[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 30 (Thursday, March 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, H.J. 
Res. 103.

                              {time}  1059


                     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 resoltuion.

                              {time}  1100

  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
March 16, 1994, action had been completed on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
  It is now in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].


 amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. barton of texas

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Barton of Texas: 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 if 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years after its submission to the States 
     for ratification:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, Congress shall 
     adopt a statement of receipts and outlays for such fiscal 
     year in which total outlays are not greater than total 
     receipts. Congress may amend such statement provided revised 
     outlays are not greater than revised receipts. Congress may 
     provide in such statement for a specific excess of outlays 
     over receipts by a vote directed solely to that subject in 
     which three-fifths of the whole number of each House agree to 
     such excess. Congress and the President shall ensure that 
     actual outlays do not exceed the outlays set forth in such 
     statement.
       ``Section 2. Total receipts for any fiscal year set forth 
     in the statement adopted pursuant to the first section of 
     this Article shall not increase by a rate greater than the 
     rate of increase in national income in the second prior 
     fiscal year, unless a three-fifths majority of the whole 
     number of each House of Congress shall have passed a bill 
     directed solely to approving specific additional receipts and 
     such bill has become law.
       ``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to Congress a proposed statement of receipts and 
     outlays for such fiscal year consistent with the provisions 
     of this Article.
       ``Section 4. Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     Article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect.
       ``Section 5. 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 6. The amount of Federal public debt as of the 
     first day of the second fiscal year beginning after the 
     ratification of this Article shall become a permanent limit 
     on such debt and there shall be no increase in such amount 
     unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of 
     Congress shall have passed a bill approving such increase and 
     such bill has become law.
       ``Section 7. Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     Article by appropriate legislation.
       ``Section 8. This Article shall take effect for the fiscal 
     year 2000 or for the second fiscal year beginning after its 
     ratification, whichever is later.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Is the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] opposed to the 
amendment?
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment, and I would 
seek to control the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is 
recognized for 30 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Barton tax limitation-balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  I was elected on a promise to fight for real change. But here we are 
today, very little having changed. I have spent the last 15 months 
watching a broken budget process continue to generate massive new 
taxes, higher spending, and a ballooning Federal debt.
  Congress likes to talk about making tough choices, but the majority 
never actually votes for fiscal restraint. We saw it during the 1990 
budget deal under a Republican administration, and again in the 1993 
budget deal under a Democrat administration--tax and spend all over 
again. We saw it last fall in this body's refusal to enact the 
bipartisan Penny-Kasich spending reduction package.
  And we saw it last week in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
reauthorization--loaded down with nearly $1.8 billion in education 
pork, programs that President Clinton did not ask for in his 1995 
budget request. But the pork is still in the bill, and it probably will 
stay and grow over the years. The same is true for every spending bill 
produced by this Congress.
  I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that this Congress is 
institutionally incapable of living within the taxpayers' limited 
means. Unless we show the courage today to change the rules of the game 
at the constitutional level, the taxpayers will continue to lose.
  Short of term limits, a tough tax limitation-balanced budget 
amendment is Americans' best hope for relief. By requiring a three-
fifths super majority vote to raise taxes or run a deficit, the tax 
limitation-balanced budget amendment would make it exceedingly 
difficult for Congress to tax its way out of its spending addiction. 
The Barton substitute offers voters a real alternative to bigger 
Government and a clear choice between higher taxes and fewer programs.
  I urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle--particularly my 
fellow freshmen who ran on a platform of fundamental change--to vote 
for the Barton substitute and Stenholm balanced budget amendment. 
Accept no substitutes for real change.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute for the reason that I think this is what we want to avoid 
in the Constitution, which is, we want to avoid formulas as much as 
possible, and we want to avoid complications.
  The Founders, the writers, the drafters of the Constitution made that 
document as remarkable as it is because of its flexibility, and because 
they understood that there was a need to leave undefined certain areas, 
so that is why the Constitution has withstood the test of time.
  Let me give some examples, examples such as three-fifths 
requirements, supermajorities throughout; examples such as requiring 
that estimated revenues shall not increase at a rate faster than that 
of the national income in the second prior fiscal year, unless there is 
a 60-percent waiver.
  I am not quite sure what that all means, and I have tried and read it 
diligently; however, the whole idea that something is tied to the 
national income, however that is defined.
  I would just urge my colleagues to be careful with this kind of 
amendment. While I will differ later with the so-called Stenholm 
amendment, the gentleman has narrowed that down over many years. It 
does have a supermajority, but at the same time, it leaves some areas 
for congressional implementation, and for adjustment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a little concerned about the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] 
for the reasons that I mentioned. I am concerned about it for another 
reason, because his substitute, like the others that will be 
considered, except for the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse-Byrne-Eshoo, and 
others, substitute, his substitute does something else as well, and 
that is, it ignores capital budgeting and ignores capital investment.
  I know the argument will be made, ``No, we do not ignore it. You can 
have capital spending in the same manner that you already have it in 
the Federal budget.'' Mr. Chairman, that is the problem. We do not have 
any recognition of investments in our Federal budget. We do not make 
the same recognition that every State government does, like my State of 
West Virginia. We do not make the recognition that every business 
makes.
  Instead, in the Federal budget we simply have a process of saying 
that a dollar spent in investment that brings us back more revenue than 
we put in is counted just the same as a dollar that goes out and is 
lost that day, whether it is in some kind of consumption. So that is my 
concern about the so-called Barton amendment.
  Then we add to that the fact that the so-called Barton amendment 
locks us into some pretty rigorous requirements, more rigorous than I 
think are necessary. I have a great deal of concern about the so-called 
Barton amendment for those reasons.
  Let me just make a point right now. I know what the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton] is trying to do. He will express it well himself, 
and the gentleman from Louisiana later. They want to protect the 
American people against tax increases, because it is as though there is 
this monster that, in the dead of night, tax increases are imposed. As 
one who has the privilege of representing people in this Chamber, let 
me tell the Members that most of the people in this Chamber, in fact, I 
think everyone, looks to the prospect of voting for a tax increase 
about the same as having a root canal without novocain. It is just 
something you do not want to do.

  Have the Members ever tried to go to a town meeting the day after a 
tax increase that they voted for because they though it was necessary? 
Have they even been in a parade the day after a tax increase, or the 
week or the month later?
  Mr. Chairman, those who serve in elective office do not take great 
pleasure in tax increases. What they want to do is a tax cut. If we 
could just do a tax cut and no tax increases, would not life be great? 
The problem is, sometimes we have to step up to the plate.
  If the so-called Barton amendment had passed and had been in the 
Constitution, the budget that passed last August would not have been 
enacted. That is because it did not have 60 percent.
  Some would say that is a great thing, but I am going to point out 
that all those doomsayers, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] 
was one of those who voted against it, all those doomsayers now are 
having to read the rhetoric back. Those who projected that the economy 
would be down the tubes, those who predicted that the passage of that 
legislation would be a job-killer, those who predicated so many 
calamities, now have to acknowledge that the deficit is 40 percent 
lower than it was; now have to acknowledge the lowest deficit in 6 
years, the fastest rate of growth, and so on.

                              {time}  1110

  And so those are my concerns.
  There is something else that is interesting. Had the Barton amendment 
been in the Constitution, it is true that 6,000 people in my State 
would not have gotten a tax increase, because 6,000 upper income West 
Virginians in my State, as is true across the country, are paying more 
in taxes today. What is also true though is that 105,000 West 
Virginians would not have gotten that tax cut; those working West 
Virginians with families making under $23,000 a year, would not have 
gotten a tax cut had the Barton amendment been law, because that tax 
cut was tried to the tax increase to keep the deficit from rising.
  And so that is the concern I have. It is not just a matter of tax 
increases, it is also a matter of tax cuts in the sense that in a tax 
package they are tied together.
  I think it was worthwhile to tell the person who is making minimum 
wage that in effect their income has now gone up to $6 an hour instead 
of $4.25 an hour, because of the income tax credit which Congress 
approved. It would not have happened if the Barton amendment had been 
law.
  For all of those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to 
vote against the Barton amendment, and recognizing one other difference 
between the Barton amendment and the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse 
amendment, and that is the Barton amendment does not take Social 
Security off budget. I am not accusing the gentleman from Texas of 
wanting to savage Social Security. I am sure he is as committed to the 
system as I am, but I know one way to guarantee that Social Security 
will not be affected, you take it off budget. If you are willing to 
protect by such extraordinary means people from tax increases by 
requiring a three-fifths majority, by requiring rigorous provisions on 
debt-limit and debt-ceiling extensions, then you ought to be willing to 
protect the senior citizens, and by saying Social Security will be off 
budget.
  His amendment does not take it off budget. Our amendment does.
  I would urge rejection of the Barton amendment and adoption of the 
Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present. Members will record 
their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:

                             [Roll No. 61]

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1133

  The CHAIRMAN. Three hundred ninety-two Members have answered to their 
names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its business.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] be permitted to control 14 
minutes of the time that I control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] will control 
14 minutes of the time allotted to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton].
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the 
Barton-Tauzin balanced budget amendment. I support this amendment 
because not only does it required a balanced budget, but it puts 
Congress on the correct path toward achieving one.
  The Barton-Tauzin amendment is based on two fundamental truths that 
the American taxpayer has learned again and again. First, left to its 
own devices, Congress will not discipline itself fiscally. There has 
not been a balanced budget since 1969, that is over 25 years ago.
  The current institutional framework gives Congress far too many 
incentives to borrow, tax, and spend, and far too few incentives to act 
responsibly. So, the Barton-Tauzin amendment places a constitutional 
restriction on Congress: It must pass a balanced budget. Every American 
taxpayer has to balance his or her books, so should the Government.
  The second fundamental truth incorporated into the Barton-Tauzin 
amendment is that raising taxes will not reduce the deficit. Time and 
time again, the American taxpayers have gotten a budget deal from 
Congress which promises that in return for tax increases, the deficit 
will go down. Raising taxes to reduce the deficit won't work. It never 
has and never will work. Studies have found that for every dollar that 
Congress raises taxes, it spends $1.59. Recognizing this sad truth, the 
Barton-Tauzin amendment includes a tax-limitation provision requiring a 
60-percent supermajority vote to increase taxes. This will ensure that 
once Congress gets serious and starts balancing the budget, that it 
follows the only true path of deficit reduction: Cutting spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Barton-Tauzin 
amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in terms of the debate today on the balanced budget 
amendment I would like the Members of the House to focus just for a 
second on what is special about this debate on the Barton-Tauzin 
amendment. This debate today focuses not necessarily on whether or not 
one supports the concept of a balanced budget amendment. I believe a 
great majority of this House does. This debate focuses on how we are 
going to achieve that balanced budget amendment.
  This amendment, the Barton-Tauzin amendment, is very much like the 
Stenholm amendment. The only difference in the balanced budget features 
of this amendment and the Stenholm amendment is the year 2000 date for 
the accomplishment of the balanced budget goal. But the major 
difference, the thing we ought to be focusing on today, is the feature 
of the Barton-Tauzin amendment that provides for some restraint on tax 
increases as a vehicle for achieving balanced budgets.
  Now what restraint is in here? The restraint that is in here is a 
simple provision that says in achieving the balanced budget that all of 
us, or a great majority of us, I think, want to achieve that. We ought 
to do it without raising taxes any higher than, any greater than, the 
income of Americans is growing at the time we raise taxes. In other 
words, Government should not grow faster than the pocketbooks of 
Americans, Americans individually and American businesses. It says in 
effect that we can raise taxes if we need to.

                              {time}  1140

  In short, Mr. Chairman, the amendment we debate today says that while 
the Government of the United States may in fact have to raise taxes, it 
ought not do it, except with a supermajority, any faster than the rate 
of growth of income in American pocketbooks and businesses. In short, 
it says, ``Balance the budget over the term allotted principally by 
reducing spending wherever you can.''
  If we were to poll Americans across the width and breadth of this 
country today, I think they would agree with that principle. So we are 
debating an amendment today that really incorporates the Stenholm 
balanced budget amendment with the addition that the balanced budget 
amendment ought to be achieved with as little as possible in tax 
increases and as much as possible in spending cuts.
  If Members agree with that principle, they will want to vote for this 
version of the balanced budget amendment. Those who have said they are 
concerned about this version ought to be concerned, because this is a 
real amendment. If we really want to achieve a balanced budget for 
America, we ought to be concerned that this amendment will do it and 
other amendments may not do it. So if we have a concern about the 
effect of the U.S. Constitution commanding those of us representing 
this Nation in this body to abide by responsible spending limits, then 
we ought to be concerned abut this amendment. It will require this 
Congress and this Nation to put our fiscal house order without 
unnecessarily raising taxes again on the American public.
  People have asked us, why should we do this at all? Let me give the 
Members an illustration of the most important reason why I think it is 
important for Congress to enact not only the balanced budget amendment, 
but this version of it, with a limitation on tax increases. It is 
incumbent because we need to examine the reason the mandate is normally 
sent to Washington.
  In town meetings across my district, folks ask, ``Why do you guys 
keep spending money over and above the income of this Government? Why 
do you keep putting us in debt? Why do you keep crowding out money we 
could be using for useful purposes in America by paying all this 
interest on the debt?''
  Conservatives and liberals make this same request: ``Why don't you 
put your house in order, quit paying all this interest, and spend the 
money we send you on projects that are good for America instead of 
paying interest on debt to countries all over the world who buy our T-
Bills.''
  The answer is that most Congressmen come to Washington with a simple 
mandate. The mandate is, ``Go to Washington, get as many of those 
Federal dollars we send you back into your district and spend them at 
home.''
  The truth is that we all carry out that mandate pretty doggone good. 
The truth is that most of us end up bringing more money home than our 
folks have sent up here. That is why we are out of balance. We carry 
out the mandate pretty good.
  I think what Americans want to do in this balanced budget debate is 
to ask us to give them a chance in voting for a constitutional 
amendment that would send a new mandate to all of us who come up here, 
and the mandate would be very simple: ``Do what you can about bringing 
projects home. Do what you can about carrying out the necessary 
spending in Government, but don't spend more money than we send you 
each year. At some point, stop this crazy borrowing trend that is 
crowding out the funds we need to carry on a progressive and good 
economy for our country.''
  In short, I think the message Americans have been sending us in town 
hall meetings, in our mail, and in messages to Members of Congress is 
that ``While we want you to do a good job in making sure that projects 
come home and Federal programs are still carried out, we also want you 
to carry out a new mandate, and the mandate is, don't spend more money 
than we have sent you, and quit raising taxes on us in order to 
accomplish the purpose of a balanced budget amendment.''
  The Barton-Tauzin amendment is the only one that carries out those 
two mandates of urging Americans to live in this Government within our 
means and, second, to stop raising taxes unnecessarily, because this 
continuous spending spree is about to sink this country into debt from 
which we cannot recover.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to say that I would just note to the gentleman from Louisiana that 
based upon the President's latest rescission package, I may not be 
doing as well as the gentleman is giving everyone credit for. If he 
could find a way to even it out, I would appreciate it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Price], a cosponsor of the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse 
amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the Barton amendment and in favor of the alternative, the Wise-Price-
Pomeroy-Furse amendment.
  The Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment is the only amendment before 
us that establishes a Federal capital investment budget that is modeled 
after the capital budgets used by the States. It is the only amendment 
that protects Social Security and ends the practice of using Social 
Security surpluses to mask the true size of the deficit.
  Our amendment is the only amendment before us that protects majority 
rule while restricting the conditions under which the amendment could 
be bypassed.
  In that respect the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment is tighter and 
stricter than either the Stenholm or the Barton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in the course of this debate we have heard a great deal 
about supermajorities as a way of possibly creating disincentives for 
unbalancing the budget or increasing the debt. That supermajority 
requirement, that requirement of a three-fifths vote sounds pretty 
good. But the reality is quite different, as anyone can attest who has 
observed filibusters in the other body or who has observed debt ceiling 
votes in this body. It is an invitation to posturing and to a minority 
of Members holding the Chamber hostage to get its way. It is not a good 
idea.
  The supermajority problem that we have in the Stenholm amendment is 
compounded in the Barton amendment. The Barton amendment would enshrine 
in the Constitution an economic policy that must be based on how the 
economy was performing 2 years ago. It has no concern for other ways we 
measure economic progress--unemployment, inflation, productivity, and 
growth in key sectors. The Barton amendment does not look at where the 
economy is going but where it used to be 2 fiscal years ago in 
determining budget policy. Specifically, the Barton amendment will 
require that estimated revenues shall not increase at a rate faster 
than the rate of increase in national income in the second prior year 
unless, of course, a supermajority of 60 percent can be mustered.
  I would interpret that to mean that if the economy was experiencing a 
recession 2 years ago and if 2 years later the economy was improving 
and estimated receipts were increasing, the Barton amendment would 
force us to change tax policy even if that increase in receipts was 
solely due to an improving economy rather than any change in policy. We 
would be forced to cut taxes unless 60 percent disagreed. In a 
situation where the economy was already growing, that could possibly 
trigger a huge round of inflation. We would be forced to cut taxes even 
if the excess revenues might allow us to buy down the national debt or 
make key investments that were neglected during the recession.
  Conversely, Mr. Chairman, the Barton amendment could encourage some 
future President or some future Congress to raise taxes because of an 
economic boom 2 years ago. They could be encouraged to increase taxes 
even though that would contribute to an economic slowdown in the 
present, or possibly even a recession. That does not make sense.
  The Barton amendment is not sound economic policy. It is exactly the 
opposite of what we ought to be enshrining in the Constitution.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from North 
Carolina yield for a question?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Price] has expired, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] may use 
his own time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the question on 
his own time if he would be allowed to proceed for 30 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Price].
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great 
interest to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina in his 
comments on the Barton-Tauzin tax limitation amendment when he said it 
would force a future Congress to raise taxes. Could the gentleman show 
me in the amendment where that is?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I used the word, ``invite,'' or 
``encourage,'' because congressional action would not be keyed to the 
present economic circumstances; it would be keyed to different economic 
circumstances 2 years previously, and tax policy needs to be keyed to 
the present. This would be, I think, an invitation to economic 
disaster.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we allow taxes to increase at the 
rate the economy is growing without any preconditions, and if in fact 
Congress wants to increase a return greater than that, then we would 
require a vote that requires 60 percent.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. But reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if 
the economy had been booming 2 years previously, that could give a 
warrant for a tax increase that could be terrible economic policy and 
lead to a recession.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would stipulate that it would allow a change.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Price] has expired.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite disgusting 
and somewhat embarrassing that we will vote today to mess up our U.S. 
Constitution with a balanced budget amendment. We are taking this 
action because collectively we do not have the courage and we do not 
have the willpower to do what we know should be done, and that is stop 
borrowing and cut spending. It has been over 25 years since this body 
has passed a balanced budget.
  While it is a shame that Congress needs to pass a balanced budget in 
order to do what the people of this country expect them to do, the 
growing national debt requires this kind of drastic action.
  On February 28, 1993, the national debt stood at $4,106,000,000,000. 
In just 365 days of this administration, the national debt has grown to 
$4,469,000,000,000. That is $363 billion in just 1 year, or $1 billion 
a day.
  Just last year, the per capita share of the national debt was 
$16,073. This year, it is $17,306. That is an increase of $1,233 in 
just 1 year for every man, woman, and child. How much more debt do we 
need to burden our children before we say ``enough?''
  According to CBO, the money we borrowed to spend just last year 
increased this year's deficit $15.2 billion because of interest. This 
increased interest on 1 year's overspending is more than what we will 
spend at seven Cabinet agencies for all of fiscal year 1995: more than 
what will be spent at the Department of Agriculture; more than what 
will be spent at the Department of Commerce; more than what will be 
spent at the Department of the Interior; more than what will be spent 
at the Department of Justice; more than what will be spent at the 
Department of Labor; more than will be spent at the Department of 
State; and more than will be spent at the Department of the Treasury.
  And, this was at the low composite interest rates of 5.9 percent. The 
more we borrow each year, the more we put ourselves at risk of higher 
interest rates and a runaway deficit.
  There are better ways to invest our money than to commit to higher 
interest payments and make decisions by default.
  Just last year the national debt was $4.1 trillion. the budget 
resolution adopted in this House just last week stated that the 
national debt will continue to grow in record amounts to $6.4 trillion 
by fiscal year 1999. When will Congress say we cannot continue to 
borrow and spend? How much more debt is enough?
  Mr. Speaker, I wish Congress did not need a balanced budget amendment 
in order for Congress to do what it should do. But Congress has shown 
time and again it is incapable of balancing spending with revenues.
  The Kyl, Barton, and Stenholm amendments would give Congress some 
constitutional backbone to get our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  (Mr. GRAMS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barton-
Tauzin tax limitation balanced budget amendment.
  This substitute should really be called the taxpayer protection 
amendment, because it protects taxpayers from a Congress looking for 
any excuse to raise taxes and preserve wasteful Government spending 
programs. And believe me, in this environment, taxpayers need all the 
protection they can get.
  By requiring a 60-percent super- majority vote for tax hikes, the 
Barton-Tauzin substitute would effectively prevent Congress from using 
the balanced budget amendment as an excuse to raise taxes. Instead, it 
would force this body to act on the real problem behind the deficit: 
uncontrolled Federal spending.
  If Congress had passed this amendment 2 years ago, we could have 
protected the American taxpayer from the largest tax increase in 
history. Let us not repeat that same mistake today.
  Vote to protect the American taxpayer. Vote for the Barton-Tauzin tax 
limitation substitute.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
freshman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland was given permission to revise and extend 
his marks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Barton amendment. This amendment has a unique and essential element 
for a workable balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It will 
require a three-fifths vote of the Congress to either raise taxes or 
increase the debt. We have a deficit and debt not because we tax too 
little, but because we spend too much. Please do not bequeath to your 
children and your grandchildren a legacy of a stifling debt that will 
make you live on in infamy in their memory. Please vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California, who is a cosponsor of the Wise-Price-
Furse-Byrne-Eshoo amendment and who has been very helpful to us as we 
have developed it.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Barton 
substitute. It is not a responsible solution to our budget problems.
  It seems that fiscal straitjackets are in fashion this year. It may 
seem politically palatable to limit tax increases, but it is not a 
serious solution to our budget problems.
  The Barton amendment places a formula in the Constitution and would 
put us in a straitjacket without allowing for capital budgeting.
  Our constituents do not want to see complicated tax policy linked to 
a balanced budget constitutional amendment. They want a law that says 
the budget must be balanced, just as they do at home.
  Each household in this country must balance its own budget, but 
nobody tells them how to do it. Similarly, our Constitution should not 
force this body into a legislative straitjacket.
  The Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse-Eshoo-Byrne balanced budget substitute 
recognizes the distinction between long-term investments and operating 
costs--just as the majority of the States require balanced budgets.
  It is these long-term investments which pave a better way for our 
children and theirs and which create jobs.
  Most importantly, our long-term needs are constantly changing. 
Nowhere in the Barton substitute is there the flexibility to allow for 
these changing needs.
  In addition, the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse-Eshoo-Byrne balanced budget 
substitute does not allow a three-fifths majority to the House to vote 
to deficit spending. It only allows deficit spending for narrowly 
defined national purposes.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the Barton substitute because 
it does not leave Social Security secure.
  We know that without an exemption for Social Security, the trust fund 
will be raided, leaving nothing for those who defend on it.
  We cannot allow this to happen, Mr. Chairman. Why are any of us 
concerned about balancing the budget in the first place? We are 
concerned because we cannot morally allow ourselves to leave trillions 
of dollars of debt to our children. Similarly, we cannot balance the 
budget by taking away their Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are doing today should not be for political 
cover. It is not even about ``sending a message.'' We are debating a 
serious proposal seeking to alter our country's most sacred document, 
the Constitution.
  Fiscal straitjackets may be the fashion for some this year but we 
should not be prepared to force generations to use legislative methods 
that abdicate our responsibility to govern.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], one of the 
toughest budget cutters we have.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, after listening to some of the rhetoric on that side of 
the aisle, I wonder if any of you could make it in the private sector. 
You sure could not work for me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible support of the Barton 
constitutional amendment which will, once and for all, put an end to 
this taxing and spending of this irresponsible Congress. And that is 
what you are. Just look at it. I am ashamed of you.
  Presently the Federal debt is approaching $5 trillion, and this 
year's deficit, the amount we will adjust this year, is $223 billion. 
And you have got the nerve to say you are doing something about the 
deficit? Ha! I tell you.
  You know, Members, the President's budget that we passed last week, 
that you guys voted for, that you guys, some of them over here too, and 
you ought to be ashamed of it, will add $900 billion to this deficit 
over the next 4 years. You are ruining this country.
  You know, Members. You know you have not got the guts to balance this 
budget. You proved it last week when I offered one. You prove it every 
day. Take a look at the 13 appropriations bills that you are going to 
vote for. The vast majority on both sides of the aisle will vote for 
those appropriation bills, and you will add another $220 billion next 
year. And you have got the nerve to stand up here and say you are doing 
something about the deficit? And right after we pass that budget, we 
will come back here and scream for what? More taxes.
  My God, people, the American people want the Barton amendment. Get up 
and have the guts to vote for it. Be proud of yourselves.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise our guests in the gallery that 
they are not permitted to express their approval or disapproval of 
statements made on the floor.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], another enthusiastic supporter of the tax 
limitation balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for 
the Barton-Tauzin substitute which requires a balanced budget in 1997 
and includes a cap on taxes.
  During the course of this debate, I have heard many argue that a 
balanced budget amendment is not necessary. But as the previous speaker 
so eloquently pointed out, this Congress cannot control spending. It is 
following in the steps of 40 years of Democratic control, where we 
continue to spend more than what we are willing to demand from the 
American taxpayers who send to Washington.
  I call out to my freshman colleagues, the new Members of the 103d 
Congress, that this is our opportunity to let the American people know 
that this Congress is different than the 19 Congresses before it; that 
we are willing to control spending; that we will vote for a balanced 
budget amendment; and that we will no longer burden the next generation 
with additional debt and more interest, money that we cannot afford. I 
strongly rise in support of this amendment.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, when I first heard about a balanced 
budget constitutional amendment, I thought it was a foolish idea. But 
events in recent weeks have convinced me that I misjudged it. In fact, 
it is worse than that. It is a bad idea that will make things worse 
rather than better and will undermine our public reputation.
  In the past few weeks, the voters have repeatedly told me that they 
wanted straight talk and real options. They are tired of blue smoke and 
mirrors. That is why they nominated a gubernatorial candidate in my 
State who is calling for tax increases. And I believe that is why they 
nominated me.
  I believe it is important to reduce the deficit and I have worked 
hard to achieve that goal. I take partial credit for the progress we 
have made in recent years. And we have made real progress. But I do not 
see a need to worship at the alter of the balanced budget.
  Nor do I see a need to tinker with the Constitution. Balancing the 
budget isn't rocket science. It involves a series of simple, but tough 
choices. If you want to balance the budget you have to both raise taxes 
and cut spending. We could do that right now if balancing the budget 
was our sole priority. There is no need for a constitutional amendment 
that would buy us years of breathing space as we awaited ratification.

  And while making the tough decisions I describe could balance the 
budget, the balanced budget amendment would not. All it would do is 
strengthen the hand of the minority by requiring super majorities to 
pass vital legislation. This is one more attempt by those who lack a 
majority to change the rules because they cannot win under today's 
rules.
  I believe in majority rule. It is a principle that has served us well 
in the past and one that will guard us against excesses and unfairness 
in the future.
  This amendment is not a blueprint for fiscal responsibility. It is 
nothing more than a recipe for ridicule and a floor plan of a fiscal 
funhouse.
  As one who has worked hard to win a reputation for straight talk and 
making the real choices, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting 
this plan.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I certainly did not intend to follow my 
distinguished colleague from Illinois who speaks with such authority in 
this House, but I want everyone to know that there certainly is a 
disagreement among the Illinois delegation about the wiseness of the 
candidate in Illinois who wants to raise taxes. Also, there is a strong 
disagreement on the balanced budget amendment.
  We have a history here that would show, I think, that my colleague is 
absolutely incorrect. We cannot balance this budget unless we make it 
part of the Constitution.
  We would probably come in here with major tax increases, if we do not 
pass this amendment.
  The Barton-Tauzin amendment addresses the two important parts of what 
we need to do with our finances. It says, first, we are going to 
balance the budget. And second, we are not going to do it on the backs 
of the American taxpayer.
  I just came off of the same primary that my colleague did. I got a 
very different message. I think this is a good amendment, and we should 
approve it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the time there 
is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] has 7 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] has 7 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 14 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation, one who has been very active in 
aggressively pushing and advocating capital budgeting.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the so-called 
Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment, and I want to especially commend 
the gentleman from West Virginia for his leadership on this important 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, 49 States do it. That is right, 49 States require a 
balanced budget. This amendment does the same thing--it requires that 
total Federal operating outlays must not exceed total receipts in any 
fiscal year.
  Mr. Chairman, 49 States have it. That is right--they have separate 
accounts in their budgets to distinguish long-term capital investments 
from current operational expenses. This amendment includes a capital 
budget to permit the Federal Government to do the same.
  And, do not be misled--we are not talking about taking capital 
investments off-budget. Quite the opposite, the Wise amendment insists 
that we pay for the current costs of those investments by making them 
part of the operating budget, which must be balanced every year.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, 49 States require it--they include the current 
costs of capital investments in their annual operating expenditure 
calculations.
  In addition, Fortune 500 corporations have capital budgets to 
distinguish investments from operations, and small businesses follow 
the same approach because that is the sensible thing to do.
  But what we have in the Federal unified budget today is absurd. We 
lump together expenditures for capital investments, income support, and 
Government program operations in a common pool, and treat them as if 
they are all the same.
  But they are not all the same. They have very different impacts on 
our economy. Capital investments enhance our productivity, efficiency, 
and standard of living. Consumption and operations meet day-to-day 
needs but leave no discernible long-term legacy. Accordingly, we place 
different priorities on these disparate spending items.
  It is time that the Federal Government organize its budgetary affairs 
on the same sensible basis as State governments and private businesses.
  The Wise amendment indeed takes Social Security off-budget. But that 
does not create any loophole in the system. On the contrary, it 
prevents us from using the billions of dollars in Social Security 
surpluses to offset the deficit, to mask the true magnitude of the 
deficit.
  Taking Social Security off-budget therefore means even more belt-
tightening--not less--because we will be closing the real budget gap, 
not merely the phony one whose size has been disingenuously reduced, as 
would be the case under the Stenholm alternative. The Wise amendment is 
definitely tougher on deficit spending.
  Taking Social Security off-budget will restore people's confidence in 
the program--and in the Federal Government. They will know we are not 
going to spend their retirement money on something else.
  The Wise amendment also permits its suspension when there is an 
economic recession--generally accepted as two consecutive quarters of 
negative real growth. Unlike the States, which have no legal 
responsibility to manage the economy, the Federal Government is 
statutorily bound to promote high levels of income and employment 
consistent with price stability.
  We have only a few tools to do that difficult job. Fiscal policy is 
one of those tools.
  We could rely on passive automatic stabilizers such as rising 
unemployment benefits and falling income tax revenues that normally 
occur without congressional action in a recession. Or we could take a 
more active approach by implementing a short-term economic stimulus 
program.
  Either way, the result would be a budget deficit. But we would 
cushion the fall in income and employment, and prevent the economic 
downturn from spiralling out of control.
  I believe in balancing the budget because it is the fiscally 
responsible thing to do, but we also have the legal and moral 
obligation to keep our economy healthy.
  We must not tie our hands to manage the economy by placing fiscal 
policy off-limits. And we most definitely must not put our economy in 
the straitjacket of a balanced budget when doing so in bad times would 
exacerbate the problem, and turn a mild recession into a deep 
depression.
  This amendment, therefore, makes eminent economic sense. It gives us 
the flexibility we need to manage our economic affairs. It is an 
honest, sensible, responsible, and workable approach toward keeping our 
fiscal house in order.
  Last, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to those who signed the 
discharge petition--you are not obligated to vote for the Stenholm 
amendment, especially now that you have a better choice.
  And, to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, I would say--come on 
over to our side; after all, Texas does it our way.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, what the Members who say they are for a balanced budget 
amendment and yet oppose the Barton-Tauzin tax limitation amendment are 
truly saying is that they want to get to a balanced budget amendment, 
but they want the right to do it by raising taxes.
  Now, here is what others are saying about that--250,000 Members of 
the National Taxpayers Union have written a letter strongly supporting 
the Barton-Tauzin amendment, because they strongly believe that 
taxpayers in America would prefer an amendment that guarantees we are 
going to cut unnecessary spending rather than raising taxes.
  People who are associated with the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses have also sent us a letter, on nice green paper on St. 
Patrick's Day, urging a green ``yes'' vote on the Barton-Tauzin 
amendment.
  I quote from their letter:

       We strongly urge you to support the balanced budget 
     amendment to the Constitution offered by Representatives 
     Barton and Tauzin. The Barton-Tauzin amendment would require 
     a three-fifths vote by Congress to raise taxes. NFIB members 
     believe that without a tax limitation provision, Congress 
     will increase taxes instead of cutting unnecessary government 
     spending. This will be a key small business vote for the 103d 
     Congress.

