[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H628-H641]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Pursuant to House Resolution 44 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union 
[[Page H629]] for the consideration of the joint resolution, House 
Joint Resolution 1.

                              {time}  1615


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, with Mr. Walker in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Chairman. Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution is 
considered as read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] will be recognized for 1\1/2\ hours, and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be recognized for 1\1/2\ 
hours.
  The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it is clear, judging from the minority 
party's reactions, that our quest to achieve a balanced budget has 
already encountered fierce resistance. This is evidenced by the cascade 
of amendments they have offered to the legislation barring unfunded 
mandates and to the balanced budget amendment itself.
  Why this lip service to the concept, Mr. Chairman, but genuine 
obstruction to the process? Mr. Chairman, as I was asking, why do the 
Democrats give lip service to these concepts of banning unfunded 
mandates and having a balanced budget amendment, but yet the process 
seems to be strewn with land mines?
  Mr. Chairman, I think, and this is just my personal opinion, they do 
not want a balanced budget amendment, despite what they say, nor do 
they want to forego unfunded mandates, because it is through their 
mandates and deficit spending that Government grows bigger and bigger 
and bigger. The minority party has a long-standing romance with big 
Government, and unfunded mandates and deficit spending are the flowers 
and the candy they keep bestowing on their beloved.
  Why do we need a balanced budget amendment? The current statistics, 
the figures, the money, are both inescapable and staggering. Federal 
debt is now $4.7 trillion and growing; the 1995 deficit, $176 billion, 
and by the year 2005 the deficit will be, if current expenditure rates 
continue, $421 billion. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the Federal 
Government has run deficits in 33 of the last 34 years.
  Mr. Chairman, interest on the national debt is 14 percent of Federal 
spending. It is the third largest item in the budget after Social 
Security and defense. It now totals $235 billion, and next year debt 
service will jump to $260 billion. By the year 2000 it will be $310 
billion and still counting, and still mounting.
                              {time}  1620

  Foreign creditors now own 20 percent of our debt. That is the reality 
lurking behind this romance with ever-bigger Government that seems to 
consume the Democrats.
  The balanced budget amendment is much more than a mere symbol. It 
would establish a binding, legal framework, a disciplined structure 
requiring Congress to make the tough choices with a bias toward cutting 
spending, not increasing the debt and not increasing taxes.
  In 1982, I wrote an op-ed piece expressing skepticism about a 
balanced budget amendment. Thirteen years later, that skepticism has 
dissipated. I am convinced nothing is going to work short of a balanced 
budget amendment. To date we have rejected all serious efforts to hold 
back this tidal wave of red ink that threatens to inundate us all. In 
the past 10 years, three major legislative efforts have sought to 
reverse our chronic deficit pattern. Two of them have failed and the 
third is destined to do so. I am convinced only a long-term permanent 
legal commitment provided by a constitutional amendment will harness a 
runaway Congress in pursuit of a balanced budget amendment.
  In short, this amendment is essential to force Congress to make the 
kind of difficult choices it has evaded for years. It is a last gasp of 
a fiscal policy suffocating from overspending.
  The balanced budget amendment is a procedural enforcement tool. It is 
not a detailed plan.
  Much has been made about the failure of our amendment to specify 
where the cuts are going to come and when they will be made.
  I suggest that a constitutional amendment should never include a 
laundry list of spending cuts. It is a statement of general principles, 
not an inventory of details. It is irresponsible for balanced budget 
amendment critics to demand in a single legislative vehicle a specific 
balanced budget plan covering the next 7 years as a precondition for 
passing the amendment. Making complete and accurate spending and 
revenue projections covering the entire 7-year timeframe is impossible 
at this time and they know it. It would be the sheerest speculation and 
more misleading then informative.
  As George Will has said, ``The Constitution stipulates destinations. 
It doesn't draw detailed maps.''
  This year as part of the annual budget process, Congress will begin 
to identify what specific cuts need to be made between now and 2002. 
Passing the balanced budget amendment will give Congress the 
opportunity to reexamine virtually every function of Government. Like 
the base closing commission, it will impose a systematic reform that 
will force elected officials to make those tough decisions. The result 
will be what the voters said they want, a smaller, less intrusive 
Government and more power to reside where it belongs, with the States, 
with local communities, and with American families.
