[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H493-H498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A BIPARTISAN BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 1995, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Payne] for 60 minutes.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on Friday of last week there was
a press conference held. That press conference was to talk about an
important event, important because for the first time in the history of
our country we know there are enough people in the House of
Representatives who are committed to vote for a balanced budget
amendment to ensure that a balanced budget amendment can be passed.
This press conference was among the Democratic Caucus, and some 66
members of our Caucus signed a letter to our Speaker. The Speaker was
notified that 66 Democrats were prepared to vote for a balanced budget
amendment this week, and the 66 Democrats, along with the Republican
Caucus, would give you enough votes for the required two-thirds'
majority or the 290 votes to pass this balanced budget amendment.
{time} 1540
I think this is good news in that we have a bipartisan agreement now
so that Democrats and Republicans alike can do what is best for
America. This comes at a time when our debt is now $4.7 trillion, when
our interest payments will equal $300 billion as a nation; $300 billion
we paid last year alone as interest on our national debt. This is money
that, had we not had debt and we balanced our budget for many years
before this, we would have had that same $300 billion to use to cut
taxes. We could have used that money for other purposes such as
fighting crime, such as improving education. But instead we do not have
that, and in fact we are spending more money each year than we take in,
and last year we spent $300 billion in interest payments.
Now this balanced budget amendment, as my colleagues will hear from
[[Page H494]] others today, is extremely important to the future of our
country and to the future generations, but it is also extremely
important to all of us today because it is all of us that pay this
interest, and last year for every American more than $800 in interest
was paid, and to the extent that we can find a way to balance our
budget and to begin then to reduce our debt, that is the only way that
we will ever begin seeing less interest paid in a timely fashion.
So at this time it gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield to my
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], who has worked very
hard over the years on this balanced budget amendment.
Mr. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne]
for allowing me the chance to talk about the balanced budget amendment,
and I want to express my gratitude for the strong leadership of the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne] over the years in keeping this
issue alive before this Congress and the American people.
Mr. Speaker, this week the House will vote on the balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution. I believe this issue is the single most
important issue that the 104th Congress will face. Why? Because the
balanced budget amendment is not just about this year's deficit. It is
about saving our children and grandchildren from drowning in a sea of
national debt.
I am proud of the fact that 66 Democrats have now committed to voting
for the Schaefer-Stenholm balanced budget amendment. For the first time
in the history of our country we now have a two-thirds vote in this
House to pass a constitutional balanced budget amendment if all
Republicans in this House will vote for it. The fate of the balanced
budget amendment now lies in the hands of our House Republican
colleagues with whom many of us have worked for many years.
Mr. Speaker, I will most likely vote for the Barton amendment as
well, the amendment which requires a three-fifths vote to increase
taxes, because I see nothing greatly wrong with the idea of making it
more difficult for this system to raise taxes on our voters and our
constituents. But let no one in this body or in this country be misled.
There clearly are not enough votes to pass the Barton budget amendment
in this House. My Republican friends know it. My Democratic friends
know it. House Members know it. Senators know it. And the American
people deserve to know it. For anyone to suggest otherwise is simply
pure partisan politics.
Mr. Speaker, opponents of the balanced budget amendment constantly
say, ``Why do we need to put this budget amendment in the
Constitution?'' I would like to begin by offering two answers. The
first is very
simply: Nothing else has worked. It has been since 1969 that the
Federal Government saw a balanced budget. It has been over 25 years
since this body passed a balanced budget. Twenty-five years of debt is
simply too long, and we cannot stand for it.
Second, I think the balanced budget amendment is about an important
issue, an issue no less important than the fundamental right of
property rights, but by requiring a balanced budget amendment we are
basically saying we want to protect the future property rights of our
children and grandchildren from being spent by today's Congress. In the
history of the writing of our Constitution few rights could have been
considered more important then, or even now, than the protection of
property rights. Clearly the protection of the property rights of our
grandchildren deserves a sacred place in our Constitution.