                              {time}  1210

  What small business is saying, what Americans are saying, is, 
``Balance the budget, but do it without raising our taxes again, and 
again, and again.'' A vote for the Barton-Tauzin amendment accomplishes 
that purpose.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the distinguished author 
of this very well-considered amendment, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard today from a towering figure of our 
times, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski]. He spoke eloquently on the reasons 
that he believes tax increases should be easy for Congress to enact.
  We have also heard today by letter from another towering figure of 
our time, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, an economist now at Stanford 
University. ``The deficit,'' he says, and I am quoting, ``is a symptom 
of our problem, not the real problem. The real problem is the level of 
government spending.'' The chart to my left makes that case 
dramatically.
  In 1969 to 1973, a 5-year period, total Federal spending was less 
than President Clinton's budget for fiscal 1994. Annual spending has 
increased from that date until now by 800 percent. Next year's deficit 
is going to comprise 60 percent of just the new spending over 1993 
levels. Federal spending is the problem.
  Here is what Dr. Friedman says about how to fix it: ``There is one 
way and one way only to reverse the trend that has now prevailed for 
more than half a century,'' this trend, ``limit taxes.'' That is 
exactly what Barton-Tauzin does. A ``yes'' vote on Barton-Tauzin is a 
vote to discipline the insatiable appetite of Congress for more taxes 
and more spending, making it a little more difficult to raise taxes by 
requiring a 60 percent vote to do so.
  A ``no'' vote is a vote for the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Rostenkowski] and the status quo. A ``no'' vote keeps it just as easy 
as it is now to do this, and to raise taxes to pay for it.
  Mr. Chairman, the choice is simple. We can choose between the visions 
of two towering figures of our time, the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, who wants to make it easy to raise taxes, or Dr. Milton 
Friedman, whose vision is one of limited government and economic growth 
for all of America.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to respond to the previous speaker, who compared two sons 
of Illinois, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rostenkowski, and 
Milton Friedman. The difference I would point out is that Chairman 
Rostenkowski makes things work. He actually has to work with budgets, 
not just pontificate about them, not just write about them, and not 
urge supply-side economics, which has partly gotten us into the 
situation we are in today. I think there is a great deal of difference 
between the two, and I will come down with Chairman Rostenkowski every 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. 
Furse], who has been instrumental in crafting this amendment, and as a 
new Member, has taken the reins in her hands and has been very, very 
helpful to us.
  Ms. FURSE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Wise substitute. I want 
to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] 
and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price] for their efforts and 
good counsel in this endeavor. I also want to pay tribute to my 
classmate, the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. He is a 
credit to the freshman class.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday and again today we have heard a lot about the 
past, about the tremendous debt we have shamefully amassed, and it is 
true, we have amassed a debt. However, Mr. Chairman, the social 
security fund is not part of that debt. It has a surplus. Therefore, it 
should be kept out of this constitutional budget issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleagues who say we need a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but I think we must be 
sure that we do it both honestly and wisely. That is why I am going to 
support the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget.
  The important thing about this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that it is 
based on models that work, models that we have already seen all across 
this country, the States' balanced budget amendments. The Wise approach 
is an approach rooted in the ways of business, State and local 
governments. All businesses know we need to make some borrowing for 
wise future return for investment. Government, State governments, have 
been balancing their budgets for years.
  The distinguished speaker, one of the speakers before me, said 49 
States have it. I want to add that 49 States not only have it, they get 
it, like so many families who get it. They spend what they bring in, 
what they can afford to spend, but they also know that it is necessary 
for them sometimes to borrow for a future return: For a home, for 
college education for their children.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be honest, let us be wise. Let us take the first 
step to solving our deficit. We can get on this road to working on our 
debt. Let us pass the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget. Let us do it right.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin] for yielding time to me for this brief period, and I thank both 
him and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] for bringing this issue 
before the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stenholm balanced budget 
amendment, which I was proud to cosponsor.
  There has been considerable controversy and focus on the amendment 
this year, primarily, I guess, because we may finally have the votes to 
win. Most arguments against the balanced budget amendment are phony, 
but it is true that this is a drastic action that we should not have to 
consider. It is true that Congress has the authority now to balance the 
budget.
  Unfortunately, Congress has chosen not to exercise its authority to 
address deficit spending. A constitutional amendment is a very tough 
approach and it is unfortunate that it has come to this, but the total 
absence of discipline on the part of Congress necessitates the most 
severe of actions.
  I was struck yesterday by the opening statement of a Department of 
Health and Human Services press release on this subject. It said: ``The 
balanced budget amendment would force severe cuts in social programs * 
* *'' Mr. Chairman, this protectionist attitude is the very reason we 
are where we are today--special interests have successfully resisted 
any restraint in spending that might impact their programs. The truth 
is, if we had responded to deficits early on, severe cuts would not be 
necessary.
  I have also been frustrated by the so-called protectors of senior 
citizens who have issued the siren's song that Social Security will be 
cut under the amendment. Of course, the amendment does not cut 
anything--specific budget decisions will come later. But we all know 
that Social Security cannot and will not be cut. If we do not address 
deficit spending, though, we do put the trust funds in serious 
jeopardy. Those groups that are frightening senior citizens understand 
this. The only thing they are interested in protecting is their profit 
margin.
  We must pass the balanced budget amendment to force serious efforts 
to achieve its mandate. I am thoroughly convinced that we will not do 
so without it. When the amendment is passed, we can put our special 
interests and pet projects aside and compromise on how best to 
eliminate the deficit fairly and without harming the vulnerable in our 
society.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for House Joint Resolution 103, so that 
we may begin this critically important process.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis.]
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding time to me, and I appreciate very much the effort on his part 
and on the part of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very important consideration. Earlier 
it was suggested that other States do it, but they find means of 
borrowing money.
  Mr. Chairman, in my State of California it requires a two-thirds vote 
to take people's property by way of taxation. Never would our Founding 
Fathers have dreamed how easy it would become for the Congress to take 
people's property by way of the taxing system. We have gotten to the 
point where it is just a simple matter: Borrow it, have our 
grandchildren pay for it.
  Nothing will get us off this track but to require an extra majority. 
It will force a bipartisan approach in this process, as we consider the 
prospect of spending and, in the process of spending, taking people's 
property. It is a very, very important item. I commend by colleagues 
for bringing forth this measure.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Doran].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Louisiana, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, on this quiet morning, St. Patrick's Day, I think we 
have had one of the more fascinating debates of the year. I think the 
whole essence of what is wrong with the Federal Government is wrapped 
up in defending taxation while one group, a bipartisan group, tries to 
get a handle on spending.
  I would like to point out to my good friend, the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise], about those two native sons of Illinois. Milton 
Friedman has won a Nobel prize for economics. I think we have yet to 
have the first Congressman or U.S. Senator be so honored. We are still 
working toward that goal; maybe the person that finds the key to stop 
the runaway spending, and to have respect for the sweat of the brow of 
our working men and women across this country.
  As the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] put it, money is 
provided. If you turn all your money into real property or possessions 
and then the IRS knocks at your door, you literally have to start 
selling real property.
  I think this is the best debate of the year, not as passionate as 
sending troops to Macedonia or Bosnia, but this is what is wrong with 
this Congress. Vote for Tauzin and Barton.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I would note for the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] that it is true that Mr. 
Friedman has won a distinguished award, as have many other economists 
with differing views from Mr. Friedman, so I return to my original 
point. Some pontificate, others legislate--and actually have to do the 
job--and I rest my case on that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hamburg].
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Stenholm and Barton constitutional amendments. These constitutional 
amendments will harm our economic recovery, hurt older Americans who 
depend on Social Security and Medicare benefits, and undermine 
comprehensive health care reform.
  The tax increases and spending cuts forced by the Stenholm amendment 
would result in the loss of almost 6\1/2\ million jobs, force taxes up 
to their highest level in post war history, and increase Social 
Security taxes by $18 billion while reducing Social Security benefits 
by $19 billion.
  Estimates by the Treasury Department show that the average Social 
Security recipient would see benefits cut over $600 a year under the 
Stenholm amendment. Medicare would have to be cut $480 for each person 
enrolled; and the Government would have $35 billion less each year to 
fight crime, to make job-creating improvements in infrastructure; to 
protect the environment; and to fund education and other essential 
Government services.
  Mr. Chairman, there should also be no mistake that the Stenholm and 
Barton amendments will undermine comprehensive health care reform. 
Every serious health care reform proposal uses current Medicare and 
Medicaid expenditures to pay in part for reform. But these amendments 
would require those programs be cut to balance the budget, robbing 
reform of necessary financing. If we pass the Stenholm or Barton 
balance budget amendment, we undermine comprehensive reform of our 
health care system that will finally restrain health care costs. We 
would continue our pattern of cutting Medicare and Medicaid in the 
absence of overall containment of health care costs and continue cost 
shifting to the private sector.

  Mr. Chairman, the Stenholm and Barton balanced budget amendments are 
a poor substitute for political leadership. We demonstrated that 
leadership last year with passage of the budget reconciliation bill, 
which reduced the deficit by $500 billion and strengthened our economy. 
We must and can go further with comprehensive health care reform to 
control health care spending. The balanced budget amendment on the 
other hand would destabilize our economy. It would require us to raise 
taxes and cut spending on counter-cyclical programs like unemployment 
compensation at just the time when it would hurt our economy most--
during recessions. It would create an irresistible temptation to raid 
the Social Security trust fund to elminate the deficit. I urge its 
defeat.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that all Members controlling time 
are prepared to close, and we will proceed with the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise], the gentleman from Lousiana [Mr. Tauzin], and then 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Barton amendment and, 
obviously, in clear support of the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment. 
First of all, let me just say with the Barton amendment I respect what 
the gentleman is trying to do, and the gentleman from Louisiana. I have 
read the amendment, I have read it a lot. I have read the supplements 
on it. I cannot figure out who is going to get the software contract to 
figure it out. You have to go back 2 prior fiscal years, three-fifths 
here. The gentleman from Louisiana just assured me, corrected me 
because I was afraid that Jefferson could not have bought Louisiana in 
the Louisiana Purchase under the Barton amendment. He assures me that 
it could have happened. In fact he sometimes wonders whether or not 
Louisiana should have had a voice in that. But he assures me it could 
have happened and we are all relieved. Otherwise he would be in Paris 
making this speech.
  The point I want to make is that the Barton amendment, I think, while 
a well-meaning attempt, exemplifies the difficulties of trying to write 
formulas into the Constitution.
  I refer the body to yesterday's remarks that I quoted from Alan 
Greenspan about being very careful about writing into the Constitution 
definitions that tie themselves to indicators. In that case he used the 
Consumer Price Index as indicators.
  But I would refer also to national income; what exactly does that 
mean? I question, for instance, whether a capital gains tax cut, how 
that would fare under the Barton amendment, because while you could 
vote for a tax cut, I believe with a simple majority, if, as many argue 
on the other side and some of this side, I do not, but if as many argue 
that there will be a sudden explosion of revenues coming into the 
coffers, whether or not some kind of three-fifths is required to 
accommodate that. So those are genuine concerns.
  Finally, let me just say on the three-fifths issue that if three-
fifths is so good, if we are too afraid about intrusive, overbearing 
Government, about the need to make sure and provide additional 
protections other than a simple majority that seems to have been good 
for everything else for the last 200 plus years, if three-fifths is so 
important, why do we not instead not have term limits, but just say 
that after 12 years all incumbents have to get three-fifths of the 
popular vote in order to return, now a supermajority, because they have 
already been in office, they represent Government and certainly that is 
fair to ask. I do not hear anyone racing to embrace that. Perhaps they 
will. At any rate, I think they may want to think about that some.
  I want to turn to the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment because I 
think it is a clear alternative. The Barton amendment attempts to do 
some things and to lock into the Constitution some procedures. My 
concern is this: In a very sincere effort to avoid passing debt on to 
generations yet unborn, they would also deny opportunities to the same 
generations.
  Our amendment does two things that I think are very important. It 
takes Social Security off budget. So actually you are saying to the 
most senior generation, ``We protect you.'' The Barton amendment would 
not seek to hurt Social Security, but then why not just put off budget 
instead and nobody wants to do that. We say take it off budget.
  The second part is we have capital budgeting and they do not. We say 
that we think it is worthwhile to be able to invest in this country and 
do what every State in the Nation does, which is to have a capital 
budget that treats roads, bridges, schools, infrastructure, 
telecommunications, highways, and water and sewer systems--those things 
that make you more productive and help you get long-term economic 
return, we think it is worthwhile to be able to encourage that. The 
Barton amendment does not.
  So I would urge Members to reject this amendment and to adopt our 
amendment which says Social Security is off budget, and says capital 
investment is to be encouraged and indeed sets up a procedure for doing 
that, sets up safeguards, requires a balanced budget by the year 2001, 
as the other amendments do, but at the same time, says that we 
understand if you are going to put into the Constitution such important 
language, that you ought to put in the best possible fiscal policy that 
you can.
  For these reasons Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of the Barton 
amendment, and at the proper time the adoption of the Wise-Price-
Pomeroy-Furse amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, we have heard talk about the fact that 
American families borrow money. They do. And American businesses borrow 
money. They do. The difference between American families who borrow 
money and American businesses who borrow money is that they pay it 
back. When they make loans they also have a payback schedule. This 
Government has none.
  The debt in this country continues to grow every year, the interest 
piles up and we load it on our children without regard to what it does 
to them or our future. That ought to end and it ought to end today.
  Second, we hear that Social Security might be threatened unless we 
adopt the Wise constitutional amendment to the balanced budget on this 
balanced budget issue. Let me tell you emphatically if Social Security 
is to be protected in this country we have got to stop building up 
debt, and we need a real balanced budget amendment, not a phony one, 
one that really works. And if you want one that works, be worried about 
this one. This one works. It is the best way to protect Social Security 
because we put our house in order, we quit building up debt and then we 
will not have to borrow from the Social Security trust fund as we did 
so recently in this congressional history.
  Finally, this is a debate about tax limitation.
  Currently, Americans work until May 18 for the Government somewhere. 
They work almost half the year to pay taxes to some Government. They do 
not begin working for their families until after May 18.
  What the Barton-Tauzin amendment does is freeze that date. It says 
for that item, the future, we are going to give Americans a chance to 
work for their families instead of constantly for Government. It says 
that Government shall not grow faster than America's pocketbook. It 
says Government in this country shall not grow faster than our economy 
grows. That is an awfully good principle.
  Nine States in American, my own in Louisiana, have adopted it by 
requiring supermajorities to raise taxes, because at least in nine 
States now people realize that this has to stop. At some point, 
Government has to be responsible or we sink not only the future of our 
children, we sink our immediate future.
  The Tauzin-Barton balanced budget amendment tax limitation has to 
become law in this land.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes, the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first, let me say that I want to congratulate my 
distinguished chief cosponsor, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin] for his leadership, and I want to compliment the leaders of the 
opposition, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] and the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price], for their gentlemanly 
conduct during the debate today.
  We have made the case for a balanced budget amendment. There have 
been few, if any, speakers who have come to the floor either today or 
yesterday and said we should not attempt to balance the budget. The 
real question is how we should go about balancing the budget.
  The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and myself and the other 
198 Members of the House who voted last year for tax limitation, I 
think the majority of the House is going to vote this year for tax 
limitation, and say that tax limitation needs to be a part of any 
amendment that requires a balanced budget to the Constitution of the 
United States.
  Why is that? Quite simply because tax limitation works. There are 
nine States that have tax limitation supermajority requirements of some 
kind in their State constitution.
  This chart plots the year-to-year changes in taxes in those States 
from 1981 to 1992 that have tax-limitation provisions and those States 
that do not.
  Now, I would point out that in States that have tax-limitation 
requirements it is not impossible to raise taxes. In fact, in 1 year, 
1989, the States that had a tax-limitation provision actually raised 
taxes higher than those States that did not. In 8 other years, the 
States that had tax-limitation requirements raised taxes less, and in 2 
years they raised them identically. So the point I would make with this 
chart is that we show with the statistical evidence that tax limitation 
works. It does not make it impossible to raise taxes, but it does make 
it more difficult.
  On balance in 9 years out of 12, those States with tax-limitation 
provisions raised taxes less than those States that do not have it.
  What did that result in? It results in the States that have tax-
limitation provisions, their tax burden, the individual tax burden, 
went down 2 percent in the time period that we studied, and in those 
States that have no tax-limitation provision in their constitution, the 
tax burden went up about 2 percent. That meant that overall in the time 
period studied from 1981 to 1992, the average tax burden in States with 
tax limitation went up a little bit, about 2 percent, and in the States 
that did not have it, it went up 8 percent. that is a 6-percent gap.
  What does 6 percent mean at the Federal tax level? Over $60 billion a 
year, $60 billion a year different.
  We do not say it is impossible to raise taxes. We say it should be 
made more difficult to raise taxes by requiring a 60-percent majority 
vote, and if we had that in the Constitution this year, if these 
studies at the State level translated to the Federal level, we would 
have a tax burden $60 billion less.
  History indicates that in the U.S. Congress from 1945 until today, 
every time this Congress has raised taxes, spending has gone up $1.59 
for every $1 increase in taxes.
  Tax limitation has been endorsed by every major tax group in the 
country, any tax group in the country; the National Association of 
Manufacturers prefers the Barton-Tauzin tax limitation amendment; the 
National Federation of Independent Business strongly endorses it. Their 
letter here says:

       NFIB members believe that without a tax-limitation 
     provision, Congress will increase taxes instead of cutting 
     unnecessary Government spending. This vote will be a key 
     small-business vote for the 103d Congress.

  Milton Friedman, distinguished Nobel Prize winner, says,

       I strongly support H.J. Res. 9, your proposed balanced 
     budget/tax limitation amendment. There is one way and only 
     one way to reverse the trend that has now prevailed for more 
     than half a century: limit taxes. Your amendment would be 
     effective in doing that. Milton Friedman, February 25, 1994.

  I could go on and on. But let me simply say it is time to do 
something that works. It is time to require that the Federal Government 
balance its budget, as we require that by amending the Constitution; we 
should add the supermajority vote to require a tax-limitation 
provision, not impossible to raise taxes, but it would be more 
difficult. It is time in the next 5 minutes to do something for this 
country, to do something for ourselves, to do something for our 
children, and most importantly, to do something for our grandchildren.
  Let us vote for the Barton-Tauzin balanced-budget amendment. Send it 
back to the Senate, and if the Senate passes it, send it to the States 
and wait for the three-fourths necessary to endorse it, and then get on 
about our business of doing what we all know we have to do, make 
decisions to cut spending, not increase taxes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Barton-Tauzin tax 
limitation amendment.
  Like the amendment I offered yesterday, the Barton-Tauzin amendment 
is based on the premise that the Federal Government does not tax too 
little, but rather that it spends too much.
  Since 1980, revenues to the Treasury have increased 123 percent, from 
$517.1 billion to $1.15 trillion in fiscal year 1993.
  By contrast, Federal spending increased over the same period by a 
whopping 138 percent, from $590.9 billion in fiscal year 1980 to $1.4 
trillion last year.
  The fact is, the budget cannot be balanced by increasing taxes. 
Higher tax rates change people's behavior. Higher taxes discourage 
work, production, investment, and savings, so revenue are always less 
than projected. In the 3 years since the 1990 tax increase, revenues 
have grown just $122 billion. Compare that to the $60 billion to $80 
billion increases annually during the Reagan years.
  The Reagan tax cuts, far from draining funds from the Treasury, led 
to the longest peacetime economic expansion in the Nation's history, 
pumping tens of billions in additional revenue to the Treasury every 
year. Why? Because lower taxes stimulate the economy, resulting in more 
taxable income and transactions, and more revenue to the Treasury.
  The Barton-Tauzin amendment recognizes that, if Congress is required 
to balance the budget, it does so the right way--by cutting spending, 
not increasing taxes.
  This amendment limits the rate of increase in Federal receipts for a 
given fiscal year to the rate of increase in national income for the 
previous calendar year, unless three-fifths of both Houses agree to 
exceed that limit. The tax limit is the key.
  Whereas my amendment yesterday would have indexed Federal spending to 
growth in the economy, the Barton-Tauzin amendment links receipts to 
growth in the economy. Both would give Congress an incentive to support 
pro-growth economic policies, because that is the only way additional 
revenue would flow to the Treasury for Congress to spend.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a sound amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 215, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 62]

                               AYES--213

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Farr
     Gallo
     Gilman
     Grandy
     Green
     Hastings
     Manton
     Natcher
     Payne (NJ)
     Pickle

                              {time}  1255

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Green against.

  Mr. BERMAN and Mr. SCOTT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. PAXON and Mr. BISHOP 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule XXIII the Committee 
rises.
  Pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule XXIII the Committee rose; and the 
Speaker pro tempore [Mr. Bonior] 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 joint 
resolution (House Joint Resolution 103) proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the Government and 
for greater accountability in the enactment of tax legislation, directs 
him to report that on a recorded vote on an amendment the votes of the 
delegates and of the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico were 
decisive.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Barton of Texas: 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 if 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years after its submission to the States 
     for ratification:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, Congress shall 
     adopt a statement of receipts and outlays for such fiscal 
     year in which total outlays are not greater than total 
     receipts. Congress may amend such statement provided revised 
     outlays are not greater than revised receipts. Congress may 
     provide in such statement for a specific excess of outlays 
     over receipts by a vote directed solely to that subject in 
     which three-fifths of the whole number of each House agree to 
     such excess. Congress and the President shall ensure that 
     actual outlays do not exceed the outlays set forth in such 
     statement.
       ``Sec. 2. Total receipts for any fiscal year set forth in 
     the statement adopted pursuant to the first section of this 
     Article shall not increase by a rate greater than the rate of 
     increase in national income in the second prior fiscal year, 
     unless a three-fifths majority of the whole number of each 
     House of Congress shall have passed a bill directed solely to 
     approving specific additional receipts and such bill has 
     become law.
       ``Sec. 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to Congress a proposed statement of receipts and 
     outlays for such fiscal year consistent with the provisions 
     of this Article.
       ``Sec. 4. Congress may waive the provisions of this Article 
     for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in 
     effect.
       ``Sec. 5. 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.
       ``Sec. 6. The amount of Federal public debt as of the first 
     day of the second fiscal year beginning after the 
     ratification of this Article shall become a permanent limit 
     on such debt and there shall be no increase in such amount 
     unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of 
     Congress shall have passed a bill approving such increase and 
     such bill has become law.
       ``Sec. 7. Congress shall enforce and implement this Article 
     by appropriate legislation.
       ``Sec. 8. This Article shall take effect for the fiscal 
     year 2000 or for the second fiscal year beginning after its 
     ratification, whichever is later.''.

  Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the 
Chair will now put the question de novo on the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211, 
noes 204, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 63]

                               YEAS--211

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bilbray
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Darden
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sharp
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Boucher
     Collins (MI)
     Farr
     Gallo
     Gilman
     Grandy
     Green
     Hastings
     Manton
     Martinez
     McCrery
     Natcher
     Oxley
     Payne (NJ)
     Pickle
     Porter
     Serrano
     Washington

                              {time}  1336

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Green against.

  Mr. BISHOP changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that my being involved in an event 
in my home State of New York prevented me from voting on rollcall No. 
61, a quorum call. Had I been able to vote I would have voted present. 
In addition, on rollcall Nos. 62 and 63, on approving the Barton 
amendment, I would have voted nay.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Unsoeld). Pursuant to rule XXIII, 
clause 2(d), 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}  1337


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House for the 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, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton] had been disposed of.
  Under the rule, it is now in order to consider the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Wise].


      amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. wise

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Wise: 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 if 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years after it submission to the States 
     for ratification:


                               ``article

       ``Section 1. Total outlays of the operating funds of the 
     United States for any fiscal year shall not exceed total 
     receipts to those funds for that fiscal year.
       ``Section 2. 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 of Congress, that becomes law. If real economic 
     growth has been or will be negative for two consecutive 
     quarters, Congress may by law, passed by a majority of the 
     whole number of each House of Congress, waive this article 
     for the current and next fiscal year.
       ``Section 3. Not later than the first Monday in February in 
     each calendar year, the President shall transmit to the 
     Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government 
     for the fiscal year beginning in that calendar year in which 
     total outlays of the operating funds of the United States for 
     that fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts to those 
     funds for that fiscal year.
       ``Section 4. Total receipts of the operating funds shall 
     exclude those derived from net borrowing. Total outlays of 
     the operating funds of the United States shall exclude those 
     for repayment of debt principal and for capital investments 
     that provide long-term economic returns but shall include 
     annual principal and interest payments for borrowing on 
     capital investments. The receipts (including attributable 
     interest) and outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund shall not be counted as receipts or outlays for 
     purposes of this article.
       ``Section 5. Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       ``Section 6. This section and section 5 of this article 
     shall take effect upon ratification. All other sections of 
     this article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 
     2001 or the second fiscal year beginning after its 
     ratification, whichever is later.''.

                              {time}  1340

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith] will be recognized for 30 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allot 
15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] for 
the purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank those who have helped 
make this amendment possible, particularly the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Price], who has been instrumental in drafting it from the 
beginning, the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Eshoo], and the gentlewoman from Virginia [Mrs. Byrne], and many 
others, and particularly I also want to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], for the help in providing the capital 
budgeting language.
  Mr. Chairman, we have four constitutional amendments before us for 
consideration today. There are three that are roughly fairly similar. 
There is one that is different, and that is the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-
Furse amendment that is before us today.
  All of the amendments, as I recall, would basically require a 
balanced budget by the year 2001, and so would ours. However, ours only 
has two grounds to waive those constitutional requirements: In the case 
of war or imminent military conflict or in case of recession measured 
by two quarters of negative economic growth.
  Now where are the differences that come though, because ours has two 
unique features? First of all, we take Social Security off budget and 
say nobody needs to argue about whether or not Social Security would be 
affected under any of the constitutional amendments. We take it off 
budget. None of the other amendments does that.
  The second thing, and I think equally and perhaps more significantly, 
we take recognition that this country must grow, and we recognize that 
part of an economic policy must be permitting investments that help us 
grow, those investments in roads, and bridges, water and sewer systems, 
airports, telecommunications systems, and so on. So we permit capital 
budgeting.
  There has been a lot of talk, understandably, about the family and 
the fact that we do not want to be passing on debt to unborn 
generations. By the same token, I would hope we would want to be 
passing opportunities on to those same generations. A family knows when 
they do their family budget that they must balance it. But by the same 
token, they also understand that they have to make certain investments 
for their long-term well-being. We invest and borrow for a house, 
invest and borrow for a car that takes us to and from work, and perhaps 
the most precious investment is we borrow for the education of our 
children to go to college, knowing that that is what really provides 
them an excellent opportunity for the future. And businesses go through 
the same process.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a little episode the other day that I think 
illustrates this well. I went into a grocery store and I was standing 
at the checkout line with several bags of groceries, and I realized 
that I did not have enough cash in my wallet. That grocery store 
happened to take a charge card, and so I charged what would be I think 
by anyone's definition direct consumption spending. I charged it, and 
of course I am paying interest on it right now. That is a silly thing 
to be borrowing for. Every family knows that. But if I use that charge 
card, Mr. Chairman, or borrowed for a car so that I could get to work, 
or for my son's or daughter's education, or for a piece of equipment in 
my business that would help it become more productive, then that is 
something that is justifiable.
  What the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment does is permit capital 
budgeting. It does it very tightly.
  Some call it a gimmick, which it is not, because what we do is to say 
that the debt service on principal and debt service is considered part 
of the operating income, so what our amendment does is it takes Social 
Security off budget as well as permitting investment that this Nation 
needs.
  A lot of Members in this Chamber have told me at one time or another 
that capital budgeting is something they think should happen. My 
concern is there is going to be an amendment passed to the 
Constitution, and if this does not pass, none of the others will 
actually permit that to happen.
  I do want to respond to a point that was brought up yesterday by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and it was a good point. He cited 
from a General Accounting Office report in saying that the General 
Accounting Office was looking at an overall investment budget, but that 
was separate from a capital budget. He is correct. The GAO looks at 
investment and increasing investment overall. But there is a need to 
realize that certain capital expenditures have a value and a long-term 
economic return, which is how we define it in our amendment, that goes 
beyond the life of 1 fiscal year. So the GAO, which incidentally in 
prior publications had endorsed capital budgeting but has now changed 
their approach some, but they look at overall investment budgeting. We 
say fine. We think there needs to be more overall investments. But for 
certain items with long-term lives, roads, bridges and other items, we 
think we need to permit capital budgeting as well.
  I do hope, Mr. Chairman, the Members of the body will recognize the 
need, if we are going to pass a constitutional amendment here today, 
that they recognize the need to have in it solid growth policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wise substitute amendment 
today. I begin by saying I think the gentleman from West Virginia does 
have one salutary effect in the discussion of this amendment, and that 
is the idea of raising the concept of a capital budget. As he has 
pointed out, many of our States do have capital budgets. All 
corporations use capital budgets. Most communities use capital budgets. 
Most other governmental bodies use capital budgets.
  But what is the problem with it? Why should the Federal Government 
not use a capital budget? The difference is one very fundamental 
reason, and that is as it relates to all other governmental bodies, we 
do not have a limitation that almost every other governmental body does 
have of keeping everything within an overall budget cap. That is, most 
States operate under a balanced budget requirement of their State.
  Let me explain why I think that is important. Since States do have a 
balanced budget amendment, they cannot exceed the total spending. By 
taking two items here, Social Security and capital, and placing them 
off budget under the Federal budgets, and making everything else 
subject to a budget cap, what we essentially do is encourage the 
Federal Government, that is, encourage Congress to play games with the 
definitions we use for what is and what is not capital.
  Let me give just one example which would come along very soon when we 
find ourselves very tight against the budget limit. Human capital. 
Human capital is capital. Education could be considered a part of human 
capital, and we could very quickly put all of that off budget as being 
a nonbudget item.
  The second issue I want to mention very briefly is the issue of 
Social Security. The gentlemen who take that and put it off budget, and 
many of us have argued we ought not to include that for years as a part 
of the total Federal budget, that we ought to protect it, but to 
paraphrase what Gertrude Stein once said, a rose is a rose is a rose, a 
deficit is a deficit is a deficit. If the Federal Government goes 
bankrupt, the whole Social Security System is going to go bankrupt. So 
let us not kid ourselves.
  We ought to oppose the Wise amendment and vote for what is a real 
balanced budget, real limits on deficit spending, the Stenholm 
substitute.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman].
  (Mr. GLICKMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wise 
amendment and in strong support of the Stenholm balanced budget 
amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend my good friend 
and colleague the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] for having the 
leadership to continue pursuing what I feel is a critical element to 
the strength of our Nation's economy--a balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wise substitute to House 
Joint Resolution 103 and in support of the Stenholm alternative.
  Our Nation's debt currently exceeds $4.3 trillion--that is your debt 
and my debt. Every man, woman, and child in the United States currently 
owes $17,495 toward that debt. To my district and the citizens of 
Oklahoma, that is a lot of money that could go toward buying a home or 
a child's college education.
  The Wise substitute is not a true balance budget amendment. It 
contains loopholes and it does not include any enforcement mechanisms. 
Unfortunately, without enforcement, Congress will not be able to 
control its spending.
  If you do not believe that, consider this: It took our Nation 205 
years--from 1776 to 1981--to reach a $1 trillion debt. Now, just 13 
years later, the debt is over $4.3 trillion. Congress has not passed a 
balanced budget since 1969. Let us start now by passing a true balance 
budget amendment. Vote no on the Wise substitute and yes on the 
Stenholm balanced budget amendment.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Wise-Price-
Pomeroy-Furse substitute to House Joint Resolution 103.
  As a candidate for Congress, I pledged that I would support a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget only after we had cast 
the tough votes that would bring down our deficit.
  Since that time, I and many of my colleagues have supported the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which, despite predictions of 
doom, has gone further to reduce our deficit than any other single 
piece of legislation. I went further this year by supporting a budget 
resolution that stays within the discretionary spending caps set forth 
by the budget enforcement agreement. The news from OMB and CBO on the 
state of our deficit is the best it has been in years. At the end of 
fiscal year 1995, we will see a 40-percent decline in the deficit as a 
result of these votes.
  As I have repeated many times, however, the question of debt and 
deficit in our country will not be solved overnight. It will take 
persistence, consistency, and, most of all, time. Therefore, I will 
support Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse, a tough and reasonable balanced 
budget initiative, that will ensure that when the budget is balanced at 
the end of the next 7 years, we will not start all over again to saddle 
our economy with debt and deficit spending.
  Perhaps most importantly, this substitute exempts Social Security 
from budget decisions. It guarantees the safety of the trust fund, a 
sacred compact between our seniors and our Government. The temptation 
to balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens is often great 
because we know that entitlements are the fastest growing segment of 
our budget. The temptation was there in Penny-Kasich, and I am afraid 
that the temptation will be equally great under Stenholm. Many have 
come to the well and spoken about leaving debt to their children. I, 
too, have children--two boys. But while I intend to keep casting tough 
votes to negate the debt that will be left to them, I also realize that 
the seniors I represent, who made northern Michigan great, are entitled 
to the Social Security that they paid for as working men and women. As 
we cut the budget over the next 7 years, a concerted effort must be 
made to ensure that no group is unfairly singled out as we continue our 
deficit reduction efforts.
  Second, this substitute makes it more difficult to deficit spend than 
under the Stenholm version by providing only two cases in which deficit 
spending would be allowed: Deep economic recession involving two 
consecutive quarters of negative growth; and in times of war or 
imminent threat to our national security. In these limited 
circumstances, Congress could run a deficit. Under the Stenholm 
proposal, Congress could run a deficit anytime provided three-fifths of 
the Congress agrees.
  Because it is what a majority of my constituents want and because it 
is most fair to my constituents, I am pleased to support the Wise-
Price-Pomeroy-Furse substitute, an amendment that, if enacted, will 
encourage tough and responsible votes to eliminate our deficit by 2001 
and then act to ensure that we will not travel down the road of debt 
and deficit spending again.
  Support this alternative substitute and vote against the Stenholm 
amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Price], one of the original cosponsors of this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the Federal budget deficit 
is the enemy of both private and public investment in this country. The 
deficit absorbs our Nation's savings, and it forces tradeoffs between 
popular consumption expenditures and long-term investments in our 
Federal budget each year.
  Some of the versions of the balanced budget amendment could actually 
make this situation worse, given the political appeal of entitlement 
spending. So we need to ask ourselves, is there a way of crafting a 
balance budget amendment that would result in reduced spending and, at 
the same time, encourage and enhance investment? The answer, I believe, 
is the alternative amendment that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Wise] and I and other Members have developed.
  We are not alone, Mr. Chairman, in this concern for prudent and 
responsible investment. Malcolm Forbes recently wrote:

       It is astonishing that the largest entity in the world, the 
     U.S. Government, books money spent for pencils the same way 
     as money invested in buildings and highways, even though the 
     latter have a useful life of many years. Businesses use 
     depreciation. States also have separate budgets for current 
     expenses and for capital items. People buying a house would 
     be in violation of a balance budget amendment: A mortgage 
     would be regarded as deficit financing.

  Robert Shapiro of the Progressive Policy Institute wrote this about 
capital budgeting:

       Fiscal policy reform should begin by distinguishing among 
     different kinds of public spending and limiting additional 
     Federal borrowing to spending that can provide long-term, 
     national economic benefits.

