the Louisiana Purchase today, that
purchase of land which became part of 15 States, today it would cost us
$225 billion. We would be able to pay it back within 10 years.
What are we getting for the $223 billion of deficit spending we have
this year? Name one concrete investment being made for anyone regarding
this year's capital budget, if that is what we want to call it, and we
could, based on the President's submission of his own budget.
Finally, I would say the question of off-budget or on-budget, on
Social Security, why I want and believe it must be kept on budget is
because we are not just talking about current and short-term expected
recipients of the Social Security trust fund. We have to be concerned
about those who are looking forward to 20, 30, 40 years from today to
be concerned about that same trust fund. Surely, it is not too much to
ask of today's recipients to provide for an increasing of that trust
fund so that their grandchildren might have something there for them
also.
That is why we say it must be included, because we are not just
talking about current recipients. We are talking about all future
recipients, and again, I say there is no greater supporter of the
Social Security trust fund or the Social Security system than Charlie
Stenholm, and I believe I speak for the other 434 Members of this body,
both sides of the aisle.
I am glad that most of us today avoid the temptation of politicizing
that issue. That is progress. I am glad that we are legitimately
talking about a very legitimate issue, and that is capital budgeting
and how that might fit.
Again, I commend the gentleman from West Virginia for making a very
honest attempt at making this a very relevant issue. Perhaps someday in
the future this will be the reason that we will find 290 votes to amend
the Constitution of the United States. I do not think the time is now.
I hope though that the time is now to amend our Constitution to provide
one thing, and that is what we have hoped to do, not set our economy
into a straitjacket.
I have had to bite my tongue many times today when my colleagues
would stand up and say all of these horrible things we are doing. At
any time the judgment of this body is that 60 percent of us shall say
we shall borrow money for a very worthwhile purpose, we may do so under
our amendment. We do not put it in a straitjacket. We just give that
minority that has no vote today, our children and grandchildren, a
little better say-so in what we need to be doing for them as well as
for us today.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, today Congress will once again go through
the perennial throes of the balanced budget amendment debate.
We brought the measure to the floor by way of discharge petition,
made possible in part, by Mr. Inhofe's so-called sunshine amendment,
that made public Member's names on discharge petitions. Forcefully
dredged from an untimely death in committee, we can examine this fine
proposal in the light of day.
We are told repeatedly by opponents of this the balanced budget
amendment that it is a gimmick. If we would only make the tough
spending choices, the opponents say, Congress could do without amending
our Constitution, a document which contains the basic principles that
have guided the success of this country for over 200 years.
I will give these opponents three reasons why we should
overwhelmingly support this amendment which the American people
overwhelmingly support: Gramm-Rudman-Hollings I, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
II, the budget agreement of 1990.
No matter what laws Congress passes that are supposed to prevent them
from spending more money than they have, the big spenders in Congress
will always find a way to circumvent them. Spending has increased
despite these strict deficit spending measures that Congress has
passed. These are the true gimmicks.
So, experience has told us that Congress makes gimmicks of laws
passed to prevent deficit spending. What has experience taught us about
Congress' political will to make tough spending decisions between
conflicting interests? Experience has taught us that Congress is
incapable of making these decisions collectively. Here is a prime
example: This body was unable to pass the Penny-Kasich amendment. Was
the Penny-Kasich amendment draconian or ultimately disruptive to the
well-being of this country? Absolutely not. Penny-Kasich would have cut
one cent from every Federal dollar spent over 5 years. Yet it failed.
So much for political will. What about the Solomon amendment? Why
couldn't this body find the political will to pass this? And this is
only the most recent example.
Why shouldn't we include an amendment to our Constitution to balance
our budget? Shouldn't our country build on prosperity, not on debt?
Isn't this a basic guiding principle that will ensure our success in
the future?
I urge my colleagues to reject the naysayers. Vote for the future
prosperity of our children. Pass the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, while much of the discussion here
today has focused on the ``balanced'' in balanced budget amendment, the
Kyle amendment adds a new and very important dimension to this debate:
basic economics.
For the last 40 years, Federal tax revenue has remained at 19 percent
of GDP year in and year out. If you think about it, this is a truly
amazing fact. Immediately after World War II, the top marginal tax rate
in America was 94 percent. Yet total revenues stayed at that 19 percent
figure. Even when Ronald Reagan slashed marginal rates by 25 percent in
1981, revenues remained constant at that same 19 percent.
Besides making an almost airtight case for supply-side economics,
this statistic illustrates an inherent equilibrium in our tax
structure.
It shows exactly how much Government the American economy will bear.
However, the spending side of the picture is bleak. Since about 1955,
Federal spending has departed from that 19 percent figure, and has
grown steadily higher ever since. Today, spending equal 25 percent of
our GDP. Mr. Chairman, it doesn't take a math professor to figure out
that we simply cannot continue to spend more than we take in.
A balanced budget amendment brings sanity back to the level of
Federal spending and frankly, it's a provision that every one of our
constituents live by every day of their lives. Imagine, if you will,
one of our constituents coming to the conclusion that he or she simply
had too many expenses, and yet was unwilling to prioritize them.
Continue to imagine, that this individual decided to spend without
consideration to their income.
Mr. Chairman, we all know, as do the American people, that this
person would soon find themselves with nothing, because they tried to
do everything. This Government has tried to do everything--react to
every concern--without setting priorities. Now, because of our bad
judgment, we find ourselves on the verge of literally bankrupting our
children. This is not the legacy I intend to leave to my family or my
constituents.
The Kyle amendment goes beyond simple budget balancing. It also says
that we must limit spending at a level our economy can support. It's
just plain common sense.
So join with me. Inject some basic economic reality into the business
of this body. Help set a wise and reasoned benchmark for governmental
and economic performance. Vote for the Kyl amendment.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to all four
proposals for amending the Constitution to balance the Federal budget.
I share the feelings of frustration which have led many of our
colleagues to conclude that amending our Constitution is our only hope
for solving the Federal Government's persistent budget deficit problem.
The enormous deficits the Government has run for the last decade and a
half are, without a doubt, the leading policy and political failure of
our generation. They are the root cause of the low rate of investment
in this country, and they are a major factor in our inability to
respond to our Nation's most pressing needs. They are also a large part
of the reason why voters are angry at Congress and why so many feel
that our political process just does not work.
But amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget is the
wrong way to attempt to correct the imbalance between spending and
revenues. The right way to do it is to enact well-thought-out spending
cuts and revenue increases which reduce our annual deficits, but which
do so gradually, in a way that avoids inflicting damage on a fragile
economy. That is what the President and Congress did successfully last
year, and it is what we should continue to do in the years ahead.
The proposals before us, however, would deter us from acting in such
a responsible manner in the future. Because the amendment would not
take effect until the year 2001, it would give the President and
Congress an excuse to avoid acting now to make the spending cuts and
raise the revenues that are needed to eliminate deficits.
Moreover, once the amendment took effect, Congress would undoubtedly
go to great lengths to find a way around it. We did just that after we
enacted the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act which promised a balanced budget
by the end of the last decade: We used unrealistic economic assumptions
to produce inflated estimates of revenues, we moved programs off-
budget, and we delayed payments into future years--all in an attempt to
circumvent deficit-reduction requirements that we did not have the
political will to meet. Just as our inability to comply with Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings in an honest way fueled public cynicism toward
Congress, so too would our likely response to a requirement to balance
the budget.
The reason that Congress would try to find ways around complying with
a balanced budget requirement is the same reason we are not voting to
balance the budget right now: There is insufficient political support
for the deep programs cuts and large tax increases that would be
required to bring spending and revenues into balance. We saw what
happened last week when a plan to balance the budget over the next 5
years was presented to the House: It failed by a vote of 342 to 73. We
may all want to balance the budget in the abstract, but we also realize
that the draconian spending cuts required--if the budget is balanced
through spending cuts alone--are not supported by most Americans.
In addition, a balanced Federal budget is not always the wisest
economic policy. When the economy is emerging from recession, as it is
now, balancing the budget could set back the recovery badly. That is
another reason the proposal to balance the budget in 5 years commanded
so little support: It posed too great a risk to the still-fledgling
economic recovery.
The constitutional amendment proposed by Representative Stenholm
anticipates the possible need for deficit spending by allowing
expenditures to exceed revenues if three-fifths of both Houses of
Congress vote to approve deficit spending. That provision, however, is
another troubling feature of this proposal because it would enable a
minority of Members--whether partisan, regional, ideological, or
otherwise--to control the outcome of a decision on this matter. By
giving minorities in both chambers the power to demand concessions in
return for their votes--and the power to veto, in effect, legislation
supported by a majority of Members--this provision would make it
extraordinarily difficult for Congress to govern. It would severely
constrain Congress in its ability to respond effectively, and in a way
supported by a majority of Americans, to the problems facing our
Nation.
Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, the proposals before us to
amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget should be rejected.
Let us resolve, instead, to build on the work we began last year when
we enacted legislation which will reduce deficits over the next 5 years
by half a trillion dollars--legislation which has resulted in a deficit
this year that is 40 percent lower than predicted just a year earlier.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on all four versions of this
legislation.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to House Joint Resolution 103, as introduced by
Representative Stenholm, a bill to amend the Constitution to require a
balanced budget. The proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit
outlays from exceeding receipts in any fiscal year, unless three-fifths
of the Members of the House vote to do so. I believe that this proposed
amendment poses a grave danger to our Nation's unique Democratic system
of government, and could adversely affect the American economy and the
viability of our Nation for many years.
One of the major problems presented by House Joint Resolution 103 is
that enforcement of the law would be the responsibility of the Federal
Judiciary, a clear violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Constitution, in article 1, section 8, specifically states that,
``The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
defense (SIC) and general welfare of the United States * * *''
enactment of House Joint Resolution 103 would amount to an abdication
by the legislative branch of their sole responsibility, as the only
Federal Government officials directly elected by the people, for
raising revenue and directing spending. It is clear that our Founding
Fathers never intended for the authority to make Federal Government
spending decisions to be held by any other body than the Congress.
Regardless of the severity of the current problem controlling the
Federal deficit, and reducing the burgeoning debt, the Congress cannot
abdicate its responsibility to the people.
The issue before us is a critical one, how best do we reduce
the budget deficit, and begin to trim the Federal debt. For 12 years of
Reagan-Bush economic policies, our Nation experienced rapidly
increasing annual budget deficits, and a quadrupling of the Federal
debt. In 1980, the national debt stood at approximately $1 trillion; in
1992, the debt had risen to a staggering $4 trillion. Despite all the
political rhetoric emanating from the White House during the Reagan-
Bush years endorsing a balanced budget amendment, neither President
Reagan nor President Bush ever proposed a balanced budget to Congress.
In fact, not only did Presidents Reagan and Bush propose spending plans
which led to an explosion of the Federal debt, and increasing annual
budget deficits, but Congress actually appropriated approximately $17
billion less than requested by Presidents Reagan and Bush during their
12 years in office.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues not to take the easy way out,
but to face up to each of our responsibilities as elected officials to
make tough decisions and hard choices, and have the courage to stand
behind them. I urge my colleagues to oppose simplistic solutions to the
difficult issue of deficit reduction, and vote against House Joint
Resolution 103.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I want to state today my strong opposition
to any amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would seek to provide
for a balanced budget.
Let me begin by reminding the House that Congress passed a budget
plan last year which is moving the Nation toward a balanced budget in a
dramatic fashion. The deficit for fiscal year 1995 is expected to be 40
percent below the deficit originally projected by fiscal year 1995.
The budget resolution passed by the house last year provides for a
fiscal year 1995 deficit of $176 billion compared to the fiscal year
1994 deficit of $235 billion. Passage of national health care reform
will help to lock in this positive deficit reduction trend by
controlling fast growing Federal health care expenditures.
The 1993 economic plan and health care reform will help to provide a
balanced budget. It will be done as a result of straightforward debate
and tough votes. Members of Congress do not need to hide behind the
U.S. Constitution to make the choices needed to balance the budget. The
Congress must only face up to these issues and do the right thing.
My opposition to a balanced budget amendment is based on the basic
fact that only Congress can take the tough votes required to balance
the budget. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not needed and
furthermore will not achieve the goal advanced by the supporters of
this proposed amendment.
The simple truth behind all the rhetoric about a balanced budget
amendment is that all this proposal would do is empower a minority in
Congress to block any budget. The proposed balanced budget amendment
would require a 60 percent vote rather than the current 50 percent vote
to enact a budget that did not provide for a balanced budget. As a
result, 41 percent of the Members of the House could hold a budget
hostage until the majority capitulated to the minority's position.
If the supermajority provisions of a balanced budget amendment had
been in effect last year, the 1993 economic plan would not have passed
the Congress. The public statements of leaders in the minority made it
clear that a balanced program of budget cuts and revenue increase was
unacceptable. It is hard, in fact, to imagine the minority in the House
accepting any budget plan that would have provided the dramatic 40-
percent reduction in the deficit achieved by enactment of the 1993
economic plan. As a result, a balanced budget amendment with its
supermajority loop hole would have likely made real deficit reduction
not easier but more difficult last year.
I have consistently voted against balanced budget amendment proposals
in the past because of my concerns that amending the U.S. Constitution
is not the most effective or responsible way of making U.S. budget
decisions. Previous efforts to enact a balanced budget amendment have
represented an attempt to paper over what was essentially a political
debate between the Congress and earlier administrations over U.S.
fiscal policy.
In addition, balanced budget amendments typically delay any balanced
budget requirements until far into the future when the responsibility
of making the tough decisions would fall to a future Congress. Passing
a balanced budget amendment is a classic case of wanting to have your
cake and eat it too. Proponents would have Congress pass a balanced
budget amendment but ensure that deficit spending could continue until
the clock runs out sometime in the next century.
There is no question that the Federal deficit must be controlled.
That is being done by the 1993 economic plan and deficit control
efforts will be strengthened by enactment of health care reform. I
strongly support a balanced budget, and I am willing to cast the votes
necessary to cut the deficit.
The road to a balanced budget is not paved with amendments to the
U.S. Constitution. The good intentions of a balanced budget amendment
lead in a different direction--a purgatory of gridlock.
The road to a balanced budget is marked by tough votes on Federal
spending and revenue. I urge the House to reject the allure of balanced
budget amendments and work together instead to make the decisions
required to reduce the deficit, enact health care reform, and build a
stronger U.S. economy.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, apropos to this week's debate on
the balanced budget constitutional amendment, I am pleased to insert
the following excerpt from a book entitled, ``The Constitution of 1787:
A Commentary,'' written by George Anastaplo, professor of law, Loyola
University of Chicago, and published by the Johns Hopkins University
Press, pages 186-187. The two long passages are from James L.
Kilpatrick's Chicago Sun-Times column of April 3, 1986.
I have also suggested that it is difficult to believe that
any balanced-budget amendment, however it should be proposed
and ratified, would have its intended effect. All of the
proposals that have been taken seriously include prudent
provisions allowing Congress, by three-fifths or some other
supermajority, to override any balanced-budget restriction.
Even more serious, this general approach assumes that there
exists a thing readily identifiable as a budget and that it
is reasonably evident when it is balanced, or when
expenditures are matched by receipts.
Is not the balanced-budget-amendment approach naive,
depending much more upon incantations than is politically
sound? Such approaches can be little more than rhetorical
exercises, which can have the bad effects not only of
cluttering up the Constitution but also of misleading people
as to what a constitution can and cannot do. The best popular
critique I have seen of a balanced-budget amendment is by a
conservative columnist who had this to say about the matter:
``The Senate last week fell just one vote short of
approving a constitutional amendment intended to compel a
balanced federal budget. It would be pleasant to say good
riddance to bad rubbish, but we have not heard the last of
this folly.
``This was the proposed amendment: ``Outlays of the United
States for any fiscal year shall not exceed receipts to the
United States for that year, unless three-fifths of the whole
number of both houses of congress shall provide for a
specific excess of outlays over receipts.''
``A second section would permit Congress to waive these
restrictions in wartime. A third section would make the
amendment effective in the second fiscal year after its
ratification.
``[T]he best speech in the Senate against the proposed
amendment . . . made four points: (1) The resolution lacks
constitutional feel, (2) From a parliamentary standpoint it
is plainly grotesque. (3) Its terms could easily be evaded.
(4) It is unenforceable by any acceptable means.
``The amendment, [it was] said, ``would wage war on the
Constitution's majestic simplicity.''
``Indeed it would. Constitutional amendments ought to
address either the rights of the people or the structure of
government.''
The column ends with observations that apply to much more
than the current controversy:
``A balanced federal budget ought not to be
constitutionally mandated, whether by an amendment that
originates in Congress or by an amendment that originates in
a constitutional convention. It is a bad idea in either
event.
``The way to get a balanced budget is to elect responsible
men and women to Congress. It is a humiliating confession of
irresponsibility that this amendment should ever have been
considered.''