Finally, there are many other reasons, specific reasons, why we
should pass this balanced budget amendment, but let me simply say on a
practical note to those American families that I cannot relate to a
trillion dollar debt, and now we are facing a $4.7 trillion debt. Let
me put it terms that the average American family can understand. This
year we will pay $238 billion in interest on the debt alone. That is
more than the entire Federal budget in 1972. In personal terms, for
working families, every man, woman, and child, regardless of age this
year, on average will have to pay $887 in interest, in interest, and
national debt. Not a dollar of that $887 goes to building a new
schoolhouse, helping a child get a better education, building roads and
infrastructure in our country, or providing for our national defense.
An average family of four in America, a working family, will pay the
equivalent of $3,500 in taxes this year simply to pay for interest on
the national debt.
The time to pass a balanced budget amendment is now, and with the
support of Democrats and House Members working together, as we have
worked for years, I am confident, Mr. Speaker, and with the leadership
of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne],
and others that will speak today, I am confident we will do the right
thing for the future of America and pass a balanced budget
constitutional amendment.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. I will now yield to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] who is a cosponsor of the Stenholm-Schaefer
balanced budget amendment, and as well he is a cochairman of the Caucus
for the Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Payne] for yielding me a bit of time here today, and I cannot say
enough how much I have appreciated the work of the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Stenholm] over the years on this terribly important issue that we
are about to tangle with this week.
As the gentleman from Virginia so eloquently stated, we are in
potential serious problems in this country, economic problems, if we do
not handle this runaway budget situation that we have on our hands now.
When I first came into Congress some 11 years ago, I could recall
very well voting on an amendment to increase the national debt to $1.5
trillion, 1.5. Some 10 years, 11 years, later we are now at $4.7
trillion, 3 trillion over a period of 11 years. Now what is it going to
be in the year 2000? Ten trillion dollars? Pretty soon it get to the
point where there is not any way that we are going to be able to come
back and try to even out not only our deficit, because we have to get
at that one first, but to then start to build down on the national
debt.
And so one would ask, ``What is the best way to do this?'' Well, back
in 1974, they passed a Budget Act at that time that was supposed to
handle all the problems that we were going to have in the future years.
We have waived it over 600 times since 1974. We could go back to 1990
where we were supposed to try and figure out a way by capping spending
that we were going to balance this budget out, and what happens? Here
we are today, and we do have a slight decrease in the deficit
temporarily. However, if we really look at the figures, by the year
2000 it is going to be up to $400 billion again.
{time} 1550
So it is clear to me that what we have now is not working. Five times
in legislation, in statutes, we said we are not supposed to spend more
than we take in. But do we adhere to it? No, we do not. It is too easy
to say ``yes'' to too many issues, and it is too difficult to say
``no,'' and sooner or later we are going to have to start saying ``no''
on these particular issues.
So I again want to thank very much my Democrat colleagues who have
agreed to go along with this, recognizing for the future of this
country and for the future of our generations, that we do not want to
give them a United States of America that is in the dump. We want to
give them something they can pick up and run with over the years.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me in these few
minutes.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for all the
good work that he has done as a leader on the balanced budget amendment
over the years, and I look forward to working with him this week as we
work our way toward a victory.
My colleague pointed out that when he first came to Congress, we had
a debt of $1.5 trillion. Now, just 11 years later, it is $4.7 trillion.
We have seen this debt explode in the last 11 years, over $3 trillion
in that period of time, and that tells the story of why we so badly
need to have the kind of amendment we are speaking of here and the
[[Page H495]] kind of discipline that will force us to reach a balanced
budget.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Peterson], a leader in the fight for a balanced budget amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia for yielding.
At the onset, I, along with my other colleagues, want to go on record
to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] for helping us to take this through the many
years and the many battles that have been fought for the balanced
budget amendment.
This is not the first time this issue has been on the floor of the
House of Representatives. I would remind the folks that just in the 4
years I have been here I have voted for it in various forms at least
three times. We came very close. We came within 9 votes, I think, on
one occasion and, I believe, 12 on the other. This time I think we are
on the go-ahead. We are going to make it. we are going to make this a
reality and make this a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.