  Our amendment, Mr. Chairman, is designed to further deficit reduction 
in a way that follows the example of businesses, families, and States 
as they plan for their future. It is the only amendment before us that 
would establish a capital investment budget.
  Our amendment is also the only amendment that protects Social 
Security and ends the practice of using Social Security surpluses to 
mask the true size of the deficit.
  Our amendment is the only amendment that protects majority rule while 
severely restricting the conditions under which the amendment could be 
bypassed to true military and economic emergencies.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about enforcement here. But when 
you look at what that enforcement really means in the Stenholm 
amendment, we are talking about a three-fifths vote on raising the debt 
ceiling. How anyone who have been through debt-ceiling votes in this 
Chamber could see that as effective enforcement is beyond me.
  Se we simply say that in normal times the amendment will not be 
overridden, cannot be overridden.
  However, the majority will rule under carefully defined emergency 
conditions.
  Our amendment offers this country the opportunity to build for the 
future, both by reducing the deficit and by enhancing productive 
investment. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-
Furse substitute.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of a balanced 
budget amendment.
  I have supported a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution 
since my election to Congress. My commitment to passing such an 
amendment has not wavered, for an amendment of this nature is essential 
to the future prosperity of this great country. Opponents of a balanced 
budget amendment question the need to amend the Constitution. I believe 
we should amend the Constitution to ensure a debt-free America, an 
America whose people are not taxed into depression to pay for 
irresponsible Government spending. We have amended our Constitution 
twenty-seven times to address the various needs of the American people. 
I would say that a $4.5 trillion Federal debt is a pretty big problem 
that needs addressing. I am not alone in this belief. People throughout 
this country have asked Congress to cut and control unnecessary 
spending and feel that if an amendment to the Constitution is the only 
means to that end, then so be it. As we all know, our Founding Fathers 
so wisely included in the Constitution a Bill of Rights. I, for one, 
believe that Americans of today and tomorrow have a fundamental right 
to a prosperous and certain future.
  I supported the Barton-Tauzin balanced budget amendment. It was a 
strong amendment that required the President to submit a balanced 
budget each fiscal year and limited the growth of Federal spending. One 
key provision ensured that taxes wouldn't be raised to reach a balanced 
budget unless Congress approved tax raising legislation by a three-
fifths vote. The Barton-Tauzin amendment deserved support, because it 
would have forced Congress to balance our financial books by allowing 
few waiver provisions. A balanced budget amendment that allows taxation 
to be used as a budget balancing tool and provides for endless 
exemptions is a farce and a trick played on the American people.
  I also supported the Kyl amendment; a strong, binding balanced budget 
amendment that limited Federal spending to 19 percent of the gross 
national product (roughly the level the Federal Government has 
collected in revenue for the last generation). It allowed few 
exemptions for balancing the budget each fiscal year and also would 
have given the President the line-item veto.
  The Stenholm-Smith amendment, which I also support, includes 
stringent congressional vote requirements for increasing the deficit 
and requires the Congress to bind itself to budget restraints with a 
requirement of a three-fifths congressional vote to increase the 
deficit. In the past, Congress has been unable to pull in the purse 
strings and this amendment does just that.
  The opposite of these strong balanced budget amendments is the weak, 
fault-filled Wise-Pomeroy-Price substitute amendment. This amendment 
requires a simple congressional majority vote for increasing the 
deficit, allows too many exemptions and, all in all, is an amendment 
filled with excuses for not balancing our budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people continually and rightfully ask 
Congress to be about the business of fiscal responsibility. I, along 
with many of my colleagues, am about that business. There are hard 
spending decisions to be made, priorities to be assessed and 
appropriations battles to be fought. I feel that a vote for a strong, 
binding, balanced budget amendment sets the parameter for the ensuing 
fight for responsible and accountable Government spending.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hutto].
  Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wise-Price-
Pomeroy-Furse amendment.
  Every member of this body knows what a true balanced budget amendment 
would mean to the congressional budget and appropriations process. My 
friend and colleague, Charlie Stenholm, has championed an amendment to 
our Constitution for years to point us in the right direction of fiscal 
responsibility. The Stenholm amendment is genuine, yet it is flexible 
with supermajority provisions. This is a tough vote which carries many 
national benefits and local consequences.
  I urge my colleagues not to take what we believe is the low road on 
this important issue. The Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment only 
provides the illusion of working toward a balanced Federal budget. This 
amendment belies the principle of requiring balanced budgets by 
providing for an undefined, flexible capital budget for red ink 
spending. Also, the amendment exempts itself and provides for deficit 
spending in a recession.
  We certainly know how this body handles flexibility and emergency 
spending. All we have to do is review the many projects included in the 
recent earthquake assistance legislation. It now seems that people all 
over the Nation were helped as well as those living in California.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this easy way out amendment--and 
support the Stenholm balanced budget amendment. It is high time to take 
a stand for American's future.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made several claims about the Wise 
amendment which concern me, because I do not think that it is either 
the intent or actually in the amendment.
  The gentleman said that, for instance, it could be permitted to be 
waived by a simple majority vote. That is true. But is the gentleman 
aware that there are only two conditions under which that applies, 
either wartime or military conflict, or the recession defined as two 
quarters of negative growth, only two instances, not the overall 
instances that all the other amendments including the Stenholm can be 
waived by 60 percent? Is the gentleman aware of that?
  Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HUTTO. I think the gentleman from West Virginia did not listen 
too attentively. I was talking about the supermajority of the Stenholm 
balanced budget amendment, because this would be the only way that we 
would be able to increase the deficit is by a 60-percent vote, and I do 
not intend to imply that you had a vote, because I understand under 
your recession clause, you do not have to vote if you have the 
recession there, period, for two quarters.
  Mr. WISE. No, sir. Let me correct that. Under the recession clause, 
if there has been a recession of two quarters of negative growth, then 
it may be waived by a majority vote of the Congress, but it requires a 
vote. Indeed, there are only two situations in my amendment that you 
can waive the provisions of the balanced budget amendment at all, 
recession, with two quarters of negative growth; and wartime or 
military conflict. In both cases, it requires a vote of the House. It 
requires a vote of the House. I think that is a very important 
difference.
  The second thing is on capital budgeting, I understand that some have 
concerns about it. But the gentleman serves with distinction, as I 
recall, on the Committee on Armed Services and has been long involved 
with that.
  Did it not ever strike the gentleman as a bit passing strange that if 
you build an aircraft carrier, you have to account for it all in 1 
year, and yet it has an active life of many years, that perhaps as any 
other business would do, you have to account for it in a manner that a 
business would or, in the case of infrastructure, that a State would?

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. HUTTO. In response, I would say that simply for a number of years 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and a number of us have worked 
on what we call a real balanced budget amendment. I do not see the fear 
that others might have of this. If we truly want to get to a balanced 
budget, this is the one; this is the one we have been working on, and I 
think it is in the best interest of our Nation and certainly it is time 
that we get going toward fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman. We have a legitimate disagreement as 
to whether or not--as to whose is the best amendment. I have great 
respect for the work that the gentleman from Texas has done, but I do 
not want anyone to think that this is a light offering. A lot of work 
has gone into it. Some of these suggestions and fears raised on our 
amendment are not valid.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman, but the request I would 
make is is it possible we might get some time in return?
  Mr. DeLAY. I do not have the time to control. I would like to ask a 
question of the gentleman.
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman is absolutely right, that in his bill is 
written only two instances where his amendment would be waived, or 
waive the balanced budget amendment. But is it not true that there is 
an in-practice way of waiving the gentleman's amendment? That is by how 
you define investments.
  Anybody can define investments any way they want to, whether it be 
building bridges or roads and all the pork that is put in the spending 
here. The President of the United States currently defines investment 
as any kind of social spending that he wants to spend.
  Mr. WISE. Reclaiming my time so that I might answer the gentleman's 
question, and it is a legitimate question. First of all, we tightened 
ours up from other capital budgeting provisions that have been offered 
in previous debate in the other body by requiring, first of all, that 
the investment be that which brings you long-term economic return. I 
think that knocks out a lot of what the gentleman is talking about. I 
have some concern with what the gentleman is saying as well, which is 
why I sponsored a bill along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger], which relates only to physical infrastructure.
  But I must say this is something which must be decided by the 
Congress in implementing legislation, just as other amendments that 
have been offered here require implementing legislation. We also bring 
our capital budgeting on line in the sense that an investment is 
reflected in the operating income through the debt service. You do not 
borrow for education in the manner the gentleman is speaking of, you do 
not borrow for some of the things that he is concerned about.
  So I think we do have the initial safeguards. Indeed, Congress must 
come back and define this.
  The alternative is this: that we continue down the path we are going, 
where our infrastructure, we are paying roughly one-half of what we 
were, investing one-half of what we were just 30 years ago. We are 
seeing a decline in overall investment, and I am concerned that the 
other three amendments would only further that. That is why ours 
reflects, I think, the need to have investment recognized in the 
Constitution.
  I yield to the gentleman briefly.
  Mr. DeLAY. I just want to ask a question. The President of the United 
States calls welfare spending an investment. Under the gentleman's 
definition of investment being something that gives us long-term yield, 
would welfare spending be an investment if you make the case and define 
it as such that it is investing in people on welfare, pull them out of 
welfare, it gives us a long-term return?
  Mr. WISE. I have not seen that in any serious discussion that would 
be considered as such, no.
  I say to Mr. Smith and Mr. Stenholm, I would be happy to yield to Mr. 
Pomeroy unless they would prefer to proceed here.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] has also 
been instrumental in framing this amendment. I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to commend the sponsors of both 
versions of the balanced budget amendment that remain before this 
House, my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas, Charlie Stenholm, and 
the gentleman from Oregon, Bob Smith, who have long worked on their 
version of the balanced budget amendment. I understand the sincerity 
that they have brought to this pursuit for many years, and I commend 
them for it.
  Two colleagues of mine from the Committee on the Budget, Bob Wise, 
David Price, I have also enjoyed working with very much in developing 
this alternative proposal.
  We agree it is time for a balanced budget amendment for this country; 
we disagree on how we accomplish that end.
  For me, the most important distinction between the two alternative 
versions before the House at this point involve the Social Security 
trust fund.
  You know, many years ago there was an ad campaign geared to people 
protecting their autos by taking the keys with them. It was with, 
``Don't help a good kid go bad; lock your car.''
  I think a similar analogy involves the Social Security trust fund: 
``Don't put this country under a balanced budget amendment leaving the 
cash in the kitty of the Social Security trust fund to help them reach 
that balance. Protect the Social Security trust fund.''
  Take it off budget. This is critically important. I have heard from 
senior citizens across the country, including leading organizations.
  But I do not see this as a senior citizen issue because right now the 
Social Security trust fund is solvent, well protected. But we know that 
the demographics of this country are changing. We know that while there 
are three workers today for every retiree, by the year 2005 there are 
going to be two workers for every retiree. And if we do not protect the 
sanctity and the independent status of the Social Security trust fund, 
if we would expose this trust fund, allow the funds to be siphoned off 
to make up for overspending occurring elsewhere in the budget, as I 
believe would be the case under the alternative amendment, we would 
have a very dangerous situation for the retirement needs of generations 
to come.
  Only the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment deals adequately with the 
Social Security issue, and I urge its adoption this afternoon.
                                    National Committee to Preserve


                                 Social Security and Medicare,

                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 1994.
     Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Pomeroy: The issue in the House voted 
     this week on a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment is 
     clear: shall the Social Security trust fund be raided for 
     purposes of reducing the federal general revenue fund 
     deficit?
       The federal deficit is in the general revenue fund because 
     general revenue fund outlays exceed that fund's receipts. The 
     enclosed chart demonstrates the extent to which the deficit 
     is fueled by spending in the general fund which exceeds 
     general fund receipts. Social Security is not part of the 
     deficit problem--it is separately financed and generates a 
     substantial annual surplus--$60 billion in 1994 alone.
       Clearly, an intent of H.J. Res. 103 is to pull Social 
     Security into a consolidated federal budget. Further, H.J. 
     Res. 103 does not require the general revenue fund budget to 
     be balanced. In fact, it puts off balancing the whole federal 
     budget until after 2015 because Social Security receipts will 
     exceed outlays before that time. In the interim, including 
     Social Security in the budget will provide constitutional 
     authority to allow annual federal deficits equal to the 
     annual amount by which Social Security receipts exceed 
     outlays--$60 billion in 1994 alone.
       Financing general revenue fund programs with the Social 
     Security payroll tax instead of the federal income tax 
     unfairly benefits high income earners at the expense of low 
     income earners, especially those low income earners who do 
     not earn enough even to owe federal income taxes. These low 
     income workers pay the payroll tax off the top, even though 
     they owe no income tax.
       For those earning $60,000 or less in 1994, the effective 
     Social Security payroll tax rate is 6.2 percent. For the 
     $100,000 earner, it is only 3.75 percent of total earnings: 
     for the $125,000 earner, 3.0 percent of earnings; $250,000 
     earner, 1.5 percent--a grossly unfair way to finance general 
     fund deficit reduction.
       Needless to say, seniors will be outraged to discover that 
     the Social Security trust fund was raided for purposes of 
     deficit reduction. I strongly urge you to vote against H.J. 
     Res. 103.
       Older Americans will keep close track of the votes on the 
     balanced budget constitutional amendment issue and will not 
     look favorably on votes in favor of H.J. Res. 103. However, 
     an alternative to be offered by Representative Wise will 
     require a balanced budget while at the same time protecting 
     Social Security. Any constitutional amendment for a balanced 
     federal budget must exclude Social Security from its 
     application.
       We understand that some Members of Congress regard the 
     upcoming vote on H.J. Res. 102 as meaningless in light of 
     Senate's recent defeat of the balanced budget constitutional 
     amendment. However, as far as seniors are concerned, there 
     are no ``free votes'' to undermine the Social Security trust 
     fund.
           Sincerely,
                                                Martha A. McSteen,
                                                        President.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 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. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe, as someone who grew up in a home where I 
went to Sunday school and church almost every Sunday, that I should 
start out by saying something nice about my opponents. I will say that 
the authors of this amendment are well-intentioned, and I think it 
would be of some value to have enshrined in the Constitution the goal 
of a balanced budget amendment.
  Having said that, I do not think that this amendment furthers that 
process other than symbolically. It does set the goal of a balanced 
budget amendment, and that in and of itself is worthy. But there is no 
enforcement mechanism. There are no super-majorities. There are no 
specific requirements. It is simply, ``We should balance the budget.'' 
Again, that has some merit, but you have got to trust; but as President 
Reagan said in dealing with the Russians, ``You have to verify.'' There 
is no verification process.
  Second, it exempts automatically the largest entitlement program in 
the budget, the Social Security fund.
  Now, I will stipulate that we can balance the budget without raising 
taxes and without touching Social Security. I believe that the Stenholm 
amendment and the sponsors of the Stenholm/Smith amendment would agree 
with that. We do not have to go after Social Security in order to 
balance the budget, but I think it is not proper to automatically put 
it off limits. If we are going to be serious about balancing the 
Federal budget, every program should be subject to whatever decisions 
are made that require reducing spending. To automatically take off the 
table the largest entitlement program I believe is irresponsible.
  Second, let us talk about definitions. They talk about exempting 
capital investment. There is some merit to that, no question; but there 
needs to be a definition, and there is no definition. That leaves a 
hole wide enough to drive a huge amount of pork-barrel spending through 
because there is no definition of what capital investment is.
  Finally, the proponents of this amendment attacked me on my amendment 
because I said that in the previous year the rate of growth in the 
economy could be used as a moderator for the rate of growth in Federal 
spending. They said how could you account for that? Well, they allow 
the budget to be unbalanced after two consecutive quarters of negative 
growth immediately. Now, I would stipulate that if you cannot do it in 
2 years, you cannot do it in 2 quarters.
  Unfortunately, I am out of time.
  Vote ``no'' on Wise.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] for the way he has conducted himself 
throughout this debate and for making a serious, thoughtful proposal. 
His proposal has made a constructive addition to the debate. The manner 
in which he has conducted himself throughout this debate has helped 
make this one of the best debates I have had the privilege to 
participate in since I came to Congress.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman for helping bring us to a 
point where far more than two-thirds of the House agree that we need a 
Constitutional restraint. He has helped convince several Members to 
make the serious philosophical leap to supporting a Constitutional 
amendment. I have been trying to convince Members to make this leap for 
12 years, and I appreciate the help from the gentleman from West 
Virginia. While there is disagreement about the details, there is 
growing support for the principle of amending the Constitution to 
protect future generations from the burden of our debt. I think that is 
extremely significant.
  I must oppose the Wise amendment, however, because it includes 
provisions which are not appropriate to include in the Constitution and 
because I am not convinced it will change the status quo. The Stenholm-
Smith amendment is much stronger and more flexible than the Wise 
amendment and is a much more appropriate addition to the Constitution.
  The Stenholm-Smith amendment balances strong, enforceable fiscal 
discipline with necessary and beneficial flexibility. In contrast, the 
Wise amendment is weak and unenforceable, while lacking the necessary 
flexibility.
  We have been extremely careful to ensure that Congress could not find 
loopholes, move items ``off-budget,'' use ``rosy scenario'' economic 
assumptions or other gimmicks to circumvent the amendment. The backup 
enforcement of a three-fifths vote to raise the debt limit will prevent 
any efforts to evade the amendment.
  The Wise amendment does not include this enforcement to prevent 
evasions of the amendment through rosy economic estimates or loopholes. 
In fact, the Wise amendment explicitly creates two loopholes. While the 
proponents of the Wise amendment argue that we will not abuse the 
exceptions for capital investments and for the Social Security trust 
fund, we cannot be certain that Congress will resist the temptation to 
do so. That is too much of an uncertainty to place in the Constitution.
  The Stenholm-Smith amendment recognizes that we cannot  anticipate 
all of the circumstances that may justify deficit spending some point 
in the future and should not try to write all of the possibilities into 
the Constitution. We believe that it is more appropriate to provide the 
flexibility of allowing deficit spending if 60 percent of Congress 
believes that we face an emergency that justifies deficit spending.

  The Wise amendment does not allow for this flexibility. We would not 
have the option, for example of waiving the amendment in order to 
respond to a natural disaster or any other national emergency except a 
recession or declared war.
  The Wise amendment may have prevented Thomas Jefferson from making 
the Louisiana Purchase because the Louisiana Purchase may not have met 
the definition of a permissible exception to the balanced budget 
requirement. The Stenholm-Smith amendment would have allowed Thomas 
Jefferson to borrow money to make the Louisiana Purchase because more 
the 60 percent of the Congress at that time agreed with him that the 
Louisiana Purchase was the type of extraordinary opportunity that 
justified deficit spending.
  The Louisiana Purchase is an interesting example for another reason. 
Thomas Jefferson borrowed $225 billion in today's dollars to take 
advantage of the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to double the size of 
the United States and invest in the future of our Nation. Today, we are 
routinely borrowing that much every year to finance current 
consumption. The Stenholm-Smith amendment would allow us to borrow for 
extraordinary circumstances like the Louisiana Purchase, but would end 
the practice of routinely borrowing money in good times and in bad.
  Under the Stenholm-Smith amendment, it will be possible to separate 
capital investments from operating expenses. We simply say that we do 
this within the context of an overall balanced budget. The General 
Accounting Office stated that:

       The choice between spending for investment and spending for 
     consumption should be seen as setting of priorities within an 
     overall fiscal constraint, not as a reason for relaxing the 
     constraint and permitting larger deficit.

  And I would say in response to my colleagues that GAO was in favor of 
what they are suggesting and oppose it now.
  The supporters of the Wise amendment point to the example of the 
States to justify an exception for capital budgets. This analogy is 
flawed for several reasons. First, States include limitations on their 
borrowing for capital expenditures through bond ratings, voter 
referendums to approve the issuance of bonds and other restrains that 
would not exist at the Federal level. Second, as Lou Fisher of the 
Congressional Research Service noted at a Budget Committee hearing in 
1992, many States have circumvented the limitations on borrowing for 
capital expenditures. Perhaps most importantly, the share of capital 
expenditures in the Federal budget is much small than it is in the 
States. While there may be a justification at the State level to borrow 
money for capital expenditures, the Federal Government should be able 
to fund capital investments on a pay-as-you-go basis. Even the Federal 
Interstate Highway System, the largest capital investment in our 
history, was financed on a pay-as-you-go basis at the urging of Senator 
Albert Gore, Sr.
  The primary reason I oppose the exception for capital investments in 
the Wise amendment is because there is no agreement on what would be 
included in a capital budget. Depending on whose definition you use, 
capital spending for fiscal year 1995 will be $23 billion, $60 billion, 
$120 billion, $220 billion or $265 billion. The gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise], has a relatively narrow view of what should be 
included in a capital budget. Other members, including the chairman of 
the Government Operations Committee, who will have a major role in 
shaping any implementing legislation, have a far broader view about 
what should be included in a capital budget. I do not believe we should 
enshrine the concept of capital budgeting in the Constitution when we 
do not agree on what it means.
  On the issue of Social Security, there is a disagreement only about 
the best way to protect the integrity of the Social Security program 
not whether we should protect it. I believe that keeping Social 
Security in the framework of the amendment will ensure that we take the 
actions we all know are necessary to deal with the unfunded liability 
in the trust fund and preserve the long-term soundness of the trust 
fund. If we do not bring our deficit under control, the integrity of 
the Social Security Program will be threatened early in the next 
century. Exempting the Social Security Trust Fund creates the 
temptation to abuse that exception and undermine the integrity of the 
trust fund. The Stenholm-Smith amendment will protect Social Security 
for our children and grandchildren.
  The greatest threat to Social Security and to investments is the 
growing interest payments that are crowding out all other spending. 
Continued deficit spending, even if it is off budget, would result in a 
still growing debt and rising interest payments which will squeeze our 
ability to fund investments and Social Security. The Wise amendment may 
or may not result in less borrowing than we currently have, but there 
is no question that under the Wise amendment we will face increasing 
interest payments and have less money available to spend on other 
worthwhile programs. While there may be different opinions about the 
best way to protect Social Security and capital investments, there can 
be no question that the only way to ensure that future generations can 
make capital investments and meet the obligations of the Social 
Security Trust Fund is to put an end to our spiralling debt.
  Finally I will ask this question about the Wise amendment: How will 
the Wise amendment improve upon the status quo? Depending on how we 
define a capital budget, we could run deficits as large or larger than 
our current deficits without violating the Wise amendment. I do not 
believe we should be amending the Constitution simply to enshrine the 
status quo.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote against the Wise amendment. But I 
would also say to my colleagues, regardless of how you vote on this 
amendment, all Members who believe that we need a Constitutional 
restraint and that we need to change the status quo in this body should 
vote for final passage.

                              {time}  1420

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to state that the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm] has used 10 minutes of his time and the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I may infer from this monologue which has been very 
ably conducted by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] that he is 
not going to vote for our amendment. Let me respond to a number of his 
points.
  First of all, let me say that I thought a lot of the genesis of the 
balanced budget amendment was to have something similar to what other 
States have, that almost every State has a balanced budget requirement 
of some kind, and that we in the Federal Government should do the same, 
and that that is one of the reasons behind this exercise. I would point 
out that I am not aware of any State we surveyed--and I think we 
surveyed just about every one--that has language that the Stenholm 
amendment has. In fact, many States put in a goal that ``thou shalt run 
a balanced budget'' and then leave it up to the legislature or to the 
courts to decide how to implement it.
  First of all, I think we ought to recognize that the Stenholm 
amendment is different in that respect from just about any State.
  The second point is that most States, if not all of them, have a 
capital investment procedure. I am not sure why the U.S. Congress is 
supposed to be different than State legislatures, in the sense that the 
States have apparently been able to define what they consider to be 
capital and they have been able to keep reins on it. Yet for some 
reason the U.S. Congress is not to be able to do in its legislative 
deliberations what every State legislature does.
  I am fascinated by those who have been in the well, including the 
gentleman from Texas, who complain about our waiver procedure, calling 
it first weak and unenforceable because what it does is to say that 
only by a majority vote can you waive the provisions of the amendment 
in only two circumstances. They, of course, permit waiver under any 
circumstances as long as you have 60 percent.
  On one hand, I am weak and unenforceable, and on the other hand, I am 
inflexible and too tough. It is a great yin yang position to be in. 
Which is it? The fact of the matter is that I think it is very, very 
responsible.
  The second point is about the Louisiana Purchase. That is an 
interesting history lesson. I was not aware that 60 percent of the 
Congress agreed with it at the time. I question whether it could have 
been done. I think it could have been done under our amendment, if you 
consider that the Louisiana purchase has had a long-term economic 
return and Congress probably would have defined it as an economic 
asset. I do not know, incidentally, whether the people in Texas and 
Louisiana had a vote on it, too, whether they were part of that 60 
percent, but that history lesson will come another day.

  Now, on Social Security, I believe what the gentleman from Texas is 
concerned about is this: When we asked to move it off budget, he is 
concerned that the gimmickry starts by trying to move other functions 
under Social Security. I think that is unlikely to happen, as is the 
charge that he resists, that people are going to go in, if it is left 
off budget, and raid the fund, if people have some malevolent 
intention.
  The reality is that Social Security off budget protects Social 
Security and is not used to mask the true size of the deficit, which is 
presently occurring. The assets in the Social Security fund, the 
surplus, are used to mask the true size of the deficit. Furthermore, 
Social Security is a self-generating fund. You cannot move the veterans 
programs under it, you cannot move other social programs under it which 
are supported by General Fund moneys into a program that has its own 
tax base and has its own benefits scheme. You pay money into Social 
Security and you get money out. The cost-of-living adjustment comes 
through that. It is all done within one pool. So, therefore, you ought 
to move it under.
  The gentleman attacks our amendment based on what the General 
Accounting Office has said. I want the gentleman to stipulate here and 
now for the Record that he will forevermore accept every decision by 
the General Accounting Office. Will the gentleman stipulate to that?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, no, I will 
not. In fact, I have made it very clear that since they have been ``fer 
it'' and ``agin it,'' I am not sure whether their ``fer it'' was right 
or their ``agin it'' was right. That is the point we are making.
  Why would you want to institutionalize into the Constitution 
something that may or may not be something we are for or against?
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I am not writing 
this for any Federal agency or I am not writing for the General 
Accounting Office. I am writing this to reflect sound constitutional 
practice.

  The Office of Management and Budget, for instance, has long resisted 
this. Why? Because it makes things a lot rougher for OMB. It is not as 
secure a gain for them anymore. There are a lot of people in the 
Federal bureaucracy who resent this amendment and have fought to keep 
it off capital budgeting.
  As to limitations on capital budget, yes, it is true that we do not 
have a referendum procedure, as we have in many States, although many 
States can still go out and borrow for capital expenditures without any 
kind of referendum. And, no, there are no real bond ratings. And I will 
tell you what is a bond rating in effect: It is the interest you have 
to pay and whether or not you are permitted to do it.
  And let us remember that the debt service from capital investments 
have to come on stream. They have to come in under the operating 
income. That is a very real limitation.
  Finally, the gentleman said this does not matter because we have such 
a low share of our Federal budget going to infrastructure. So what does 
it matter
  That is the point. We have handicapped ourselves so much by our own 
Federal budget procedure--25 years ago we were spending twice as much 
in relation to our total Federal spending as we are today. That is the 
point. Our Federal budget does not encourage, indeed, it discourages 
investment.
  I respect what the gentleman is doing because he is trying to get 
people to have priorities. He is trying to define it. But at the same 
time they ought to be realistic priorities, and you ought not to 
squeeze out those investments that are going to bring you back more 
than you would have spent otherwise.
  I would ask finally, how does every State handle this situation? 
Every Member who has spoken in the well today is from a State that has 
capital budgeting. Yet you want to deny it to the Federal Congress and 
to the Federal Government. Every State has capital budgeting. Every 
State defines it. Every State has found that it is the only way, if you 
are going to have a balanced budget requirement, particularly in the 
Constitution, to make nay sense out of it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, Texas certainly has a capital budget. My 
point of concern is the gentleman's amendment. It says very, very 
clearly:

       Total outlays of the operating funds of the United States 
     shall exclude those for repayment for debt, principal, and 
     for capital investments that provide long-term economic 
     returns.

  That is a loophole two barn doors wide. That is what I was trying to 
say. In Texas at least if you are going to have a principal investment, 
you in fact would have to get the approval of the people through 
referendum, through amendment to the constitution, or you are going to 
satisfy bond holders.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but is the gentleman reading off 
the same amendment? I ask because what I am reading is line 15:

       For capital investments that provide long-term economic 
     returns but shall include annual principal and interest 
     payments for borrowing on capital investments.

  Mr. STENHOLM. That is correct.
  Mr. WISE. That is the word, ``include.'' It is in the operating 
income, not out of it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. But it still has to be defined. Somebody has got to 
define it, and that will be defined by whom? By us in the Congress. And 
on what? A majority vote.
  Mr. WISE. It will be defined in the Congress as every other major 
issue is defined in the Congress, and, yes, it will be by majority 
vote.
  My personal recommendation is that you have a bipartisan commission 
that is assigned and developed to make recommendations to the Congress. 
You might even do it on a base-closing condition, up or down. Congress 
can deal with that as every State legislature has dealt with it.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is that we need a 
balanced budget amendment that does not have loopholes that will allow 
Congress to continue operating the same way it has in the past. That is 
the whole purpose of this battle.
  I must agree with those who are opposing this amendment and say that 
the Wise amendment does not accomplish that goal. Let me just talk 
quickly about two of the big loopholes. First, by a majority vote it 
allows the Congress to waive the amendment when there is what has been 
called a national economic emergency, when Congress decides whether 
there has been, by a majority vote, a two-consecutive quarter decline 
in real growth. But again who decides it? Congress does.
  The second big loophole is the capital expenditure item. Let me read 
again the item, because I agree with the gentleman from Texas who says 
that it is a loophole two-barn-doors wide. The amendment provides that 
``the total outlays shall exclude those for repayment for debt, 
principal, and capital investments that provide long-term economic 
returns.''
  I can see the debate now. If this amendment were to pass, we would be 
standing on this floor in the future and one group would be saying, 
``This is pork-barrel spending,'' and the other group would be saying, 
``No, this is long-term investment that will have a meaningful economic 
return for the country.''

                              {time}  1430

  Who gets to decide? Congress, by a majority vote.
  The point here is that we must have a system whereby the Congress 
cannot continue by a majority vote to determine whether it will spend 
in the red. This Congress has shown again and again that it has the 
creativity to make incredible arguments about what is and what is not 
happening in the budget, and I just point out one example that happens 
today.
  We have got what we call a baseline budget that projects automatic 
increases in spending for this Congress, and if Congress chooses to 
spend a lower amount of increase, a smaller increase than is projected 
in that baseline, then they call that a cut, when we are actually 
increasing spending.
  If Congress can call an increase in spending a cut, then it can find 
a way to say we are in an economic emergency or we have a capital 
budget item that we need to spend on.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the question before us now is whether a 
capital budget is going to help rein in deficit spending or create more 
of it. In 1986 and 1987 I served on a White House task force on capital 
budgeting. The purpose was to take a look at this idea and see whether 
there might not be a way to imitate businesses and States that 
routinely distinguish between capital investment on the one hand and 
period expenses on the other hand.
  What we found was that because the Federal Government is different in 
some key respects from businesses and States, a capital budget for the 
Federal Government would do nothing more or less than increase deficit 
spending. It would in fact provide the intellectual justification for 
more deficit spending.
  Some of the differences have already been noted here on the floor. 
State governments have outside disciplines. Bond issues have to be 
approved by voters. Not so when the Federal Government issues debt.
  Bonds issued by States are rated by private agencies, like Standard 
and Poor and Moody's. Outside bond counsel and certified public 
accountants are used before this debt is issued.
  We just passed the Chief Financial Officer's Act here in hopes that 
some day the Federal Government will be able to produce reliable 
financial statements, but we know that is years into the future. We 
cannot get a simple P&L out of any agency. The IRS tells us they cannot 
even produce a listing of their assets, of their computers. There is no 
balance sheet available.
  So what is capital spending in the Federal Government without 
financial reporting?
  The marketplace for debt does not care that the Federal Government 
does not have these financial statements, because they know the full 
faith and credit of the Federal Government stands behind the debt we 
issue, and they know if the Federal Government doesn't have money to 
pay its debt, unlike the States and businesses, the Federal Government 
will just print it. Those are key differences, and they, I think, 
distinguish rather significantly a capital budget for a business and a 
capital budget for the Government.
  Another reason that business distinguishes between period expenses 
and long-term expenses is that capital expenses, capital acquisitions, 
are irregular events. They are nonrecurring. They are the exception, 
not the norm. To require a business to expense the cost of that asset 
in one period would produce an irregular blip. But take a look at this 
chart here. Including all capital expenses, this is a nice straight 
line up, an 800-percent increase over the last 30 years in annual 
spending.
  It is the norm for the Federal Government to do this year in and year 
out. If a business acquires capital assets day in and day out all year 
long, they are expensed. They are treated as inventory. That is in fact 
the proper accounting way to treat the Federal Government's expenses.
  Finally, this constitutional amendment would have Congress decide 
what is investment, and, if it is investment, it is excluded from the 
calculation of the deficit.
  The National Helium Reserve that I have been fighting is a long-term 
asset. The Federal Government is in the helium business. We have lost 
about $1.3 billion to date, over $100 million a year. We have over 100 
years of helium in the ground. Long-term, certainly. Waste, absolutely.
  We will get more of these helium reserves if we get a capital budget. 
The capital budget for the United States will be worse than doing 
nothing. It will increase deficit spending. Vote ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has 4 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 5 
minutes remaining, and has the right to close.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, let the record show who it is that has the 
surplus of time at this point in this battle of deficits, and who has 
the best amendment. Careful husbanding and conserving here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Arkansas.
  (Mr. THORNTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of a balanced 
budget and of the importance of capital budgeting in order to set 
priorities for investment in our Nation's future.
  Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I am for a balanced budget. What we need 
is an approach like the Arkansas Revenue Stabilization Act which limits 
what we spend for the operation of Government to the actual revenues 
which are received each year.
  In Arkansas we have accomplished this without an amendment to our 
Constitution. The Arkansas Revenue Stabilization Act makes clear that 
operating budgets should be balanced, but allows money to be borrowed 
for capital investments like highways, schools, prisons, and hospitals.
  It recognizes that government, just like every private business, and 
every prudent family, should know the difference between spending money 
for current consumption, and investing in the future. A family should 
be willing to borrow money for a home, or to educate their children, 
but gets in trouble if they spend more than they make on groceries, 
telephone bills, clothing, and entertainment. A business will cut 
expenses to make a profit, but will use those profits to invest in new 
machinery, new factories, and other investments for the future.
  My grandfather used to say that if a family gets deeply into debt, 
they cannot borrow their way out of debt, nor can they starve their way 
out of debt; they must work their way out of debt--increase their 
productivity.
  In Arkansas, we recognized this principle by encouraging job 
formation through investments in plants and equipment. We were among 
the first States to issue bonds to build industrial facilities for 
economic development. I have strongly supported this concept at the 
national level. Capital budgeting should be adopted here just as it is 
in business, in families, and in virtually every State. The objective 
of promoting long-term economic growth is not well served by a budget 
process focused on short term results.
  I returned to Congress with the concept of a Marshall Plan for 
America to rebuild our own country's economy by making investments in 
the future. Such an approach rests upon the principle that there is a 
fundamental difference between capital investments for growth, economic 
productivity and strength--as contrasted with spending to meet day-to-
day operating expenses. That principle is incorporated in the proposal 
that is offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] and his 
colleagues.
  We need to use the human and material resources which helped us to 
win the cold war to improve our industrial base. We need to invest in 
high technology plants and equipment to compete in world markets and to 
provide high paying jobs here at home. We need to build and rebuild 
roads, highways, fiber optic networks, and other investments which 
improve our productivity.