If a balanced-budget amendment should work, we might then
resort to an amendment absolutely forbidding crime in the
streets and still another insuring that only the most
virtuous should serve in public office. We could adapt to
this latter amendment the provision in the 1776 Maryland
Constitution that ``a person of wisdom, experience, and
virtue, shall be chosen Governor, on the second Monday of
November, seventeen hundred and seventy-seven, and on the
second Monday in every year forever thereafter, by the joint
ballot of both Houses [of the General Assembly].''
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Without objection, the joint resolution is considered as having been
read.
There was no objection.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 103
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to
all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States within seven years after the date of its submission to
the States for ratification:
``Article--
``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not
exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall
provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts
by a rollcall vote.
``Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States
held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law
for an increase by a rollcall vote.
``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall
transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United
States Government for that fiscal year, in which total
outlays do not exceed total receipts.
``Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law
unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each
House by a rollcall vote.
``Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this
article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is
in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for
any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in
military conflict which causes an imminent and serious
military threat to national security and is so declared by a
joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number
of each House, which becomes law.
``Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this
article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on
estimates of outlays and receipts.
``Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of
the United States Government except those derived from
borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the
United States Government except for those for repayment of
debt principal.
``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with
fiscal year 1999 or with the second fiscal year beginning
after its ratification, whichever is later.''
The CHAIRMAN. No amendments to the joint resolution are in order
except the amendments specified in House Resolution 331, which shall be
considered in the order specified in the rule and which may be offered
only by the named proponent or a designee, shall be in order
notwithstanding the adoption of a previous amendment in the nature of a
substitute, shall be considered as read only if printed in the
Congressional Record at least 3 legislative days prior to
consideration, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and a Member opposed thereto, and shall not
be subject to amendment.
The amendments made in order by the rule are:
First, an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Kyl];
Second, an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Barton];
Third, an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Brooks];
Fourth, an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
If more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted,
only the last to be adopted shall be considered as finally adopted and
reported to the House.
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. kyl
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Kyl:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to
all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States within seven years after the date of its submission
for ratification:
``ARTICLE--
``Section 1. Except as provided in this article, outlays of
the United States Government for any fiscal year may not
exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.
``Section 2. Except as provided in this article, the
outlays of the United States Government for a fiscal year may
not exceed 19 percent of the Nation's gross national product
for that fiscal year.
``Section 3. The Congress may, by law, provide for
suspension of the effect of sections 1 or 2 of this article
for any fiscal year for which three-fifths of the whole
number of each House shall provide, by a rollcall vote, for a
specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 19 percent
of the Nation's gross national product.
``Section 4. Total receipts shall include all receipts of
the United States except those derived from borrowing and
total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States
except those for the repayment of debt principal.
``Section 5. The President shall have power, when any Bill,
including any vote, resolution, or order, which contains any
item of spending authority, is presented to him pursuant to
section 7 of Article I of this Constitution, to separately
approve, reduce, or disapprove any spending provision, or
part of any spending provision, contained therein.
``When the President exercises this power, he shall signify
in writing such portions of the Bill he has approved and
which portions he has reduced. These portions, to the extent
not reduced, shall then become a law. The President shall
return with his objections any disapproved or reduced
portions of a Bill to the House in which the Bill originated.
The Congress shall separately reconsider each such returned
portion of the Bill in the manner prescribed for disapproved
Bills in section 7 of Article I of this Constitution. Any
portion of a Bill which shall not have been returned or
approved by the President within 10 days (Sundays
excepted) after it shall have been presented to him shall
become a law, unless the Congress by their adjournment
prevent its return, in which case it shall not become a
law.
``Section 6. Items of spending authority are those portions
of a Bill that appropriate money from the Treasury or that
otherwise authorize or limit the withdrawal or obligation of
money from the Treasury. Such items shall include, without
being limited to, items of appropriations, spending
authorizations, authority to borrow money on the credit of
the United States or otherwise, dedications of revenues,
entitlements, uses of assets, insurance, guarantees of
borrowing, and any authority to incur obligations.
``Section 7. Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this article shall
apply to the third fiscal year beginning after its
ratification and to subsequent fiscal years, but not to
fiscal years beginning before October 1, 1999. Sections 5 and
6 of this article shall take effect upon ratification of this
article.''
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Kyl] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the Kyl amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] will
control the 30 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, according to Clinton administration figures, a total of
$234.8 billion will be added to the debt by the end of this fiscal
year. That means, in just the short hour allocated for today's debate
on my amendment, nearly $27 million will be added to the national debt.
In the time it takes to vote on the four different versions of the
balanced budget amendment between now and tomorrow, over $1 billion
will have been added to the national debt. By the end of the year, the
total debt owed by each man, woman and child in this country will come
to about $18,400 apiece--more than the average Arizonan makes in a
year.
Mr. Chairman, the national debt is robbing our children and
grandchildren of their financial security tomorrow, and it is robbing
the American people of their economic security today. The interest on
the national debt--interest alone--now amounts to over $800 million a
day, about $300 billion per year. That is 10 times more than this
year's education budget. It is about twice what we'll spend on
Medicare. It is nearly eight times what we allocate for veterans
programs. And if that weren't bad enough, interest payments will only
continue to grow from year to year, crowding out all other programs for
a share of scarce Federal dollars.
Mr. Chairman, every year that Congress fails to pass a balanced
budget just adds to the debt burden being foisted upon future
generations. Every year it becomes more and more difficult and painful
for all of us to balance the budget. We must end the delay, and begin
making the hard choices now.
The amendment I have at the desk--the balanced budget spending
limitation amendment--is designed to end Congress' addiction to
spending and borrowing, and given the Nation a chance at a healthy
economic future.
The free-standing version of my amendment, House Joint Resolution 61,
has been cosponsored by more than 70 Members of the House. It has been
endorsed by such taxpayer groups as Citizens Against Government Waste,
Citizens for a Sound Economy, Americans for Tax Reform, and the
National Tax Limitation Committee, not to mention the Institute for
Research on the Economics of Taxation among others.
Like the other versions of balanced budget amendments that will be
considered, the Kyl substitute requires a balanced Federal budget. It
is unique, however, in two other respects--both substantively and in
its objectives.
Substantively, it includes a Federal spending limit. It limits
spending to 19 percent of gross national product, which is roughly the
level of tax revenues the Government has collected for the last
generation. Second, it provides the President with line-item veto
authority.
With respect to objectives, the Kyl substitute is designed to promote
both fiscal responsibility and economic growth.
Just before the House debated balanced budget amendments the last
time, in 1992, the General Accounting Office released a report
predicting that, based on current trends, Federal spending could grow
to 42.4 percent of gross national product by the year 2020. That would
be up from about 23 percent of GNP today. Slower economic growth will
result, and combined with a growing debt burden, the next generation
can expect no improvement in its standard of living.
My colleagues, let me repeat that: If Federal spending isn't limited,
there will be no improvement in the standard of living for the next
generation.
A report released the year before, by Stephen Moore of the Institute
for Policy Innovation, came to similar conclusions about the proportion
of GNP the Government will command if current trends are followed. The
report concluded that:
Meaningful, constitutional limits on the growth of spending
are needed to bring the size of government down to
economically sustainable levels. One way to achieve this end
would be to limit the percentage of GNP which the government
can command from the private sector.
The idea of spending limits is not new. Nineteen States across the
country have some form of spending limitation, in statute or in their
constitutions. California, for example, adopted a constitutional limit
in 1979, limiting yearly growth in appropriations to the percentage
increase in population and inflation.
Tennessee adopted its constitutional limit in 1978, limiting the
growth in appropriations to the growth in State personal income. Texas,
also in 1978, adopted a constitutional limit, tying the growth in
biennial appropriations to the rate of growth of personal State income.
The Kyl substitute is modeled after Arizona's spending limit, which I
helped draft in 1974 with then-State senate majority leader Sandra Day
O'Connor, now Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; State
senator Ray Rottas, who went on to become State treasurer of Arizona;
Clarence Duncan, a prominent Arizona attorney; and a handful of others.
The spending limit, set at 7 percent of State personal income, was
approved by an overwhelming 78 percent of the State's voters.
The idea of spending limits is not unique to the States either. The
idea was endorsed in the Republican budget initiative which was
considered in the House last week. As far back as 1979, the Humphrey-
Hawkins Full Employment Act set a goal of limiting Federal outlays to a
maximum of 20 percent of GNP (15 U.S.C. 1022a). The problem is, that
was merely a goal, not a requirement, and Congress has routinely
ignored it. Since the goal was set, revenues have remained relatively
constant at about 19 percent of GNP, but spending soared to over 25
percent and now hovers at about 23 percent.
