[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.

                          ____________________