  Unfortunately, our out-of-date Federal budgeting process does not 
recognize the difference between investment for economic growth and 
operating expenses. Understanding the difference, and establishing 
priorities for investment is absolutely essential for a robust economic 
growth. We cannot have a balanced budget without robust economic 
growth.
  The principles contained in the proposal offered by the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] and his colleagues are so vital to our 
future that I have decided to support their proposal for a balanced 
budget amendment. We need to balance the budget, but we should not 
hobble our efforts to become more productive. Neither should we balance 
the budget on the backs of our Social Security system. People have paid 
for this system. There is a tremendous trust fund to secure this 
national commitment. I am not willing to walk away from our commitment 
to those who--in good faith--have contributed to Social Security and 
who now depend on the security of that trust fund.
  I believe that the combination of capital budgeting and fiscal 
conservatism of Arkansas' Revenue Stabilization Act is reflected in the 
balanced budget amendment offered by Mr. Wise. None of the other 
amendments protect Social Security, or allow prudent investments as a 
foundation for a robust and competitive economy. I am for a balanced 
budget and believe we should get started right now. I am supporting the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget as presented by Mr. Wise 
and his colleagues.
  Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas, who has been a long 
time advocate of capital investment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California, [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, our substitute provides for the delicate 
balance which needs to be brought to a balanced budget constitutional 
amendment.
  It is the only alternative we have today that balances our budget 
without annihilating our country's and this body's long-standing 
values, including our commitment to children, the elderly, and long-
term investments in infrastructure and schools.
  This is an enforceable, accountable balanced budget amendment that 
honors these long-standing values.
  In addition to requiring a balanced budget by the President and the 
Congress by 2001, this amendment establishes a Federal capital budget 
modeled after the capital budgets used by States, permitting the 
Government to finance long-term capital investments such as roads and 
schools and requiring that these investments be paid for over their 
useful lives out of the operating side--not smoke and mirrors.
  It permits for flexibility in times of emergency such as war and 
recession, but does not allow for deficit spending whenever three-
fifths of this body chooses to deficit spend, as the Stenholm amendment 
would.
  Finally, our substitute ensures the integrity of Social Security. 
This will put an end to the practice of using Social Security surpluses 
to mask the true size of the deficit and ensure the viability of the 
program for future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a tough but responsible balanced budget 
amendment. It gets our fiscal house in order without crippling our 
economy, hurting future generations of Americans or placing this body 
in a legislative straight-jacket.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Wise/Price/
Pomeroy/Furse/Eshoo/Byrne substitute. It is simply the best 
alternative.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, Let me first say that the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise], the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], and the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price] are very serious about their 
amendment, but I have to rise in opposition to this unwise amendment.
  I must say, and I hope the Members that just spoke would listen, that 
what we are doing here with the Wise amendment, the unwise amendment, 
is locking in the Constitution, business as usual. What they are doing 
is saying we are going to put in the Constitution once and for all 
deficit spending. All our speakers against this amendment have proven 
that, and I do not have time to go into it.
  So I want to close with a reminder to the Members of this House that 
have gone home time and time again and said that they are for a 
balanced budget amendment: You will get no cover from voting on this.
  This reminds me of the time last year when the majority leader came 
out here with a cover type amendment, a statute, and 12 cosponsors of 
the Stenholm amendment switched and voted for the Gephardt proposal. If 
I have to remind you, remember Joan Kelly Horn from Missouri. She is no 
longer in this House because she told her constituents she was for a 
balanced budget and voted for a coverup.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 2 minutes of my 
time to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I think, in reading the two amendments, it should be evident to any 
legislator serious about enforcing a balanced budget requirement that 
the only clear choice is the proposal offered by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. The alternative sponsored by the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise] and others, while well-intentioned, falls 
short in many respects.
  I believe them to be well-intentioned in their desire to accommodate 
capital budgeting. It may be fine. It may be accommodated in many 
State-level balanced budget amendments, but it is not necessary at the 
Federal level.
  The only major construction activity at the Federal level today is 
the Interstate Highway Program, which is handled on a pay-as-you-go 
basis, through our collection of gas tax revenues. There is no reason 
to believe any similar commitment by the Federal Government would be 
likely in the near future. And even if that were the case, certainly, 
those commitments could also be handled honestly within an annual 
budget.
  The amendment proposed by the gentleman from West Virginia also 
exempts the Social Security trust fund. I do not know of another 
constitutional amendment that makes reference to an existing law. Why 
would we want to make a constitutional amendment contingent on a 
preexisting law?
  Usually, we enact laws which flow from the constitutional principles.
  If we are exempting the Social Security trust fund, why not the 
highway users trust fund? Why not the airport trust fund? Why not many 
dedicated user fees for parks or for ports or for other Government 
services?
  If we exempt one, the rationale is just as logical to also exempt 
these others. And for those reasons, I think it is ridiculous to start 
down that path with any sort of exemptions.
  We ought to keep everything in the budget. We ought to make deficit 
spending the exception rather than the rule. The only way to do that 
honestly is with a three-fifths vote of the Congress as contained in 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.
  Any alternative with exemptions and which allows deficit spending by 
a 50-percent vote in Congress is not a serious alternative.
  I urge rejection of this approach.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, there are many Members here in 
this assembly who do not want a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. There have been efforts by the leadership here and in the 
other body to try to devise a system by which Members can escape, some 
cover. I think the Wise amendment is a cover amendment for those 
Members who do not really want a constitutional amendment.
  I am not suggesting that the sponsors do not. I am suggesting many 
Members who will attempt to have cover with this amendment are 
searching for a way never to vote for a balanced budget amendment.
  Think of this for a moment, Members. Since I have been in Congress 
for 12 years, the capital long-term expenditure is $2.6 trillion, which 
is over half of the debt of the Nation of $4.3 trillion to $4.5 
trillion.
  If the gentleman's amendment had been in place, we should have had 
what we have, $4.3 trillion debt. That is a hole that is not covered by 
this amendment. That is a hole that is covered by the Stenholm-Smith 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Can Congress change the Social Security definition? Can they change 
what is a capital budget?
  Well, let us see what they have done. They have redefined Gramm-
Rudman. They have suspended the budget of 1974 every day on the floor. 
We declare emergencies to take things off budget. We use the trust 
funds, the surpluses, we disguise them. And of course, they eliminated 
the use of five statutes we passed to balance the budget by statute in 
this Congress.
  Can Congress change the intention of the gentleman? Of course, and it 
likely will, because this is a dodge to the real issue of balancing the 
budget in this country.
  Beyond that, capital budgets endanger Social Security. Why do they do 
that? Because as we increase spending, we must increase the amount of 
interest we pay on that indebtedness. And when we do that, we crowd out 
the other alternatives of the budgetmakers to determine if Social 
Security is more important than defense, than discretionary spending, 
than all the other social programs.
  Our amendment protects Social Security, because it demands that the 
deficit come down, the debt come down and, therefore, interest rates 
come down.
  May I point out, one tick of the interest rate, one percent creates 
$52 billion more of interest that this country must pay and this 
Congress must appropriate, $52 billion. If we do not control spending, 
we cannot control inflation.
  If we do not control inflation, we endanger Social Security. And that 
is what our amendment does, the gentleman from Texas. We protect not 
only the debt of this country, but we protect Social Security. And we 
do it in a manner that is not a dodge, not a cover-up, as the Wise 
amendment.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against the Wise amendment and support 
the Stenholm-Smith proposal.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of by time.
  I think this has been a useful debate, and I appreciate the chance. I 
do want to quickly respond to a couple of remarks that were made.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] made an excellent pun on my 
name. He talked about the unwise amendment.
  I would just say, with capital budgeting, why the delay?
  To the gentleman from Oregon, who questions whether capital budgeting 
will squeeze Social Security, we have got a solution for it. If Members 
are afraid of it, move it off budget like we do.
  To the gentleman from Minnesota, there is a difference between Social 
Security and the other funds that he mentioned. It is almost an 
emotional difference with the American people as much as anything. 
Social Security is something that every man, woman, and child in this 
country grew up with, looks to, and depends upon. We move it off budget 
where nobody can get at it.
  We can all differ on that. Is this an obscure debate that we are 
having, this arcane thing of capital budgeting? Is it just something 
policy wonks to talk about or some accountants, they just have a good 
time?
  No, it is about the future of our country. It is about our growth.
  There are many who oppose my amendment, our amendment, the Wise-
Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment, who would say something along the lines 
of, Well, you cannot define it and, therefore, if you cannot define it, 
the Congress is likely to let everything be considered capital 
investment.
  Members, it is not defined because Congress has never had this 
debate. This is the first time in the 12 years that I have had the 
privilege of serving here, the first time that capital budgeting had 
this intense interest for this period of time. Never has there been a 
debate of more than 5 or 10 minutes, 1 hour at the most, on capital 
budgeting.
  It is coming. It is coming because every State has capital budgeting. 
Every business has capital budgeting. Every family, yes, has capital 
budgeting. There is only one entity, it is the U.S. Federal Government, 
and if we are going to write economic policy into the Constitution with 
a balanced budget amendment, which I voted for in the past and I will 
vote for the Wise amendment today, if we are going to do that, then we 
ought to have the same policy in the Constitution.
  How do we define capital investment? Many are afraid of this debate. 
That is the debate that we are supposed to have. Members of Congress 
get paid to debate and to work through these issues, as every State 
legislator has also worked through this issue.
  If Members want a balanced budget amendment but if they want one that 
reflects on modern times and that will grow with the future, if Members 
want a balanced budget amendment that says by the year 2001 our budget 
shall be balanced, but if Members want a balanced budget amendment that 
also says a dollar spent in investing in our future is not necessarily 
the same as a dollar in consumption, then they must support our 
amendment, the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse-Eshoo-Byrne amendment.
  Finally, there are some significant differences in this debate and in 
this amendment. If Members want a balanced budget amendment, we balance 
the budget for them in the same amount of time as the others.
  Two significant differences: We move Social Security off budget. We 
do not leave it on budget for anybody who might be tempted. Second, we 
encourage investment. We do not discourage investment. We recognize 
that just as we do not want to pass deficit and debt on to our 
children, we do not want to pass on opportunity.
  I urge Members to support the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse amendment.
  Ms. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute 
offered by Representatives Robert Wise, David Price, Earl Pomeroy, 
Elizabeth Furse, Leslie Byrne, and Anna Eshoo to House Joint Resolution 
103, the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment introduced by our 
colleague, Representative Charles Stenholm.
  Through the ongoing debate on the balanced budget amendment, many 
have argued in support of the Stenholm amendment by noting that the 
Federal Government must balance its budget just as States with balanced 
budget requirements are compelled to. It is precisely because I agree 
with this argument that I oppose the Stenholm amendment and support the 
Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse-Byrne-Eshoo substitute.
  Unlike most States with balanced budget requirements that distinguish 
between their operating and capital requirements, the Stenholm 
amendment fails to distinguish between the Federal Government's day-to-
day and long-term budgetary requirements. In failing to do so, the 
Stenholm amendment makes it difficult for the Federal Government to 
invest in those projects that are essential to promoting and ensuring 
economic growth. Please note that in most States with balanced budget 
requirements, capital projects can--and are--financed over the useful 
lives of the projects.

  Unlike the Stenholm amendment, the substitute offered by 
Representative Wise and friends establishes a Federal budget structure 
modeled along the lines of those found in States with balanced budget 
requirements. As such, the Wise substitute would establish a separate 
Federal capital budget and require that only the Federal operating 
budget be balanced.
  The Wise substitute also differs from the Stenholm amendment by 
exempting Social Security receipts and outlays from balanced budget 
calculations. Please note that the Wise substitute would specifically 
insure that the annual Social Security surpluses will not be counted as 
receipts for purposes of the balanced budget amendment.
  By establishing a budget framework that clearly distinguishes between 
the Government's day-to-day expenses, need to continue investing in the 
future, and responsibility for preserving and protecting the integrity 
of the Social Security system, I believe the substitute offered by 
Representatives Wise, Price, Pomeroy, Furse, Byrne, and Eshoo will lead 
to the formulation of sound fiscal policies and contribute to restoring 
the public's confidence in the Government's ability to set such 
policies.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wise 
substitute.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wise-Pomeroy-
Price-Furse amendment.
  The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] and his colleagues raise 
some very serious and legitimate issues in this amendment, and I agree 
with them, and support, what I believe they mean to do with respect to 
Social Security and capital budgeting.
  I just don't agree with the way they go about it, because they have 
created some very substantial loopholes in what the balanced budget 
amendment is otherwise meant to achieve.
  Mr. Chairman, Social Security is a self-sustaining program, and the 
only changes in the program Congress should ever make are changes 
necessary to preserve and protect the solvency and integrity of the 
trust funds. I agree with the gentleman from West Virginia that the 
budget should not be balanced on the backs of Social Security 
recipients. Speaker upon speaker has come to the well of the House over 
the last day and a half to commit to that, and it's clear that Social 
Security is the very last program anyone in this House--on either side 
of the aisle--will ever touch when it comes time to balance the budget.
  The problem with the Wise amendment is that, while it provides little 
practical protection for Social Security since no one is likely to 
touch the program anyway, it does create a real opportunity for 
mischief.
  Because the Social Security program is established by statute, not by 
any provision in the Constitution or even in the Wise amendment, 
Congress will always have the opportunity to amend the Social Security 
law in the future.
  To escape the balanced budget requirement, for example, we could have 
anything from health care to housing defined by future statute to be 
part of the Social Security program. Nothing in the Wise amendment 
prevents that.
  Similarly with respect to capital budgeting, the idea is a sound one. 
The Government does need to make long-term economic gain for the 
Nation. With that in mind, the Wise amendment exempts capital 
investments that provide long-term economic gain form the balanced 
budget requirement. But, the question of what constitutes such 
investments is left to be resolved by Congress in future implementing 
legislation. That creates the second gaping loophole.
  If Congress were to use the very broadest definition of the terms--
and, again, nothing in the Wise amendment prevents it--virtually 
anything could fall into that category of capital spending which is 
exempt from the balanced budget requirement.
  President Clinton's latest budget, for example, includes an entire 
section entitled, ``Investing for Productivity and Prosperity: Setting 
Priorities Under Budget Discipline.'' Among the items discussed are 
education, job training, childhood immunization, and National Service, 
to name just a few.
  Yes, these things are very important, and, yes, they will produce a 
long-term economic gain. But, the point is, if capital budgeting is 
defined too broadly, Congress can render the balanced budget 
requirement meaningless.
  Congress has used every trick in the book to evade limitations in the 
Budget Act, in Gramm-Rudman, and other laws, and that is why an 
effective constitutional limitation on Congress' ability to deficit 
spend is so critical. The well-intentioned but loosely written 
provisions in the Wise amendment on Social Security and capital 
budgeting become very significant loopholes through which Congress 
could continue to evade a balanced budget requirement.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Wise amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
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 111, 
noes 318, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 64]

                               AYES--111

     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Cooper
     Costello
     Danner
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fingerhut
     Ford (MI)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kleczka
     Kopetski
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Long
     Maloney
     Mann
     Markey
     McCloskey
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Murphy
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Smith (IA)
     Spence
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Swett
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Yates

                               NOES--318

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Farr
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Green
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Manton
     Natcher
     Payne (NJ)

                              {time}  1513

  Messrs. HOEKSTRA, BLACKWELL, KINGSTON, LEWIS of Georgia, and OWENS 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PALLONE, MORAN, SCOTT, PETERSON of Minnesota, GEJDENSON, 
HEFNER, and SPENCE 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order, under the rule, to consider the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].


    amendment in the NATURE of a Substitute Offered by Mr. STENHOLM

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Stenholm: strike all after the resolving and insert: That the 
     following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution, 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.
       ``Sec. 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held 
     by the pubic shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of 
     the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such 
     an increase by a rollcall vote.
       ``Sec. 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.
       ``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, which becomes law.
       ``Sec. 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement This 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       ``Sec. 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.
       ``Sec. 8. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     fiscal year 2001 or with the second fiscal year beginning 
     after its ratification, whichever is later.''.

  Mr. STENHOLM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered 
as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member in opposition 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] rise in opposition 
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
  Mr. WISE. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my time of 
30 minutes be equally divided between myself and the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Inslee].
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to answer the question. Why is it 
our generation's duty to adopt this amendment now, while its need may 
not have been as obvious 200 years ago? While reading the words of our 
Founding Fathers last night, I was struck by one thing: their enduring 
commitment to freedom, ingrained in the Constitution.
  Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom from unequal 
treatment. The Founding Fathers knew that to preserve these freedoms it 
was necessary, wise, and right to cement these values in the 
Constitution. Now we need to constitutionally protect another 
endangered freedom. We must guarantee freedom from the Government 
imposing debt on our children. For this reason, this is a debate as 
much about freedom as it is about fiscal policy. The Founders knew that 
there would be huge forces pushing the Congress to infringe upon the 
freedom of speech. They knew that there would be huge pressures to deny 
freedom of religion. Now we know something else. We know that when a 
national government assumes the responsibility to guarantee the 
financial security of its citizens, there will be huge pressures to 
pass the associated costs on to future generations.
  I stress that we now know this. We have finally begun to understand 
this because of the explosive growth of our entitlement programs. The 
Constitution should be amended only when a tidal wave of change sweeps 
across our Nation. We are currently in the middle of such a wave of 
change in the last half of this century. Simply put, there has been a 
radical and fundamental change in the scope of Government. In 
Jefferson's time, the Federal Government was an organization 
responsible for only the post office and the army. Now it is an 
organization equally responsible for feeding, clothing, and caring for 
a large part of its citizens. Is it any wonder that the pressures to 
shift debt to our children are tenfold what they were 200 years ago?
  Our Founders experienced the loss of freedom of speech, so they 
protected it in the Constitution. They experienced the loss of freedom 
of religion, so they protected it in the Constitution. But it is our 
generation that has experienced the loss of freedom from Government-
imposed debt, and it is our duty to protect that freedom in our 
Constitution. One of the elements of genius of our Constitution was to 
allow each generation to expand the scope of freedom as new threats to 
those freedoms appeared. We should move with the spirit of the Framers 
of our Constitution and in the direction of freedom, freedom from debt 
and pass this amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say, first of all, that I commend the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Smith] for the way they have conducted the debate heretofore. We are, 
of course, now on their amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been debating a lot of concepts throughout the 
last 2 days. If I could just reflect for a second, Mr. Chairman, on the 
previous vote as we then take up the Stenholm amendment.
  While not, obviously, as a majority, I do think it was significant to 
note that this is the first time in my recollection that we have ever 
had a real vote on the concept of capital budget and capital budgeting 
and the kind of investments we want in the Constitution. I just want to 
assure Members that, while some said we do not want to be putting it in 
the Constitution undefined, there are a number of us--I would hope to 
be joined as well by some on the other side of the aisle--there are a 
number of us, then, who are going to give you a chance to define it in 
statute and to work for a true capital budget that reflects the needs 
of our country so that it can grow and prosper.
  Having said that, I am going to just briefly raise my concerns with 
the Stenholm amendment and perhaps engage the gentleman from time to 
time in some discussion.
  The Stenholm amendment does not take Social Security off budget. Some 
of us felt that it should be, that it could be protected truly. No one 
here, I think--no one, I believe, in this Chamber--has any intention of 
raiding Social Security. That is not the assertion.

                              {time}  1520

  But just as was mentioned in the earlier debate, remember that old 
advertisement, the magazine advertisement. I never did quite understand 
it, but what it used to say--it had a picture of a car seat with keys 
in it and an open window. It said, ``Don't help a good boy go bad; lock 
up your car.'' By the same definition, if you believe Congress is 
subject to the temptations occasionally to run in and raid or do some 
things that you prefer it not do, then why leave it to temptation? Take 
Social Security off budget.
  The proponents of this amendment, from what I have heard, say they 
have no intention of doing anything with Social Security anyway, that 
the amendment wouldn't have hurt it. However, that point is not before 
us today.
  Second, I am concerned about the Stenholm amendment because 
regardless of how you just voted on the past amendment, does the 
Stenholm amendment--and not just Stenholm, but Kyl and Barton before 
it--do these amendments, in the measures that they are going to take, 
threaten capital investment? The point was made in the previous debate 
that capital investment in physical infrastructure is a relatively 
small amount. That is fine. You are right, yes, it is. There is reason 
for that; that is because the crush of entitlements, day-to-day 
operating expenses, squeeze out the priorities we should have engaged 
in, which are building roads, bridges, infrastructure, roads and sewer 
systems, telecommunications highways, schools, those things that make 
us stronger and better.
  So that is my concern as well with the Stenholm amendment, because I 
do not see where capital gets a proper recognition in that.
  There are other points I am going to make in the course of the 
debate, but at this point I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe].
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of healthy debate over today and 
yesterday. It has been said over and over again this is not going to 
work. The gentleman from Washington State talked about the fact that we 
have a changing America, so it is necessary to change the Constitution. 
I would remind you that it was the suggestion of Thomas Jefferson, who 
was out of the country during the 1787 Convention, who said we should 
have passed it then. I certainly agree with Thomas Jefferson.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from a State that has a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. Almost everyone in here comes from such 
a State.
  In 1941 our budget was getting out of control, and we passed one 
during the debate at that time. Now, I have gone and researched this. 
People talked about the fact that we are not going to be able to do 
this, that it is going to cause us to cut major programs, for the 
elderly and other people; but it worked beautifully.
  Mr. Chairman, I spent three terms as mayor of the city of Tulsa, and 
every day I would look at my computers and would know from day to day 
where we were relative to the end of the year--where we were going to 
be in balance. It worked then; it worked in the State of Oklahoma. It 
has worked in virtually every State and every city in America, and it 
is time that we do it here.
  I urge you to support the Stenholm-Smith amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], who has been an integral part of the amendment 
that was previously offered here.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the time has come where a constitutional 
amendment regarding a balanced budget for this country is a desirable 
step, an important step for this Nation to take. That does not mean I 
can vote for the proposal presently before this body, the Stenholm 
proposed constitutional amendments on a balanced budget.
  The reason why I must reluctantly cast my vote against the measure 
before the House is its treatment of the Social Security trust fund.
  The House just rejected a proposal that would have placed the Social 
Security trust fund in security, in a secured position as we move 
toward a balanced budget for this country. This proposal fails to do 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I used to be an insurance commissioner. I regulated the 
insurance companies doing business in the State of North Dakota. And I 
made those companies, under the statutes of that State, hold reserves 
in a secure place for the policyholders whose risks and exposure they 
were covering.
  This proposal does anything but that. This proposal takes the Social 
Security trust fund, which is running a positive cash flow,and mixes it 
in with all of the other spending of this country, which, as we know, 
continues to run at a negative cash flow. It makes the imbalance of the 
budget.
  Worse yet, as Congress would struggle to make its books balance under 
a balanced budget amendment, it would be there, flush with cash, ready 
to be applied to the overspending that we see in other areas.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a risk that is unacceptable; it is unacceptable 
for today's senior citizens and, worse and even more importantly, it is 
unacceptable for future generations. The Social Security trust fund 
will begin running a negative cash flow and ultimately be seriously 
suspect as to whether it can meet its obligations when the baby boomers 
enter retirement and the number of retirees in ratio to the active work 
force changes from more than 3-to-1 today to about 2-to-1 by the year 
2025.
  How can we address the unique circumstances of the Social Security 
trust fund when it is rolled in with all of the rest of the Federal 
budget? In fact, today it happens to be a component of the Federal 
budget, running a positive cash flow and leaving cash to be applied to 
the balance.
  There used to be an ad campaign that said, ``Don't let a good kid go 
bad,'' referring to leaving your keys in the automobile. Well, I 
suggest that passing this amendment and leaving the Social Security 
trust fund in with the rest of the budget is leaving the Congress the 
keys to the Social Security trust fund. That puts every person looking 
for some security from Social Security at an unacceptable risk, and I 
must vote against the amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne], a prime cosponsor of this amendment, one who has 
worked very, very hard to see that we get to this point.
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stenholm/Smith 
amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  As all of us know, the Congress last year approved a 5-year, $500 
billion deficit reduction plan. And the House and Senate approved a 5-
year freeze on discretionary spending at 1993 levels with no 
adjustments for inflation. Our efforts have yielded some results.
  The deficit for the fiscal year that begins October 1 will be $171 
billion, according to the CBO. This will be the smallest Federal budget 
deficit in 6 years, the lowest percentage of the Nation's economic 
output in 16 years, and for the first time since Harry Truman was 
President, the deficit is projected to decline for the third year in a 
row.
  This is good news. But it is not good enough.
  We currently have no plan to balance the Federal budget at any time 
in the future. Nor will there be one unless the House passes this 
amendment today, sends it back to the Senate for reconsideration, and 
on to the States for ratification.
  Let me be clear: This amendment by itself will not balance the 
budget. But it is a critical tool, a tool used successfully in 49 of 
the 50 States to help keep their budgets in balance. It is a financial 
management tool that we must now adopt.
  As Members of Congress we are the stewards of the public's money. We 
are charged with managing this important--and scarce--resource wisely. 
That is our job.
  Let us take this opportunity to do our job, to demonstrate to our 
constituents--the American people--that we are responsible by passing 
the Stenholm amendment and proceeding with the important business of 
balancing the Federal budget.
  Vote for the Stenholm/Smith amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  (Mr. DeLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong 
support of the Stenholm-Smith amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stenholm-Smith 
constitutional amendment to force this Congress to balance the budget. 
We have already heard a lot of strong arguments in favor of this 
proposal and I will not cover them again.
  Instead, I want members and the American public to take notice of the 
dynamics of this debate which highlight the reason we need a balanced 
budget amendment even more.
  Notice that the groups which feed the most at the public trough are 
screaming the loudest in opposition to a balanced budget amendment.
  What are these groups afraid of?
  The balanced budget amendment would force this Congress to simply set 
priorities.
  Are these groups afraid of competition?
  The big-spending, liberal, special-interest groups are not interested 
in competing for the limited Federal taxpayers' dollars. They prefer 
that the Government just print more money for them to spend. Fiscal 
responsibility is just not in their vocabulary.
  These groups have always opposed cutting any waste or fat in the 
Government. They have no problem at all with heaping ever more debt on 
our children and grandchildren.
  The balanced budget amendment has been considered several times over 
the last decade. And each time the liberal special interests have 
opposed it and chose instead to pile more debt on our children.
  In 1980, each child born that year immediately inherited a debt of 
almost $4,000.
  In 1985, because no balanced budget amendment was adopted, children 
that year inherited more than $7,600 in debt. Yet, still the liberal 
special interest groups worked hard to block passage of the amendment 
in 1989.
  By 1990, our children were burdened with almost $12,800 in debt. Was 
that enough? No.
  Each and every child born in America this year will begin life with a 
debt of more than $16,700. Is it any wonder that young families have 
trouble saving money for a downpayment on a home? Is it any wonder that 
the Federal Government's consumption of more than one-quarter of all of 
our economic activity is driving up interest rates and stifling 
economic growth?
  Economic growth increases the wealth of our country and that means an 
increase in the standard of living. I ask my colleagues if saddling 
each new child born this year with almost $17,000 of debt is enough? Is 
burdening each and every American with more than $1,000 in interest 
payments each year on this debt enough?
  The big-spending, liberal, special-interest groups say, ``No.'' They 
want to kill this amendment for fiscal responsibility. They want the 
debt for each child born to soar to more than $23,000 by the end of 
this decade. This special-interest spending has got to be controlled. 
The time to pass the amendment is now. Support the Stenholm-Smith 
amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  (Ms. DUNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the balanced budget 
amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stenholm amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, about 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson said if there was 
just one change he could make in America's brand new Constitution--it 
would be to include a provision to prevent any future government from 
spending irresponsibly.
  Today we have the Government that Thomas Jefferson feared.
  The national debt is almost $5 trillion dollars. The interest 
payments on that debt are the third largest part of the budget.
  The big spenders in Congress who oppose the balanced budget amendment 
keep promising that: Congress can make the tough decisions; fiscal 
responsibility is just around the corner; we can solve this deficit 
problem without the higher authority of a constitutional mandate; and 
that a balanced budget amendment would hurt the economy.
  I say you have to fix the roof while the Sun is shining.
  Time and time again, Congress has demonstrated to the American people 
that it cannot balance the budget, and it cannot cut spending.
  Without the balanced budget amendment, Congress will continue to 
break its promise to the American people. Pass the Stenholm-Smith 
balanced budget amendment.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to 
yield 2 minutes to the esteemed minority leader of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, no one deserves more compliments than the 
gentleman from Oregon. This has been his day, his goal, and of course 
now he has followed on my lead, bowed out of this place, and it would 
be a great legacy that we might leave to him if this measure were 
passed.
  Mr. Chairman, by this time in the debate I guess practically every 
argument for or against the balanced budget constitutional amendment 
has been heard. I happen to favor the amendment on its merits, which 
have been abundantly outlined during the course of the debate, so I 
will not try to devise some new fandangled argument or expand on an old 
one. I prefer to just make a plea to our colleagues who may have doubts 
about the balanced budget amendment, and that plea simply is this:
  My colleagues, send this proposed amendment to the people, and give 
the people in their various States a chance to decide, as the 
Constitution provides, whether or not this proposal is in the best 
interests of the country.
  Now some of my colleagues might be thinking, if I vote ``yes'' to 
send this proposal to the States, I am just passing the buck, and I 
understand and sympathize with their view. No one wants to be accused 
of passing the buck. But we are in this dilemma precisely because over 
the years we have been passing the buck again, and again, and again--in 
fact, hundreds and hundreds of billions of bucks that we do not have.
  Do we like a balanced budget amendment? No more than a small child 
likes a big dose of nasty, evil-smelling medicine, but Congress suffers 
from that dreaded legislative disease, politicus spendicitis, so we 
have to hold our noses and take our medicine.
  Do I wish there were some other way of dealing with the problem? Most 
fervently I do, but, as my colleagues know, over the decades we failed 
to deal with the problem through other means. There is no evidence that 
the future will show us in any better light. We need to turn to the 
wisdom of ordinary Americans and let them make the judgment in the 
constitutionally approved fashion. After all, Mr. Chairman, it is their 
Constitution, and maybe they will say ``yes,'' and maybe they will say 
``no.'' But at least give them the chance to decide.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by quoting the words of a former 
Member of this House and a very distinguished Member: ``Why should 
there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the 
people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?''
  Do my colleagues know who said that? No less than Abraham Lincoln.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chance to have been here for the last 
2 days and to have participated in this debate and managing the time. I 
would like to reflect for just a moment on what brings me here to be on 
this side of the aisle for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and 
the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] as opposed to last time because I 
voted for their amendment the last time. I also voted for the 
substitute that led up to it, although that was a different substitute 
than the one I just offered. But I think it also reflects why I will 
not be able to vote this time for this amendment.
  Last time when this amendment was up, Mr. Chairman, I myself was in a 
great, I guess, state of concern because I saw indeed what some were 
talking about today. It seemed to me that the situation was we had an 
economy 2 to 3 years ago that was in dire shape. The deficit was 
growing and, Mr. Chairman, there was no sufficient leadership to deal 
with it.
  Indeed we had a President of the United States, President Bush, that 
had abdicated his role in proposing responsible budgets. He would call 
for a balanced budget amendment, and then not offer anything close to 
one, and then walk off the field when anyone tried to engage the White 
House. The reality of our political makeup in this country, this system 
of three branches, is that, if we do not have a strong executive 
leadership, it is highly unlikely that the lack of strong executive 
leadership by one can be more than made up by the diverse exercise of 
energy by 535 called the U.S. Congress, House and Senate, and despite 
the best efforts of men and women in this body and in the body down the 
hall, the Senate, despite their best efforts, Mr. Chairman, we need an 
engaged White House.
  So, between lack of a committed White House and the fact that this 
Congress did not seem to be stepping up to the plate it seemed logical 
then to go to severe steps, which is certainly what the amendment last 
time and this time would do.
  But since then, Mr. Chairman, I have also seen some promise of 
encouragement. I have seen some things that make me think that the 
White House, the Executive and the Congress, are willing to step up to 
the plate to meet the challenge to hit the ball, to do what has to be 
done.
  I have seen a budget package pass, not by a big majority, not by any 
means, not by the 60 percent that would be required by some in this 
body, but I have seen a budget pass that has actually begun to get a 
grip, and despite the worst predictions of those who voted against it, 
those on the other side of the aisle that predicted dire economic 
results immediately should that happen; job killer, as one said; 
despite those those have not materialized. Indeed we have seen 
something else happen.
  We have seen the deficit reach the lowest point that it has in 6 
years, and there is still a downward trend. We have seen record 
economic growth, more economic growth, I might add, in the last year 
than the prior 4 years under the Bush administration. We have seen 
inflation at all-time lows. We have seen interest rates, while going up 
slightly in the past couple of months mainly due to the Federal 
Reserve's independent actions, but we have seen interest rates stay at 
record lows as well. We have seen an economy begin to get back on its 
feet again, and instead of having that sputtering growth that we were 
experiencing, Mr. Chairman, it seems to be fairly consistent.
  My colleagues, it is still not good enough, but we have seen definite 
recovery, and we have seen a Congress that is willing to take on the 
tough issues.
  I did not happen to be with the President on NAFTA, but that was a 
tough issue for a lot of Members here. However they voted, it was done. 
I have seen the Congress take on the budget package and pass it, not an 
easy vote for anyone, and it has been done. I believe that the same 
spirit is going to move this Congress. I hope it will move this 
Congress on health care.
  All of that to say though that I look, and I say, ``Do you need the 
kind of steps that the Stenholm amendment and others would impose?'' I 
do not want to suggest for a minute that the job is done, and I do not 
think anyone in this Chamber suggests the job is done. But I am 
wondering whether indeed we need those kinds of steps. Particularly I 
am wondering whether we need them when we look at some of the 
alternatives that we can have if we are going to have a constitutional 
amendment.
  I have become a big believer not just because I sit on the Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation. That does give me a focus of 
attention, but I am a big believer in growth, as we all are. I say:

       You can't cut your way out of this deficit. You can't tax 
     your way out of it. You're going to have to do some of both, 
     but you're going to have to grow, and you have got to put in 
     place those policies that will help you grow.

