[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


    INTRODUCTION OF A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET 
                     AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

                                 ______


                            HON. BOB FRANKS

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, January 23, 1995
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce, 
with Representatives Condit and Gillmor, a joint resolution proposing a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I plan to offer this 
legislation as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to House 
Joint Resolution 1, when the House considers that bill later this week.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is substantially similar to House Joint 
Resolution 1, but with two crucial differences. First, this legislation 
strikes the three-fifths provision to raise taxes contained in section 
2 of House Joint Resolution 1. While I am steadfastly opposed to 
raising taxes, the controversy surrounding this provision could hamper 
passage in the Senate and make it more difficult to achieve the 
requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives.
  Second, this legislation includes a provision prohibiting new 
unfunded Federal mandates. We strongly believe that a ban on unfunded 
mandates is essential to prevent a future Congress from balancing the 
Federal budget merely by shifting costs and responsibilities to State 
and local governments.
  The supporters of the other versions of the balanced budget amendment 
contend that there are only two ways to balance the budget--either by 
cutting spending or increasing taxes. But the truth is there's a third, 
more insidious option where the Congress would mandate expensive 
Federal programs onto State and local governments and require local 
taxpayers to pick up the tab. Judging from the past, it is clear that 
Congress will use any means available to avoid hard budget choices. I 
believe that closing the unfunded mandates loophole is imperative to 
preserve the integrity of the balanced budget amendment and ensure 
protection for local taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, including an unfunded Federal mandates provision as part 
of the balanced budget amendment is the only ironclad way to protect 
local taxpayers. Although I welcome and support efforts to solve the 
unfunded mandates issue by passing a statute, the sorry fact is that 
Congress is adept at finding ways to circumvent statutory law in order 
to escape from fiscal accountability.
  Additionally, it is important to note that Republicans and Democratic 
Governors have rightly expressed their reluctance to encourage their 
State legislatures to ratify a balanced budget amendment without a 
provision specifically prohibiting new unfunded Federal mandates. 
Inclusion of a provision to ban unfunded Federal mandates will markedly 
improve chances of ratification by the States.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation has the support of the National League 
of Cities and the National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL]. The 
support of NCSL is especially noteworthy, as it is their members who 
will be ultimately deciding the fate of the balanced budget amendment.
  Consideration of the balanced budget amendment presents Congress with 
a unique and historic opportunity to permanently resolve the issue of 
unfunded Federal mandates. Moreover, it provides assurance that 
Congress will not meet its obligations under the balanced budget 
amendment by imposing unfunded mandates on State and local governments. 
I urge my colleagues to support the Franks-Condit-Gillmor balanced 
budget amendment, which I believe represents the version of the 
balanced budget amendment that will be most enthusiastically ratified 
by three-fourths of the States.


                          ____________________