[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 4 (Monday, January 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED MORE INFORMATION ON SPENDING CUTS TO ACHIEVE A 
                            BALANCED BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we have come 
just 4 days from leaving our constituents, and possibly we have 
forgotten that we represent them. It is of great importance that we 
seek to get their input and understanding of the direction in which 
this great body would go.
  I have been challenged by my constituents of the 18th Congressional 
District to give them responsible representation. I was further charged 
by Dr. R.L. Lister, president of the Southwest Region Conference, 
during a ceremony given by my constituents where I was sworn in to not 
stray far away from my conscience.
  Interestingly enough, it seems that some Members have forgotten that 
it is important to dialog and to understand and to convey to 
constituents just what you are doing here. I remember as a former 
member of the Houston City Council we played an integral role in 
decisionmaking revolving around the budget for the Nation's fourth 
largest city.
  What we did was consult with constituents, we dialoged with staff 
members, we knew what our outlays were, we knew what our receipts were. 
We sat around the council table and debated the budget, and we did not 
operate in a veil of ignorance.
  It is important, as I acknowledge the Constitution of the United 
States, that ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a 
more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, 
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure 
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity''--that we in 
fact acknowledge that the people of the United States are in fact who 
we represent in this body.
  How, again, can we operate in total ignorance and total unknowing of 
what we will be doing with a balanced budget amendment? How can we, 
when the gentleman from the State of Texas, Congressman Stenholm, 
offers in good faith the opportunity for this Congress to support a 
resolution as they proceed to possibly vote for a balanced budget 
amendment, to simply lay out for the people of the United States what 
are you planning to cut to balance the budget.
  Is that not reasonable, so that the people of the United States can 
know what we are doing here in this great body? But yet in the 
Committee on the Budget he was rejected. How can you make 
determinations on the backs of the American people without letting them 
know what do you plan to cut if you have a balanced budget amendment?
  Then, too, I raise the concern about defense. Oh, yes, there is 
section 4 that allows this body to waive the balanced budget amendment 
in times of war or imminent danger. Who knows what that is? Dr. 
Schlesinger noted in the 1930's we were able to build ships to be 
prepared for the war in 1940. Did the American people believe they were 
in danger in the 1930's? What constitutes imminent danger?
  Many people in this country agreed with the Rwanda and Somalia 
humanitarian efforts. Many people want more to be done in Bosnia. Those 
are not declarations of war. If dollars are needed to be able to fund 
those worthy causes because the people of the United States want to 
provide for safety in this world, are we suggesting that we do not have 
the dollars because of a balanced budget amendment?
  Then I listened this morning to former Attorney General William Barr, 
who said that most people would not have standing to challenge this 
constitutional amendment. I would venture to say to you that none of us 
know who has standing in the courts of the United States of America. 
The judges determine who has standing.
  Many people will be harmed by this particular balanced budget 
amendment. I would argue that they could go into the courts of the 
United States of America and judges would give them standing.
  We are operating under a great burden, the burden to represent the 
people of the United States of America. I am concerned with the many 
senior citizens and citizens in nursing homes across this country, some 
comatose, some dependent upon Medicaid and Medicare, who do not have 
the opportunity to be represented by speaking up against a budget that 
may ultimately go against them.
  So I think it is very important that as we look to the decisions that 
have to be made, oh, a balanced budget amendment sounds very 
attractive, and yes, goes with the political winds, but simply 
presenting to the American people a balanced budget amendment without 
information, without the direction, without the ability to have 
reasonable debate over what will be the cuts that we have to face over 
the 7-year period and ultimately in the year 2002, I think that speaks 
against the true tenets of democracy.
  I do not think that was the message of November 8, 1994, and I do not 
think it will be the message of January 19, 1995. I ask for an open and 
fair debate on this question. Speak up, Republicans, and tell us what 
you are planning on cutting, because I will be challenged by the 
district, the 18th Congressional District, for responsible 
representation, and clearly, I am not going to stray away from my 
conscience. I must represent the people of the State of Texas and this 
district with fairness and openness, so that they can make the right 
decisions as they send their Congressperson, to the U.S. Congress to 
represent them, and to make the best decisions.

                          ____________________