  Some argue the deficit reduction in and of itself is sufficient for 
the job. I do not feel that way. I think it is positive. I think it has 
a salutary effect. It does have some important aspects, but deficit 
reduction by itself will not grow this economy.
  What I am concerned about is we focus more and more on deficit 
reduction to the exclusion of everything else. We can actually have a 
contracting effect on the economy. We can cause it to recede. And so I 
want to see if there is going to be a balanced budget amendment. I want 
to see in it a reflection of that and make sure growth can be 
accommodated.
  The gentleman from Texas noted a couple of hours ago that I had made, 
and many have made, a philosophical leap in some ways, and he is 
correct. I am prepared to accept an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States that requires a balanced budget. But in doing so, Mr. 
Chairman, I want to make sure it is structured very carefully, and so, 
as we are all evolving in this process, that is why I chose at this 
time not to support the Stenholm amendment, not because I do not 
respect what he has done, not because I do not think that the 
Constitution should forever be devoid of any language dealing with the 
balanced budget, but because I think that there are better ways to do 
it than what are being offered here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr, SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I do not know who shares more of the blame 
for our annual budget deficits:
  The Presidents, for not submitting balanced budgets to Congress;
  The Congresses, for not balancing the budgets they approved and sent 
to the President for signature;
  The President, for not vetoing the unbalanced budgets he received 
from Congress; and,
  Or the members of Congress--on both sides of the aisle--who voted for 
programs again and again, year in and year out, without providing the 
funds to pay for them.
  What I do know is this: Over the next 5 years, our national debt will 
increase by more than $1.6 trillion, and that's with the President's 5-
year budget reduction package passed last year.
  Entitlements will increase by 41 percent over the next 5 years.
  This year, our budget deficit will be more than $300 billion.
  I support the balanced budget amendment offered by Congressman 
Stenholm recognizing that it is not a panacea. It will not lead to 
painless elimination of the national debt. Presidents will still have 
to submit their budgets and Congress will still have to formulate and 
vote on them. Members would continue to be accountable to their 
constituents for votes in support of spending reductions and tax 
increases necessary to comply with the balanced budget amendment.
  Only through proposing and voting for cuts in Federal spending will 
the administration and Congress put to rest 18 years of excessive 
budget deficits and a paralyzing national debt. Unfortunately, Congress 
is not making the tough votes necessary to eliminate the budget 
deficits.
  If it takes a balanced budget amendment to get Congress and the 
administration to make the tough decisions to eliminate the deficits, 
then so be it.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my strong support 
for the Stenholm-Smith amendment to the U.S. Constitution to balance 
our budget. I have long been a staunch supporter of a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. I have cosponsored the balanced budget 
amendment since I came to Congress and am the current sponsor of House 
Joint Resolution 24, a resolution similar to the Stenholm-Smith 
amendment. I want to stress however that a constitutional amendment 
requiring a balanced budget is no substitute for direct action on the 
part of Congress. We have seen time and again that Congress does not 
have the ability to provide that action, and I believe we need this 
enforcement mechanism to get the job done. It is time to just say 
``no''--and mean it--to the tax and spend policies that have gotten us 
into this mess to begin with. I believe the Stenholm-Smith proposal 
provides the necessary fiscal discipline to achieve this goal and urge 
adoption of this amendment.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe] who has been a leader in this 
effort for the many, many years we have been working on this matter, 
and I thank her for her efforts.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] for 
their leadership and their outstanding work on behalf of what I think 
is one of the most critical issues facing this country. I am pleased to 
join in their efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, today this Congress is faced with a very clear, very 
stark choice about our Nation's fiscal stability and health, and about 
the kind of future we will bestow to the next generation of Americans.
  We can choose one of two distinct paths to that future.
  One is a path we have traveled before--a path of failure to make the 
tough but necessary choices, a path that binds us to the economic 
status-quo of trillions of dollars in debt and hundreds of billions of 
dollars in yearly deficits, and a path that prohibits American families 
and American workers from securing a higher standard of living, getting 
that long-awaited skilled job, or expanding the family business.
  But the other is a path the American people have wanted us to take 
for so long, but a path that Congress has never had the courage or the 
willingness to take--a path that provides our Nation with long-term 
fiscal stability; a path that gives us the ability to spend $200 
billion yearly not on interest, but on programs vital to ordinary 
Americans; and a path that restores the kind of responsibility and 
prosperity that has made our country and its economy the envy of all 
other nations in the world.
  We can make that choice--the right choice--today. We can show the 
citizens who elected us that we have gotten their message on the need 
for change in the way we do business and manage our affairs. We can 
show that the Nation can again look to Congress for solutions, and not 
just for problems. We can show that the Federal Government is not above 
the duty of what every American household must do each day. And we can 
show the people that we can and will make balanced budgets the rule, 
and not the exception to the rule.
  And that we are holding here today not simply a debate about balanced 
budgets. There is much more at stake--we are talking about how 
recurring deficits, according to the Concord Coalition, have held the 
average yearly family income to $35,000, when it could have been 
$50,000. We are talking about the effect of these deficits and debts on 
job creation and job security for American workers, as yearly deficits 
in the 1970's and 1980's cost Americans across the Nation an estimated 
3.75 million jobs--a staggering price to pay for Congress' inability to 
make tough choices.
  We can set the record straight, put the economy back on its feet, and 
put Americans back to work. And we can do that by passing the Stenholm 
amendment.
  This amendment is simply the best choice. It is whether you are for a 
balanced budget or not. It is responsible. It is broad-based. It is 
bipartisan. And it, more importantly, will work.
  This is the time to make that choice, to cast that one vote, that we 
can all look back upon and say, with unreserved pride, ``That vote made 
a difference''.
  We have the power to do that today. We have the obligation to do that 
today. We must have the courage to finally pass a balanced budget 
amendment today.
  With the authority and command of the U.S. Constitution behind our 
efforts, a document to which we swear a solemn oath to uphold, we can 
make a new beginning and build upon a new foundation for our children.
  Vote for the Stenholm amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld].
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding time to me.
  I rise today in opposition to the amendment.
  I would like to preface my remarks with my recognition of the 
dedication of the author of this amendment, because I know that he does 
so out of total conviction. I would like to comment, however, that 
there are many who support this balanced budget constitutional 
amendment who talk about how tough it is, how we really have to step up 
and do this tough thing. But many of those who just last week voted for 
the Kasich amendment which supposedly was to balance the budget but 
which, in fact, had mandates for a nonrefundable tax credit on into the 
future that would have made such a huge price tag for future 
generations to pay. And many of those people turn around now and say, 
we are going to do the tough thing and step up and put a constitutional 
amendment in place so somebody else in the future can take the tough 
votes.
  The difficulties--and I do not underestimate the difficulties one wee 
bit--to try to bring back in line a runaway philosophy that was to 
spend and borrow, spend and borrow. And to bring us back into line has 
to be done so with great care and great deliberation to balance both 
the needs of this country, the domestic needs, the security needs, the 
needs to not disrupt the stimulation of the economy which is taking 
place, and the need to stay the course.
  This President, with the Clinton economic package that was passed by 
the Congress, has put the country back on course and put us on a 5-year 
course to address the deficit.
  We do not have to wait for a constitutional amendment to be put in 
place and then let unelected justices end up making the determination 
of how this representative body should make and set priorities.
  What we need is not being tough by passing it on to the future. But 
we need fire in the belly every day this year and next year to stay the 
course on which we began last year.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, obviously constitutions should not be 
changed frequently and should not be changed for frivolous purposes. 
Our Founding Fathers in their wisdom guaranteed that any changes in our 
Constitution would be the result of deliberate and careful thought. 
They required that a two-thirds vote must occur in both the House and 
the Senate in order to present a constitutional amendment to the 
States, and then three-quarters of the States must vote to ratify that 
constitutional change.
  In over 200 years, we have only made 27 changes in this document. The 
first 10 of those occurred in short order. We now hold them to be the 
most sacred and dear of all the amendments to our Constitution, the 
first 10 amendments have been enshrined as the Bill of Rights. But 
there was one right not protected at that time or any time since, and 
that was the right of future generations to be free of the debt 
incurred by predecessor generations.
  It is also instructive to observe that while the Bill of Rights, the 
first 10 amendments, were adopted shortly after the Constitution itself 
was put in place, there had been 12 amendments initially proposed. It 
took over 200 years for one of those additional amendments to be 
accepted by the requisite number of States. That amendment we now call 
the Madison Amendment, and it places a limitation on the ability of 
Congress to pass a pay raise to be effective immediately and instead 
denies that pay raise until after an ensuing election. It took us a 
little time, but we finally placed that reasonable amendment in the 
Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that now we have to look back to another 
Founding Father and accept the fact that there is another amendment, 
another proposition that has for too long been left out. Thomas 
Jefferson said that if he could have one additional article placed in 
the Constitution, it would be one that would take away the Government's 
right to borrow.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to make up for that 
oversight by voting for the amendment proposed by Mr. Stenholm.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following material with my remarks:

       While FY 1995 and '96 deficits are projected to decline in 
     the wake of last year's budget package and some have 
     proclaimed the problem solved, the numbers show it's too soon 
     to declare victory.
       The accompanying National Taxpayers Union graph based on 
     CBO data shows a short term drop in annual deficits. After 
     the turn of the century the projections clearly illustrate 
     deficits ballooning to new historic highs.
       Administration sources and others are quoted saying they 
     feel no more deficit cutting is necessary until after 1996. 
     However, a ``see no evil'' approach, focusing only on the 
     short term, while ignoring the ominous long term projections, 
     is perilous. We will never achieve a balanced budget unless 
     we strike while the iron is hot!
       CBO's baseline projections for deficit reduction project 
     long term numbers, but don't account for possible recessions: 
     In the post war era, economic expansions have lasted 14 
     months on average. This is the 11th month of the current 
     growth period.
       Interest rates are at 30-year, historically low levels now. 
     If they inch upward even modestly, we would face bleaker 
     deficit projections than are currently forecast.
       The Administration and other opponents of a Balanced Budget 
     Amendment claim the debt is a recent, short term problem, not 
     requiring a structural, systemic solution. That's 
     inconsistent with history.
       Federal budget deficits have been a chronic, historical 
     problem and are growing exponentially over the long term. The 
     government's run deficits in 56 of the last 64 years! That's 
     more than a quarter of the nation's history!
       The current college-age generation of Americans has never 
     lived in a year when there was a balanced federal budget. 
     Half of all Americans have seen the budget balanced once, or 
     not at all.
       Don't be Misled by the Siren Song on Deficit Spending.
       Balanced budget statutes in 1978, 1979, 1982, Gramm-Rudman 
     I in 1985, II in 1987, and the 1990 Budget Agreement all 
     lulled us into a false sense of security as deficits 
     continued to threaten the Nation's future.
       While we hoard the crumbs, the whole loaf is being taken 
     away from us.--Joe Kennedy, in testimony before the House 
     Budget Committee in support of the Balanced Budget Amendment.
       Until we control our deficit problem, interest payments 
     will continue to devour increasingly larger portions of the 
     budget.
       In 1960 interest payments consumed 6 percent of the budget; 
     In 1970 interest payments consumed 7.4 percent of the budget; 
     In 1980 interest payments consumed 8.2 percent of the budget; 
     In 1983 interest payments consumed 11.1 percent of the 
     budget; In 1994 interest payments consumed 14 percent of the 
     budget;
       Interest payments will cripple the ability of future 
     generations to make necessary investments in health care, 
     education, and other programs.
       Interest payments will continue to crowd out funding for 
     discretionary programs. GAO has estimated that interest 
     payments could reach $1 trillion dollars by the year 2020 if 
     we fail to bring the deficit under control.
       GAO estimated that if we continue with current policy, the 
     growth of interest payments and other programs will force a 
     half a trillion dollars of deficit reduction each year just 
     to maintain a deficit path of three percent of GDP by the 
     year 2020. All government programs would be subject to severe 
     cuts every year under this very plausible scenario.
       Interest payments already are crowding out worthy programs.
       Net interest will be over $200 billion this year, gross 
     interest will exceed $290 billion. Interest payments will 
     continue to devour an increasing percentage of the budget. 
     Interest payments are:
       8 times higher than expenditures on education; 50 times 
     higher than expenditures on job training; 55 times higher 
     than expenditures on Head Start; 140 times higher than 
     expenditures on Childhood immunizations.
       Interest payments represent a transfer of wealth from 
     middle-class taxpayers to upper-income individuals and 
     foreign investors.
       Interest is paid to individuals who own Treasury Bills--
     primarily the wealthiest 10 percent of citizens and 
     institutional investors.
       Nearly 20 percent of interest payments are sent overseas to 
     foreign investors. In 1993, the Treasury sent $41 billion 
     overseas in interest payments.
       Our national debt currently exceeds $4.3 trillion--$17,495 
     for every man, woman and child in the United States. (Source: 
     Budget of the United States, Historical Tables.)
       The national debt has increased 105% since the Senate last 
     voted on the balanced budget amendment in 1986. It has 
     increased by 278% since the Senate last passed the balanced 
     budget amendment in 1982. (Source: Budget of the United 
     States, Historical Tables.)
       Under current policies, future generations are projected to 
     face a lifetime net tax rate of 82% in order to pay the bills 
     that we are leaving them. (Source: Budget of the United 
     States, Analytical Perspectives.)
       If we continue current policies, we will be forced to enact 
     half-a-trillion dollar in deficit reduction each year just to 
     restrain the deficit to three percent of Gross Domestic 
     Product. (Source: Government Accounting Office, Budget 
     Policy: Prompt Action Necessary to Avert Long-Term Damage to 
     the Economy.)
       In 1993, gross interest payments equalled $293 billion. 
     This is greater than the total outlays of the federal 
     government in 1974. (Source: Budget of the United States, 
     Historical Tables.)
       In 1993, gross interest payments consumed 57% of all 
     personal income taxes. (Source: National Taxpayers Union.)
       We spend $816 million a day on gross interest payments. 
     (Source: Congressional Budget Office, The Economic and Budget 
     Outlook: Fiscal Years 1995-1999.
       In 1993, the U.S. government sent $41 billion overseas in 
     interest payments on Treasury bills held by foreign 
     investors. This represents more than twice the amount of 
     spending on all international programs. (Source: Budget of 
     the United States, Analytical Perspectives.)
       Net interest payments in 1993 were five times higher than 
     outlays for all education, job training and employment 
     programs combined. (Source: Budget of the United States, 
     Historical Tables.)
       The drain on national savings caused by the deficit during 
     the 1980's resulted in a loss of five percent growth in our 
     national income. This translates into roughly three and a 
     quarter million jobs lost. (Source: The New York Federal 
     Reserve Board, CBO.)

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  (Mr. HOKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I rise in strong support of the Stenholm-Smith amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Barton], who has been a leader in this effort to pass a 
balanced budget amendment.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first say if there is any 
justice in the world, we will pass the Stenholm-Smith amendment as a 
tribute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], who has worked so 
long and hard. It would be so helpful if we could pass it on his watch.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 211 Members of the House who 
earlier today for the first time went on record as a majority that we 
want to balance the budget by cutting spending and not raising taxes. 
Unfortunately, the vote on Barton-Tauzin is far short of the two-thirds 
required necessary to amend the Constitution. Having had our 
opportunity, it is now imperative we come on board and work very 
strongly in support of Stenholm-Smith. We have got to begin the 
process, it has got to start in this Congress, and we need to vote in a 
two-thirds majority later this afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out in the last Congress there were 12 
cosponsors of Stenholm-Smith who voted ``no,'' and we only failed to 
get the two-thirds majority by nine votes. Of those 12 Members who 
changed their vote, the majority of them are not back in this Congress. 
They were held accountable in the upcoming elections and lost the will 
of the people.
  Vote ``yes'' on Smith-Stenholm. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, rarely have we amended our U.S. Constitution. 
We did so to give all citizens the right to vote. We did so to provide 
for the popular election of our U.S. Senators. In my generation, the 
time has come once again to amend that great document. You know and I 
know that this amendment is not just for today, but this amendment is 
for future generations. This vote will require courage, my colleagues. 
This vote will require responsibility, my colleagues. This vote will 
make our jobs in Congress much more difficult, my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge every single new Member of the 103d Congress to 
come down here to exercise the courage that this vote requires.
  Mr. Chairman, when they write the history of this Congress, will my 
colleagues be among those who had the courage and vision to vote to 
secure our Nation's future?
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who preceded me in the well spoke about 
courage and conviction, and it is something we all aspire to. I just 
want to remind Members who may vote for the Stenholm amendment, you 
vote for it based upon your convictions and indeed your courage, if you 
feel it requires that.
  But the Stenholm amendment is not the tough vote. The tough vote is 
the one that comes right after, and that is how you implement it, how 
you implement any of the balanced budget amendments that have been on 
the floor the last 2 days.
  So I just hope that those who talk about courage and conviction, when 
they actually look at what it takes to get to that situation, will be 
prepared to step forward and be as assertive then as they were before.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the gentleman a question, if I 
may. The question would be this: Let us face it. What we have been 
through the last day is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. This is the vote. 
All the rest is a diversionary tactic. This is the vote. You either 
vote on this balanced budget amendment, or there is no balanced budget 
amendment. This is the last time in the history of this House you will 
have that opportunity.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman wants to 
talk about smoke and mirrors, I think that is a perfect example of some 
of it. We have had a very good debate to date. We have just had that 
kind of outburst challenging motivations.
  I would say to the Chair, my amendment is not smoke and mirrors. I do 
not think the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] was 
smoke and mirrors. I do not think the debate of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton] was smoke and mirrors. And certainly those who 
preceded me in offering amendments had no intentions and did not spend 
countless hours to simply put forward smoke and mirrors.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to those votes of courage that are 
required, should this amendment pass. My experience last time was that 
when it came time to actually write the legislation that would have 
balanced the budget in 8 years, that many who beat their breasts the 
loudest for a balanced budget amendment, when they actually saw the 
numbers in the outyears of what it would take, particularly what would 
have to happen to entitlements, that they suddenly went off into the 
glimmering shadows, legislative shadows.
  So the casting of this vote will be done out of conviction, I know. 
But the real courage comes in how you actually balance it.
  Please, I have heard some assertions here earlier in previous debate 
about how do not worry, programs will not be cut that hurt anybody, and 
do not worry, there will not be any taxes. You and I both know there is 
not a tooth fairy, and I will not get into some of the others, because 
my children might be watching and I do not want to disabuse them of 
some of the great myths we have in our society. But the other reality 
is that it is tough to balance budgets.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. WISE. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding this will be the last 
opportunity in the history of the 103d Congress as far as the House of 
Representatives is concerned to vote on a balanced budget amendment, 
this vote that is coming up now, and the gentleman is prepared to let 
that opportunity pass.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have already put out a 
balanced budget amendment that I believe in. It may be your last 
opportunity to vote for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution 
of the U.S. Government. It is not your last opportunity to vote for 
deficit reduction. It is not your last opportunity to vote for economic 
growth. It is not your last opportunity to make the tough votes on the 
ones that really count. This sets a goal, a tough goal with some teeth 
in it, that the gentleman from Texas has crafted. It sets a goal, but 
it does not get you there. The votes that get you there are the tough 
ones.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the principal 
cosponsor of the Kennnedy-Stenholm-Smith balanced budget amendment, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  (Mr. KENNEDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank my good 
friends, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith] for their fine and dedicated efforts to try to get 
the Nation's budget under control. They have been outstanding in their 
attempts to make us come to grips with a terrible budget deficit, and 
we all owe them a great deal of thanks.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the general thought of this country is that 
it is unconscionable for a liberal Democrat to be in favor of the 
balanced budget amendment. And I wanted to say right now that it is not 
only good policy economically, but it is the right moral policy for 
this country to learn to balance its budget.
  The only way that I believe we will be able to achieve that is 
through a balanced budget amendment. We have seen for 200 years of 
American history, all the way up to 1980, the budget deficit of this 
country grow to $900 billion. From 1980 to today we have gone to $4.5 
trillion.
  You say yes, but, Joe, if we come in with a balanced budget amendment 
today, conservative Democrats with Republicans will form a coalition 
that will gut the very programs that look out for the needs of the 
working people and the poor of America.
  The fact of the matter is if we look at who has made out through the 
deficit, we are going to find that the defense bill has come up with 
increases, entitlement spending has gone up. We are going to see that 
the interest payments on the debt alone have gone from $74 billion to 
over $215 billion. They are the winners.
  Working people pay their share of taxes. But wealthy people own the 
debt of America, and working people and the poor pay off the debt under 
these huge deficits that arise.
  Mr. Chairman, anybody in this Congress can get a bill that gets 175 
or 180 votes for deficit reduction. Nobody can come up with a bill that 
gets 218 votes. Let us be honest with the American people. We need a 
balanced budget amendment to become clear with the American people how 
to get this deficit under control.
  Mr. Chairman, vote for the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished majority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I rise in 
opposition to the Stenholm amendment. I want to give my regard to the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, who has been tireless in this 
effort and has been completely consistent in his voicing his concern 
about our deficit situation. The gentleman not only presents amendments 
of this kind, but, in the Committee on the Budget and on the floor, he 
votes for measures to cut the deficit, which is sometimes not the case. 
But in his case, he is entirely and always completely consistent.

                              {time}  1600

  Let me talk about this in terms of its principles. I think the 
principle of an amendment is not a good idea, because I do not think 
and I do not think that most Members think that we can or should 
balance our budget each and every year no matter what. Everybody wants 
exceptions to a balanced budget amendment; war, recession.
  I believe, and I think Members probably believe, that if the economy 
is not working right, there is really no way to balance our budget, 
there is no sensible way to make that happen. In fact, the more we try 
to balance it, the more we will get it into unbalance. There has to be 
a fusion of interest between what is happening in the economy and what 
is happening in the budget.
  But all of us can agree that in most years we should try to have a 
budget that is in balance or near to balance. The problem we have is 
that for so many years, even when the economy was doing well, we did 
not have our budget in balance. In fact, it was way out of balance over 
most of the last 15 years.
  What gives me hope and what gives me the reason to say that we should 
not pass this amendment is that for the first time in a long time, last 
year, we had a President and a Congress that worked together to make 
substantial reductions in the budget deficit. Thanks to the leadership 
of President Clinton, we have taken major steps. Last year's $500 
billion deficit plan cut the projected 5-year deficit in half in 1 
year.
  We are not there yet. We have got a lot more to do. We have made 
substantial progress.
  I think everyone would agree that it is better to do this by majority 
votes and legislation rather than putting a three-fifths majority 
requirement in an amendment, which this amendment does. Why in the 
world, when we are starting to make substantial progress, would we want 
to turn to the minority in both Houses to make the decision on the 
budget? I do not think it makes sense.
  I think it makes much more sense to continue what we are doing. We 
will have plenty of opportunities later this year to make the most 
important step on deficit reduction, reducing health care costs.
  Members rail on about entitlements. The only way we are going to get 
the budget into control is to deal with the most fastest-growing 
entitlement, which is health care costs. We will have a major 
opportunity to do that later in this year.
  So we did not get ourselves into this mess overnight, and it is going 
to take more than a constitutional fix to make it play out right in the 
future. So let us not tinker with the most fundamental document in our 
democracy to try to do something that probably will not work anyway.
  We are on the right track. We are doing this the right way. Let us 
keep on doing it the right way.
  Later this year in health care, later this year with other 
suggestions that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and others 
will make on entitlement caps and on trying to get the modified line 
item veto, these are substantial ways that will work. Let us use them. 
Let us use health care. Let us use next year's budget.
  Let us keep making progress on this most important subject. Let us 
not clutter the Constitution with a device that turns the majority over 
to the minority of both Houses of this Congress, which is really 
something we should not do.
  I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the Democratic caucus chairman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I want to start out by saying, I have unrestrained respect and 
affection for the majority leader. On this issue we happen to disagree. 
I do not believe that it is cluttering up the Constitution of the 
United States to say that we will rely upon the resources we have 
available to us in our own generation, except to the extent that we 
either make a determination there is an emergency or a capital need. I 
congratulate the gentleman from West Virginia for whose amendment I 
voted, to make an expenditure that the next generation will use a 
legitimate capital expenditure exempt from the limitations of this 
amendment.
  I do not believe it clutters up the Constitution to say that we will 
exercise fiscal discipline and not impose upon the next generation the 
expenditures of this generation. That is, indeed, as Thomas Jefferson 
and others have been quoted, repeatedly, a fundamental issue.
  I am a ``tax-tax, spend-spend'' Democrat. Let me make that clear, and 
let my opponents make of it what they will. I am prepared to say to my 
constituents, I believe the following items are important for 
investment by our Government. And I do not believe they are free, and 
rarely do I vote against a bill to raise revenues to pay for those 
objectives that I believe are important. But I do not want us to 
continue to put the national plastic credit card into the machine and 
say that my granddaughter and her granddaughters and my colleagues' 
children and future generations will pay the bill for what we decide to 
spend to operate the Government of today. It is time for us to exercise 
that discipline.
  Very frankly, we live in an era of a lack of discipline. One of the 
problems that confronts our society is a lack of discipline. Let us 
take this step to bring fiscal discipline.
  One of the most important questions that confronts Government, which 
is why so many of our States have in their constitutions the discipline 
to limit spending based upon their revenues.
  As I said, I agree with the gentleman from West Virginia. Capital 
budgeting, I think, is an exception. Just as it is for most States.
  If this amendment does not become law and we address this again, I 
will be urging my friend from Texas to incorporate that consideration 
raised by the gentleman from West Virginia, but that is not before us.
  I will support this amendment. I believe it is important for our 
generation to say, yes, we are prepared to pay for what we buy or, in 
the alternative, not buy it.
  Let us pass the Stenholm amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me and for his good work on attempting to balance our national budget.
  I rise in opposition to the Stenholm amendment but not in opposition, 
certainly, to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and his efforts 
to balance the budget. He has been a champion on that score.
  The reason I oppose his constitutional amendment, however, is that I 
do not think it would balance the budget but, instead, would enshrine 
in the Constitution the principle of minority rule.
  The proposal would apply a 60-percent super majority vote requirement 
to any budget-related legislation, which I think is counter to the 
intentions of our Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.
  While I am opposed to any constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget, I support efforts to achieve one. In particular, I commend the 
Clinton administration and Congress for taking steps last year which in 
1994, now, have reduced the deficit by 40 percent. This year's budget 
resolution keeps budget deficits on a downward path. In fact, this will 
be the first time in 26 years that the total discretionary spending 
will actually decline from one year to the next without even an 
adjustment for inflation.
  The President and the Congress have already cut spending first, as 
others of our colleagues have indicated. As our majority leader said 
earlier, in our interest in reducing the deficit and balancing the 
budget, Congress should act this year to legislate comprehensive health 
care reform which will bring further progress toward a balanced budget. 
And Congress must also protect our current economic recovery as well as 
Medicare and Social Security.
  Actions to balance the budget must be sensitive to our commitments to 
the American people: For example, Head Start, child nutrition, worker 
retraining programs, public health disease control, education funding, 
Members know the list, Mr. Chairman.

                              {time}  1610

  We must also respect our Constitution. For all these reasons, I urge 
my colleagues to reject the constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget and instead support efforts in our body to cut spending and 
reduce the deficit.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, the balanced budget amendment is a bad idea whose time 
has come. I am a little uncomfortable because some of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle who are supporting a balanced budget amendment, 
and would not vote for any new taxes, think we ought to add more money 
to defense spending, do not think we should touch entitlements, but 
they are for a balanced budget amendment.
  The truth of the matter is that there is no way all of those things 
can be done. I think the American people recognize that. They want the 
Congress of the United States to make difficult decisions about 
spending and about taxes. It is morally reprehensible for us to 
continue as a Nation to spend ourselves into bankruptcy, and I am not 
one of those who says that we can balance the budget without cutting 
entitlements, we can balance the budget without any new taxes, still 
increase defense spending. We are spending $215 billion a year in 
interest. It is time to force the issue and pass the so-called Stenholm 
amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] has 2 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has 4 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very important vote. I want to thank 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. Smith] and all those who have gone before. I think it has been a 
good debate. I appreciate all those who have participated in it.
  I will vote against the Stenholm amendment. Regardless of what 
happens with the gentleman's amendment, I also want to very much 
applaud his conviction to deficit reduction. Regardless of what happens 
to his amendment, I think it is important that this body and the 
American people understand that there has been significant progress 
made, and much more must be made, but that in reality, no amendment can 
avoid the tough votes, and the tough votes must happen.
  Already there has been a $500 billion deficit-reduction package 
passed, $500 billion over five years. There is a hard freeze on 
discretionary spending. What that means in most of our regular terms is 
that at the end of 5 years, this Government is spending the same or 
less on most of the domestic programs than it is spending today.
  Mr. Chairman, what the significant fact to me is, is that over the 
course of the 5 years we are on a path so that the deficit is about 
one-half the size it is today in relation to our total economy, from 5 
percent to 2.5 percent. I think it should be noted that the President 
has signed an Executive order, and I would like it to be law, he has 
signed an Executive order creating a deficit-reduction account that I 
have championed for many years.
  Mr. Chairman, the modified line item veto has passed this House and 
now rests in the other body. The entitlement review process championed 
by the gentleman from Texas is a process that has passed this House, 
not as strong as anyone would like, indeed there need to be some 
improvements, but progress is being made.
  Health care must be undertaken for deficit reduction purposes as well 
as for the other reasons so necessary. Yes, there is additional action 
that must be taken, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on 
a statutory definition and debate over capital budgeting and what 
should go into a capital account.
  It has been an instructive debate. Regardless of the outcome, Mr. 
Chairman, I think it should be noted that much has been accomplished. 
Much more, much more must be done. These are the kinds of actions that 
must take place, whether or not we have a balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I want to again extend my 
hand in gratitude to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and all of 
those chief sponsors, Democrats and Republicans, who have fought very 
hard to bring this to fruition. And today we will make that final 
decision.
  I could not help but note, after listening to the esteemed majority 
leader talk about the progress we have made in reducing the deficit and 
balancing the budget, because I think that this chart, for instance, 
indicates the fallacy of that except on a very temporary basis.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot use the excuse that last year the debt did go 
down, interest rates are down, and there is discussion about whether 
that is in the policy of economics or whether there was some action 
taken to induce a reduced deficit. However, the point still remains, 
and this chart shows it so well, that yes, while there was a small 
respite here in the middle, the proposed deficits are going to go, 
again, off the edge of the cliff.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not rest on our laurels, on the fact that 
something happened last year that was a glitch in the growing debt of 
this country, because this is what is going to happen, no question 
about it.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come for us to make a momentous 
decision, a decision that will surely affect our children and our 
grandchildren. As we make that decision, I want to ask one fundamental 
question: Is this the House of self-preservation, or is this the House 
of the people?
  If it were the people's House, as we would hope, surely it would 
follow the will of the people. Seventy percent of the people, by the 
way, support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. However, 
indeed, if it is the House of self-preservation, then the balanced 
budget amendment will surely lose.
  Mr. Chairman, I remind Members, both Republicans and Democrats, that 
your first principle taught you when you first arrived here fresh from 
your first election, what did you do first? They said to you, ``When 
are you going to start raising money for your next election?'' That was 
the first lesson. Members are running for office immediately 
upon election, and the balanced budget amendment is not going to change 
that.

  The other thing they said to us, ``When are you going to introduce 
legislation that is going to endear yourself to the folks at home? 
Hopefully, it will cost a lot of money, and if it costs a lot of money, 
they will be convinced they have to send you back to Congress, cannot 
do without you.'' This is the old political axiom: spend, spend, elect 
and elect.
  James Farley was the father of spend, spend, elect and elect in the 
1930's, and that is indeed the practice of the House of self-
preservation.
  The balanced budget amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm] and myself would change the mindset of Congress from 
spend, spend, to save, save, balance, balance. It will change the 
mindset because the American people will demand that Congress uphold 
the Constitution of the United States that they swore to uphold with 
this amendment.
  Under our amendment, the first obligation of a Member of Congress 
would not be to pass the big money bill for your district, but would be 
to balance the budget, and not look for every pork-barrel opportunity 
to ensure the next election for yourself.
  To be sure, we face great obstacles in our path. We face the leader 
of the House, the leader of the Senate, the President of the United 
States. I am proud of the Democrats who are going to stand up in the 
face of all of that onslaught to vote their conscience, because under 
that kind of pressure, there must be a great concern on the side of the 
Democrats.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also very proud of the fact that on my side we 
will have 174 votes, all but one, and I am proud of those people on 
this side of the aisle who will step forward.
  Mr. Chairman, politics as usual is alive and well in this body. It is 
alive in the White House, and the American people are poorer by $1 
billion every day, and the figure continues to rise.
  Mr. Chairman, most of us here have heard the voices of Americans who 
want to balance the budget, and they want to eliminate the influences 
of the Jim Farleys and the pork-barrel politics of the past. We can do 
that today if we have 115 of our friends or so join us today. That 
means that our responsibility to the American people will be fulfilled.
  Mr. Chairman, I welcome every one of the Members who stand today for 
the future.