When I first came to Congress in January 1987 I introduced a spending
limit balanced budget amendment. Adding a spending limitation to a
balanced budget amendment, as the Kyl substitute proposes to do,
achieves two things: First, it treats the cause of big deficits--
excessive Government spending--and not just the symptoms of that
problem--the high taxes and excessive borrowing. Our problem is not
that Congress doesn't tax enough; it is that Congress spends too much.
Moreover, my approach recognizes that the only way Congress really
can balance the budget is by limiting Federal spending to the level of
revenues that the economy has historically been willing to bear.
Over the last 40 years--in good economic times and bad, despite tax
increases and tax cuts, and under Presidents of both political
parties--revenues to the Treasury have remained relatively constant at
about 19 percent of gross national product [GNP].
That is because changes in the Tax Code change people's behavior.
Lower taxes stimulate the economy, resulting in more taxable income and
transactions, and more revenue to the Treasury. Higher taxes discourage
work, production, investment, and savings, so revenues are always less
than projected. Although tax cuts and tax rate increases may create
temporary declines and surges in revenue, revenues always adjust at
roughly the same percentage of GNP as people adjust their behavior to
the new tax laws. So you just cannot reduce the deficit and balance the
budget by raising taxes.
The point is, if revenue as a share of GNP remains relatively steady
no matter what we do, the only way to really raise revenues is to grow
the economy first. In other words, 19 percent of a larger GNP
represents more revenue to the Treasury than 19 percent of a smaller
GNP.
The balanced budget-spending limitation amendment thus attacks the
cause of deficits head on--it limits spending. And, by linking spending
to the size of the economy--GNP--it not only recognizes the reality
that a growing economy produces more revenue, but also gives Congress
an incentive to support policies that ensure the economy is indeed
healthy and growing. Only a growing economy--measured by GNP--would
increase the dollar amount that Congress is allowed to spend. So if
Congress wants to spend more money it would have to support policies
that promote economic opportunity and growth.
Mr. Chairman, there is one additional component to the Kyl
substitute, and that is a real and meaningful line-item veto for the
President. This is not just expedited rescission authority masquerading
as a line-item veto. This is the real thing, and it will give the
President a means of enforcing the balanced budget and spending
limitation requirements should Congress, for some reason, fail. Forty-
three Governors already have line-item veto authority, and the
President should as well.
This is the only opportunity we'll have during this entire Congress
to vote on a real line-item veto. For those who say they support it,
here's the chance.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kyl substitute.
{time} 1830
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the Kyl amendment. I feel that the Wise-
Price-Pomeroy-Furse alternative is far preferable. I guess the Kyl
amendment in a lot of ways is really quite a package. It is one-stop
shopping. You not only get the balanced budget amendment, you also get
a line item veto in there as well. It is all wrapped up in one.
Regarding the line item veto, a vast majority of this House has
passed an enhanced rescission process that, in effect, is a modified
line item veto, and sent it to the other body. It would be my hope,
having supported that, that that legislation would be passed. But I
also think there are great problems with the line item veto which does
greatly alter the balance of power. The enhanced rescission process
guarantees a vote on any rescission, but the vote must be by a
majority. The Kyl language would change that, of course, and would
require a two-thirds vote to override a Presidential veto. That is
quite a significant shift in power. But that is, I understand, not
where the real nub of the difference lies, although it is a pretty
significant one, between my position and the gentleman from Arizona's.
I have great concern with the 19-percent formula, or any formula, any
percentage that is written into the Constitution of the United States.
That is not because I am wild about spending more than 19 percent or
perhaps less than 19 percent, it is just that arbitrary numbers can get
you into trouble. It can get you into trouble, for instance, in a
hypothetical situation, perhaps one that is not going to be so
hypothetical.
The Congressional Budget Office recently recommended that the
provisions of the Clinton health plan, even though it is people paying
for private insurance, because they are paying through a health
alliance, that those be considered as revenue for outlays and revenues
for Federal budgeting purposes. You are simply paying, continuing to
pay the health premium that you and I already pay as consumers. We are
buying private insurance, but it is being scored as Federal revenue, or
it could be.
As I read the Kyl language, anything that takes you above the 19
percent would require three-fifths to waive. So the body would have to
come back by 60 percent even if you had the program entirely paid for--
pay-as-you-go--by 60 percent, would have to approve that.
I finally disagree with the Kyl budget for reasons that come as no
surprise to the gentleman from Arizona. We have been at each other all
day on this. It does not adequately protect Social Security recipients.
I take the gentleman at his word when he says he is not out to cut
Social Security. But I fail to understand in his amendment and in
others why you do not simply just put Social Security off budget, as so
many people have recommended in the past.
Finally, of course, the Kyl amendment does not have capital budgeting
in it, and that has been a subject of debate as well today.
My concern is that the Kyl amendment is much, perhaps more so,
actually, than the other amendments that will be considered today
because of its limitations, percentage limitation written into the
Constitution, combined with an absence of capital budgeting, could do
even more to discourage the kind of investment that I think most of us
in this Chamber agree needs to be done, our infrastructure, for
instance, roads, bridges, and whatnot.
{time} 1840
I want to mention for just a moment that some say we are already
investing in infrastructure, we are already investing a certain
percentage; what is the problem? The problem is because of our present
fiscal budgeting policies which would only be aggravated further. By
passage or enactment of the Kyl amendment we are discouraging the kinds
of investments that do need to be made.
I would point out that we are investing one-half today in relation to
our total Federal spending of what we were doing only 25 and 30 years
ago in infrastructure, those things that make us stronger. I would
point out that Japan, with an economy 60 percent that of the United
States, a population roughly about 60 percent that of the United
States--Japan spends more in real dollars in infrastructure than the
United States Government and related State governments do. We are
falling behind in those areas that are so important that we catch up
on, and so anything that discourages that kind of investment I have
great concerns about.
Mr. Chairman, I fear that the Kyl amendment goes a long way toward
further dampening the investment that needs to be made, and for that
reason I oppose it and would ask my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], my friend and colleague.
MR. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kyl
substitute.
I support the substitute because it is uniquely designed to promote
both fiscal responsibility and economic growth.
Well, how does it do that?
In addition to a balanced budget amendment, the Kyl substitute sets a
spending limit at 19 percent of GNP, and that clearly is going to help
encourage economic growth.
Well why 19 percent? Because Federal revenues have historically
comprised about 19 percent of GNP ever since World War II.
The same cannot be said for spending, as my colleague pointed out a
few moments ago. Between 1969, the last year the budget was balanced,
and 1993, spending in inflation-adjusted terms grew 71 percent faster
than revenues, and, yes, to the gentleman from West Virginia I would
say he is right if health care is scored as Federal spending, and it
has been by the Congressional Budget Office. It would require a 60
percent vote of Congress to exceed 19 percent of spending by the
Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, research shows that tax increases do not reduce the
deficit. Rather they compound the problem. They only go to more
spending, and that is why the spending gap is the key, because without
it Congress could comply with the balanced budget amendment
requirements through massive tax increases or allow Congress to balance
the budget at any spending level--20 percent of GNP, 30 percent or
more.
The Kyl substitute reflects an Arizona approach because it is modeled
after Arizona's own spending limit now included in our State
constitution which sets spending at 7 percent of State personal income.
In 1978, an overwhelming 78 percent of Arizona voters approved the
spending limitation amendment.
My good friend and colleague from Arizona was at the helm--this time
at the State legislature--steering this fiscally responsible policy
through public consideration. And I can truthfully say that the State
spending limitation amendment has contributed to responsible budgeting
in the State ever since.
As a side note, 19 States across the country have some form of
spending limitation, in statute or in their constitutions.
Let me focus on the one other important component of the Kyl
substitute, line-item veto authority for the President, which allows
him to separately approve, reduce or disapprove any spending provision
in a bill.
This is particularly noteworthy to my fellow colleagues from Arizona
since there has been some disagreement among us who really stands for
true reform and fiscal responsibility on the issue of the line-item
veto.
True Presidential line-item veto authority coupled with the balanced
budget amendment is the one-two punch this country needs to TKO fiscal
responsibility.
Today's Record will make it strikingly clear who did--and did not--
live up to their rhetoric. It will separate the taxers and spenders
from those who are serious about deficit reduction and reforming
Government.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Kyl amendment if you really want
to impose fiscal discipline upon the Federal Government.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Leach].