  The long-neglected 10th amendment will be resuscitated and so will 
our economy. What we need to do is to convince America that we will 
make the cuts and that we have the will to make the cuts necessary to 
bring the budget into balance. That was the clear signal of November 8 
last year.
  We have heard so much about Social Security and we have heard it from 
the party that has taxed Social Security in the last budget, taxed the 
Social Security benefits that they so cavalierly refer to as sacred. It 
seems to me that was a violation of sanctity, but
 nonetheless, that is their problem.

  Social Security is off-limits. It is not on the table. The Republican 
Party, the Republican leadership has made it clear that Social Security 
will not be cut.
  The budget can be balanced by the year 2002 without touching Social 
Security.
  One of my authorities for that is the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas and a fine Democrat named Charles Stenholm.
  It should be noted that a balanced budget amendment will provide 
greater protection for each American's investment in Social Security 
because by balancing the budget, no additional Government bonds will 
have to be issued to finance the deficit. Thus, there will be no more 
borrowing from the trust fund which truly protects the future of our 
Nation's retirees.
  In contrast, if there is no amendment, starting in the year 2013, the 
Federal Government will have to begin paying back from general revenues 
the trillions it will have borrowed by then from the trust funds. 
Congress will then have to face the inevitable task of raising payroll 
taxes and/or reducing benefits.
  The Contract With America clearly supports senior citizens. It helps 
seniors in several ways. It raises the Social Security earnings limit 
to $30,000 over 5 years. It repeals the onerous Clinton/Democrat tax 
increases on Social Security retirees. It provides a $500 elder care 
tax credit and tax incentives to help individuals purchase private 
long-term care insurance.
  Not only will the balanced budget amendment protect our seniors but 
it will protect our children and their children as well. We steal from 
them by thrusting the metastasizing Federal debt on their shoulders. We 
will continue to commit generational larceny if we fail to reduce the 
debt. It can only be done with the help of a balanced budget amendment.
  One of the most interesting lines last night in the President's State 
of the Union speech was this: ``None of us can change our yesterdays, 
but all of us can change tomorrows.'' Well we better be careful how we 
change tomorrows, 
[[Page H630]] by lightening the debt on our grandchildren's backs or by 
exacerbating it. If we do not have a balanced budget amendment, you 
know what is going to happen and it is no present our grandchildren or 
future generations.
  Slowing the rate of growth of spending is the answer. Under current 
policies, spending will increase by 5.4-percent annually over the next 
7 years and total spending during that period amounts to $13 trillion. 
We can balance the budget by 2002 if we hold spending growth to about 
3-percent annually.
  If we do not act, what is going to happen? The longer we put this 
off, the tougher it gets. Where will we find the money for essential 
Government services and programs when the debt service grows to 30 
percent or 40 percent of Federal spending? How will the private sector 
finance business startups, job creation, with debt service eating up 
almost half of the private investment funds generated each year? What 
will we do when the foreigners close their checkbooks?
  The American taxpayer deserves and demands relief. We need bold 
action to regain the confidence of the investment community here and 
abroad. More dollars will be available to the private sector. Savings 
rates will increase. Interest rates will be lower. Capital investment 
will be encouraged. More jobs available for more Americans.
  If the last election did not convert you, perhaps you are beyond 
redemption. But to the rest I say, seize the day, and now is the day.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 1 and 
have long opposed the concept a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget because it seeks to trivialize our most fundamental document by 
inserting an ill-defined and unenforceable promise about budgetary 
policy. The Constitution deals with real--not illusory--promises to 
safeguard the rights and liberties of all Americans. And while many are 
quick to point to simplistic Gallup polls indicating widespread support 
for such an amendment, they severely underestimate the real desire of 
the American people to see their Government take real responsibility 
for reducing the deficit--rather than simply taking credit for 
promising to do so after two more Presidential elections have passed 
into history by the year 2002.
  Make no mistake. All Members of this body want to see the Federal 
budget balance. Its crushing weight will dampen the dreams of our 
children, constrain capital flows, increase interest rates, and exert 
often regressive influences on the economy. Only using the Constitution 
both tivilializes that precious document and delays action for 7 years. 
in the past 2 years, President Clinton and the Congress didn't delay 
but acted on a budget that has brought us 3 consecutive years of 
deficit reduction for the first time in modern history.