                              {time}  1620

  I welcome every one of you who stands up against an onslaught of the 
leadership on this side, and I thank those on my side for standing firm 
for a balanced budget amendment, to America, which, indeed, will change 
the future of our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stenholm amendment, 
to express my support thereof, and the support for future generations 
of America whose inheritance should not be debt.
  Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would ask the gentleman 
one question: There have been many amendments introduced including one 
by myself. But what I would like to ask the gentleman, regardless of 
what bills, what amendments have been introduced, this is the last 
train leaving the station? Is that correct?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, this is the 
only amendment that has an opportunity to pass and become a part of the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday, we began this debate with a heart-felt wish 
that our proceedings, would be conducted on a plane befitting 
deliberations for amending our Nation's Constitution. I want to thank 
virtually all the participants in the debate for granting that wish. 
The debate has been informative, cordial and constructive. I also want 
to take this opportunity to especially thank my friend and colleague. 
Bob Smith, for all of the hard work and good will be has put into this 
effort for so many years. We will surely miss you Bob.
  As I mentally reviewed all that I had heard during the last 2 days, 
it seemed to me certain themes ran throughout the debate.
  First, there is a growing and genuine awareness of the danger today's 
debt presents tomorrow's generations. I do not believe this is mere 
stump speech material. More and more Members, especially those with 
young children and grandchildren, are sensing the serious 
responsibility they have in ending this burden we have been placing on 
their young shoulders.
  Second, there is an increased realization among Members that relying 
only on statutory remedies to our debt and deficit problem will once 
again bring us up short.
  The third thing that occurred to me was that the laws of policy 
making are just as constant as the laws of nature. As both a farmer and 
a Congressman, I know that you had better respect both sets of laws or 
you will produce nothing.
  Rule No. 1 of policymaking is the Law of the Possible. Policymaking--
as opposed to political gaming--means taking everyone's best ideas and 
then finding the middle-ground that all can live with. Anyone who 
thinks that compromise is a dirty word and that the Constitution is far 
too precious for such an irreverent approach should go back and read 
one of the fascinating accounts of all that happened in Philadelphia in 
1787.
  Unlike Moses, the delegates at that Federal Convention weren't handed 
a finished perfect product. They pounded heads instead of pounding 
stone, and at the end of 4 months there was not a single person who 
thought this document was perfect. In fact, some highly respected 
individuals such as Patrick Henry and George Mason thought it was so 
imperfect that they walked away from the process. Fortunately for us, 
there were others so committed to getting through the hard labor pains 
of this Nation's birth, that they eventually were able to forge a 
middle-ground that everyone contributed and committed to, and that 
document has guided our Country for more than 200 years.
  We have had some constructive ideas on the floor these 2 days. On the 
right, Mr. Kyl and Mr. Barton have worked diligently for years on what 
they each consider the best possible constitutional amendment. Their 
hard labor yielded them respectable support here in rollcall votes, but 
they were far shy of the 290 needed to send a constitutional amendment 
to the States. Therefore, they have now pledged their support to their 
compromise choice, House Joint Resolution 103.
  On the left, our newcomer, Mr. Wise, has done a terrific job of 
introducing new ideas into the balanced budget debate. He has been a 
serious author, an excellent debater, and a gentleman throughout. But 
his great idea also fell short of the necessary two-thirds vote. What I 
am asking is that his voters, likewise, pledge their support for a 
middle-ground.
  We can all stick rigidly to our own preferred amendments and smugly 
congratulate ourselves on our superior wisdom, our clever rhetoric, our 
political positions--and be stuck one more time in the mire of the 
status quo.
  Or we can follow the lead of our Founding Fathers, put our egos and 
arguments aside, say ``no'' to the status quo, and vote for the one 
amendment that has a chance of garnering the support necessary for 
passage.
  The previous three votes have proven that two-thirds of this body 
believe in the fundamental concept of a balanced budget constitutional 
amendment. This is a golden and unprecedented opportunity. We should 
not let it pass.
  All of us who have worked so hard and voted for these four amendments 
must now answer: Why am I here? What ultimately do I hope to 
accomplish?
  As for me, I am here to change the status quo of our national 
addiction to deficit spending. I am here to find any way possible to 
give my future grandchildren a chance to have as good a life as I have 
had. I am here to follow in the footsteps of those who drafted our 
beloved Constitution and vote for the possible instead of clinging to 
the impossible which dooms us and our children to the status quo.
  Will you join me?
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following material with my remarks:

  Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bipartisan, Bicameral Consensus 
             Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution


  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

       This section sets forth the general rule of this Article, 
     and the central principle to be observed and enforced, that 
     the Government of the United States shall not live beyond the 
     means provided for it by the true sovereign, the people.
       Therefore, this section establishes, as a norm of federal 
     fiscal policy and process, that the government's spending 
     should not exceed its income. While popularly--indeed, 
     universally--referred to as requiring a ``balanced budget'', 
     its mandate is both simpler and more comprehensive, requiring 
     a balance (or surplus) of cash inflows relative to cash 
     outflows.
       Any departure from the general rule in this section and its 
     guiding principles should be an extraordinary event, based on 
     a compelling need. As is commonly the case with 
     constitutionally established parameters for the legislative 
     process, no attempt is made to enumerate all the 
     circumstances that might justify deficit spending; if a 
     three-fifths supermajority of each House of Congress believes 
     an emergency, crisis, or urgency exists (and if the President 
     concurs), it does. This formulation makes the option of 
     deficit spending both difficult to exercise yet available 
     when a fairly strong national consensus exists.

                           Detailed Analysis

       ``Total outlays'' and ``total receipts'' are defined below 
     in Section 7.
       ``. . . fiscal year . . .'' is intended as a term defined 
     in statute and having no other, specific, constitutional 
     standing. It is a commonly understood term in both private 
     and public usage. While the definition of a fiscal year could 
     be changed from time to time, the concept is sufficiently 
     well understood that a blatant attempt to contravene the 
     intent of the amendment would not be acceptable.
       For example, creation of a ``transition fiscal year'' of 18 
     months to facilitate reforms in the budget process clearly 
     would be consistent with the amendment. On the other hand, 
     legislation purporting to implement the amendment that 
     promised to balance the budget for the ``fiscal year 1998-
     2008'' (and, presumably, with little or nothing in the way of 
     procedural discipline in the early portion of that ``year''), 
     clearly would be unconstitutional. Certainly, a simple ``rule 
     of reason'' would be applied to any statutory definition of a 
     ``fiscal year''.
       ``. . . shall not . . .'' is a term readily obvious in its 
     intent, spirit, and application. It is mandatory language 
     simply meaning you may not. Saying that ``Total outlays . . . 
     shall not exceed total receipts'' states both the goal to be 
     pursued and the yardstick by which successful compliance with 
     this amendment is measured. It prohibits fiscal behavior 
     intended or reasonably likely to produce a deficit within a 
     fiscal year.
       ``. . . three-fifths of the whole number of each House of 
     Congress . . .'' indicates the minimum proportion (60%) of 
     the total membership of each House needed to approve 
     expenditures producing a deficit. Currently, this would mean 
     60 of the 100 Senators and 261 of the 435 Representatives.
       The term ``. . . whole number . . .'' is derived from, and 
     intended to be consistent with, the use of the phrase in the 
     12th Amendment to the Constitution, ``two-thirds of the whole 
     number of Senators'' (which is set as the quorum necessary 
     for the purpose of electing the Vice President in case no 
     candidate receives an Electoral College majority).
       ``. . . shall provide by law . . .'' both states a simple 
     consistency with other provisions of the Constitution and 
     clarifies a difference between the deficit spending provided 
     for under this amendment and a deficit planned for in a 
     Congressional Budget Resolution.
       Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 of the Constitution states: 
     ``Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence 
     of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary 
     (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to 
     the President of the United States'' for signature or a veto. 
     Clearly, a vote by both Houses that results in deficit 
     spending would be such a vote.
       However, an additional reason for adding this clarifying 
     language is that such a vote might easily be confused with 
     the deficit that may be estimated in a budget resolution, 
     which currently is not presented to the President. While 
     budget resolutions are Concurrent Resolutions generally 
     passed by both Houses, concurrence is not necessary, since 
     budget resolutions actually fall under the ``Rules of its 
     Proceedings'' that ``(e)ach House may determine'' under 
     Article I, Section 5, Clause 2. This is because budget 
     resolutions merely set target amounts for subsequent budget 
     decisions made within each House. (The ultimate decisions 
     requiring concurrence, appropriations, other direct spending 
     bills, or revenue bills, are presented to the President.) In 
     fact, the House often has proceeded to act pursuant to a 
     House-passed budget resolution in prior to and in lieu of 
     House-Senate agreement on a single resolution.
       Obviously, the 3/5 vote on permitting a deficit under this 
     amendment is not a determination of an internal rule in 
     either House, but has direct and immediate consequences 
     external to the rules of either House. Therefore, the words 
     ``by law'' state what normally would be obvious, but which 
     might be confusing here, due to current budget resolution 
     procedures.
       ``. . . a specific excess of outlays over receipts . . .'' 
     means that the maximum amount of deficit spending to be 
     allowed must be clearly identified. Thus, enforcement of the 
     amendment through the political process will be facilitated 
     by improving elected officials' accountability to the public. 
     The specific excess which is provided for by law would not 
     apply to outlays in more than one fiscal year and may, in 
     fact, apply to an excess that occurs over a shorter period, 
     such as the remainder of a fiscal year when the law is 
     enacted mid-year.
       Ensuring such accountability is a cornerstone of the 
     Balanced Budget Amendment, and restores the public's 
     general--and diffuse--interest in fiscal responsibility to an 
     equal competitive footing with the special interests who 
     demand programmatic spending and tax preferences. Today, 
     federal officials can reap the rewards of satisfying the 
     incremental demands of special interest without ever having 
     an individual decision identified as a decision that results 
     in a deficit. This informational imbalance is corrected by 
     the mandate in Section 1 that deficit spending can not occur 
     without a specific identification of the amount.


   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 such an increase by a rollcall 
                                  vote

       No section of this Article should be read in isolation, 
     especially Section 1. Section 2 provides the essential 
     mechanism which not only enforces an honest budgeting process 
     in pursuit of the general rule and principle stated in 
     Section 1, but also will operate to make the amendment self-
     enforcing. Section 2 is the backstop to prevent the use of 
     gimmicks or other devices to circumvent the requirements of 
     the amendment.
       This Section is inspired by the often-quoted desire 
     expressed by Thomas Jefferson, in his November 26, 1798 
     letter to John Taylor:
       ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to 
     our constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone 
     for the reduction of the administration of our government to 
     the genuine principles of its constitution; I mean an 
     additional article, taking from the government the power of 
     borrowing.''
       The authors here have drawn from recent experiences of the 
     government and modern economic theory to reach a compromise 
     with then-Vice President and later President Jefferson: 
     Section 2 takes from the government the power of borrowing, 
     unless three-fifths of the total membership of both Houses 
     votes to approach a specific increase in the amount that may 
     be borrowed.
       Section 2 provides strong enforcement, indeed, for the 
     provisions of Section 1. When the government runs a deficit, 
     that necessitates additional borrowing to meet its 
     obligations. Failure to authorize that level of borrowing 
     could, in a worst-case scenario, result in a default by the 
     government of the United States. Treasury securities might 
     not be redeemed. Government services could be threatened with 
     a shutdown, subject to the availability of receipts.
       Today, such a consequence is occasionally threatened when 
     an impasse within Congress or between Congress and the 
     President jeopardizes passage of essentially ministerial 
     legislation raising the statutory limit on the public debt by 
     a simple majority. Under this amendment, the threat of 
     default would loom when the government runs a deficit, thus 
     providing a powerful incentive for balancing the budget.
       The simple threat of default does not fully explain the way 
     Section 2 will operate to enforce the fiscal norm of 
     balancing outlays and receipts. Because of debt-increase bill 
     represents an admission of failure or enormous magnitude, 
     passage is always a difficult matter. Any effort to 
     circumvent the requirement of the amendment will be clearly 
     exposed when the debt limit must be raised to cover any 
     deficit spending.
       Under the current law, Members of Congress not infrequently 
     have rounded up 50% plus one of the Members of one House to 
     threaten to push the government to the brink of insolvency 
     unless a pet amendment is added to this must-pass 
     legislation, despite consistent efforts by the Administration 
     and the Congressional leadership of both parties in both 
     Houses to pass a ``clean'' debt bill. This ``debt bill 
     blackmail'', in fact, was the tactic used to enact the 
     original Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law of 1985.
       By lowering the ``blackmail threshold'' associated with 
     passage of the regular debt limit bill from 50% plus one in 
     either body to 40% plus one, Section 2 increases the 
     motivation of the Administration and the Leadership, 
     including the Chairs of the relevant committees, to do 
     whatever is necessary, legislatively and cooperatively, even 
     to the point of balancing the budget, to avoid facing such a 
     difficult debt vote.
       It is in no way the intent of the authors and supporters of 
     this amendment that a default or shutdown should happen. 
     However, the threat of such consequences is analogous to the 
     deterrence effect of fines or legal damages in other 
     situations.
       Because borrowing, and increases in any limits on 
     cumulative borrowing, must be enacted in law, Section 2 makes 
     the amendment effectively self-enforcing. Such legislation 
     usually involves large enough number of dollars to be 
     borrowed that extensions of authority to borrow generally are 
     used up in a year or so. The current statutory limit on the 
     public debt, enacted as a part of the Budget Enforcement Act 
     late in 1990 and allowing borrowing into 1993, is very much 
     an exception in this regard; this lengthy term of borrowing, 
     not quite three years, was made possible only by the status 
     of the Act as an extraordinary, five-year plan. Virtually no 
     elected official can stand the political heat of supporting a 
     huge, multi-year increase in the government's level of 
     indebtedness. This simple political dynamic will ensure that 
     the self-enforcement provided by Section 2 occurs frequently 
     enough to be effective.
       Finally, when three-fifths of both Houses have ``gutted 
     up'' and, under Section 1, voted explicitly for a specific 
     excess of outlays, there is no intent in this amendment to 
     ``punish'' them by later forcing a second three-fifths vote 
     on the debt limit. Both decisions can be approved by the 
     same, single, three-fifths vote in the same legislation.

                           Detailed Analysis

       ``... debt of the United States held by the public ...'' is 
     a widely used and understood measurement tool. The 
     Congressional Budget Office's January 1993 Economic and 
     Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1994-1998 book, in its Glossary, 
     defines ``Debt held by the public'' simply as: ``Debt issued 
     by the federal government and held by nonfederal investors 
     (including the Federal Reserve System).'' On page 58 of the 
     same volume, CBO further explains, ``Debt held by the public 
     which represents the government's demand for credit, is the 
     most useful measure of federal debt.'' The current, widely 
     used and accepted meaning of ``debt held by the public'' is 
     intended to be the controlling definition under this Article.
       The ``debt held by the public'' differs from the gross 
     federal debt in that the latter, according to CBO, ``includes 
     the securities (about $1 trillion and climbing) issued to 
     government trust funds.'' The gross debt is the ``close 
     cousin'' (per CBO) of the ``public debt''.
       The Congressional Research Service's Manual on the Federal 
     Budget Process, December 24, 1991, in its glossary, defines 
     ``Public debt'' as: ``Amounts borrowed by the Treasury 
     Department or the Federal Financing Bank from the public or 
     from another fund or account. The public debt does not 
     include agency debt (amounts borrowed by other agencies of 
     the Federal Government). The total public debt is subject to 
     a statutory limit.''
       A requirement of a three-fifths vote on the ``public debt'' 
     has been used in some previous formulations of the Balanced 
     Budget Amendment. The use, here, of ``debt held by the public 
     '' is a refinement based on a 1990 recommendation by the 
     Administration and subsequent review by the authors of the 
     implications of using the different measures of debt. ``Debt 
     held by the public'' has been chosen for two reasons:
       First, as pointed out by CBO, common sense suggests that 
     the most appropriate benchmark to use is the federal 
     government's borrowing from all non-federal-government 
     sources.
       Second, the purpose of this section is to motivate an 
     avoidance of deficits. When the Social Security or other 
     federal trust funds run surpluses, this does not cause total 
     outlays to exceed total receipts and the government does not 
     increase its borrowing from non-government sources. 
     Therefore, Congress and the President should not be forced to 
     surmount the three-fifths vote hurdle on debt bills if they 
     have not run a deficit and increased net federal borrowing. 
     Section 2 matches the benchmark used in the enforcement 
     process to the policy objectives desired.
       ``The limit on the debt . . . held by the public . . .'' 
     obviously assumes the establishment of a new statutory limit 
     on this measure of federal borrowing. This limit may be 
     established in addition to, or as a replacement for, the 
     current statutory limit on the public debt. Article I, 
     Section 8 of the Constitution simply says, ``The Congress 
     shall have Power . . . To borrow Money on the Credit of the 
     United States. . . .'' The exact process of carrying out this 
     power is left up to the Congress to provide for by law.
       When establishing a new statutory limit on the debt held by 
     the public (which will require a three-fifths vote to 
     increase), Congress may or may not wish to continue to set by 
     statute a limit on the public debt. The fact that a simple 
     majority could continue to be required to pass such a public 
     debt limit would not, in any way, create procedural or legal 
     conflicts. At times when a trust fund surplus necessitates an 
     increase in the public debt, such action would become more 
     ministerial and less difficult than currently is the case. 
     Increases in both limits certainly could be contained in the 
     same bill that is passed by a three-fifths 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

       In Section 3, the amendment extends to the President's 
     annual budget the same norm of fiscal balance expected of the 
     Congress. The current statutory requirement that the 
     President submit a budget is codified in the Constitution to 
     ensure that the President remains engaged with Congress in 
     the budget process. Of course, this requirement of submission 
     of a single document in no way alters the current 
     constitutional balance of powers or separation of 
     responsibilities. It also is perfectly consistent with the 
     current constitutional provisions that the President ``shall 
     . . . recommend to [Congress'] Consideration such Measures as 
     he shall judge necessary and expedient'' (Article II, Section 
     3).

                           Detailed Analysis

       ``Prior to each fiscal year . . .'' was retained in Section 
     3 because of the long-understood legislative principle that 
     deadlines certain can be set, and in fact are commonly 
     expected to be set, for specific actions by the Executive. 
     Currently, the deadline for submission of the President's 
     budget is set by statute and occurs well in advance of the 
     fiscal year for which it is written. Such statutory 
     provisions are, and will remain, consistent with Section 3.
       ``. . . a proposed budget . . .'' means a document similar, 
     in broad terms, to that which is regularly submitted under 
     current law. The amendment in no way restricts the discretion 
     of Congress to enact changes in what is or is not required in 
     such a budget, as long as the document remains useful for the 
     purposes of planning federal spending activities.
       ``. . . in which total outlays do not exceed total 
     receipts.'' Per se, a ``budget'' is a document in which all 
     relevant future numbers are planned, recommended, projected, 
     estimated, or assumed. This is true, as a matter of 
     definition, of all documents called ``budgets,'' public or 
     private. Therefore, no qualifiers are added to this language 
     in Section 3, such as ``estimated receipts'' or ``recommended 
     outlays''. To include such terms would be redundant at best, 
     and inadvertently confusing or limiting at worst.


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

       The purpose of this section is to increase the 
     accountability of Members of Congress when they consider 
     legislation to increase revenue, in light of the amendment's 
     requirement to balance receipts and outlays. The increased 
     pressure the amendment will create for fiscal discipline may 
     increase temptation to shield a certain amount of legislative 
     decision-making from public view. Tax bills have been known 
     to pass, occasionally, by voice vote.
       The enhanced ``tax accountability'' (or, more precisely, 
     accountability with regard to passage of bills to increase 
     federal revenue) provided by the unvarying requirement for a 
     rollcall vote, is supplemented by the requirement that such 
     bill also shall not become law unless passed by a majority of 
     the whole number of each House.
       The rollcall vote and voting requirements will serve to 
     maintain a level playing field between the public's more 
     general and diffuse interest in restraining the government's 
     appetite for revenues and the more focused pressure that 
     special interest groups can apply for individual spending 
     programs.

                           Detailed Analysis

       ``No bill . . . shall become law unless . . .'' is drafted 
     in the negative to conform to the style used in Article I of 
     the Constitution, in phrases such as, ``No Capitation, or 
     other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the 
     Census . . .'' and ``No Money shall be drawn from the 
     Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . 
     . .''
       ``. . . revenue . . .'' has the same meaning here as in 
     Article I, Section 7, which states, ``All Bills for raising 
     Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but 
     the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other 
     Bills.''
       ``. . . bill to increase revenue . . .'' means legislation 
     making policy changes in the government's exercise of its 
     sovereign power to tax or otherwise compel payments to the 
     government. ``Revenues'' and ``receipts'' are largely 
     synonymous, but not always so, especially when being used 
     prospectively. Both are expressed in terms of quantities of 
     dollars flowing in to the Treasury. However, ``revenue'' is 
     more closely connected to the tax rates, tax base, Customs 
     rates, or other policy criteria formulated to produce inflows 
     of receipts. A ``receipt'' is a more purely and more 
     comprehensive quantitative concept. For example, a bill to 
     step up Internal Revenue Service enforcement of current tax 
     laws and enhance collection of taxes currently going 
     uncollected definitely would result in increased receipts, 
     but would not be ``a bill to increase revenue,'' and 
     therefore, not subject to the requirement of a majority of 
     the whole House for passage. (``Receipts'' are further 
     defined under Section 7.)
       ``. . . majority of the whole number of each House . . .'' 
     means, under current law, never less than 218 votes among the 
     435 Members of the House of Representatives and never less 
     than 51 votes in the Senate, which numbers 100 Members. The 
     ``whole number of each House'' is defined under Section 1, 
     above.
       This language is to intended to preclude the Vice 
     President, in his or her constitutional capacity as President 
     of the Senate, from casting a tie-breaking vote that would 
     produce a 51-50 result. This is consistent with article I, 
     Section 3, Clause 4, which states: ``The Vice President of 
     the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall 
     have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.'' Nothing in 
     Section 4 of the substitute takes away the Vice President's 
     right to vote under such circumstances. The language requires 
     (in today's Senate of 100) 51 votes to pass a revenue-
     increasing bill, not the votes of 51 Senators. Obviously, in 
     a 51-50 vote, 51 still constitutes a majority of the whole 
     number of 100. Also obviously, while the Vice President could 
     turn a 49-49 tie into a 50-49 result, this would not 
     constitute a majority of the whole number.


 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

       This section reaffirms the traditional priority 
     presumptively attached to matters of national self-defense. 
     In such cases, especially when the Congress and the President 
     have taken an action as extraordinary as declaring war, 
     financing that effort should proceed unimpeded by any 
     requirement of additional, extraordinary votes.

                           Detailed Analysis

       The first sentence of Section 5, or a virtually identical 
     counterpart, has been a fixture in almost every major version 
     of the Balanced Budget Amendment over the years. Consistent 
     with Article I, Section 7, Clause 3, such a simple majority 
     vote to waive this Article would have to be presented to the 
     President for his or her approval.
       The second sentence recognizes that, for most of the 
     military conflicts in which the United States has engaged, 
     there was not a formal declaration of war. Nevertheless, a 
     sufficient self-defense interest is present in such 
     situations that a Section 1 super majority should not be 
     required to fund such an engagement. Further definition of 
     the criteria set forth for the ``majority of the whole 
     number'' waiver in Section 5 is not needed, since the Section 
     requires simply that the joint resolution required for the 
     waiver declare such conditions to be present.


  section 6. the congress shall enforce and implement this article by 
  appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and 
                                receipts

       This section places a requirement on Congress to adopt of 
     legislation necessary, appropriate, and reasonable to enforce 
     and implement the Balanced Budget Amendment. There is no 
     need--and arguably it would be a bad idea--explicitly to 
     foreclose the possibility of judicial interpretation or 
     enforcement. However, this language further tilts 
     presumptions of such responsibilities toward extremely 
     limited court involvement. This language also is intended to 
     prevent the possibility of an interpretation that could shift 
     the current balance of power among the branches in favor of 
     the Executive.

                           Detailed Analysis

       ``The Congress shall enforce and implement . . . '' differs 
     from clauses included in several other amendments that state, 
     ``The Congress shall have power to enforce . . . '' This 
     latter clause has been employed only where there was concern 
     that the question could arise as to whether Congress had the 
     power to pre-empt state laws or constitutions or was 
     venturing impermissible beyond its constitutionally 
     enumerated powers and into the rights reserved to the states 
     or the people.
       Here, no such question of pre-emption is conceivable. 
     Congress clearly has the power to enforce and implement this 
     Article, under the ``necessary and proper'' clause in Article 
     I, Section 8, which states: ``The Congress shall have Power . 
     . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
     carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other 
     Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the 
     United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.''
       This section creates a positive obligation on the part of 
     Congress to enact appropriate implementation and enforcement 
     legislation. As a practical matter, this language simply 
     requires what is inevitable and predictable. It is a simple 
     statement that, however well-designed, a constitutional 
     amendment dealing with subject matter as complicated as the 
     federal budget process needs to be supplemented with 
     legislation. It is a means of owning up to the truth in the 
     arguments made by many Members of Congress--both supporters 
     and opponents--that Members must expect to do more than cast 
     this one vote to pass this one amendment, to ensure that 
     deficits are brought down and, ultimately, eliminated.
       The inclusion of a positive obligation to legislate does 
     not make the Article more difficult to enforce, nor is it 
     without precedence in the Constitution. Article I, Section 2, 
     Clause 3 provides: ``Representative and direct Taxes shall be 
     apportioned among the several States . . . according to their 
     respective Numbers, which shall be determined by . . . [an] 
     actual Enumeration . . . made within three Years . . . and 
     within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as 
     they shall by Law direct . . . '' The critic who today asks, 
     ``What if Congress just doesn't enact implementing and 
     enforcing legislation?'' would be the counterpart of the 
     critic who might have asked in 1787, ``What if Congress 
     just doesn't authorize or appropriate for a Census, if, in 
     their own self-interest, they don't want the current 
     apportionment to be changed?'' In this case, it manifestly 
     would be in Congress' own best interest to enact 
     legislation ensuring a complete and clearly-defined budget 
     process consistent with the Balanced Budget Amendment.
       ``. . . Which may rely on estimates of outlays and 
     receipts.'' This phrase allows Congress the flexibility in 
     explicit language that it will need in practical effect, to 
     make reasonable decisions and use reasonable estimates, when 
     appropriate, as a means of achieving the normative result 
     required in Section 1. To some extent, this phrase, too, 
     states the obvious, that the process of budgeting and taxing 
     and spending inevitably involves relying on estimates. 
     ``Estimates'' means good faith, responsible, and reasonable 
     estimates made with honest intent to implement Section 1 and 
     not evade it.
       The estimates contemplated in Section 6 do not apply in any 
     way to a determination of the amount of debt referenced in 
     Section 2. ``Debt'' there means actual, not estimated, debt.
       Section 1 provides the standard by against which compliance 
     with the amendment is measured. Section 6 clarifies that 
     implementation and enforcement legislation may provide for 
     the use of reasonable and appropriate estimates in the 
     process of complying with Section 1. Section 6 is intended to 
     support, strengthen, and aid the effectiveness of the other 
     provisions of the amendment. This provision also will provide 
     additional insurance against intrusion by the courts into the 
     finer details of questions of compliance with the amendment.
       Section 6 must not be interpreted in any way that would 
     weaken or allow evasion of any other provision of this 
     amendment. Over the course of the fiscal year, outlays may 
     not exceed receipts. To the extent that any reasonable and 
     lawful action can be taken to prevent an excess, it must be 
     taken. On the other hand, for example, a brief dip in 
     receipts or jump in outlays need not trigger a sequester, 
     rescission, or other offsetting action if there it is 
     reasonable to assume that such a ``glitch'' will be offset 
     naturally in the near-term by normal economic or budgetary 
     fluctuations.
       In order to allow for an unexpected shortfall of receipts 
     or an unexpected increase in outlays without triggering a 
     three-fifths debt vote under Section 2, it would be necessary 
     that the actual debt held by the public be held below the 
     debt limit, by a sufficient amount to offset the mount by 
     which actual receipts or outlays may differ from estimated 
     receipts or outlays.
       It also should be noted that outlays are both more 
     predictable and more controllable than receipts. Therefore, 
     the handling of outlays necessarily must be held to a 
     stricter standard than the treatment of receipts. To be more 
     specific, of course, is difficult until the actual design of 
     implementation and enforcement legislation emerges. In all 
     cases, the standard to be applied to the accuracy and 
     adjustment of estimates is to be a rule of reason.

   History of the ``estimates of outlays and receipts'' language in 
                               Section 6

       Section 1 of H.J. Res. 290, as originally introduced in the 
     102nd Congress, and as it came to the floor of the House of 
     Representatives in June 1992, read:
       ``Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress and the President 
     shall agree on an estimate of total receipts for that fiscal 
     year by enactment of a law devoted solely to that subject. 
     Total outlays for that year shall not exceed the level of 
     estimated receipts set forth in such law, unless three-fifths 
     of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide, 
     by a rollcall vote, for a specific excess of outlays over 
     estimated receipts.''
       Section 1 of S.J. Res. 298, as introduced in the 102nd 
     Congress, was substantively the same, and read:
       ``Prior to each fiscal year, an estimate of total receipts 
     for that fiscal year shall be determined by enactment of a 
     law devoted solely to that subject. Total outlays for that 
     year shall not exceed the level of estimated receipts set 
     forth in such law, unless three-fifths of the whole number of 
     each House of Congress shall provide, by a rollcall vote, for 
     a specific excess of outlays over estimated receipts.''
       Just prior to House consideration in 1992, key House and 
     Senate sponsors of H.J. Res. 290, S.J. Res. 18 (reported by 
     the Committee on the Judiciary), and S.J. Res. 298 negotiated 
     a bicameral, bipartisan, consensus version of the Balanced 
     Budget Amendment. That version was adopted on the House floor 
     as a substitute for H.J. Res. 290, although the measure 
     narrowly fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority on 
     final passage.
       H.J. Res. 103 / S.J. Res. 41 in the 103rd Congress is 
     virtually identical to the bicameral, bipartisan, consensus 
     version negotiated in the summer of 1992. Section 1 of H.J. 
     Res. 103 / S.J. Res. 41 is virtually identical to Section 1 
     of S.J. Res. 18 as reported in the 102nd Congress. Section 6 
     was a new section added in the bicameral, bipartisan, 
     consensus version offered as a substitute on the House floor 
     in 1992.
       The ``estimates'' provision was included in Section 6 to 
     allow the use of a single level of total estimated receipts 
     for a fiscal year, enacted into law at the beginning of the 
     budget process, as the fixed target amount which outlays 
     throughout the fiscal year may not exceed. In other words, 
     Section 6 is intended to allow Congress to enact into law the 
     process of measuring actual outlays against a fixed receipts 
     estimate in the same way that was outlined in Section 1 of 
     H.J. Res. 290 / S.J. Res. 298 as introduced in the 102nd 
     Congress. Nothing in that version would have prevented 
     Congress from imposing a more stringent process of measuring 
     actual outlays against updated receipts estimates throughout 
     the fiscal year. Section 6 of H.J. Res. 103 / S.J. Res. 41 in 
     the 103rd Congress is no more and no less restrictive in this 
     regard.


  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

       This section makes clear that, for purposes of computing a 
     deficit, balance, or surplus under this amendment, there is 
     no such thing as ``off-budget'' receipts or outlays. By 
     requiring all cash inflows and outflows to be counted, the 
     most commonly anticipated loopholes are prevented from ever 
     being created. Simple refinancing of outstanding debt at the 
     same net cost of borrowing would not be affected in the 
     normal course of business and, of course, borrowing is not 
     considered a receipt, but rather is recognized as only the 
     means of financing deficit spending.
       As currently used and reported, both ``receipts'' and 
     ``outlays'' are well-understood, inclusive concepts used with 
     consistency in the budgetary process.

                           Detailed Analysis

       ``. . . receipts . . .'' is to be interpreted consistently 
     with the use of ``Receipts'' in Article I, Section 9, Clause 
     7, which provides, in part, that ``a regular Statement and 
     Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money 
     shall be published from time to time.''
       The definition of ``budget receipts'' in A Glossary of 
     Terms Used in the Budget Process (1981), as quoted in S. 
     Rept. 99-162 and S. Rept. 99-163 (committee reports on S.J. 
     Res. 13 and 225, respectively) still applies:
       Collections from the public (based on the Government's 
     exercise of its sovereign powers) and from payments by 
     participants in certain voluntary Federal social insurance 
     programs. These collections, also called governmental 
     receipts, consist primarily of tax receipts but may also come 
     from court fines, certain licenses, and deposits of earnings 
     by the Federal Reserve System. Gifts and contributions (as 
     distinguished from payments for services or cost-sharing 
     deposits by State and local governments) are also counted as 
     budget receipts. Budget receipts are compared with total 
     outlays in calculating the budget surplus or deficit. 
     Excluding from budget receipts are offsetting receipts which 
     are counted as deductions from budget authority and outlays 
     rather than as budget receipts.
       ``. . . outlays . . .'' means all disbursements from the 
     U.S. Treasury, directly or indirectly through federal or 
     quasi-federal agencies created or under the authority of Acts 
     of Congress. The Glossary (as cited above) defines 
     ``outlays'' as follows:
       Obligations are generally liquidated when checks are issued 
     or cash disbursed. Such payments are called outlays. In lieu 
     of issuing checks, obligations may also be liquidated (and 
     outlays occur) by the maturing of interest coupons in the 
     case of some bonds, or by the issuance of bonds or notes (or 
     increases in the redemption value of bonds outstanding). 
     Outlays during a fiscal year may be for payment of 
     obligations incurred in prior years (prior year outlays) or 
     in the same year. Outlays, therefore, flow in part from 
     unexpended balances of prior-year budget authority provided 
     for the year in which the money is spent. Total budget 
     outlays are stated net of offsetting collections, and exclude 
     outlays of off-budget Federal entities. The terms expenditure 
     and net disbursement are frequently used interchangeably with 
     the term outlays.
       The glossary defines ``budget authority'' as:
       Authority provided by law to enter into obligations which 
     will result in immediate or future outlays involving Federal 
     Government funds, except that budget authority does not 
     include authority to insure or guarantee the repayment of 
     indebtedness incurred by another person or government. The 
     basic forms of budget authority are appropriations, authority 
     to borrow, and contract authority. The latter two types of 
     authority are also commonly referred to as ``backdoor 
     authority.''
       ``Expenditures,'' in fact, also appears in Article I, 
     Section 9, Clause 7, as quoted above, and is used there in 
     symmetry with ``Receipts.'' ``Outlays'' is used in this 
     Section because of that word's overwhelmingly prevalent use 
     in recent and current budget terminology.


