[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            CONCERNING THE RULE TO HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1

                                 ______


                            HON. BOB FRANKS

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 25, 1995
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in reluctant 
support of House Resolution 44, the rule for the balanced budget 
amendment. Although I will be voting for this rule, I am disappointed 
that the Franks-Condit-Gillmor substitute amendment adding unfunded 
mandates language to the balanced budget amendment was not made in 
order by the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, our amendment was substantially similar to the Barton 
balanced budget amendment (H.J. Res. 1), but with two crucial 
differences. First, our amendment struck 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, our amendment includes a provision prohibiting new unfunded 
Federal mandates. I 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 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 Republican 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. The 
inclusion of a provision to ban unfunded Federal mandates would have, 
in my opinion, markedly improved the chance of ratification by the 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, our substitute amendment 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 ultimately be deciding the fate of the balanced budget 
amendment. And since this rule precludes me from offering my substitute 
amendment that would have protected the States, I am skeptical whether 
this version of the balanced budget amendment will ever be ratified by 
the requisite 38 States.
  Mr. Speaker, consideration of the balanced budget amendment presents 
Congress with a unique and historic opportunity to permanently resolve 
the issue of unfunded Federal mandates. Our substitute amendment would 
have provided the assurance that Congress would not have met its 
obligations under the balanced budget amendment by imposing unfunded 
mandates on State and local governments. Although I am disheartened 
that Congress will not act on my amendment today, I expect that we will 
be revisiting this issue should the States refuse to ratify the 
balanced budget amendment because of an absence of a unfunded mandate 
provision.


                          ____________________