Why a constitutional amendment? Because it is my feeling now that we
can only, through this action, acquire the discipline we need to
really, in fact, balance the budget.
We have had through statute any number of budget
bills that have been vacated for one reason or another, basically
because the pain was too great. The pain has gotten to the point of
realizing that if we do not balance the budget, we will actually
explode the pain. If we do not balance the budget of these United
States, the very people who we have been saying we are protecting, that
is, the poor and those who have not made it out, if you will, will be
the first victims. So we have got to go back and renew our fight to
balance the budget. We must protect our children and our grandchildren.
We must keep from borrowing from future generations. We have got to
make tough decisions, and with the balanced budget process we can do
that.
But I would add that the American people have to appreciate their
role in the balanced budget process which we are proposing. The
American people must agree to make the sacrifices and assume the pain
associated with balancing the budget. We all know we have had
conflicting reports from our own constituencies as to how on one hand
we need new roads, we need new programs, we need this, and we need
that, and at the same time they are saying we must balance the budget.
It is a conflict that we cannot resolve until we get the appreciation
and the assistance of our own constituencies.
This amendment that has been proposed by the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Stenholm] for many years now, contains no gimmicks. There are no
shell games associated with this. There are no back doors. The
gentleman from Texas knows something about that, because I do not
believe the Alamo had a back door.
We have got to associate ourselves with that very fact. We have got
to go ahead and make this happen with the realities and the associated
pain it is going to bring through a certain process, not ultimately to
the Nation, because in fact to the Nation it is going to bring
strength, and we have got to have the courage to take us to that point.
The last point I want to make is that we do not want to wait until
2002 to do this. We want to start balancing the budget of the United
States today with the very process of rescissions for 1995 and the very
appropriations process of 1996. Failure to do that will prolong the
agony and take us to the point when the pain becomes too great. I,
along with many of my other Democratic colleagues, feel very strongly
about that issue. It is not a partisan issue. This is a national issue
of great magnitude, and it is one where Republicans and Democrats can
agree and do agree that we must do the right thing and balance the
budget of the United States and enhance the future of this Nation for
our children and our grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much
for his comments and also for the work he has done over the years for
the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I will now yield to my colleague, the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Nathan Deal. The gentleman is a Democratic cochairman of
the Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget, and he has also
been a real leader in this fight to get a balanced budget passed.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman
from Virginia, for yielding, and I thank him for his efforts in this
regard. I extend my appreciation also to the Members from across the
aisle, including the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], and I
thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], on the Democratic side
for his leadership in undertaking this effort to pass the balanced
budget amendment.
We are going to hear a lot of reasons over the next few days and into
next week as to why this balanced budget amendment should be passed.
Many of the Members who will speak are like me; they come from a
legislative background, working in State legislatures, and most of
those legislatures have constitutional requirements in their States
that say that they cannot spend more money than they take in in
revenue. My State of Georgia is one of those that has such a
constitutional requirement, and I have had the privilege of serving on
the budget committees and on the appropriation committees of our State
and have faced the possibility of actually being called back into
special session after having passed a legislative budget anticipating
revenue and then finding some 6 months into the legislative year that
the revenues were not coming in as rapidly as we had anticipated.
When you have a constitutional mandate that you have to take in as
much money as you spend, you are called back into open session, and you
go back in through the budget and you decide what you can cut in order
to conform with your constitutional requirement.
I think there would be nothing at all wrong with this body having to
do the same.
We have heard the statistics. The last year we had a balanced budget
in this country was the last year President Lyndon Johnson served, in
1969. For 25 straight budget years we have taken in less than we have
spent. For 55 of the last 63 years we have not had a balanced budget in
this country. The $4.7 trillion of accumulated debt is staggering.
We will hear arguments made that we can just simply do it if we have
the will power; we can do it statutorily. We have tried it statutorily.
Gramm-Rudman I, Gramm-Rudman II, the Budget Act of 1990, and the Budget
Act of 1993 have all made statutory efforts to try to bring this
spending crisis under control.