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that for one and three-
quarters century of our history to have a balanced budget amendment to
the Constitution would have been folly; based on the last 25 years of
``me generation'' politics not to put a restraint on legislators, would
be folly.
Of the four approaches under consideration today, what distinguishes
the Kyl amendment is that it is the only one to couple balancing the
budget with a restraint on spending. Frankly, a restraint on spending
is more important than a balanced budget amendment. We can have a
budget in balance at 30 or 40 percent of GDP and it would be a
disaster. The budget could be slightly out of whack at 19 percent of
GDP and the economy would be far better off.
A combination approach--a balanced budget amendment coupled with a
restraint on spending, and a line-item veto--is the optimal approach.
It is the best housing policy, the best small business program, the
best young farmer initiative.
The effect on the economy of implementation of such restraints on
Congress will be to cause banks to use their deposit base to make loans
to individuals and businesses for growth instead of to buy Treasury
bills for stability.
Here, I would stress that even with the reduction of interest rates
over the last 5 years, rates are still at historically untenable levels
in relation to inflation. Real interest rates can only be reduced if
the cost of government is reduced.
Finally, although not precisely quantifiable, it is clear the fiscal
deficit is directly linked to the trade deficit. We are unlikely to
balance our trade until we balance our budget.
For the sake of jobs, for the sake of economic growth, for the sake
of export promotion, I urge support for a balanced budget amendment,
especially the immediate option before us. It is the best choice before
the House today.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kyl], and it is in genuine inquiry because I do not quite
understand. There is a little confusion.
If the country is engaged in military conflict, does it require a
three-fifths vote, in effect, to go to war and to spend over the 19
percent that would be in the amendment?
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, anytime the Congress would want to exceed the
limitation provided for in this amendment it would have to do so with a
60-percent vote. We have not carved out specific exemptions; for
example, declarations of war, because we felt that that language was
anachronistic and would not adequately cover the kind of military
situations we would be involved in in the future. So we felt the
Congress would have the good judgment, if those eventualities ever
arose, to vote with a 60-percent majority to exceed the limit.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman think, and I ask this once
again because I am not trying to trap the gentleman, I am just
interested in this concept, but does the gentleman think that can cause
problems perhaps? I am wondering about, for instance, the Persian Gulf
situation, and I forget what the vote on the floor was for the
resolution, whether it was 60 percent or not. I can see a situation
where it would be very difficult to summon the resources necessary to
fight a war.
Mr. KYL. Let me say, first of all, in answer to the gentleman from
West Virginia that I meant to comment earlier that I appreciate the
spirit in which he has engaged in this debate from the beginning. He
never questions other Members' motives, in fact assumes the good
motives while simply indicating differences of opinion on how to
achieve a goal, and I share that view, and I appreciate that spirit and
also the spirit in which these questions are asked.
I think, with respect to a conflict such as the Persian Gulf war, two
comments are in order.
First, the real time that is needed to spend the money that would
perhaps exceed the limitation of any of these balanced budget proposals
is in the buildup to a conflict. Once the conflict has started, I say
to the gentleman, you're not worried about paying the bill. Congress
will come back with appropriations to the Defense Department or in
whatever way is necessary to pay that bill.
Ironically during the Persian Gulf War, Mr. Chairman, we were
successful in getting all of our allies to pay the bill so the United
States did not end up paying any of that bill, but, if we had to do so,
if our allies had not come through as we negotiated, then in an after-
the-fact fashion the Defense Department would have come to the Congress
and said, ``We won the war, here's the bill, and now you need to pay
it,'' and I suspect at that point the Congress would have paid it
either by staying within the 19-percent limitation or mustering the 60
percent to override it.
So I guess my key point here is that I do not think we need to worry
about it right when the conflict is going on, necessarily mustering
that 60 percent, because we are not going to stop in the middle of the
battle simply because we could not get 60 percent of the Congress to
continue to fund the Defense Department.
But in any event, Mr. Chairman, if it is serious enough, the 60
percent should be there.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a good point though which
is the amount where you need to commit the money sometimes is in the
buildup, but in the case of the Persian Gulf where, as the gentleman
correctly notes, happily this country was reimbursed significantly by
its allies, it was not sure in August and September where they would
be.
Does the gentleman foresee, once again, a problem getting a 60
percent if it looks like the Defense Department is going to have to
take us over 19 percent, as is the limit in the gentleman's amendment?
Mr. KYL. I think this is perhaps the most serious of the questions
that get really all of our proposals, and that is if my colleagues
feel, for example, that they have to spend what is being spent for all
other matters in the budget, and they cannot meet defense requirements
by staying within the budget limitation, can they muster the 60
percent?
{time} 1850
That is, of course, a good question. We would have two options there.
We either have to be persuaded that something else should give and we
fund defense out of savings that we would achieve elsewhere, or we
would have to muster the 60 percent. And I am not absolutely sure that
we would be in sufficient consensus on that issue that we would be able
to provide defense.
I think others might argue similarly with respect to education or
some other need that they felt to be absolutely critical. We have the
budget authority basically used up, yet they think it is absolutely
critical, and it would require a 60-percent majority to exceed the
limit.
I guess what I have to fall back on is the fact this is an
intelligent body after all, and if, given the discipline of a spending
limit and a balanced budget, we cannot prioritize adequately to stay
within that, then we are clearly not doing what the people elected us
to do and we could be replaced by someone who is. But I think that top
line limit would have a proper effect and force us to prioritize within
what is available for us to spend.
Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman for clarifying.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the remaining time on
both sides?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). The gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kyl] has 18 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to one of the coauthors of
the Smith-Stenholm amendment, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a wise and reasoned amendment, that
tackles the problem of deficit spending head on by restricting Federal
spending to 19 percent of the gross domestic product.
In doing so, I think the gentleman's amendment recognizes that we
have a deficit, not because the American people are undertaxed, but
because the Congress overspends. So I believe this is reality.
The Kyl substitute would encourage Congress to pursue policies that
enhance our potential for economic growth. For instance, if the economy
grew by $100 billion, the potential Government spending would increase
by $19 billion. The only runaway spending that could occur could
increase if the economy expands. That is the point of it.
But I find it fascinating that we are entered into this debate of
controlling spending, because I listen to the liberals who see in this
the opportunity to curtail defense spending; and I see the
conservatives are saying, well, this is an opportunity to curtail
social spending. And in both cases, they may or may not be right. But
in both cases, the object is met that somehow we have to control the
appetite of Congress in spending the people's money.
So I am here to support the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl]. I think
it is a reasonable, decent amendment, and I urge Members to vote for
it.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
just to respond briefly to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith]. There
is a fundamental difference I think that is emerging in the Kyl
amendment and those who advocate it and those who oppose it, and I
think that is where is the role of government?
The Kyl amendment says that it would limit spending unless 60 percent
waive the requirement. It would limit spending to 19 percent of GDP.
That would be written in the Constitution.
The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], makes the point that as the
economy grows, then the Government could spend more. It is sort of an
Amway sales commission approach. You do well and you get more
commission. That assumes that everybody wants to spend more.
The problem is this: When the economy is growing, it is not
necessarily when the Government needs to be more involved. The problem
is that when the economy is contracting in recessionary times is when
you want to do the Government spending. And while I do have difficulty
pronouncing Keynesian economics, I would observe that most Presidents,
from both Republican and Democrat Parties, while they may say they
abhor Keynesian economics, in truth they employ it.
During the recession of 1982 and 1983, one of the things introduced
into our economy was a rapid increase in defense spending. That
provided a lot of jobs and goosed the economy and got it going.
In previous administrations, for instance following the depression,
it was public works projects. I suspect in the future we are going to
find that neither injection does much good, but we are going to have to
work on investment incentives.
At any rate, when the economy is doing well is when you need the
Government least. When the economy is doing worse is when you need the
Government worse. I am afraid the Kyl amendment would restrict
government at a time when it has to respond.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it is
interesting, we come at this issue from opposite points of view. The
Keynesian economic theory is exactly what you have identified, and that
is simply that in a downturn, the idea is to pump money into the
economy. That is what we have been following, that philosophy, since
1930. There is no question about that.
However, the Kyl amendment does not deny that you should not follow
the Keynesian socialistic idea of managing the economy. It only demands
that it be provided a 60-percent vote to do so. So it doesn't chop off
the opportunity.