  That is the way it should be, but that is not what House Joint 
Resolution 1 is all about. The proposed amendment is the epitome of 
``trust me'' politics. It rightfully is the heart of the Republican 
Contract With America--because it is all style and symbolism, and no 
substance.
  Most significantly, the new majority refuses to put its money where 
its mouth is by supporting the truth in budgeting concept. Not only 
that, they blocked our right to offer that measure as a perfecting 
amendment. Why is that? Are Republicans hiding the real numbers because 
as one of their leaders said that the ``Congress may buckle,'' or 
because as one of the majority members in the Judiciary Committee said 
that the ``States may buckle?''
  What I object to most is the fact that I believe that its proponents, 
relying largely on public opinion polls, are trying to buy their budget 
cutting wings on the cheap. And because they are not answering 
fundamental questions raised by the amendment, they are selling the 
American people a pig in a poke. Well, I am from Detroit, and we know 
that when buying a car, we first need to look under the hood.
  This budget is going to force over $1 trillion in cuts, but no one 
will say from where. Will our military have to be cut in half'' Will 
Medicare be on the chopping block. Will veterans' benefits be up for 
grabs? How about student loans. When we tried to provide protections 
for these programs in the Judiciary Committee, the Republicans in 
lockstep said no. And, yes, what about Social Security?
  Upon taking office, the new majority promised that Social Security 
would be protected from the hemorrhagic budget knife which must surely 
follow if the proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution 
passes.
  Less than 7 days later, one of its chief lieutenants, the respected 
Judiciary chairman, Henry Hyde, said during committee markup of the 
measure, that Social Security couldn't be taken off the table because 
if it was, the cuts in other programs would be ``too draconian?''
  Senior citizens of America beware. The balanced budget amendment 
removes current ``off-budget'' protections of Social Security and 
places the program on the chopping block. It is clear and simple. House 
Concurrent Resolution 17, a Republican proposal to provide implementing 
legislation without touching Social Security is a mirage, totally 
unenforceable, without any sanction if Congress fails to do it. The 
only way, I repeat the only way to protect Social Security from cuts 
under this amendment, is to put it in the text of the constitutional 
amendment.
  Proponents, and particularly Republican proponents, are telling 
Governors and other States' representatives that any fears that 
Washington will cascade Federal responsibilities to States in the form 
of unfunded mandates--a scenario many consider inevitable if the 
amendment becomes law--are magically resolved by the imminent passage 
of unfunded mandates legislation.
  You've got to be kidding. In the 103d Congress I chaired the 
committee with jurisdiction over unfunded mandates. So I know that 
whatever unfunded mandates legislation Congress passes now, can and 
most likely will be superseded with subsequent legislation passing the 
responsibilities--but not the bucks--to the States. The amendment, in 
fact, is the mother of all unfunded mandates. The only way to stop that 
from being so is to say in the text of the constitutional amendment. 
But Republicans in lockstep said no to that. They stopped us from an 
amendment on the floor to that effect also. Starting to get the 
picture?
  It's great to say we'll balance the budget in 6 or 7 years--well 
after two more Presidential elections--but how are we going to do it? 
Is defense going to be cut in half--even as Republicans state they'll 
seek increased funding? Will Medicare, veteran's benefits, student 
loans, or agricultural subsidies be reduced and by how much?
  That evasiveness may make for good politics but do not make for good 
economic policy and could turn a mild recession into a dramatic 
economic downturn. Many countercyclical entitlement program for 
instance, such as unemployment benefits, require budgetary flexibility 
to keep our economy strong when its runs sour. Today a 1 percent 
increase in unemployment would increase the deficit by $57 billion--
both because of declining taxes and increasing demand for benefits. 
With such a proposed constitutional amendment, the Federal Government 
would be forced to increase taxes or cut benefits by $57 billion during 
an economic contraction. This would dramatically aggravate the economy, 
create economic pressures increasing rather than decreasing the 
deficit, and generally make a bad situation far worse.
  Had the constitutional amendment been ratified in 1991 when the 
recession combined with the savings and loan crisis created a $116 
billion shortfall in receipts, the amendment would have plunged this 
country into a devastating economic contraction which would have been 
bad for all our goals, including deficit reduction.
