[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.
____________________