{time} 1600
But since 1985, when they first began, we have added over $2 trillion
to our national debt, in spite of those legislative efforts. With all
of the little things like pay-as-you-go and sequestration, we have
still not been able to bring it under control.
There have been those who argue well, we do not really need to do
this because it is not that significant. I would suggest to you that it
is.
As much concern and debate as you hear about people being concerned
about foreign aid and spending for helping other countries, it is
staggering to believe that we send $41 billion overseas to those
overseas investors in terms of interest on those foreign-held
securities of our country, more than twice the amount of our entire
foreign aid budget.
The situation is serious. Now is the time to come to grips with it. I
am sure you have all ridden up and down the highways of our country and
seen the travel trailers that have the rather humorous bumper sticker
on it that says we are spending our children's inheritance. WE all look
at that and laugh about it, and we think, well, that is a couple who
have worked hard, they have earned money, and they have a right to
spend what they have accumulated, and they do not have any obligation
necessarily to pass it on to their children or to their grandchildren.
We are doing far worse than that, ladies and gentlemen. What we are
doing is we are not only spending the money that goes to buy the travel
trailer and
[[Page H496]] the luxuries that we are enjoying and the trip we are
taking, we are asking our children and grandchildren to cosign the note
with us, and at our death, as our generation passes away, they will not
even inherit the travel trailer. All they will inherit is a past-due
note that right now is $4.7 trillion.
That is just not right. That is not the kind of generational attitude
that we need to leave. It is one we need to begin to change. I for one
believe the only way we will do it is with a constitutional mandate in
the form of a balanced budget.
I look forward to the debate that will proceed this week and
hopefully to the final passage of a version of the balanced budget
amendment. I am one of those who likewise will probably vote for the
Barton version that requires a three-fifths vote in order to raise
taxes, because I don't think that is the way we should balance our
budget. I think we should balance it through cutting our spending
programs. But whatever version it is, and I think that the Stenholm and
Schaefer version is the most likely one to have the necessary and
requisite number of votes, it is important that we do it, that we do it
now, that we send it to the Senate, and they in turn send it to the
States for ratification.
I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. I thank my colleague for his words,
Particularly the words about the future generations and how important
this is certainly to them.
I now yield to someone who is a true leader in the House of
Representatives in terms of fiscal responsibility, a gentleman who has
fought this fight for many years, the cosponsor of the Stenholm-
Schaefer amendment, Charlie Stenholm, of Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and
for taking this time today to allow a preliminary discussion of a
subject that I too appreciate his leadership on over the years, as we
have brought ourselves again to this week where we will have a vote on
whether or not to amend the Constitution for purposes of balancing the
budget here on the floor of the House, and we are cautiously optimistic
we will have the 290 votes to do so.
Before I do that, I want to remember a few other names for us today
that go back in this battle. Larry Craig, now Senator Craig, has been
one of the real leaders in the effort that is behind House Joint
Resolution 28 and Senate Joint Resolution 1, the subject of our
discussion today.
Also Bob Smith of Oregon, now retired, but Bob, as you remember,
worked tirelessly with us the last Congress to a futile defeat by some
12 votes. But then we have some others. Tom Carper, now Governor Carper
of Delaware, was one of the original Democrats that has taken on the
leadership of this effort, and now as Governor has continued to offer
us encouragement along the lines of this bipartisan, bicameral budget
amendment that we talk about today.
Mike Castle, who has joined us now, Mike from Delaware on the
Republican side of the aisle, will be joining us in this effort this
week. So Delaware has done their share.
Jon Kyl, now Senator Jon Kyl, Olympia Snowe, now Senator Snowe, Jim
Inhofe, of Oklahoma, now Senator
Inhofe, have all played unique roles in bringing us to what we
affectionally call the bipartisan, bicameral balanced budget amendment.
I would like to take now a little time to just talk about two or
three major points that we are going to hear a lot about. One is that
we should not be doing this through the Constitution, that we ought to
be doing this the old-fashioned way, by cutting spending, to which I
answer absolutely.
