[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.


                          ____________________