 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

       By passing this amendment and sending it to the states for 
     ratification, the Congress intends to bind itself, in mutual 
     cooperation with the President, to adopt an orderly deficit 
     reduction plan that will bring the budget into compliance 
     with this amendment no later than fiscal year 1999.
       Adopting an effective date of no earlier than 1999 provides 
     time for a reasonable glide path to a balanced budget while 
     setting a deadline imminent enough to stimulate action.

     Jefferson's Constitutional Dilemma With the Louisiana Purchase


                                summary

       It is widely believed that Thomas Jefferson ignored his own 
     principles of a strict interpretation of the Constitution 
     when the United States was given the opportunity to purchase 
     the Louisiana Territory in 1803. On the contrary however, the 
     purchase raised no question of unconstitutionality in his 
     mind. It was the admission into the Union of new states which 
     might be created from the territory that caused him great 
     concern. Creating additional debt for the country also seems 
     to be contrary to traditional Jeffersonian principles, but 
     Jefferson was hopeful the Congress could finance the purchase 
     without raising taxes.
       Western farmers were affected terribly when the port of New 
     Orleans was closed to American use in 1802. Dependent on the 
     free navigation of the Mississippi River for shipping their 
     crops to eastern ports and on to Europe, the farmers faced 
     imminent bankruptcy because, with the mouth of the river 
     closed, the entire river was, in effect, closed as well.
       Concerned that the agrarian economy of the United States 
     would collapse, Jefferson authorized American envoys to 
     purchase the City of New Orleans from France. Napoleon 
     surprised the envoys by offering all of the Louisiana 
     Territory to them.
       The Treaty of 30 April 1803 set the terms for the purchase 
     of the territory. A payment of $11,250,000 to France at six 
     percent interest, not redeemable for fifteen years was the 
     price. An additional $3,750,000 would be used to assume the 
     claims of American citizens against France. While there is no 
     record of Jefferson giving a written justification of 
     incurring such a debt, it might be assumed that because he 
     was eventually willing to set aside his concerns about the 
     constitutionality issue (because of what one historian called 
     the national emergency of acquiring Louisiana), he was also 
     willing to lead the country into debt because of the long-
     term advantages he foresaw.
       This paper attempts to give a brief summary of the events 
     leading to the ratification of the treaty by which the United 
     States purchased the Louisiana Territory with special 
     attention given to Jefferson's constitutional concerns.