  And the amendment's failure to provide definitions for ``receipts'' 
and ``outlays'' would only mean more chaos. Are loan guarantees or 
contingent liabilities of Government corporations considered 
``outlays''? We do not know from the text of the amendment. What about 
zero coupon bonds on the revenue side? Does Congress have the 
prerogative to declare certain items off budget, or outside the 
traditional ``receipts'' and ``outlays'' categories. It's unclear.
  [[Page H631]] Further the mechanics of such an amendment are not 
spelled out. The budget identified in the amendment requires only 
estimates of overall spending and revenues, which are always inaccurate 
because of unanticipated economic circumstances. So what happens if 
revenues fall short, or there are overages in entitlement outlays at 
midyear? Does Congress enact a supplemental appropriations bill? Does 
the President impound funds despite statutory requirements to provide 
outlays? Do the courts step in?
  Finally, there is nothing in the proposal before us to explain what 
the enforcement mechanism will be if Congress fails to honor its 
promise to balance the budget. Do the courts step in on their own 
initiative and start making budget decisions will-nilly? Do impacted 
States and taxpayers have the right to bring suit to make Congress keep 
its Contract with America? Does a sequestration procedure kick in which 
would cut back all expenditures by a fixed amount? Do the capital 
markets ``go on hold'' while the international monetary system is kept 
in suspense about whether the U.S. Government will be brought to a 
halt? I think what this amendment does is to pass the buck ultimately 
to a unaccountable Federal judiciary whose role is not to decide how 
much the American people should be taxed and on what tax dollars should 
be spent. Isn't it ironic that one of the first promises of the 
Republican contract is to abdicate budgetary responsibility to another 
branch of Government. Make no mistake, if the amendment is ratified, 
critical decision about taxes and Federal spending could be made in a 
secret chamber without any checks whatsoever.
  Do individuals affected by any of the above courses of action have 
the right to sue? Much of our information about the level of outlays on 
the mandatory side of the budget are not even calculable until 3 months 
after the fiscal year.
  In the past weeks the Republican leaders have publicly admitted that 
they will not spell out what cuts will be necessary to bring the budget 
into balance because Congress' knees would buckle, or because the 
States' knees would buckle or because the American taxpayer's knees 
would buckle. Well buckle or not, the American people have a right to 
know. And the amendment I will be offering later will require Congress 
to specifically enumerate how it will eliminate the deficit in the next 
7 years before it will go into effect.
  Well, do not fear: By passing the amendment before us, we are on a 
``glide path'' to a balanced budget, because that's what the 
Republicans say--but do not vote to specify--about the effect of the 
proposed amendment after only 2 weeks of consideration by Congress.
  This effort is not serious, and by its snake oil promises, does not 
augur well for the accountability which Americans have demanded in this 
new Congress.
                              {time}  1640

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the balanced budget amendment is a 
question of discipline. It is a question of financial discipline on a 
Congress which has had none.
  Amending the U.S. Constitution is strong medicine, and in past 
history has occurred only to correct deficiencies in the Constitution, 
which was adopted in 1787, to abolish slavery, to give women the right 
to vote, and in other important matters such as the Bill of Rights.
  I would submit the strong medicine is in order to force Congress to 
put America's fiscal house in order. Congress has tried and failed in 
the past to put discipline on itself in a statutory manner.
  In 1990 we had the Bush budget agreement with discretionary spending 
caps and firewalls. That lasted 3 years before it was replaced by the 
1993 Clinton agreement.
  In 1985 we had the Gramm-Rudman law, which was amended twice before 
it was repealed, because the shoe started to pinch too hard.
  In 1981 we had the Gramm-Latta, and in 1978 we the Harry Byrd law 
that required Congress to balance the Federal budget by 1981.
  To my knowledge that law still is on the books, and since 1981 the 
national debt has increased by almost $3\1/2\ trillion. So we do need a 
constitutional amendment to force the people who serve in this Chamber 
and the one down the hall to start reducing the Federal budget deficit 
to zero so that we do not mortgage our children and grandchildren's 
future.
  It is no secret that many of the most vocal opponents of the balanced 
budget amendment have big-spending records on issues of taxing and 
spending, and they are the ones that do not want to put this 
constitutional discipline on the House of Representatives so that they 
can go on spending as usual.
