[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

                                 ______


                               speech of

                         HON. RONALD D. COLEMAN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 17, 1994

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (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:

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a balanced 
budget amendment. I do not support the measure as offered by Mr. 
Stenholm, but instead wish to express my strong support of the 
alternative amendment offered by Mr. Wise.
  Like many of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, I served in the State 
legislature prior to being elected to Congress. My home State of Texas 
operates under a constitutionally mandated balanced budget. During my 
10 years in the Texas House of Representatives, each of the biennial 
budgets I helped craft were balanced. However, the budget process by 
which Texas operates differs from that by which we operate here in 
Congress. The services that Texas and the many other states with 
balanced budget provisions offer vary from those which the Federal 
Government provides.
  Proponents of the the balanced budget amendment as offered by Mr. 
Stenholm frequently refer to States with balanced budget requirements 
when arguing for the Stenholm joint resolution. However, these 
proponents fail to recognize the challenges and needs we must meet 
which are unique to the Federal Government. States do not have 43 
million Social Security recipients who have paid into the Social 
Security fund and who have based their financial security on the 
Federal Government's commitment to fulfill its promises. We have made 
that commitment and we must fulfill this obligation.
  Furthermore, the Federal Government has an obligation to defend its 
citizens and their interests from international threats, while States 
need not budget for times of war. Mr. Stenholm's legislation does not 
provide an exception to the balanced budget amendment for military 
threats to national security.
  These same proponents fail to recognize the different budget 
processes State governments utilize. Most of the States operating under 
a balanced budget requirement have two budgets: their capital budget 
and their operating budget. That is the way Texas operates, because 
Texas recognize that capital investments must be made.
  Unlike the Stenholm amendment, the Wise substitute exempts Social 
Security from the balanced budget. The Wise substitute permits Congress 
to waive the amendment's provisions for any fiscal year in which a 
declaration of war is in effect. It also creates a separate budget for 
capital improvements. In general, the Wise substitute tailors the 
Stenholm language to meet the special needs of the Federal Government. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to the Stenholm joint 
resolution and in support of the Wise substitution.

                          ____________________