By the way, since the gentleman mentioned Keynes, it seems to me that
Keynes is the problem we are trying to solve. Keynes and the economic
theory of Keynes, which has been followed in this country, has brought
us to a $4.5 trillion debt. That is what we are trying to solve with
the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess my Keynes is
Ronald Reagan, who managed to push tax cuts through and spending
increases through, using what had heretofore been traditional Keynesian
economics, to spur an economy, and for a while it caught. The only
problem is, that is why we are here today on a balanced budget
amendment, because the deficit went from $1 trillion to $4.5 trillion.
The gentleman and I probably will not agree on the analysis tonight,
but my concern with the gentleman, and he stated the difference, the
gentleman would require a 60-percent vote in order for Congress to act
during a recession. The problem is too often you are not sure you are
into a recession until the recession is already on you. You would make
it very difficult to act in the early days before everyone fully
appreciated it. By the time you finally get around to doing something
about it, it may have been aggravated by the delay.
I do not understand what is wrong with a majority vote in order to do
the kind of actions that are necessary, countercyclical actions,
necessary to counteract a recession. That is a fundamental difference
we have.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the gentleman would yield for a short
response, even in an economy that is expanding, which the Reagan
economy had the longest increase in peaceful expansion of the economy
in the history of the country, which as the gentleman may indicate
resulted in deficits, then at that point I would want to restrict
increases in spending at 60 percent as well. Because it is that kind of
incentive, when the economy is expanding, that we create inflation,
that we create the problems that we have with your contention that
Social Security should be moved away from the budget, that we create
all the problems of deficit.
So I will take the other side of Keynes to the point that we ought
not be encouraging further debt in an expansionary mode.
Mr. WISE. I think we may be trying to find something to fight about.
I think we are both saying the same thing. I am saying my concern over
the Kyl amendment, by the 19-percent limitation written into the
Constitution, at a time when you need the Government to respond most
aggressively, and that means usually additional spending, unemployment
compensation, job stimulation, whatever form it takes, at a time when
you need it to respond most aggressively, the Kyl amendment would
require a 60-percent vote. And that is an extremely difficult hurdle to
overcome.
I would also like to ask this gentleman or perhaps the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kyl], I was doing some checking on percentages of GDP that
outlays were during times of conflicts. And I agree with the gentleman
from Arizona that during World War II, 1943, when outlays were 44
percent, I do not think you would have had trouble with a 60-percent
vote.
{time} 1900
I am not saying that the gentleman would have.
I would note, though, that large amount of outlay in relation to GDP.
I would go to the Vietnam era, where I note that from 1966 on through
the Vietnam era, I do not believe there is 1 year that outlays were
less than 19 percent. In particular, in the later years of Vietnam,
would it not have been difficult to get that 60 percent that the
gentleman requires?
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I have the pages from the Clinton budget which
have the historical percent of GDP, and that tends to be within about
one-half of 1 percent. It tends to be about one-half of 1 percent
different from GNP.
But if the gentleman picked 1964, was that the first year?
Mr. WISE. I am not sure I went to 1964. I think I started with 1966.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, If the gentleman will continue to yield, 1964,
according to this, was 18 percent; 1965 was 17.4; 1966 was 17.8; 1967
was 18.8, and 1968 was 18.1. The highest year was 1969 at 20.2, then
back down to 19.6. In 1971, it was 17.8.
Just to go on for the next 4 years, it was 18-point something, then
17 and back up to 18, did not get back up to 19 percent again until
1979. By then the war was over. And right now, the last year for which
statistics are available, 1990 on this sheet, 1990 was 18.8; 1991,
18.6; 1992, 18.4; 1993 is 18.3. Members can see how close they are. And
the 1994 estimate is 18.8. So even with a 19-percent limitation, there
is a fair amount of leeway in there for some spending to be expanded.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that.
I would just point out that there is some difficulties in times of
conflict with the gentleman's amendment. In terms of the direct threat
to the United States, World War II, I agree with the gentleman,
absolutely, no problem getting a 16 percent. I think that in times such
as Vietnam, I note for instance, in the Persian Gulf, the vote was 250
to 185, a 57-percent majority, which would seem to suggest in certain
circumstances a majority can declare a war. But it is going to take 60
percent to pay for it.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
think what these statistics demonstrate is that even in times of war we
do not have to exceed 19 percent of GNP. In every case, except 1 year,
1969, we spent less than 19 percent of GDP. And therefore, we would not
have to worry about the 60 percent override, because we were at the 19
percent or below anyway.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that.
As I say, it can be this anomaly where we can declare a war in this
body by 50 percent, but we can run into trouble paying for it if we
have a 60-percent requirement.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentlemen from California [Mr. Cox].
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Kyl] for bringing this very well-conceived and thoughtful amendment to
our attention on the floor. I support it wholeheartedly.
It is known as the balanced budget and spending limitation amendment.
That is 10 syllables. We better call the amendment of the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] the economic growth amendment, because it will
encourage growth policies in the Congress. Only if GNP is growing does
Congress get to indulge its appetite for more spending.
We have just heard here on the floor that Congress should take credit
for recovering economies because it spends more when the economy is not
doing as well. I would like Members to take a look at this chart. Take
a look at what happened in 1969, the year that we were just talking
about, forward all the way through 1989 to 1993 and then the projection
for the Clinton budget for 1994 through 1998.
The spending has gone up regardless, in good times and in bad, in war
and in peace, in boom and in bust.
I would defy Members to tell me where on this charts are the peaks
and the valleys. It is a constant trend up.
The one thing that is clear is that Congress spends more money year
in and year out, and it proves too much to say that the economy
recovers because Congress spends more.
It is true that there is an instance here where the economy is
recovering, several of them, and Congress is spending more. There are
also instances where the economy heads into a downturn. We have had
multiple recessions since 1969, and Congress was spending more.
The truth is that spending is the enemy, at least deficit spending is
the enemy of economic growth. It is the engine of new taxes. It is the
engine of interest on the debt, which now accounts for nearly 60
percent of all individual income taxes.
In fact, since 1969, the beginning of this chart, annual spending by
the Federal Government has increased 800 percent. Sixty percent of next
year's deficit is going to be made up of new spending that this
Congress has added on over last year's levels. Congress always prefers
complex era over simple truth. The simple truth is that we spend too
much money. This chart shows that very clearly
Sixty percent of our income taxes owing to interest on the debt show
that very clearly. Record-high tax increases soaking up our investment,
crimping job creation and economic growth show that very clearly.
The Kyl amendment will see to it that we finally get a grip on
spending in this Chamber and in the other body. I urge passage of the
Kyl amendment.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I want to correct what is perhaps a misunderstanding on
statistics, which I read awhile ago. I was reading the percent of GNP
received by the Federal Government. During the period of the Vietnam
war, outlays, as a percent of GDP, starting in 1965 at 17.6 percent,
were at roughly 17, 18, 19. They did get up to a high of 21 percent and
then back down into the 19 percents, when the war ended, 19.3 and 19.2
percent in 1974.
So if there was a misunderstanding on that, I apologize.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KYL. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, my only question would be, then, from the
time of 1967, it appears to me, through 1974-75, at least it was always
over 19, although in some cases not by very much.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct in that. And the real
big increases, of course, have just come in the last several years,
which I think makes the point that we have got to get the spending back
down to 19 percent of the gross national product, which, as I said
before, is the historical level of receipts to the Federal Treasury.
That is the whole point of a spending limit balanced budget proposal
and why I think this would be the best way to achieve our objective.
Mr. Chairman, might I now inquire as to the amount of time remaining
on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). The gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kyl] has 12 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the distinguished Whip.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have a chance to speak
on behalf of the Kyl substitute, because I think that the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] is making a point here that is central to what
kind of America we want to be.
It is an objective fact that the size of the government ultimately
has to shape the size of the Tax Code. If we have a very large
government, then we are going to take more money away from people. If
government is too large, the space that is available for freedom
shrinks.
If a person goes to work and in the course of a year they earn, say,
$25,000, but their governments, local, State, and Federal, take $10,000
of those dollars away from them, their choices, their control over
their life, their ability to do things is diminished dramatically.
One of the great reasons that we have a crisis in families is that as
government has risen in size, as it has grown in expenditures, taxes on
working Americans have gone up dramatically.
When people worked under President Truman, as average Americans, they
paid virtually no income tax. I think the average was 2 percent for an
average family with three children. Virtually no income tax.
The Social Security tax in that period was $52 a year for the entire
year. Today we end up in a situation where we pay a lot of taxes. We
pay a lot of Social Security taxes. And, by the way, when their
employer matches the amount that they pay, that is money that they had
to earn or they would not have hired them in the first place.