I did not come and do not come today to this well with a great deal
of happiness as to being here suggesting that we ought to amend the
Constitution. I reluctantly, in fact almost never, have supported
constitutional amendments, and I have reluctantly come to supporting
this for one reason, and you mentioned that in your opening remarks,
and that is I am now convinced this is the only tool that we need to
put in our arsenal that will help us do the job that we must do, and
that is balance the budget.
I wish we did not have to do it that way, but I am convinced the only
way you can do this with Congress after Congress, succeeding
Congresses, is to put into the Constitution the requirement that we do
live within our means.
I would remind people, and will do so over and over this week, that
this year's budget is the first year's installment, and I anticipate
with a great deal of confidence that the budget that this House will
prepare this year will give us the first year's installment, with a 7-
year projection, not a 5-, but a 7-year projection, so that we can
honestly say to the people this year, we will in fact set ourselves on
the course to balance in 2002, and this year is the first year, and
then next year we will come back again with a budget resolution, with
reconciliation, which should and I anticipate and hope will be in this
year's budget resolution, that we will do so.
But then comes one of the major reasons why a constitutional
amendment is necessary, because this Congress can get elected to do
that. But what about the next Congress? This President can suggest we
ought to do that, and we ought to have a budget on the line of getting
to balance, which we have got it going in the right direction after the
first 2 years of the current administration. But what about the next
President? What about the next Congress? And that is where we have
always run into difficulty.
So let me say to those that suggest that we ought to get the cart
before the horse, that we ought to have the 7-year budgets first. We
have tried that, it does not work. Let's take a 1-year budget this
year, prove with good faith we are sincere about it, but let us also
set in concrete the fact we cannot wiggle out of it this Congress, next
year, or succeeding Congresses.
Another point that I want to emphasize over and over, I am getting a
little bit put out with those who every time we bring up the balanced
budget constitutional amendment seem to have the next word in their
vocabulary, Social Security, and then sending convincing letters, which
some group is doing to constituents in the 17th District, that if we
pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment, Social Security will
be wrecked. That could not be further from the truth. They ought to be
saying unless we balance our budgets, Social Security is going to be
wrecked, and that is for our children and grandchildren, and there is
nothing in this amendment that will have one slight, negative effect on
Social Security for the current recipients. Nothing in this amendment
has ever, does now, or will ever have anything negative. And to those
who continue to politicize and frighten senior citizens around the
country, I say shame on you.
We are going to talk more about that as we get into this week's
debate. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to share
this hour, Mr. Payne of Virginia, with you and others, as we talk about
the bipartisan, bicameral balanced budget amendment, the only amendment
that has a chance of getting 290 votes.
I am proud to say it is Senate Joint Resolution 1, it has tremendous
support on the Senate side, and now we believe that we have the votes
on the House side, and I believe that after the debate this week, we
will be able to prove that. But I am a great believer in not counting
our chickens before they are hatched. Therefore, I commend you again
for taking this hour to talk, so that all of our colleagues, those not
in the House today, will begin to focus on the merits of what we are to
talk about.
Thank you very much for allowing me this privilege.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Thank you very much, and thank you especially,
Charlie, for all the work you have done on the balanced budget
amendment, and thank you for mentioning all of those, both Republicans
and Democrats, over the years who have gotten us to where we are today
in terms of being able to pass the balanced budget amendment this week.
I now yield to my colleague, Mike Doyle from Pennsylvania, a new
Member just elected in November, but already has joined in the fight
and has proven himself to be a leader in this fight for a balanced
budget amendment.
[[Page H497]]
{time} 1610
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this special order supporting House
Resolution 28. I have joined scores of my colleagues in cosponsoring
this resolution because it is the only bipartisan, bicameral balanced
budget amendment, and I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for
this resolution when it comes up later this week because we cannot wait
any longer to address this country's budget deficit.
I signed on as a cosponsor of this balanced budget amendment last
month while I was still a member-elect because I already considered
this issue a priority for my first term in Congress. As I spoke to
people throughout Allegheny County, PA, while I campaigned for this
office last year; their message came through load and clear. They felt
the Congress must undertake significant measures to address our
country's expanding budget deficit. The vast majority of my
constituents believe a balanced budget amendment is the proper, and
most effective means to tackle this deficit problem and that the
Congress should not wait any longer to exact this measure.