  The time has come to put a stop to that, and that is why House Joint 
Resolution 1 should pass.
  Now, tomorrow the biggest item of controversy will be the three-
fifths vote that would be required both to raise taxes and to increase 
the national debt. I favor a three-fifths supermajority in both cases 
and hope that the House of Representatives will approve it.
  Why should we not make it harder to increase taxes on the American 
people and to raise the national debt? We ought to do that so that a 
balanced budget amendment simply is not complied with by increasing 
taxes.
  But also a three-fifths supermajority will require bipartisanship for 
future tax increases and national-debt increases. No longer will a 
partisan majority be able to ram a tax increase down the throats of the 
American people such as happened in August 1993. It will require a 
consensus in order to achieve a tax increase or in order to increase 
the national debt.
  The President last night called for consensus. We have not had 
consensus in these areas in the past. We ought to have consensus in the 
future, and the three-fifths vote will require that consensus to be 
had.
  I would hope that this amendment would pass and be sent to the States 
with the three-fifths vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I appreciate your leadership on our committee.
  I must say, as I listen to this debate, I hear people accusing this 
side of the aisle of being political, and it would be much easier for 
us to say, ``Oh, let us just go along; let us just vote yes, let us 
take up this new idea of government by windsock or government by the 
slogan of the day.'' Clearly we would be more popular.
  But it seems to me that when you deal with the Constitution, we are 
not talking about popularity, and our forefathers and foremothers in 
the past restrained themselves and did not just throw everything they 
could think of into this Constitution.
  I must say, as the ranking member on the subcommittee that dealt with 
this amendment, I have been shocked by the whole process. As we saw 
today in the rule, they had to waive points of order because of some of 
the violations that went on during the markup, improper notice, the 
problems we had of not having, or of having very short hearings. We had 
less time to mark this bill up than it takes me to make a costume for 
my children for Halloween.
  You know, I always thought of a constitutional amendment as being 
real serious. Yet it was like, ``No, no, no, we have got to have it out 
here, we have got to have it now because it is on our slogan, and there 
was some ad or something in a TV journal and we have got to have it 
now.'' So here we are.
                              {time}  1650

  Some of the amendments that we never dealt with in committee I think 
are the most serious amendments of all and go right to the core of this 
amendment. There are things like who has standing to sue. Now, that 
sounds like a technical thing. Obviously, the average guy is not too 
interested in it. Unless you can figure out what standing to sue means, 
it is finding out can anybody enforce this thing. Are we passing 
something and throwing it into the 
[[Page H632]] Constitution, and if the President has an unbalanced 
budget or we have an unbalanced budget, something can be done about it?
  Then I think the American people can be mad about it; we cluttered up 
the Constitution and nobody had any enforcement. But we never got to 
the issue of standing. In fact, most of the witnesses said they felt, 
the way this was drafted, no one had standing. So I have real questions 
as to whether this is really worth anything.
  Then, second, if you got over the standing hurdle and somebody could 
challenge this and it went to court, what could the court review?
  What we are saying today is the Presidents have not been able to 
balance the budget, we have not been able to balance the budgets, so 
now we are going to give it to the courts. The courts have the right to 
decide we are leaning too heavily on defense and can take it away? Or 
do the courts look at our estimates? What do the courts do?
  Of course, we never got to those amendments. That was one of the over 
20 amendments sitting at the desk that we never got to.
  Are insurance funds in this? Yes. You buy crop insurance, you think 
you have got crop insurance. Surprise, the money goes to balance the 
budget. Social Security funds are on the table, as we well know from 
the prior debate. Let us be honest, they are on the table. So are all 
the trust funds.
  You pay for gasoline, and you think that tax is going to buy 
highways. No, we are going to put it into a budget balancing. Maybe 
that is what we should be doing. But we ought to tell the American 
people what we are doing.
  But let me tell you the real reason I do not think this belongs in 
the Constitution: I was one of the Members on this side, and there were 
only Members on this side, who voted for the last budget, the last few 
budgets that have brought this deficit down. It is easy to deplore the 
deficit, but we do not find very many votes to vote for real cuts that 
really turn it around. We prefer rhetoric to reality.
  So, being one of the realists who voted to bring it down, and also 
being an airplane pilot, let me tell you what I feel our challenge is 
in this body. Every year when we do a budget, it is like bringing an 
airplane down to the ground. We are trying to bring the deficit down to 
zero, but we know we cannot bring it down to zero, blam, or we crash 
just like an airplane.