{time} 1910
The truth is most Americans are paying twice as much in Social
Security taxes and Medicare taxes as they think they are, because they
are earning the money. In that setting, one is always paying a very
high tax, and the amount of deduction one can take per child has
dropped, and the result is that the ability of the average American
family to spend on their own children, to spend on their own future, to
spend on their own retirement, has gone down dramatically as the size
of government has gone up.
The virtue of the Kyl substitute is that it creates a Federal
spending limit. It says that the Federal Government should only be a
certain size, 19 percent of the gross national product. It says that we
in Washington are going to have to learn to set priorities, and we
cannot have government grow any faster than the economy grows. It
insists that the Congress learn not to take more money out of the
pockets of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I believe this is a stronger constitutional
amendment for a balanced budget than just a straight balanced budget
amendment is that a straight balanced budget amendment says ``Let us
balance the budget at whatever size it gets to,'' so in theory we could
have a balanced budget amendment at 70 percent of gross national
product, but we balanced it because we raised taxes to 70 percent of
gross national product, and 70 cents out of every dollar would be going
to the Federal Government, and we would only be able to keep 30 cents
of that dollar.
The virtue of the so-called Kyl amendment is that it says ``No, we
are not going to let the government keep growing; no, we are not going
to let politicians continue to reach into your wallet; no, we are not
going to have big tax increases to catch up with the current size of
the welfare state.''
Instead, the so-called Kyl amendment says that the Congress is going
to have to set standards, the Congress is going to have to set
priorities. We are going to have to protect your family budget by
insisting that the Congress focus on controlling the spending of the
Washington budget.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is a stronger
budget, because I think that it limits the size of government, because
I think it protects families better, and because it includes a line-
item veto for the President, so that he or she can enforce this kind of
spending discipline, I strongly urge a yes vote on the Kyl substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my concern over the so-called Kyl amendment going to
the line-item veto is, as I understand it, and I would say to the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], I would be happy to be corrected, but
my understanding is that it is not just a line-item veto concerning
appropriation bills. I believe it reads, a line-item veto for a bill
containing any item of spending authority, so I read that to mean
authorizations as well. That may be the most sweeping line-item veto
that I have seen.
Mr. Chairman, if that is a correct interpretation, I would just urge
my colleagues to read it very, very carefully. That is a broad, broad
delegation of authority.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman's question, I can
just say this language is identical to the language offered by
President Bush when he was President, when he asked for the line-item
veto authority, and I think he used the same language from his
predecessor, so we took the direct language from that Justice
Department and inserted it into this bill.
Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman for a clarification. It does apply to
any spending authority, which is more than just a flat-out
appropriation bill, and a line item within an appropriation bill.
Mr. KYL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if I could further
respond to the gentleman, the language specifically said:
The President shall have the power when any bill, including
any vote, resolution, or order which contains any item of
spending authority, is presented to him pursuant to this
section of the Constitution to separately approve, reduce, or
disapprove any spending provision or any part of any spending
provision contained therein.
Therefore, it simply refers to the spending provisions of any vote,
resolution, or order, strictly spending.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Sarpalius].
Mr. SARPALIUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called
Kyl amendment. I find it very frustrating, Mr. Chairman, in the debate
that I have been hearing on the different proposals, where the
Republicans have a tendency to blame Democrats for all of the deficit
spending. I might remind my colleagues that I can recall President
Reagan campaigning for President under the understanding that if the
American people elected him, that he would balance the budget in 4
years. In that period of time we have created a tremendous debt. From
that time on, we have been trying to dig our way out.
Mr. Chairman, my concern on the line-item veto is I have a tremendous
amount of respect for our forefathers when they developed our
Constitution, and by setting out three branches of government, the
executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, and
each one of them have certain powers over the other.
Mr. Chairman, my concern has always been on a line-item veto, when we
give the President additional power over the legislative branch, today
he has the authority to veto any legislation that we give him. Under
this proposal, where they say that he has the right to veto any
resolution or any legislation, they give him a tremendous amount of
power. The President can then come to me as a Member of Congress and
say, ``Bill, I really need your help on this health care bill,'' or
whatever piece of legislation they are concerned about, ``and by the
way, how does that Air Force base, how important is that base to you in
your district, or something else that is important to your
constituents? How important are the farm subsidies that we give to our
producers,'' things that might be of importance to me?
I think it is not wise for this body to look at an amendment that
would give that much power to the President. Naturally, a President
wants that power, whether it be Democrat or Republican, but I think we
have to look at what is in the best interests of this institution and
this legislative branch of Government, that we should not disrupt that
balance of powers between each branch of government.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the so-
called Kyl amendment.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just made the point that we have gotten
into debt, and ever since we have been trying to dig our way out. I
would make this point to my colleagues, that when we are in the hole,
the first thing we do is we stop digging. That is what a spending limit
does. That is why we balance the budget by eliminating spending. We do
not need to spend more than we get. That is the whole philosophy behind
a balanced budget requirement that limits spending, we stop digging.
Until we stop digging, we just keep going further in and deeper in
debt. That is what we want to stop.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Kasich], the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, pay tribute to the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], who has worked long and hard on his
balanced budget amendment, and I would also like to take a minute to
pay a big compliment to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who
has put all the effort into this for a number of years, including the
efforts to discharge this bill onto the House floor, and to the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], who has been very involved in this
as well.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say a couple things about this bill, in light
of the fact that we are struggling every day on the Committee on the
Budget with trying to put budgets together that make sense.
The reason why the balanced budget amendment is necessary, Mr.
Chairman, is because it will force the Members of Congress to have to
sit down and become very creative and very imaginative, and also very
pointed about what the role of the Federal Government ought to be, just
the way when a family faces their budget, they have to sit down and
they have to make choices and they have to be creative.
Mr. Chairman, this is not just a matter of cutting, it is a matter of
creativity and innovation. It is also a matter of trying to define what
the proper role of the government is.
The reason why I like the so-called Kyl amendment so much is because
it limits the size and the scope of the Federal Government to a certain
level, about 19 percent, which has been the historic revenues that have
been generated by the Federal Government. However, under the so-called
Stenholm balanced budget amendment, and also the Kyl amendment, the
bottom line is it forces the Congress to come to grips with the fact
that we just cannot keep taxing and spending and growing the size of
government and ringing up more red ink.
{time} 1920
Now, I am sure there are people who would stand and say, ``Well, Mr.
Kyl, how would you get there? How would you do this specifically?''
What I would tell you is if the Kyl amendment would pass, we would
immediately convene a meeting of the members of the Committee on the
Budget, probably starting with the Republican members of the Committee
on the Budget, and we would sit down, and we would define basically and
fundamentally what our view is of the Federal Government, what
activities it ought to be involved in, which activities can be run more
effectively by the private sector, how is it that we can give States
more authority and eliminate all the stupid rules and regulations that
get in the way of being able to efficiently deliver services. It would
force us for the first time in a long time to truly be creative and not
to pass on more debt to future generations and not try to take
responsibility for it up here on the Hill.
So if people say, ``Well, how would you ever get there,'' what I can
tell you is that you put the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the
gentleman from California [Mr Cox], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Kyl], and John Kasich in a room with a balanced-budget amendment
passing this House, and we will be creative and innovative enough to
come up with a Government the American people would buy into, a Federal
Government that would be limited in scope and that would be a Federal
Government that would act only as a last resort when people could not
act for themselves or the private sector could not solve problems.
Unfortunately today with the mentality that we have, if there is a
problem, our first reaction, or too many people's first reaction is
what can the Government do to solve it. What I think the reaction would
be if we passed the Kyl balanced-budget amendment would be what can we
do to solve this problem and restore creativity for Americans to work
to solve problems on their own, and use Government as a last resort.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise obviously in opposition to the Kyl amendment.
A lot of points have been made already, but I want to quickly
summarize some that have not.
First of all, I am concerned about the Kyl amendment, because with
the limitation of 19 percent written into the Constitution of the
United States with a 60-percent vote required to waive that provision,
it makes it very difficult for the Government in times of emergency,
exigency, urgency, whatever, to respond to sudden situations. I am also
concerned, because as we discussed the role of Government in a
recession, what we did not talk about but which we need to consider is
that in a recession, an economy by definition is contracting. It is
growing smaller, not bigger.
The Kyl amendment triggers its 19 percent to the GDP, the gross
domestic product, so as the economy gets smaller, the Kyl amendment
would say that you are going to have to cut resources that you would
ordinarily use to fight that recession. You are going to have to cut
them further, and at least, that is the way I read it, or you are going
to have to get 60 percent.