     Jefferson's Constitutional Dilemma With the Louisiana Purchase

       Among Thomas Jefferson's primary interests when he assumed 
     the presidency in 1801 was the development of the land. The 
     Industrial Revolution had not yet significantly affected the 
     United States; besides, his agrarian background led him to 
     believe that yeoman farmers held the key to American 
     prosperity. In his ideal picture of America, small farmers 
     would provide the foundation for the young nation's fragile 
     economy by selling their crops to European nations. With the 
     opening of the Northwest Territory to settlement after the 
     American Revolution, the United State could be assured a 
     perpetual supply of grains for consumption and export.
       The fragile American economy was threatened, however, when 
     Spanish officials closed the port of New Orleans to American 
     vessels in 1802. Trans-Appalachian farmers, long dependent on 
     free navigation of the Mississippi River to ship their crops 
     to eastern ports and on to Europe, were faced with 
     bankruptcy. At the same time, a series of events began to 
     unfold in Europe which gave Jefferson the opportunity to 
     protect the American economy and substantially increase the 
     size of the United States.
       Through a secret treaty with Spain in 1800, France had 
     secured title to the Louisiana Territory of North America. 
     French Emperor Napoleon, already successful in dominating a 
     large portion of Europe, planned to use this as an 
     opportunity to fulfill his dream of establishing a French 
     stronghold in the Western Hemisphere. Deteriorating relations 
     between France and other European nations in 1801-1802, 
     however, led Napoleon to seek a means of raising funds to 
     purchase war supplies and he was forced to forego his dream 
     of an empire in the Americas.
       Faced with the slow extinction of western agriculture and, 
     in turn, the American economy, President Jefferson sent 
     envoys to France to negotiate the purchase of New Orleans. 
     Restoration of navigation rights on the Mississippi would 
     assure the farmers continued access to European markets. In 
     January of 1803 legislation was introduced in the House of 
     Representatives to appropriate $2 million to speed the 
     negotiations between the United States and France, or rather, 
     ``to defray the expenses which may be incurred in relation to 
     the intercourse between the United States and foreign 
     nations; to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, and to be applied under the direction 
     of the President of the United States; who, if necessary , is 
     hereby authorized to borrow the same, or any part thereof, an 
     account whereof, as soon as may be, shall be laid before 
     Congress.'' (Annals of Congress, 7/2) The bill was passed and 
     referred to the Senate, which passed the bill by a 41-12 
     margin.
       The American negotiators in Paris, given the chance to buy 
     all of the Louisiana Territory in addition to the city of New 
     Orleans, first announced the purchase of the territory in a 
     letter to Secretary of State Madison dated 13 May. It was not 
     until 14 July, however, that the treaty and its accompanying 
     document arrived in Washington. Two days later, the president 
     met with his Cabinet to consider the proper course of action.
       Under the terms of the treaty, the United States 
     would purchase the Louisiana Territory for $11,250,000 
     with an additional $3,750,000 going to satisfy private 
     American claims against the French government. As payment, 
     the United States would create a stock of the former 
     amount bearing interest at the rate of six percent a year. 
     Interest payments were to be made each year with the 
     principal being payable no sooner than fifteen years from 
     the date the treaty was ratified. The treaty also 
     stipulated that should France wish to dispose of the stock 
     before maturity, the transaction would be conducted in the 
     manner most favorable to the credit of the United States. 
     Finally, the document provided that, in the event that 
     treaty was not ratified by 30 October 1803, the land would 
     revert to the French.
       Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin complained that the 
     treaty would allow the French to dispose of the stock for 
     cash (which they did almost immediately). At the same time, 
     the United States could not begin to curtail the debt for 
     fifteen years. The president, however, wrote an acquaintance 
     that the United States had gained in four months of 
     deliberations what would have required seven years of war and 
     cost 100,000 lives and $100,000,000 of debt. (There is no 
     record of the source of these estimates.)
       Convinced that he had no constitutional power to annex the 
     territory into the United States, Jefferson, writing to a 
     friend on 17 July, explained that Congress ``will be 
     obligated to ask from the people an amendment to the 
     Constitution authorizing their receiving the province into 
     the Union providing for its government, the limitations of 
     power which shall be given by that amendment, will be 
     unalterable but by the same authority.''
       Writing to John Dickenson on 9 August: ``The acquisition of 
     New Orleans would of itself have been a great thing, as it 
     would have ensured to our western brethren the means of 
     exporting their produce: but that of Louisiana is 
     inappreciable, because, giving us the sole dominion of the 
     Mississippi, it excludes those bickerings with foreign 
     powers, which we know of a certainty would have put us at war 
     with France immediately: and it secures to us the course of a 
     peaceable nation.
       ``The general government has no powers but such as the 
     Constitution has given it; and it has not given it a power of 
     holding foreign territory and still less of incorporating it 
     into the Union. An amendment to the Constitution seems 
     necessary for this. In the meantime we must ratify and pay 
     our money, as we have treated, for a thing beyond the 
     constitution. and rely on the nation to sanction an act done 
     for its great good, without its previous authority.''
       In a letter to Senator John Breckinridge three days later, 
     Jefferson wrote: ``This treaty must of course be lad before 
     both Houses, because both have important functions to 
     exercise respecting it. They, I presume will see their duty 
     to their country in ratifying and paying for it, so as to 
     secure a good which would otherwise never again be in their 
     power. But I suppose they must then appeal to the nation for 
     an additional article to the Constitution, approving and 
     confirming an act which the nation had not previously 
     authorized. The Constitution has made no provision for our 
     holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating 
     foreign nations into our Union. The executive in seizing 
     the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of 
     their country, has done an act beyond the Constitution. 
     The Legislative in casting behind them metaphysical 
     subtleties, and risking themselves like faithful servants, 
     must ratify and pay for it, and throw themselves on their 
     country for doing for them unauthorized, what we know they 
     would have done for themselves if they had been in a 
     situation to do it. It is the case of a guardian, 
     investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important 
     adjacent territory; and saying to him when of age, I did 
     this for your good; I pretend to no right to bind you: you 
     may disavow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can: 
     I thought it my duty to risk myself for you. But we shall 
     not be disavowed by the nation, and their act of indemnity 
     (an amendment to the Constitution) will confirm and not 
     weaken the Constitution, by more strongly marking out its 
     lines.''
       Because Congress had adjourned for the summer and was not 
     due to go back into session until November, Jefferson issued 
     the call for a special session beginning on 17 October. The 
     purpose of the session was to gain Senate approval for the 
     treaties and House authorization for payment of the purchase 
     before the 30 October deadline. He spent the rest of the 
     summer and fall preparing for the coming session and trying 
     to gather all the information he could about the territory. 
     (He also drafted two versions of an amendment which Congress 
     might consider upon its return.)
       In late August, word arrived from France that Napoleon was 
     having second thoughts about selling the territory to the 
     United States and would not accept the American ratification 
     if the Senate made any changes in the treaty. Jefferson 
     quickly surmised that raising the issue of the 
     constitutionality of the purchase would give Federalist 
     opponents in Congress an opportunity to delay the 
     ratification process into winter. As a result, he wrote to 
     Madison on 20 August: ``I infer that the less we say about 
     constitutional difficulties respecting Louisiana the better, 
     and that what is necessary for surmounting them be done sub 
     silentio.''
       According to historian Dumas (Doo-mah) Malone, Jefferson's 
     most scholarly biographer, the president seemed to consider 
     the affair of Louisiana at this point a national emergency 
     that justified stretching the Constitution beyond its 
     original shape. To Secretary Gallatin, Jefferson wrote: ``It 
     will be well to say as little as possible on the 
     constitutional difficulty, and the Congress should act on it 
     without talking.''
       Jefferson's third annual message to the Congress on 17 
     October made only passing reference to the constitutional 
     question. (It is also one of his few public statements about 
     intentionally increasing the debt.)
       ``It is already ascertained that the amount paid into the 
     treasury for that year (FY 1803) has been between eleven and 
     twelve millions of dollars, and that the revenue accrued 
     during that same term exceeds the sum counted on as 
     sufficient for our current expenses, and to extinguish the 
     public debt within the period heretofore proposed.
       ``The amount of debt paid for the same year is about three 
     millions one hundred thousand dollars, exclusive of interest, 
     and making, with the payment of the preceding year, a 
     discharge of more than eight millions and a half dollars of 
     the principal of that debt, besides the accruing interest, 
     and there remain in the treasury nearly six millions of 
     dollars. Of these eight hundred and eighty thousand have been 
     reserved for payment of the first installment [sic] due under 
     the British convention of January 8th, 1802, and two millions 
     are what have been before mentioned as placed under the power 
     and accountability of the president, toward the price of New 
     Orleans and other territories acquired, which, remaining 
     untouched, are still applicable to that object, and go in 
     diminution of the sum to be funded for it.
       ``Should acquisition of Louisiana be constitutionally, 
     confirmed and carried into effect, a sum of nearly thirteen 
     millions of dollars will then be added to our public debt, 
     most of which is payable after fifteen years; before which 
     term the present existing debts will all be discharged by the 
     established operation of the sinking fund. When we 
     contemplate the ordinary annual augmentation of imposts from 
     increasing population and wealth, the augmentation of the 
     same by revenue by its extension to the new acquisition, and 
     the economies which may still be introduced into our public 
     expenditures, I cannot but hope that Congress in reviewing 
     their resources will find means to meet the intermediate 
     interests of this additional debt without recurring to new 
     taxes, and applying to this object only the ordinary 
     progression of our revenue. Its extraordinary increase in 
     times of foreign war will be the proper and sufficient fund 
     for any measures of safety or precaution which that state of 
     things may render necessary in our neutral position.''
       The Senate ratified the treaty on 20 October by a vote of 
     24-7. A subsequent Senate vote to establish a government for 
     the new territory passed by a 26-6 margin less than a week 
     later. New England Federalists provided the opposition on 
     both votes.
       On 25 October three resolutions relating to the government 
     of the territory and payment to the French government were 
     introduced in the House. A resolution to enforce the 
     provisions of the treaty passed 90-25. The bill establishing 
     a government for the territory met with stiff initial 
     opposition because it would have given all military, civil 
     and judicial powers to the President. Even loyal Jeffersonian 
     Republicans refused to support the resolution until an 
     equitable distribution of power between the President and 
     Congress was added. This measure passed 89-23. The resolution 
     regarding payment for the territory was approved by voice 
     vote the same day it was introduced.
       Not content to let the constitutionality question die, 
     Senator John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts introduced a 
     measure on 25 November which would have established a special 
     Senate committee ``to inquire whether any, and if any, what 
     further measures may be necessary for carrying into effect 
     the treaty between the United States and the French Republic 
     . . . whereby Louisiana was ceded to the United States.'' The 
     Senate did not consider the measure until 9 December. Only 
     two of his Federalist colleagues joined him in supporting the 
     motion. It subsequently died and the issue of the 
     constitutionality of the Louisiana Territory ended. The debt 
     incurred by the purchase was finally paid off in 1823, twenty 
     years after the agreement was ratified.
       Jefferson believed it was his responsibility to find a 
     realistic and lasting alternative to the slow demise of the 
     American economy which was assured by the closing of the 
     Mississippi. Despite questions of the constitutionality of 
     the decision, he encouraged Congress to take the 
     unprecedented action of purchasing the territory. The 
     American public endorsed the decision with an outpouring of 
     letters thanking the President for making the western 
     farmlands available at a low price.
       This chain of events established a precedent for the 
     principle of implied powers in the Constitution and the 
     elasticity to meet changing situations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentlemen 
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  (Mr. ZIMMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stenholm-Smith balanced budget 
amendment.
  Our constituents are angry at Congress because Congress seems unable 
to do what every family has to do, what every business has to do, 
indeed what every State government has to do, and that is to live 
within our means.
  The public interest in balancing the budget is overcome by the 
multiplicity of well-focused, well-funded private interests which have 
their own specific agendas.
  Professor James Buchanan of George Mason University recognized this 
phenomenon. He won a Nobel Prize in economics for explaining why 
individual members of Congress find it in their individual political 
interests to be fiscally irresponsible even when they recognize it is 
not in the public interest. However, you don't have to be a Nobel 
laureate to understand the problem.
  Opponents of the balanced budget amendment say it is no substitute 
for the honest choices that need to be made to pare back government 
spending and close tax loopholes. But, just last week, the House proved 
once again that it lacks the political courage to make tough choices by 
rejecting an alternative budget proposal that would have balanced the 
budget within 5 years without raising taxes. The alternative budget 
proposed by Representative Gerald Solomon included some harsh measures 
that I disagreed with. However, I supported the measure because I 
believe Congress has got to put the taxpayers' money where our mouths 
are.
  The reality is that cutting spending is easier said than done. 
Imagine what you would do if you got a credit card offer in the mail 
that allowed you to buy whatever you wanted, and pay off as little as 
you wanted whenever you wanted. You would head for the mall and go on a 
spending spree. That's exactly what Congress has done.
  Thomas Jefferson understood this aspect of human nature. He 
distrusted politicians and criticized the Constitution for lacking a 
prohibition against the Government incurring debt. Jefferson said: ``In 
question of power * * * let no more be heard of confidence in man, but 
bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.''
  Congress and the executive branch have shown themselves incapable of 
balancing the Federal budget on their own. That is why they need an 
external discipline imposed by the Constitution.
  Have you ever seen the bumper sticker that says, ``We're spending our 
children's inheritance?'' Well, that is exactly what our generation is 
doing. Because of our profligacy, we are consigning our children--and 
their children--to a lower standard of living than they would otherwise 
have had, perhaps a lower standard of living than our own. We are 
consigning them to live in a nation that is less competitive, less 
productive and whose Government is shackled by the obligation to pay 
interest on a debt our generation incurred to pay for our current 
consumption.
  For these reasons I believe that a balanced budget amendment is more 
than an economic proposition. It is more than a political proposition. 
It is a moral proposition. This amendment is consistent with the 
tradition and the spirit of our Constitution, going back to the Bill of 
Rights, that we restrain our leaders to protect the common good for 
ourselves and our posterity.
  Congress should heed Thomas Jefferson's advice: Bind them down from 
mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stenholm 
amendment and a balanced budget for America.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 
103, the Stenholm/Smith substitute.
  I am particularly pleased that the Stenholm/Smith substitute enjoys 
broad bipartisan support. This legislation was carefully crafted to 
meet constitutional challenges and has addressed the questions raised 
about the ramifications of a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is the 
result of several years of consensus building.
  Even though this Congress passed the largest tax increase in history 
last year, the deficit is still predicted to be $176 billion in fiscal 
year 1995. It is disturbing to say that this is a step in the right 
direction, that we're headed down the path to a balanced budget. My 
constituents in western Wisconsin--Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents alike--want a balanced budget. Many critics of an 
amendment to the Constitution cite massive cuts in Social Security as a 
reason to defeat this measure. To the contrary, the benefits of a sound 
economy not saddled with debt would ensure that spending on vital 
programs would be thoroughly debated, as it should, by the Congress.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 1995, 
net interest will cost the American taxpayers $212 billion, which 
represents 3 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Defense spending totals 
$274 billion, which represents 3.9 percent of GDP. But when you look at 
spending trends over the next 5 years, in fiscal year 1999, net 
interest will cost taxpayers $261 billion, which is 3 percent of GDP. 
The distressing trend we are witnessing here is that interest on the 
debt, although it remains a constant share of GDP, rivals defense 
spending. Defense spending continues to fall as a share of GDP, while 
debt interest spirals upward. Opponents of a balanced budget amendment 
fear that social services and education will greatly suffer under a 
constitutionally mandated balanced budget. Social services would take a 
harder hit because in the absence of a balanced budget because these 
numbers also point out that domestic discretionary spending--where most 
education, training, and social services programs are allocated--will 
fall from 3.7 percent of GDP in fiscal year 1995 to 3.4 percent in 
fiscal year 1999. I agree that education is a solid investment in the 
future, but less and less can be spent on national priorities if 
interest on the debt alone skyrockets.
  With so many emerging issues of that will challenge future 
generations, it is regrettable that the issue overshadowing all others 
will be the deficit--the national concern that the previous leaders 
would not confront. Today's youth will bear a national debt much 
greater than ever imagined. They, too, will rely on Social Security one 
day. so when we talk about too great a sacrifice to bear, if much-
touted change does not occur now, sacrifice will be the reality of the 
21st century. This is not responsible governing.
  A constitutional amendment is the only measure strong enough to force 
Congress to exercise the discipline necessary to balance the budget. 
Congress has failed to balance the budget by statute for nearly two 
decades. It's clear from the decades-long precedent that without such a 
mandate, Congress will continue to live beyond its means. Several State 
constitutions require balanced budgets. It is about time our national 
government learns to do what State governments have had to do for some 
time.
  No one should be under the assumption that a balanced budget 
amendment is a panacea for bringing our federal finances under control. 
However, an honest look at our past behavior and the future burdens we 
are imposing on all taxpayers and future generations of Americans 
warrants passage. Today, we have the opportunity to shed partisanship 
and govern effectively as Democrats and Republicans.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Stenholm/Smith 
substitute.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the balanced 
budget amendment alternatives offered by Representatives Stenholm, 
Barton, and Kyl. It is an amazing statistic that interest payments on 
our national debt were five times higher in 1993 than outlays for all 
education, job training and employment programs combined. Clearly, 
until our monstrous $4.3 trillion Federal deficit is eliminated, 
interest payments will continue to eat away at the important 
initiatives which the government must fund. I will not stand by and 
watch Congress recklessly squander the future of our children and 
grandchildren.
  As of the end of last session, the bills that I have cosponsored this 
Congress would cut spending by $50.3 billion, if enacted. According to 
the National Taxpayer's Union, only eight other Representatives have 
cosponsored more savings than I have. But we still have not done 
enough.
  Mr. Chairman, when I served in the Illinois legislature, the fact 
that we had a Balanced Budget Amendment to our State constitution 
enabled us to practice strong fiscal discipline. We must have the same 
safeguard at the Federal level. The American people have wanted a 
Balanced Budget Amendment for a long time, because they know it's the 
only way to force Congress to make tough spending choices.
  Last week, the House approved the President's budget proposal for 
fiscal year 1995. I opposed that budget because if failed to address 
the urgent needs of Americans today--for health care reform, welfare 
reform, and tough anticrime legislation. Yet, this budget still found 
ways to increase wasteful spending by the Federal Government, and it 
did nothing to bring our deficit under control.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of Congress' exhibited inability to control 
spending and vote for real fiscal responsibility, it is imperative that 
we have a balanced budget amendment to compel Congress to end its siege 
on our financial future. I urge my colleagues to support the Stenholm, 
Barton, and Kyl alternatives.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Amending the U.S. 
Constitution is a serious matter, and one that I take seriously. It is 
unfortunate that Congress must consider a constitutional amendment to 
balance the Federal budget. What is more unfortunate is the fact that 
Congress cannot control it's propensity to spend more than the Nation 
takes in. This habitual spending has created a $4.3 trillion national 
debt; debt that we will pass down to our children and our children's 
children. Last week, this body continued in this tradition by approving 
the fiscal year 1995 Budget Resolution which assumes deficit spending 
of $171 billion--that's another $171 billion bill that we will foist on 
the back's of the future generations of Americans.
  Many organizations and interest groups have come out in opposition to 
the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment, claiming that important 
federal programs will be harmed and that future economic growth will be 
hampered. These groups have even resorted to scare tactics directed 
toward the elderly, claiming the Social Security Trust Fund will be 
robbed; this couldn't be further from the truth. These claims are not 
only ridiculous, but are unfounded.
  If Congress was forced to be fiscally responsible by a constitutional 
requirement to balance the budget, funds would be freed-up that 
currently go toward servicing the debt. The President's budget request, 
as adopted by the House, will require $230 billion to pay interest on 
the national debt. If the President and Congress formulated a balanced 
budget, that $230 billion could be spent on important programs like 
education and training, national security, and veterans concerns. We 
could even use these funds for a tax refund to hard-working Americans.
  The legislation before us is a prudent measure, phased in over a 
number of years, to provide the fiscal discipline so desperately needed 
by the United States. Last night, the Kyl substitute was unfortunately 
defeated. This amendment would have provided specific guidelines that 
would tie Federal spending with the rate of growth as determined by the 
Gross National Product. Earlier today, I was pleased that the House 
approved the Barton/Tauzin amendment that ties spending to taxes. The 
Stenholm/Smith amendment controls spending by limiting the level of 
borrowing and the debt limit. All three of these amendments allow for a 
supermajority, three-fifths of the Congress, to override the balanced 
budget requirement if warranted by a depressed economy, a threat to 
national security or other national emergency. Each of these amendments 
provides sound fiscal discipline to the economic pressures created by 
deficit spending, and should be strongly supported by the House.
  If Congress and the President lack the courage to make the tough 
decisions needed to control deficit spending, we ought to at least have 
the decency to pay our own bills, rather than asking our children to 
pay our bills. A constitutional amendment to balance the budget is the 
only way we can prevent a financial legacy of disaster for our children 
and grandchildren.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, a balanced budget is the best way to 
insure the future economic prosperity of the United States; it is a 
long-term solution to a long-term problem. Congress is full of pork-
barrelers and recreants who cannot restrain their proclivity to spend. 
A balanced budget limits the powers of Government and brings stability 
to the budget-making process.
  Deficits are not a short-term trend. The Federal Government has run a 
deficit for 56 of the last 64 years, and the last 24 years in a row. 
Congress has tried to change its free-spending ways, but countless 
``budget deals'' have not done a thing. In the 1920s, Federal spending 
as a percentage of GNP was 3 percent; in 1940 it was 10 percent; and in 
1992 it was 22.4 percent. Eliminating the deficit is one of the most 
urgent priorities facing the country. We can't begin to tackle our near 
$5 trillion national debt until the Federal budget runs a surplus. And 
unless we begin to repay our debt soon, this country will be headed for 
a deep and prolonged economic crisis.
  When it comes to balancing the budget, the deficit is a convenient 
target for election-year attacks. But when it comes to getting 
reelected, deficit spending is the key. Why? First, intense pressure 
for spending tends to override a generalized preference for fiscal 
restraint and balanced budgets. In the short run, deficit spending is 
the most painless political option and the path of least resistance. In 
other words, ``wasteful spending'' has a curious appeal to deficit-
hostile constituents when it's in their own district. Second, intense 
pressure for spending tends to override the general, diffused targets 
of most tax increases. Tax increases are purposely spread out enough 
that they don't spark a Boston tea party. For Congress, it's easy to 
tax and easier to spend, making it almost impossible to balance the 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, a long-term, structural response is needed to reverse a 
long-term, structural problem. The solution is a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. I don't take this step lightly, but it's 
one that Thomas Jefferson endorsed. An amendment reestablishes a level 
playing field, forcing Congress to place higher priority on balancing 
the budget rather than spending and taxing. It restores the 
Constitution's goal of limited government.
  Some critics of this legislation contend that it will unfairly impact 
Social Security. Nothing could be further from the truth. These critics 
say that Social Security is not part of the deficit problem. I agree 
completely. Social Security is soundly financed and runs a surplus 
every year. However, a constitutional amendment to require a balanced 
budget does not change Social Security in any way.
  Current laws on the books that protect Social Security would not be 
changed by the amendment. For example, Social Security is exempt from 
across-the-board budget cuts. The trust fund is already excluded from 
deficit calculations. The amendment does not change those laws in any 
way.
  Taking Social Security, and other worthy programs, off-budget under 
the amendment would open up a loophole to evade the intent of the 
proposal. It would set a precedent for other government programs to 
simply be taken off the books. The deficit could be eliminated simply 
by shifting enough Government programs into off-budget accounts. This 
would only make matters worse. I'm sure you wouldn't do this with your 
own check book. That's why I don't want to make an exception for the 
Government.
  Mr. Chairman, since I took office, I have had the courage to vote 
over 159 times to cut $137 billion in wasteful spending. Unfortunately, 
most of Congress did not agree. If we do not respond to our long-term 
problem with a long-term solution, large federal deficits and low 
private savings will lead to increasingly costly and precarious 
dependence on foreign capital, and less investment to modernize and 
expand the economy. All this will result in smaller gains in 
productivity and a lower standard of living for our children and 
grandchildren. Congress must vote for the balanced budget amendment to 
save future generations from this unconscionable economic burden.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stenholm balanced 
budget amendment. Many members have predicted doomsday scenarios if the 
Federal budget were actually balanced. These are mere scare tactics. We 
have also heard about the problems this Nation faces should we fail to 
get our fiscal house in order. These observations are correct. Because 
members have fully debated the economics of the issue, I will not 
address those.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this floor on behalf of the American family, and 
I can't help but wonder what lies in store for families if we don't 
balance the budget. I am deeply concerned that the American dream is 
beginning to wither. Many feel that they are not better off than their 
parents, and many of my constituents have great concern that their 
children will not be better off than they are.
  In the world that I grew up in and every Member of this House was 
raised in, the American dream was available to them. My parents were 
better off than my grandparents, and I was able to build on that 
success and growth. Most American families evolve like that. But 
because we continue to mortgage the future of the country, because we 
continue to drive up the Federal debt, we don't provide for future 
generations. Because we continue to borrow 50 cents of every dollar 
that Americans save, that money does not go to build new homes for 
families, new jobs to employ moms and dads, new farms that feed 
families, or generate new economic growth that provides for a 
prosperous America. The Federal debt merely diverts money from the 
important problems that face America's families which is unfortunately 
helping to destroy the building blocks of this society.
  If we want to reinvigorate the American dream, we shouldn't borrow 
billions of dollars more which will increase the deficit; we shouldn't 
increase spending, and we definitely shouldn't raise taxes. This is the 
formula for destroying families. To reinvigorate the American dream, we 
must stop the growth of Government programs and put Government on a 
budget like everybody else.
  The comment has been made that the balanced budget amendment should 
be defeated because the Congress already has the power to balance the 
Federal budget. That's true; however, it misses an important point. 
Absent mandating balanced budgets, Congress won't ever do it, and 
families will continue to suffer because Congress lacks the political 
will to do the right thing.
  The families and citizens of the 10th Congressional District of 
Virginia want less Government and want Congress to balance the budget; 
however, they don't have the means to hire high-priced lobbyists to get 
that message across. My constituents are busy with their jobs, ensuring 
their children get a good education, and focusing on their day-to-day 
lives. Those who want bigger and more Government are the same people 
who hire high-priced lobbyists to roam the Halls of Congress daily to 
make sure their program, subsidy, or special exemption is not 
eliminated. In fact, they fight for a larger slice of an ever-shrinking 
Federal budget pie.
  I hear the families of my district and that is why I will support the 
balanced budget amendment. The families in my congressional district 
make difficult choices every day in budgeting their funds. Unlike 
Congress, they don't promise things to their children that they can't 
deliver. Likewise, it is fiscally irresponsible for the Congress to 
continuously tell the American people that they can have Government 
programs without paying for them. We need to have the fortitude and 
determination to give Americans a choice--do you want the programs or 
do you want to pay more taxes? Given this choice, my constituents 
reject increased taxes and overwhelmingly choose to eliminate the 
Government programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope this body has the strength, courage, and 
determination to pass this balanced budget amendment. The American 
people want it because it will force the Congress to do what is right, 
and it will, most importantly, preserve the American dream for all 
families.
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of the Balanced 
Budget Amendment. I have and will support the sound fiscal reform 
proposals offered by Mr. Kyl, Barton, and Stenholm. The Balanced Budget 
Amendment is an absolute necessity to protect our children's future. 
Everyone talks about getting our house in order, but we continue to 
spend and accumulate debt. Congress does not have the self-control to 
reduce spending. For this fiscal year, fourteen percent of our budget, 
$206.4 billion, will be used to pay interest on the debt. The debt is a 
growing drain on our budget that will reduce our discretionary 
spending. In addition to this drain, we have an American public 
demanding effective Government with no new taxes. Therefore if we want 
to increase spending for effective programs, such as Cancer research, 
Head Start, Pell grants, and Chapter 1 programs and important senior 
citizen programs, we must have a balanced budget amendment.
  I find it difficult to believe that members from the other side of 
the aisle are pointing to the 5-year budget plan we adopted last August 
as evidence as to why a balanced budget amendment is unnecessary. This 
plan increases spending $850 billion and will add $2 trillion to our 
national debt over the next 5 years. This is an example of tough 
choices. Such a plan would send the shareholders of a private company 
into an uproar. And the shareholders of this country, the American 
citizens, will not stand for such irresponsibility. Congress has a low 
rating, because we say one thing and do another. Well, if we are going 
to talk the talk, we need to walk the walk. It is time to put up, or 
shut up.
  In addition, I am angered by the scare tactics being used to oppose 
the Balanced Budget Amendment. We all know the political reality is 
that we will not reduce Social Security or Medicare benefits. We have a 
contract with our seniors, and we will honor that agreement. We will 
not raid the Social Security trust fund, and we will protect their 
Social Security and Medicare benefits. Just last week the House 
considered a budget plan that would eliminate our deficit by the year 
2000 without touching Social Security. Don't tell us it can't be done, 
when Mr. Solomon offered a plan just last week to do so. The Solomon 
substitute received only 73 votes. This is clear evidence that the 
Congress will not make the tough choices without a balanced budget 
amendment. I voted for that substitute and will continue my efforts to 
eliminate wasteful spending and reduce our debt while protecting the 
rights of our senior citizens.
  This Congress needs a balanced budget amendment to make Congress do 
what it should be able to do on its own. But recent history has shown 
without such an amendment, we will continue to see practices like 
adding money for post offices in New York and FBI buildings in West 
Virginia on to a bill to provide aid to earthquake victims in southern 
California.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the American taxpayers are demanding fiscal 
responsibility, and the Balanced Budget Amendment is the only means to 
bring responsibility to the Congress. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Balanced Budget Amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stenholm-Smith 
balanced budget amendment, House Joint Resolution 103.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the fifth time in 12 years that either the 
House or Senate has considered the balanced budget amendment, and the 
arguments for and against remain virtually the same. The only thing 
that has changed is the national debt.
  In 1982, the debt was just over $1 trillion. The next time the 
balanced budget amendment came to a vote, in 1986, the debt was over $2 
trillion. The next time, in 1990, it was over $3 trillion, and in 1992, 
it was over $4 trillion. The national debt is now fast approaching $5 
trillion, and is expected to near $6 trillion by the end of President 
Clinton's term.
  Mr. Chairman, we can't afford to wait for Congress to muster the will 
to balance the budget. The Nation can't afford more taxes, while 
Federal spending just continues to go up and up. We can't afford to 
wait another year for the next debate on a balanced budget amendment.
  We need to establish the framework and impose the discipline 
necessary to force Congress to do the job, and that is what this 
amendment will do.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Stenholm-Smith balanced budget 
amendment.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I support the Balanced Budget Amendment 
introduced by Representative Stenholm. It is not something I do without 
reservation, but I have come to the sad conclusion that it is the only 
real hope we have for eliminating deficit spending.
  The Constitution is sacred ground. But our Founding Fathers clearly 
understood that someday the framework they built might require 
additions or changes. That's why they created the amendment procedure. 
Today, the time has come to act. If we fail to address our fiscal 
problems today, they will burden our children and our grandchildren for 
years to come.
  A constitutional amendment is a last resort. But with a debt 
surpassing $4 trillion and no end to deficit spending in sight, we no 
longer have a choice. Congress has lacked the will to eliminate deficit 
spending. Frankly, now that I've been here a year, I can see the 
problem. Yes, most citizens say they want cuts and less spending, but 
not in their community or on their pet projects. Confronted with 
legitimate but competing demands for Federal dollars, Members have had 
great difficulty cutting or spending less in their districts so we've 
borrowed more and more money. By doing so, we are unfairly piling our 
debt on the shoulders of future generations.
  Good arguments can and have been made against a balanced budget 
amendment. But, the reality is frightening--our gross debt has 
increased by 869 percent over the past 2 decades.
  I've been besieged by calls and letters from constituents worried 
about the impact a balanced budget amendment will have on Social 
Security. I too am concerned about Social Security. And that's another 
reason why I support a balanced budget amendment. Our debt of $4.6 
trillion is a far greater threat to Social Security than a balanced 
budget amendment. The only way we can genuinely protect Social Security 
and every other Federal program we care about is to wipe out our 
mounting debt.
  A balanced budget amendment is not a magic bullet. But if you 
believe, as I do, that deficit spending is the most critical threat to 
our economic security and to our ability to invest in our children's 
future, then we must take this difficult step and impose the kind of 
fiscal restraint our country cries out for.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the comments of 
Mr. Stenholm and speak in support of his resolution to balance the 
budget.
  I want to comment on an issue, which I believe has become a red 
herring. Some are saying that if the Stenholm amendment were to be 
enacted, our older citizens would suffer as Social Security benefits 
surely would be cut. They say under present law, Social Security funds 
are protected from being used for purposes other than providing Social 
Security benefits. Furthersome, that protection would disappear if the 
Stenholm version were ever enacted.
  Wrong. In fact, if Congress were willing to waive the procedural 
rules, they could, right now, reduce Social Security benefits. 
Political considerations, as well as a desire by Congress to protect 
those benefits, prevent that from happening. Will that change if the 
balanced budget amendment is passed? Not very likely. Those same 
procedural--as well as political--firewalls will still be there.
  So, let's debate the pros and cons of a balanced budget amendment--
but let's not confuse our citizens with scare tactics.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Joint 
Resolution 103 as proposed by my colleagues, Congressman Stenholm and 
Smith. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the balanced budget amendment 
which carries the names and support of so many of our fine colleagues 
here in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple explanation for why we are where 
we are today. For far too long, under the leadership of Democrats and 
Republicans alike, we have had an Administration which told the 
American people they never had to pay for anything and a legislature 
which said you never have to do without anything. And the American 
people bought into both ends of this promise and demanded both; avoid 
the taxes and tough choices on the revenue side but recoil at any 
suggestion that a program be cut or eliminated.
  So here we are with a debt over $4 trillion dollars and annual 
deficits of some $200 billion depending on the estimates. That is 
fiscal irresponsibility which must not continue.
  At this point, let me say that I have great respect for my colleagues 
who do not support a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. 
And I applaud those who have brought forth alternatives for capital 
budgeting or to exempt social security for balanced budget 
calculations. I hear their statements that it is not an amendment which 
will solve this problem but the practical and political courage to make 
the tough choices. But without the constitutional mandate to make those 
choices, I fear we will simply continue to put off and delay those 
decisions into future years. Further delay is not in the best interest 
of this country.
  Regrettably, I do not expect this amendment will pass, and we will 
all live to fight on another day the battle of a constitutional 
amendment. But that doesn't mean we can afford to delay the very tough 
choices which confront us now and will tomorrow regardless of whether 
we have a balanced budget amendment. For those who support the 
amendment and those who rise in opposition both know we must identify 
the spending priorities of the people we are elected to serve and then 
find a responsible way to pay for them as we go.
  That includes deciding how much we want to invest in infrastructure 
construction and deciding how much of our general revenue or special 
fees will go to support that effort. We'll just have to determine how 
much university research we can fund and how much R&D we will have to 
leave to the private sector.
  And it will demand a heaping dose of that political courage I talked 
about earlier to decide how much of an entitlement system we can 
afford. Entitlements are the fastest-growing, most expensive and 
hardest to control elements of our federal budget. We have, and should 
continue to take a hard look at the discretionary side of the budget. 
But so long as entitlements grow unabated, the percentage of our budget 
devoted to them and to interest on the debt will also continue to grow. 
Is it right that someone with a comfortable lifestyle and a sound 
financial status be entitled to the same level of benefits as someone 
who struggles each month just to make ends meet?
  This needs-based assessment or means-testing of programs extends not 
just through the entitlement area but across the scope of our entire 
budget. Wealthy seniors on Medicare, families with incomes sufficient 
to afford college and farmers who don't need deficiency payments must 
all see the necessity in this approach. Cities and municipalities with 
the tax base to pay for a greater share or even all of their public 
improvements must be required to do so.
  All of us must decide where the priorities are and how we will pay 
for them. I support a balanced budget amendment because I think it will 
force the decisions which to this point we have been unwilling to make. 
But if such an amendment fails it does not relieve us of that burden; 
in fact, exactly the opposite is true. The amendment would give us the 
unavoidable instruction to make the tough choices, while failure of the 
amendment only magnifies the gravity of the problem and our 
responsibility to deal with it forthrightly.
  I am proud to serve in this institution and appreciate the diversity 
of viewpoints which contribute to this debate. That is what makes our 
system great, and is exactly what empowers us to make the tough choices 
in the best interest of the generations which will live with the 
consequences of our decisions.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of the Stenholm Bill, I rise 
today in strong support of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 
Constitution. The national debt is almost $5 trillion and federal 
spending consumes more than 22% of the Gross National Product (GNP). In 
addition, the total interest payment on the national debt amounts to 
approximately $315 billion in this fiscal year-the largest single item 
in the budget. Clearly, it is time to take action to restrict out of 
control government spending.
  The federal budget deficit is harming our nation's economy. The 
deficit is stifling economic growth and hurts the potential of new 
creation. We need to take action to eliminate the deficit.
  Today, the House will vote on four different constitutional 
amendments. Of the four measures, the Stenholm/Smith Substitute goes 
the furthest to control deficit spending. This legislation would amend 
the Constitution to require that total spending not exceed total 
receipts in a given fiscal year. The Stenholm Substitute further 
requires that the President submit, and the Congress approve, a 
balanced budget unless three-fifths of both the House and Senate vote 
otherwise.
  Western New York and all Americans live within their means, the 
federal government too, should abide by that rule. The only way to 
relieve the pressures of debt from our children tomorrow, is to make 
tough choices today.
  A constitutional requirement for a balanced budget would help end 
business as usual in Washington. Although they vary widely in form, 
forty-nine of the 50 states have significant balanced budget 
requirements. Why should the federal government be exempt?
  A balanced budget is necessary for the future economic prosperity of 
the United States and the balanced budget amendment is the best avenue 
to reach that goal. The federal government has run a deficit for 56 of 
the last 64 years, and the last 24 years in a row. With a balanced 
budget amendment, Congress would be forced to place higher priority on 
balancing the budget than spending and taxing.
  I support the Stenholm/Smith Balanced Budget Amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do so as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Wise-Price-Pomerory 
amendment and in opposition to the other balanced budget amendment 
proposals.
  I rise in support of the Wise amendment because it incorporates 
sensible budgetary reforms, such as a separate capital account. The 
Wise amendment also exempts the self-financing Social Security Trust 
Fund from the cuts necessary to achieve a balanced budget and ensures 
that only Congress and the executive branch can implement the spending 
cuts and tax increases necessary to balance the budget. Indeed, these 
reforms should be adopted without regard to the underlying proposition 
of a balanced budget amendment.
  I do not, however, embrace the concept of a balanced budget amendment 
as a panacea for chronic deficits. Deficit reduction comes from the 
hard and unpopular work of cutting expenses and raising revenues; work 
which we undertook in the 1993 budget reconciliation bill and the 
appropriations process.
  Ironically, many of the same people who could not find the courage or 
the wisdom to support the first significant deficit reduction in more 
than a decade in 1993, many of the same people who voted for the 
budgets of the 1980's which produced these deficits, now advocate for a 
constitutional amendment as the only way to compel practical action.
  Numerous legal and economic experts have testified that a balanced 
budget amendment would throw decisions about spending into the court 
system and greatly hamper the Nation's ability to respond to economic 
and military emergencies. Federal judges are not elected nor are they 
directly accountable to the American public. Federal judges are 
selected for their legal knowledge, not their ability to establish 
legislative priorities. They make interpretations, they do not make 
decisions.
  Specifically, the Kyl, Barton, and Stenholm balanced budget amendment 
proposals would mandate a balanced budget in a very short time frame 
after the amendment was approved by two-thirds of the States. The 
effects of the cuts and/or taxes necessary to achieve a balanced budget 
in such a short time frame would be devastating to our economy and 
cause incredible hardship for some of society's most vulnerable people.
  Achieving a balanced budget by the year 2000 would require a five 
year, $600 billion deficit reduction package, according to the Clinton 
administration. For example, it is estimated that balancing the budget 
would require a $1,090 cut in the average Rhode Islander's Social 
Security benefits on top of other cuts and taxes. If taxes alone were 
used to balance the budget, it would mean taxes would be raised 14% 
across the board, or income taxes could be increased more than 30%. 
Eliminating all Food Stamps, welfare (AFDC), veterans pensions, student 
loans, and all other income-based programs would raise only 50 percent 
of the amount needed to balance the budget by the year 2001. Moreover, 
the Clinton administration estimates that a mix of 45% tax increases 
and 55% spending cuts would cost the average Rhode Island taxpayer $701 
per year or $3,505 over five years in addition to current taxes.
  Notwithstanding the level of the rhetoric on the floor today, we know 
that even if one of these amendments passes by two-thirds the amendment 
will not be enacted into law this year. The idea of a balanced budget 
amendment failed in the other body and the other body will not consider 
it again. This very fact will probably lead many of my colleagues to 
consider all of these amendments as ``free votes''. They will vote for 
all of them and tell their colleagues how fiscally tough they are. That 
is their prerogative. However, no Member should think that passing a 
balanced budget amendment will close the gap between spending and 
revenues. The ratification process could take years, and ultimately it 
will be legislative action, and not a constitutional provision that 
will balance the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people are frustrated. They expect action 
on the deficit and the economic growth. In that regard, I would believe 
it more practical and more urgent for the House to be debating a job 
creation bill today. But if we must vote on a balanced budget 
amendment, I will cast my vote for Mr. Wise's proposal.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, reducing the Federal deficit is 
unquestionably one of the most important issues facing Congress today. 
House Joint Resolution 103 proposes to amend the U.S. Constitution to 
require a balanced Federal budget unless a three-fifths majority 
supports a specified deficit. For the second time in 2 years, I am 
supporting this amendment.
  The constituents of my district have made their support for a 
balanced budget amendment very clear. Since my first term in Congress, 
I have made deficit reduction one of my top priorities. In 1986, I 
supported the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. In 1990 and again in 1993, I 
supported the omnibus budget reconciliation bills passed by Congress. 
After the 1993 budget reconciliation bill included a record $496 
billion in deficit reduction, I supported an additional $37 billion in 
cuts in November.
  Clearly, the record shows that these very difficult choices from the 
past year are paying off. At the beginning of last year, President Bush 
forecast the fiscal year 1993 deficit to be $327 billion. The actual 
deficit was $255 billion, $73 billion lower than the Bush forecast. 
Also, at the beginning of 1993, President Bush forecast the fiscal year 
1995 budget to be $272 billion. The Congressional Budget Office has now 
forecast the deficit for fiscal year 1995 to be 40 percent lower or 
$171 billion.
  The result of this deficit reduction has definitely helped economy. 
In 1993, the economy grew at a rate of 2.8 percent compared to an 
average annual rate of 1.5 percent in the previous 4 years. 
Unemployment fell last year, the number of private sector jobs grew, 
average weekly earnings grew by the largest amount since 1983, and the 
inflation rate in 1993 was the lowest rate in almost 10 years. Without 
a doubt, the economic policies of the Clinton administration are 
working.
  With this stellar record, it is obvious that Congress has been doing 
an outstanding job of bringing the deficit down while keeping the 
economy strong. I trust that through the debate on a balanced budget 
amendment, my colleagues will be frank in discussing the spending cuts 
and tax increases that would likely be necessary to completely balance 
the budget by the turn of the century. It will certainly not be 
painless.
  Furthermore, I trust that my colleagues will frankly discuss the 
change brought about by this amendment to the political process in this 
country. One of the founding tenets of democracy is majority rule. This 
amendment would only allow the debt ceiling to be increased or deficit 
spending to occur if three-fifths of Congress agrees. As a result, a 
minority of the Members of Congress can block what the majority would 
like to do. The public should understand this part of the amendment 
completely.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents have told me unequivocally that they 
would like this amendment to pass. Therefore, in my efforts to best 
represent them, I am supportive of the amendment and will cast my vote 
in favor of it. Let us hope that for this generation and future 
generations that this amendment helps bring about a balanced Federal 
budget. That is a goal that we clearly all agree on.
  Mr. ORTON, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 
103, the balanced budge 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.
  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.
  I am committed to balancing the budget. I am committed to voting to 
amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget and I will vote in 
favor of House Joint Resolution 103. However, acknowledging the 
inadvisability of creating an additional constitutional supermajority I 
would urge my colleagues to consider the approach taken in House Joint 
Resolution 133 and use the supermajority already in the Constitution, 
the override of a Presidential veto, as the backup control mechanism.
  Finally, I also agree with my colleagues and the President when they 
point out that it is possible to balance the budget without amending 
the Constitution. However, the budget process as constituted under the 
Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 neither forces that result nor is it 
conducive to achieving balance. Therefore, I believe that it is 
necessary for comprehensive reform of the budget process to provide the 
mechanisms and incentives necessary to make the difficult decisions 
involved in actually reaching that goal of a balanced budget. To this 
end, I have filed H.R. 1138, the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform 
Act. I will not repeat today the provisions of this act or the 
arguments in favor of adoption. I would refer those who are interested 
in a statutory solution to balancing the budget to the comments 
included in the Congressional Record at H870, February 24, 1993.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yea'' on House Joint Resolution 103, 
and set us upon the course of fiscal responsibility toward a balanced 
budget.
  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. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. One more 
time, Congress is debating the merits of the Balanced Budget 
Constitutional Amendment. Nothing is new. We have heard all the 
arguments both for and against before--many times before.
  I feel like I am in the movie Groundhog Day, where Bill Murray keeps 
waking up in the morning and finds he is reliving the same day, 
Groundhog Day, over and over. Fortunately, for Bill Murray, after 
realizing what is happening to him, and several poor attempts to live 
the day over again, he gets it right. He turns his life around, becomes 
a good guy and wins the girl.
  My hope is that that day is today for the House. After reliving the 
spectacle of ever increasing deficit spending, lets show the American 
public that we have learned our lesson. Let's get it right.
  The evidence is clear. The public has spoken, over 67 percent support 
the passage of a balanced budget amendment. Our current national debt 
exceeds $4.3 trillion, $17,495 for every man woman and child in the 
United States; our last budget surplus was in 1969; in 1993 gross 
interest payments to finance the deficit totalled $293 billion, the 
third largest part of our Federal budget and an amount greater than our 
total budget in 1974, and an amount five times greater than outlays for 
all education, job training and employment programs combined.
  Now, Congress has tried in the past to control the growth in deficit 
spending. In 1985, we passed Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, then in 1987 we 
passed Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II. For all practical purposes, the 1990 
October budget agreement neutered the Act when the targets were made 
adjustable rather than fixed.
  In between, Congress pulled every trick in the book including pushing 
back and up the budget targets, to some tricky green eyeshade 
accounting tricks. None of it worked. We still have unacceptable 
deficits.
  To those who say all we need is more backbone to make the necessary 
cuts to balance the budget--I say where are you. In 1993 I voted to cut 
spending by over $100 billion, but was joined by only a few of my 
colleagues. We need more than words to balance the budget, we need 
deeds.
  Mr. Speaker, let's not keep living the days of deficit spending over 
and over again. Let life imitate art and let's get it right like Bill 
Murray in Groundhog Day, who eventually learned the error of his ways. 
Let's pass the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to all of the proposed 
constitutional amendments dealing with a balanced budget.
  It is important that we do not frame this debate in terms of whether 
or not a balanced budget is a worthy goal--of course it is. To reduce 
this debate to that level is ridiculous and does nothing but distort 
the issue.
  I believe we can all agree on the fact that balancing the budget as 
expeditiously as possible must be our top priority, and would represent 
the best economic growth package that the Congress could pass. Yet we 
are currently faced with a budget that is, quite frankly, out of sync. 
Irrespective of the reasons for the fiscal problems we now face--and 
there are many--the fundamental question today is how do we move ahead 
and create a brighter tomorrow for us and our grandchildren. How do we 
balance the budget?
  In this regard, I believe it is neither necessary nor wise to amend 
the Constitution of the United States to balance the Federal budget. 
Congress already has the authority to address this problem by making 
the tough choices to bring revenues in line with expenditures, just as 
we began to do last year with the passage of the 5-year deficit 
reduction plan. A balanced budget amendment may sound good, but it will 
not give us any additional authority to achieve this goal.
  It will, however, have severe ramifications on the balance of powers 
between the branches of Government. The Constitution provides 
fundamental rights and carefully divides responsibilities among the 
branches of Government, a delicate balance that has served our Nation 
well for more than two centuries.
  A balanced budget amendment would represent a major realignment of 
power and a set-back for representative government. Essentially, such 
an amendment would give a minority in the Congress the power to 
frustrate the will of the majority and often lead to a stalemate in the 
legislative process.
  What is of particular concern to me about the proposal for a balanced 
budget amendment is that it is wholly devoid of any enforcement 
mechanism. Therefore, in the event that a supermajority on a budget is 
not reached it logically follows that litigation in the courts would 
abound.
  I do not think we really want unelected judges with life tenure 
making the decisions that we were elected to make on basic spending and 
tax issues.
  That is a fundamental responsibility of the Congress. The proposed 
constitutional amendment would decimate the basic fabric of our organic 
law and undermine our authority as Members of Congress to make the 
basic decisions on spending and tax questions.
  We can not turn to a constitutional amendment each and every time we 
are faced with a difficult political, social or economic question. 
Amending the constitution should be the last resort, not the first.
  Moreover, merely stating that the budget is to be balanced with a 
constitutional amendment will not achieve this goal any more than a 
constitutional amendment to eliminate crime will do so, or make our 
streets any safer.
  The fact is, these real dilemmas require us to be honest with 
ourselves and our constituencies in order to make the difficult 
decisions so we may achieve our collective goals. We can no longer 
afford to seek refuge behind such simplistic political gimmicks as a 
balanced budget amendment which may sound good, but do nothing but 
postpone the hard choices to actually cut spending and balance the 
budget.
  I have been a long time supporter of a particular statutory change 
which would overhaul the Federal budget process, beginning with a 
requirement that the President submit a balanced budget to the 
Congress--something which has not been done for several decades.
  Those reforms would also require the Congress to pay-as-you-go so 
that we do not spend more than we receive, except in times of war or 
national emergency. At the same time we must separate in the budget 
process those expenditures that are for capital expenditures and 
improvement and those that are purely operating costs.
  I believe that this approach would eliminate deficit spending because 
the reform would set spending targets and provide a real enforcement 
mechanism to ensure they are adhered to by making spending beyond the 
targets subject to a point of order.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we do not need a constitutional amendment 
to solve the fiscal problems we face. Rather the key to our success 
will be in setting priorities, making choices, and taking the tough 
steps necessary to live within our means. None of the proposed 
amendments will help us achieve any of these goals.
  The constitutional amendment proposals are bad policy, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against them.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, the Federal debt burden on 
our children continues to grow. Despite all of the White House rhetoric 
about deficit reduction, we are still going to have a $223 billion 
deficit in fiscal year 1994, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office. The Federal debt is approaching $5 trillion. Federal spending 
now equals 22 percent of all the goods and services produced by 
Americans each year. Yet, for 2 years in a row President Clinton and 
the majority in Congress have supported a budget that increases 
spending. So much for change.
  During this Congress, I have voted in favor of two alternative 
budgets that would bring the budget much closer to being balanced than 
the Clinton budgets. These alternative budgets failed to pass, not 
surprisingly. After all, children cannot vote, and neither can babies 
that have not been born yet. They do not contact their Representative 
to speak out against paying for current programs with their future 
income. It is ironic that special-interest groups that claim to 
represent children oppose an amendment to balance our budget. A 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget is the only way that 
these future taxpayers will have a voice in the budget process today.
  For the senior citizens in my district that have expressed their 
concerns about Social Security, I realize that you have paid a portion 
of your income throughout your lives to pay for your Social Security 
benefits. As long-time taxpayers, you also know about the frustrations 
of accumulated income lost to ineffective Government programs. I feel 
that the real threat to Social Security is the Federal deficit itself. 
The deficit would be even higher today if the surplus of Social 
Security withholdings to payments was not included in the final budget 
figures. My solutions for balancing the budget involve cutting wasteful 
spending, not Social Security. How could any Member of Congress justify 
cutting Social Security when Congress, against my vote, passes a 
spending bill including $34.6 million for research on eradicating the 
screwworm from southern Mexico?
  We actually have four versions of the balanced budget amendment 
offered today. Three version would balance the budget, but out of those 
three, the Kyl amendment is the only versions that includes a line-item 
veto for the President to reduce wasteful spending. I have introduced 
my own bill to grant the President a line-item veto. I believe that the 
threat of a Presidential veto on specific items in the budget would 
make the process of balancing the budget much easier, because it would 
make each Member accountable for the unnecessary spending inserted in 
appropriations bills. Should the Kyl amendment fail, I will support the 
Barton and Stenholm versions of the balanced budget amendment.
  The Wise version of the balanced budget amendment exempts programs 
under the broad rubric capital investments from a balance budget 
requirement. Perhaps capital investments means the $120 million 
courthouse in Phoenix. Perhaps capital investments means the $100 
million in highway projects for West Virginia. Both of these items were 
in appropriations bills last year. Capital investments can mean 
anything Congress wants it to mean. This is a loophole that would 
nullify the balanced budget amendment, and for this reason I will not 
support the Wise amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago I voted in favor of a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. We failed to pass the amendment by only 
nine votes. Today I once again stand in support of the balanced budget 
amendment. I am hopeful that this time the House of Representatives 
will realize the value of a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, when you examine 
each category of spending within our budget--from educational programs, 
to health care, to crime prevention, and even national defense--there 
are convincing arguments against implementing a proposal as dangerous 
as the balanced budget amendment.
  The balanced budget amendment would likely cause severe cutbacks in 
some of the very programs which represent sound public investments. It 
will put at severe risk programs such as Head Start, a promising 
education program for our future generations.
  Besides not talking about the investment programs which would be cut 
under the balanced budget amendment, the proponents of this amendment 
also are not talking about the population which would be most impacted 
by its passage.
  It will not be the wealthy and the powerful that suffer--most of 
their Government subsidies come through tax breaks. Those who suffer 
most will be the low and middle-income families, who receive the 
majority of their benefits from spending programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues, as insightful reading the 
analysis of the balanced budget amendment by Wendell Belew, an attorney 
here in Washington.
  As this report points out, the balanced budget amendment would 
imperil the health care reform efforts that are now being formulated. 
By demanding that savings from Medicare and Medicaid programs be used 
to pay off the deficit rather than fund health care reform, the 
balanced budget amendment would cause the likely scenario that health 
care reform may never get off the ground.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the balanced budget 
amendment. Let's continue the responsible budget measures that Congress 
enacted last year.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 
103.
  I have been a long-standing supporter of a constitutional amendment 
requiring a balanced budget. I think this is our best hope to put 
America on a path to eliminating our yearly deficits and the $4 
trillion national debt. A balanced budget amendment will promote fiscal 
discipline and should be enacted.
  The debt burden has a tremendous impact on the fiscal and economic 
well-being of the Nation. It cripples the economy, draining public and 
private savings. A sustained deficit will jeopardize our future growth 
and prosperity. Our children and grandchildren did not create this debt 
and they should not have to suffer the consequences.
  The deficit is not just a Federal issue. It is a local, personal 
issue, that impacts all Americans. The resources that are going to pay 
off old debts are not available for education and health care and to 
assist people in building new businesses and provide incentives for 
growth and job creation. This is money not going toward programs that 
serve the poor, children, and the elderly.
  If we work to substantially reduce the deficit, we can expect lower 
interest rates, and more investment in economic development, jobs, 
housing, infrastructure, transportation, education, the environment, 
and research and development. Every dollar we do not borrow today, 
strengthens the economy for future generations of Americans. Deficit 
reduction is essential to raising national savings, investment, and 
living standards.
  Passage of House Joint Resolution 103 is one in a series of steps to 
be taken. We must take a stand on controlling Federal spending, 
reducing the deficit, and providing some measure of fiscal 
accountability to the Federal Government. A balanced budget amendment 
will require that. This is the most responsible step we can take to 
turn this economy around.
  Opponents of the amendment have alleged that it will hurt Social 
Security and Medicare beneficiaries. I never would have voted for it if 
this was the case. In reality, it is just the opposite. If high 
deficits continue, essential programs such as these could be 
jeopardized by the drain on the economy that comes with pouring so much 
of our resources into debt payments.
  Since Social Security is already protected under current budget 
statutes, it is very likely that it would continue to be protected 
under legislation implementing the Stenholm constitutional amendment.
  Vote for the amendment and reject any alternatives.
  Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, very shortly, the House of Representatives 
will vote on a constitutional amendment to require a balanced Federal 
budget.
  I have long supported a balanced budget amendment, and have 
introduced and supported such legislation every year since I first was 
elected to Congress over 10 years ago.
  We have made great strides in reducing our Federal budget deficits in 
recent months. The fiscal year 1995 deficit is expected to be 40 
percent lower than earlier predictions. And we are now on track to have 
3 years of falling deficits in a row--the first time that has happened 
since World War II.
  However, if we want to assure our children and grandchildren a 
brighter economic future, we cannot stop in our efforts to address our 
Nation's debt. That is why I strongly support a balanced budget 
amendment. While a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget 
will not eliminate all wasteful Government spending, it will be a 
significant step toward controlling it.
  Some of my constituents have expressed concern about the effect of a 
balanced budget amendment on the Social Security program. The largest 
threat to the financial integrity of the Social Security program is our 
ballooning deficits. Interest on the national debt currently consumes 
nearly $200 billion each year, making it the third largest program in 
the budget. Interest payments will soon rival all military spending. 
This is money that is wasted--it cannot be spent on education, 
infrastructure, or, just as importantly, Social Security. To ensure 
that the needs of both older Americans and future generations are met, 
we must amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, over the years, Congress has shown itself 
incapable of controlling its spending habits without the remedy of a 
balanced budget requirement.
  Today, we have an opportunity to say ``yes'' to fiscal fitness. Let's 
take it.
  For the rest of America that has to balance household budgets and 
watch the bottomline, having Congress adopt an amendment that forces it 
to keep its own books balanced is just common sense.
  Some of the Founding Fathers--the architects of our Government--
thought it outright immoral for Congress to spend more than its 
anticipated revenues. Certainly, if they were standing here today, they 
would be astonished at the pathetic lack of discipline our Government 
has shown in building up trillions of dollars in debt.
  It's pretty simple: Congress on an annual basis can generate a budget 
surplus, a balanced budget, or a budget deficit. Congress has 
consistently chosen the budget deficit route and has failed to show 
fiscal constraint and the political courage that goes along with it.
  In the years since World War II, there have been only eight budget 
surpluses; every other year we have wallowed in the red mire of debt.
  There's ample precedent. The balanced budget requirement works in my 
State of Ohio as it does in 46 other States. On the Federal level, 
while this amendment will not solve the deficit problem single-
handedly, it will give us a necessary tool to balance the budget each 
year. It will also give those Members who have difficulty saying ``no'' 
to Federal spending some needed political cover from unhappy 
constituents.
  Only recently, the Senate squandered a golden opportunity to put the 
Nation's fiscal house in order by rejecting a balanced budget 
amendment. Let's not repeat the Senate's mistake.
  Discipline. Discipline. An overwhelming roster of Americans from 
across this Nation are demanding discipline from Congress. They deserve 
discipline--it's their money--and Congress has the responsibility to 
exercise it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, Congress and the Federal Government 
have run a deficit for the past 24 years. The economic consequences of 
Congress' reckless ways are not lost on the American public. Sixty-four 
percent of Americans see the balanced budget amendment as the best way 
to force Congress to make the difficult decisions necessary to achieve 
a balanced budget and start tackling the $5 trillion national debt.
  Most Americans also recognize the futility of the countless budget 
deals, having witnessed Congress's abandonment of Gramm-Rudman, the 
failure of the 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act, and other past efforts 
to balance budgets by statute. Statutes are repealed by a simple 
majority, eliminating the hope for a permanent deficit reduction 
strategy from one Congress to another. Tax hikes targeted for deficit 
reduction are squandered on new spending, and the cycle repeats itself.
  Congress' propensity to tax and spend is a structural problem that 
requires a structural response. The balanced budget constitutional 
amendment would create a new playing field for Congress, one which 
places a higher priority on responsible budgeting than taxing and 
spending.
  American families struggle to manage on a balanced budget. Perhaps 
the ultimate expression of Congress' detachment from the values of 
those we represent is this institution's inability to resist spending 
money it doesn't have.
  I share the fear of many of my constituents that the economic 
consequences of this indifference could be the undoing of our Nation's 
prosperity. For this reason, I have championed a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment since my first election to Congress, and will 
vote today to initiate this critical process.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, three basic concepts--the past, present, 
future--are the real subjects before us today. Make no mistake about 
it, our debate over a balanced budget amendment is really a debate 
about America's future.
  The first concept--the past--is where this debate begins. In the 
distant past, responsible budgeting and small Government allowed 
Americans to realize economic growth and a standard of living unmatched 
in human history.
  Unfortunately, the record of the present is quite different. We are 
creating a legacy of Big Government, deficit spending, and increasing 
national debt. These errors have produced a large debt with high 
interest payments, a heavy tax burden, and limited budget choices. 
Continuing these errors will only mean more problems and fewer choices 
in the future.
  The outlook for the future is in our hands today. If we reject the 
balanced budget amendment we will be choosing our children's future for 
them. We will be choosing a future of limited choice and massive debt, 
a future of heavy burdens and limited benefits, a future where debt 
payments threaten the living standards of all Americans. Without a 
balanced budget, we will be choosing a future in which hope and the 
American dream will only be memories from the past.
  The future can be bright and the American dream restored if we join 
together and pass the balanced budget amendment. A vote for this 
amendment will produce a future like our distant past: a future of fair 
tax rates, limited Government, and personal freedom--a future where 
savings, pensions, and Social Security are secure; a future where 
incomes are rising and the American way of life is, once again, the 
envy of the world.
  The choice should be crystal clear. Please join me in voting for a 
real balanced budget amendment. Let's put Congress on the side of 
progress and vote today for an American future which is every bit as 
great as America's past. My colleagues, vote for a balanced budget 
amendment so that all Americans will have a bright economic future.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 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 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, he reported the joint resolution back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of 
the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that under the 
special rule, House Resolution 331, the Stenholm amendment in the 
nature of a substitute being the last amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole, it is the only amendment reported back to the 
House under the king-of-the-hill procedure. Am I correct in that?
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WALKER. Prior to the adoption of the Stenholm amendment, the 
Barton amendment in the nature of a substitute was narrowly rejected by 
the Committee of the Whole, 213 to 215. But because the votes of the 
Delegates were decisive, the amendment was immediately revoted in the 
House and adopted by a vote of 211 to 204.
  My question is: If the Barton amendment in the nature of a substitute 
to this bill has already been adopted by the House, how, under House 
rules, can we consider and vote on another amendment in the nature of a 
substitute? Is not the principle under House rules and precedents that 
once the bill has been amended in its entirely it cannot be subject to 
further amendment?
  Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this question is that the so-called 
revote rule does not specify that an amendment revoted and adopted in 
the House is considered as having been adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole.

                              {time}  1630

  Instead, clause 2(d) of rule XXIII says, and I quote: ``Upon 
announcement of the vote on that the question, the Committee of the 
Whole shall resume its sitting without intervening motion.''
  Indeed, neither the Speaker, upon the adoption of the Barton 
amendment or the House, nor the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
on the resumption of its sitting, gave any indication that the Barton 
amendment was considered to be adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  Given the wording of the House Rule and the clear action of the 
House, it seems to me the House has already adopted the Barton 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and it may not be in order to 
vote on another amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole.
  Am I correct, Mr. Speaker, that the Barton amendment in the nature of 
a substitute for the bill has already been adopted by the House? And, 
if so, how can we vote on another amendment in the nature of substitute 
if one has already been adopted?
  The SPEAKER. The Chair will advise the gentleman that the Barton 
amendment was only tentatively adopted in the House subject to being 
undone in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to the terms of the rule 
adopted by the House, and that is the circumstance that occurred in 
this case.
  The Stenholm amendment, in effect, undid the adoption by the House of 
the Barton amendment and the Stenholm amendment is accordingly the only 
amendment reported to the House for final action by the House.
  Mr. WALKER. Further, Mr. Speaker, just to clarify: When the Barton 
amendment was adopted by the House the Speaker's ruling is that that 
action by the House is in fact binding on the Committee of the Whole 
even though it was not announced as being a measure adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER. Under the terms of the rule and the standing rules, the 
Barton amendment could be adopted, could be tentatively adopted by the 
House, subject to being undone by a later-adopted amendment in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. WALKER. Is that specified in the rule, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER. That is the ruling of the Chair and that is the terms of 
the rule adopted by the House, House Resolution 331.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the Speaker.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on passage of the joint resolution.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 271, 
nays 153, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 65]

                               YEAS--271

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--153

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hughes
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Farr
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Green
     Hastings
     Manton
     Michel
     Natcher
     Payne (NJ)

                              {time}  1655

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Michel and Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Green against.

  Mr. MATSUI and Mr. ROSE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SKEEN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the joint 
resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________