  We were up in the airplane, and we want to bring it down to the 
ground, boom. No. You have to find a way to bring an airplane down, 
just as we try every year to find what is the right angle of descent 
for this deficit so that we do not throw this economy into a spiral or 
into a tailspin and have a depression. And yet we also are able to 
bring the deficit in the right direction.
  Many of us have been voting for what we thought was the right angle 
and have not been joined by very many people and have been beaten up 
for doing that. But that to me is what our mission is, trying to assess 
that angle. And putting it in the Constitution or demand we do a crash 
into the Constitution is not where I think we want to go.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the balanced budget amendment, and 
I do so for several apparent and vivid reasons.
  First, just to put it in the Constitution and have it as a discipline 
for the Members of Congress is reason enough to support the balanced 
budget amendment. But if one looks at it more analytically, one will 
find even additional rationale for strong support of this amendment.
  In my judgment, and it has been said in various ways throughout the 
parts of the debate that have preceded this, our Social Security funds, 
our trust funds to which there has been reference, our pension system, 
our budgetary problems, our deficit, everything is on the table and 
will be helped when we reform a balanced budget. Social Security, 
actuarially, will be even more sound than it is today. Veterans' 
benefits will stay in place and be strengthened when we reach that 
balanced budget. So why do we clamor for a balanced budget? To solidify 
our economy, to stabilize our debt situation, to make it possible in 
the near future, 2002, borrowing power on the part of citizens will be 
greater. Mortgaging and lending that will allow the building of homes 
and the building of businesses will be made easier once a balanced 
budget has arrived.
  Why? Because everyone in America knows that when the Federal 
Government comes to a point that it will cease to borrow from the 
private sector in order to finance debt, then that money no longer 
required by the Federal Government because we have reached a balanced 
budget, that money will remain in the private sector. And lo and 
behold, the banks and lending institutions and all who are interested 
in the availability of private capital for creation of jobs, for 
reduction of unemployment, for increasing workers' benefits, for then 
considering the raising of the minimum wage, all those other matters 
that come with prosperity will be given a yeoman's chance if we reach--
and I say when we reach--the balanced budget in the year 2002.
  We must balance the budget not just to insert into the Constitution, 
as valuable as that is, the language of balanced budget, but rather to 
do so for the spirit of America in reaching financial sanity through 
the balanced budget that will free us all, including our citizens, for 
the enterprise of the future.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 45 seconds to the 
former Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from New York, 
Charles Schumer.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, the Barton 
amendment, the amendment that is on the floor.
  You know, ladies and gentleman, I guess the balanced budget amendment 
is something that the closer you get the worse it looks.
  You look at a couple of lines, ``let us have an amendment in the 
Constitution to balance the budget,'' and everyone says, ``Great idea, 
let's do it.'' Then you look at the mechanism of how to do it, and it 
does not look that good.
  And, finally, you look at the specific proposal and the kind of cuts 
that it would entail, and it looks very bad altogether. My guess is 
that a number of the strategists on the other side who have put 
together this amendment hope it fails. It is a great campaign issue: 
``We are for a balanced budget amendment.'' But there is no way to do 
this amendment even if you should take our advice and leave Social 
Security off the table, without decimating programs like Medicare, like 
transit, et cetera.
  I believe we must balance the budget. But I believe we should be on a 
gradual glide path down, not a severe drop and not a constitutional 
amendment that mandates that once you are in there you can never get 
out.
  I talked to a number of financiers on Wall Street, ``Wait until we 
are able to make the cuts.'' And yet we are unable to raise the debt 
ceiling. This nearly happened a few years ago, and Wall Street 
tremored. Wait until it happens now.
  The people who devised this amendment did not really know what 
government is all about. They did not think it through. They did not go 
step by step by step. They rather said, ``Let's find something that 
sounds good. The polls back us up. Eighty percent of America are for a 
balanced budget amendment.'' But when told it would cut Medicare by 
about one-third, which is about the cut that I understand the majority 
on the Budget Committee are considering, 76 percent say, ``No, forget 
about it.'' So I say to the Members on our side who know it is a bad 
idea but are a little worried about opposing the big headline-grabbers, 
just wait, the closer the scrutiny, the closer we get to actuality, the 
less good this idea will be.