Once again, unfortunately, not too many people are always prescient
enough exactly to know when they are in a recession to respond, but
they do know when they need to respond.
The war situation we have talked about. I am concerned. I believe the
gentleman is very sincere in his belief that that would not be a
problem, but I do not think you leave anything to doubt in a
constitutional amendment, that can only be amended further by two-
thirds.
So you have a situation where it is conceivably possible, and not
that far remote, that a majority can vote to go to war, but you may not
get the 60 percent necessary to pay for the war or the military
conflict.
The line-item veto, I have great concerns about that. This is the big
enchilada. It is all wrapped up as a twofer. You not only get the
budget-balancing part of it, you get the line-item veto as well.
Probably no matter who supported it or introduced it, the language is
very clear that it is a sweeping line-item veto and goes to any
spending authorization, any spending provision, or any part of any
spending provision contained therein. The President can already veto a
bill, an authorization, or an appropriation bill. This permits him, as
I read it, to go into any spending provision of any bill and pull it
out, and I think that is a very dangerous precedent to start.
I will quote from Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve:
Any attempt to employ, for example, the gross national
product as a measure to guide expenditure growth confronts
the obvious problem that the GNP is continually undergoing
redefinition with respect to inclusion and coverage.
He wrote or spoke of that in 1979 in a congressional hearing before
the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commerce, in March 1979.
Interestingly enough, the GNP, of course, has now been redefined, as
the gentleman from Arizona pointed out.
How does the constitutional 19 percent apply to that?
And finally, he writes something we should all be remembering here:
Remember, a constitutional amendment must be as meaningful
50 years from now as today. Various statistical measures such
as the gross national product or Consumer Price Index are not
likely to live in perpetuity in their current form.
For all of these reasons, plus the fact that the Wise-Pomeroy-Price-
Furse amendment has both capital budgeting and removes Social Security
off budget, I would urge rejection of the Kyl amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes, the remainder
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in order to close this debate on the Kyl amendment, let
me first of all refer to some of the closing arguments made by the
colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia, who, as I will say again,
has certainly conducted a meaningful debate here. I think his first
point was that in many cases 60 percent would be awfully hard to get in
order to override the budget limitation, the spending limitation, in
our balanced-budget amendment. That is, of course, absolutely true.
That is why you have a 60-percent limit. It is not as hard as two-
thirds, for example, to override a Presidential veto. That has been
done before. One of the first things I did when I got here was to vote
to override a veto of President Reagan. It can be done. Sixty percent
is a little bit easier that that.
It ought to be hard. It ought to be limited to times of emergency. If
you can get to 60 percent in that time, then, of course, it is
appropriate.
I might add that if you do not have that kind of limitation, then
what we are going to do is the same old things we have done year after
year after year, in fact, week after week in this body, when we pass
rules with a majority vote to waive the Budget Act, waive the Gramm-
Rudman law, to waive all of the other restraints that are supposed to
limit spending in this body but which we routinely waive because we can
do so with a mere majority vote. That is why we add the other 10
percent in there, to give ourselves a little bit more of an opportunity
to act responsibility in this body. So is 60 percent going to be hard
sometimes in order to waive the spending limitation? You bet it is. I
hope it is. That is why it is there.
The next point, in recession times, it might be hard to get 60
percent, and that would really be a tough thing, because government
needs to spend more money in a recession. Well, two or three arguments:
First of all, under the provision in the Wise amendment as I calculate
it, almost half of the years would result in exceeding the budget
limitation, and, well, not having a balanced-budget requirement under
the Wise amendment. I think that it is obviously too weak.
What we do is to say that, again, Congress can, with a 60-percent
majority, override this budget limitation, this spending limitation,
and I think that it is interesting here that we have basically heard
two arguments about the balanced budget.
The first argument is this, that we were elected to come back here
and make the tough decisions, we do not need a straitjacket of a
constitutional amendment to tell us what to do. ``Don't you trust the
Congress?'' And then the next argument, of course, is, ``Well now, wait
a minute, it might be hard to get 60 percent, and we cannot trust the
Congress to make that kind of tough choice, to make that kind of
decision to override the limitation here and spend money on people when
it needs to be spent like unemployment compensation and so on.''
Well, Mr. Chairman, you cannot have it both ways. You know, I think
we do need to trust the Congress to some extent. I do want to put a
limitation on there and say control the growth of Government to the
growth of the economy; control spending to revenues. If you do that, I
trust the Congress to make those tough choices within what is
permitted, and on occasion when it is called for, to exceed with a 60-
percent majority the limitation that otherwise would be required.
Finally, the argument that the gross national product definition
would be perhaps subjected to change, that, of course, is true. I think
it is less subject to change than the definition of capital budget
contained in the Wise amendment, a point that I made earlier.
I think we would simply have to rely on the legislative history in
adopting such an amendment to make it clear that we mean the kind of
gross national product calculation that has been in effect for all the
years we have been quoting here in this debate today.
Besides which, of course, we have article V of the Constitution that
permits amendment to the Constitution should the Congress get too
carried away and try to do something that was not called for. I suspect
that any of the four proposals before us could be fudged if Congress
wanted to do so badly enough. But that is why we have this 60-percent
pop-off valve, this 60-percent override in here.
I think that probably represents a pretty good compromise. Three of
the proposals contain the 60-percent override provision, the Stenholm-
Smith, the Kyl, and the Barton amendments, which all contain that. I
think it is a good idea.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this proposal, the Kyl amendment, is
endorsed by Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government
Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Free the Eagle, National
Association of Manufacturers, National Roofing Contractors Association,
National Tax Limitation Committee, National Taxpayers Union, and
others.
{time} 1930
It was endorsed in the Washington Times lead editorial this morning;
it was given favorable, very favorable treatment in articles by William
F. Buckley and Walter Williams this morning in the Washington Times and
in many other items.
This is an idea which has been tested in the States, it is an idea
which works very well in my home State of Arizona, where I got the
original idea. It is an idea that can be applied to the Federal budget.
It has been applied in the Humphrey/Hawkins law, as I said, in the
past. But it is time to adopt the spending limitation as a means to
balance the budget. And for this reason I urge an ``aye'' vote on the
Kyl substitute.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the balanced budget-
spending limitation amendment offered by Mr. Kyl from Arizona.
Mr. Kyl's amendment indexes Federal spending to gross national
product [GNP]. For the past 40 years, revenues to the Treasury have
averaged around 19 percent of GNP. By establishing 19 percent as a
benchmark, the Kyl amendment attacks irresponsible congressional fiscal
practices where it lives: Our problem is not lack of revenues, it is
out-of-control spending.
Mr. Kyl's amendment also includes a true line-item veto for the
President, allowing him to separately approve, reduce, or disapprove
any spending provision in a bill.
The last time the Federal budget was balanced was 1969. Since then,
spending in inflation adjusted terms has grown 71 percent faster than
revenues. Clearly, even though the liberal leadership of Congress
resorts to the politics of class conflict, calling on the rich to ``pay
their fair share,'' higher taxes will do nothing to dig us out of the
hole we are in. Spending is the problem, and spending will be brought
under control if we pass the Kyl amendment.
Consider these statistics: The United States sinks deeper into debt
to the tune of $20,000 each second. To pay the interest on this debt
will cost $295 billion this year; this means 62 cents out of every
income tax dollar you send to Washington goes to pay this debt. In the
last 30 years, Congress has balanced the budget only once, and has
raised taxes 56 times. Anyone who believes that profligate spending is
not the problem, and lack of sufficient revenue is, must be a liberal
Democrat with pet government programs to spend American's hard earned
money on.
Spending is the problem. The Kyl amendment addresses this problem.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 242, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 60]
AYES--179
Allard
Andrews (NJ)
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooper
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hoagland
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Swett
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--242
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Baesler
Barca
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blackwell
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Faleomavaega (AS)
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hochbrueckner
Hoke
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Roemer
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shaw
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Washington
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Dixon
Farr
Ford (MI)
Gallo
Grandy
Green
Hastings
Manton
Moakley
Natcher
Reynolds
Rostenkowski
Rush
Sawyer
Smith (IA)
Tucker
Yates
{time} 1951
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Green against.
Messrs. WYNN, BARCA of Wisconsin, VENTO, and ANDREWS of Texas changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
Messrs. BILIRAKIS, DeLAY, and TAUZIN, and Ms. SCHENK changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Derrick) having assumed the chair, Mr. Skaggs, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the resolution (H.J.
Res. 103) proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a
balanced budget for the U.S. Government and for greater accountability
in the enactment of tax legislation, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________