It's no wonder that the folks back home--in all of our homes--feel
such a sense of urgency. The statistics are not unfamiliar to anyone,
but certainly warrant repeating. Our national debt currently exceeds
$4.3 trillion--17,495 dollars' worth for every man, woman, and child in
the United States. It is any wonder people feel a sense of urgency?
The last time this House voted on a balanced budget amendment was
last March when the amendment was narrowly defeated. Unfortunately, a
near miss is not close enough and the debt has continued to skyrocket,
increasing by more than $160 billion since last March. Is it any wonder
people feel a sense of urgency?
And as the debt increases, the interest payments on this debt
increase as well. Interest payments that continue to devour larger and
larger portions of the budget--from 6 percent in 1960, to 14 percent of
the entire budget today. The gross interest payments on this debt cost
us $816 million dollars per day. I ask again--is it any wonder that
people feel a sense of urgency?
These interest payments, by consuming more and more of our annual
budget, are crowding out funding for discretionary programs. This is
the insidious nature of our deficit debacle. Unless we take control of
this problem now, we will cripple the ability of future generations to
make the investments in discretionary programs that are necessary to
keep this country moving forward.
My constituents back home in western Pennsylvania certainly
understand this need. Many of the communities I represent have not
recovered from the severe recession they experienced throughout the
1980's. During this time, much of the steel industry engaged in
aggressive ownsizing--many plants were closed and jobs were lost. The
Mon-Valley needs the help of innovative and intelligent Federal
programs to assist in the retraining of these displaced workers so they
are prepared to join new, high-technology industries. Programs are
needed to clean up the abandoned industrial sites so fresh businesses
will locate there bringing with them secure jobs in growing industries.
And we must improve our public education systems so future generations
will have the knowledge and training they need to be prepared to
work and flourish in a high-technology environment.
These are the types of discretionary programs that are being crowded
out by the increasing interest payments on our debt. This year alone
the interest payments will be 8 times higher than expenditure on
education and 50 times higher than expenditures on job training. This
is just the type of help my district needs--but as our interest
payments increase, our ability to help will be severely curtailed.
It is for these reasons that I support this balanced budget
amendment, House Resolution 28. Lets pass this amendment and send it to
the States for ratification. During the ratification process, people
throughout the country should be afforded the opportunity to closely
examine how the amendment would work, and what specific actions would
be necessary to achieve a balanced budget early in the 21st century.
Then the people can either reaffirm or withdraw their support of the
balanced budget amendment through their State legislators. But we must
afford the people of this country that opportunity by first passing the
balanced budget amendment on the House floor.
The Stenholm-Schaefer balanced budget amendment is our best hope for
passage. It is the only version that has been offered with substantial
bipartisan and bicameral support. Myself, and at least 65 other
Democrats stand ready to joint our Republican colleagues in voting for
H.R. 28. This is the only version of the balanced budget amendment that
can claim this type of support and that can anticipate receiving the
requisite 290 votes needed for passage.
Because passing a balanced budget amendment is so crucial to our
country's future well-being; I urge all of my colleagues, from both
sides of the aisle, to join us in support of the Stenholm-Schaefer
amendment because it is the best way to ensure that this House finally
passes a balanced budget amendment.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from
Pennsylvania for the leadership that he has already displayed in terms
of supporting the balanced budget amendment. It is much appreciated and
much needed. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker, this week the House of Representatives is pleased to
make history when we take up the balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution. I, along with others who you have heard today, urge our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting House
Joint Resolution 28, the Stenholm-Schaefer amendment.
This bipartisan and bicameral amendment is as simple as it is vital
to our Nation's future. By the year 2002, it will bring to an end, once
and for all, the staggering tide of deficit spending and red ink which
has so dominated Washington. It does so by placing limits on the power
of the Federal Government to spend and borrow money with impunity and
to pass along the bill to our future generations without a plan to pay
it back.
Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker, these sustained and
uncontrolled deficit spendings in Washington pose a grave threat to
American productivity and to a prosperous future for our people.
Beside me is a check, and this check is a check from the typical
American taxpaying family. It is made out to the order of the U.S.
Treasury in the amount of $3,100. And this is the interest that each
family of four paid on the national debt last year.
Now, this is not a total tax bill, nor is it even the family of
four's portion of our national debt. Because a portion of the national
debt, the $4.7 trillion national debt for each family of four, is in
excess of $70,000. But this $3,100 represents the interest payment for
last year for a family of four.
This is money that will not be saved to buy a new home or to put into
a retirement plan or for a family vacation or for the education and
training of children. Nor will it be spent by the Government for health
care or for public safety or education. It is money that will be used
to pay investors who purchase debt obligation to the United States.
Many of these investors are foreign investors. The time has come to
free American families from this enormous burden of debt. The balanced
budget amendment offers the best hope of doing just that.
It is a legal restriction similar to that contained in 49 of our 50
States. And it is embraced by State and local officials from my
district and from around this Nation. House Joint Resolution 28, the
Schaefer-Stenholm balanced budget amendment, is identical to other
amendments which have narrowly failed to gain approval in the House in
1992 and again last March. This amendment has been debated and studied
and written about as much as any other issue that has come before the
Congress in the 7 years that I have been a Member of Congress and it
has stood the test of time.
It is the one balanced budget amendment which has gained strong
bipartisan support, cosponsorship by 64 Democratic Members of the
House, some of whom you have heard speak here this
[[Page H498]] afternoon. It is the one amendment that has strong
support in the Senate.
{time} 1620
Senate Joint Resolution 1, the Senate companion to Stenholm-Schaefer,
was introduced by Majority Leader Dole and is cosponsored by 40
Senators. Of the amendments we will debate later this week, Stenholm-
Schaefer clearly stands the best chance of becoming the law of the
land.
Would it be better for the President and Congress to come together
and agree to a balanced budget amendment without a constitutional
mandate? Of course it would, but experience teaches us that this is not
likely to happen.
Even since last year, last March, when the Stenholm-Schaefer
amendment failed very narrowly to pass in this House, we have added
more than $150 billion to the national debt, and there is no end in
sight to the red ink coming out of Washington. The American people are
tired of waiting. We are all tired of waiting, and we need to support a
balanced budget amendment to put us on a downward glide path to balance
this budget in the year 2002.
Is the balanced budget amendment a substitute for decisive action to
reduce the deficit? Of course it is not.
Congress, 2 years ago, did approve a 5-year, $500 billion, tough
deficit reduction plan, and the House and Senate approved a 5-year
freeze on discretionary spending starting in 1993, at levels using no
inflation. Largely because of that legislation, our deficit has come
down and the Nation has enjoyed 3 straight years of deficit reduction,
the first time that has happened since Harry Truman was our President.
I supported that plan last year. It was a tough vote, but like many
of my colleagues, I knew it was not an end to our deficit reduction
efforts, but only one part of a larger effort to balance our budget and
to restore fiscal responsibility to this Capitol.
The same is true of this balanced budget amendment. We will vote on
this this week, on Thursday or Friday. We will have a vote in the
Senate, and I believe that the amendment will then go to the States for
ratification.
But nothing in the process changes our basic responsibility here in
Congress to go back to our committees and to our subcommittees next
week and to continue to achieve real savings and spending reduction.
This is our responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, one of my congressional district's most famous citizens,
Thomas Jefferson, once said ``To preserve our independence, we must not
let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election
between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.'' Although we
are almost 200 years late, Congress and the States have the opportunity
to affirm the truth of Jefferson's observation by adopting the balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution.
It is an opportunity that we should seize, and I urge my colleagues
to support House Joint Resolution 28, the Stenholm-Schaefer balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution. We must work together in a
bipartisan fashion to pass this important amendment for our country and
for our future. We cannot wait any longer.
____________________