  I think, in fact, that if you wanted to make sure our side retakes 
the majority, make sure the balanced budget amendment becomes law, and 
a few years after that we will have total change and total revolution. 
Good politics, maybe on the surface, although I 
[[Page H633]] say ``no'' after a long period of time. Good substance? 
No way.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to my friend, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who has pursued this with such 
sincerity and is one of the few who is willing to make the tough cuts 
required and who supports this amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to ask for a point of 
clarification because I wanted to be sure that I did not hear the 
gentleman saying that those who support the balanced budget amendment 
do not have a plan or cannot get there. I would take very strong 
exception to that on behalf of a lot of folks on both sides of the 
aisle. We do, and we can, and we will.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would say to the gentleman that my guess is I 
certainly think the gentleman understands the severity of the cuts. He 
is willing to cut Social Security----
  Mr. STENHOLM. No, sir.
  Mr. SCHUMER. My guess is 90 percent of the supporters of the balanced 
budget amendment are not. Once we have taken Social Security off, the 
cuts are at least one-third.
  I make the point that my analysis is, and I think it is 
uncontroverted, that it would require about a one-third cut in all 
discretionary programs. I do not think most people are willing to take 
that kind of cut.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, this is truly an historic debate, and I do 
not think there is any question about where the sentiment lies in this 
House relative to a balanced budget amendment. I think there is a huge 
majority that favor a balanced budget amendment, probably 300 or more 
Members. The question is which one will we support. Will we support a 
balanced budget amendment that makes it easier to raise taxes, or will 
we support a balanced budget amendment that makes it more difficult to 
raise taxes to accomplish the goal that we want to accomplish?
  I favor the bill that was reported from the Committee on the 
Judiciary. It requires a 60 percent majority, or three-fifths, in order 
to raise taxes to balance the budget, and I have come to that 
conclusion after looking, at great length, to what has happened in our 
efforts to balance the budget over the last couple of decades.
  In 1991, Mr. Chairman, the Democrat leaders of the House, the 
Democrat leadership of the House, and the Republican President got 
together, and they worked out an arrangement where we would have a tax 
increase, and for every dollar of tax increases we would have $2 in 
spending cuts. I say to my colleagues, ``Well, if you asked yourself 
what happened, you probably guessed it. We got the tax increases, but 
we never got the spending cuts.''
  And history repeated itself in 1983 because the same kind of 
arrangement was arrived at with the same kind of results, and then in 
the middle of the 1980's we passed the Gramm-Rudman bill, and the 
Gramm-Rudman bill began to work, and we began to see the level of 
spending ratchet down, even if it was ever so slowly, but, as it 
ratcheted down, it became very painful to make those spending cuts, and 
we repealed the Gramm-Rudman bill.
  Then our next major effort in 1990 was when George Bush got together 
with the Democrat leadership, and went out to Andrews Air Force Base, 
and came back here with a deal and said, ``We're going to have a $170 
billion deficit remaining in 1995,'' and that happens to be this year, 
``if we don't do something,'' and we imposed--I did not, but the House 
collectively imposed--the largest tax increase in the history of our 
country on the American people to solve the deficit problem. Well, it 
did not do it either.
  And in 1993 President Bill Clinton came to the House and said we have 
to do something about the deficit, and once again we raised taxes, once 
again the biggest tax increase in the history of our country imposed on 
the American people, and guess what? Next year our projected deficit is 
not $170 billion which was projected in 1990. It is $180 billion.
  So, Mr. Chairman, not only did we not take the easy out to increase 
taxes, but it also can be said quite clearly, ``It didn't work.
  Now this is bad tax policy, creates a lot of bad things, and 
particularly it has a bad effect on our economy, and I know that we 
like to do things around here on a bipartisan basis, and I know that if 
the three-fifths provision passes, Mr. Chairman, it will pass on a 
bipartisan basis.
  So, I look at the history of tax increases, look at the effect that 
they have had on our deficit, and I ask for support for the three-
fifths provision.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, just as I felt compelled to challenge the 
statement of my colleague from New York regarding those of us who 
support the balanced budget being unwilling to make the tough cuts, I 
found it very, very difficult to restrain myself from the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] a moment ago in asking for time because, 
when I look at some of the tough votes that were cast last year, like 
the Solomon amendment on the budget, he did not vote for it. When I 
look at the entitlement cap, he did not vote for it. The gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] did, but not other Members.
  We have a lot of rhetoric on this floor today that has no standing 
with reality, and I would hope in our bipartisan spirit we could start 
understanding that we are serious, in the serious mode now, regarding 
amending the Constitution of the United States, and just as my 
colleague stated on the floor a moment ago that Charlie Stenholm is for 
cutting Social Security, that is not true. I voted against the previous 
amendment for the merits of the amendment. I am not for cutting Social 
Security one penny, and no one can ever find anything in the Record 
that suggests that our amendment that we will offer tomorrow does that 
either. But yet the rhetoric flows free in this House today, and that 
is what is wrong with the political rhetoric involved in this issue.
  I am pleased to stand here today and rise in support of sending to 
the States an amendment to the Constitution. I have not come to this 
position lightly. I have come reluctantly because I would rather be 
doing almost anything than amending the Constitution for any purpose, 
but I am convinced that we must do so for the reasons that we will hear 
amplified over and over. But I have three simple reasons for wanting to 
amend the Constitution for purposes of requiring a balanced budget. 
Those reasons are Chris, Cary, and Courtney Ann, my three children, and 
I have just this month learned that by the end of August, God willing, 
I will have a fourth reason: our first grandchild. Motivations do not 
come much stronger than that.
  Our Constitution has always, in large measure, been about protecting 
the unrepresented from the abuses of government. The threat to 
unrepresented, future children from continued deficit spending is the 
type of governmental abuse appropriately proscribed by the 
Constitution. This point was made by Thomas Jefferson who said, ``The 
question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the 
deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it 
among the fundamental principles of the government.''
  Our bipartisan, bicameral consensus balanced budget amendment that 
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] and I will offer tomorrow we 
believe is based exactly on the same principle as the rest of the 
Constitution. It will protect the fundamental rights of the people by 
restraining the Federal Government from abusing its powers, from 
borrowing money day after day as we incessantly debate who is for 
cutting spending and who is for raising taxes. The easiest vote for any 
of us to cast is to vote ``no'' on everything and watch the deficit go 
up.
  The amendment which I introduce with Representatives Dan Schaefer, 
Joe Kennedy, Mike Castle, L.F. Payne, Nathan Deal, and 132 others on 
January 4, the amendment now 
[[Page H634]] numbered House Joint Resolution 28, is consensus language 
that has been developed over the past decade.
  This same language was introduced on opening day as Senate Joint 
Resolution 1 by Senate Majority Leader Dole, Senators Paul Simon, Larry 
Craig, Howell Heflin, Orrin Hatch, and others. Obviously, this language 
has strong bipartisan, bicameral support.
  Requiring a higher threshold of support for deficit spending will 
protect the rights of future generations who are not represented in our 
political system but will bear the burden of our decisions today.
  The language of the Schaefer-Stenholm amendment is the product of 
years of careful review and refinement. The amendment has been improved 
over the years based on the advice of Constitutional scholars, budget 
experts, numerous Members of Congress, and others. Changes were made in 
the amendment to address criticisms that were raised in the numerous 
hearings on the amendment. This exhaustive review process has produced 
an amendment that is workable, flexible, and enforceable.
  I do have some concern that the hearings held in the Judiciary 
Committee this year were just the start of any such review on the 
language incorporated in House Joint Resolution 1. Nonetheless, I have 
always supported my friend and colleague, Joe Barton, in his effort to 
bring this language before the House of Representatives. I included his 
amendment in every discharge rule which I filed in each of the past 
three Congresses. I also know that Joe is sincere about his desire to 
reduce the Federal deficit. Joe was one of the 37 brave souls to vote 
for the entitlement cap amendment I offered last year.
  The horrors conjured up when opponents talk about balanced budget 
Constitutional amendments are not really aimed at those amendments, but 
rather against what those amendments will require: significant deficit 
reduction. To those who assert that deficit reduction will wreak havoc 
on the economy, I must ask, ``What do you think the deficit is doing to 
our economy?'' More importantly, what do you think it will do to the 
lives of our grandchildren?
  Reaching a balanced budget will require discipline, but it is a far 
cry from the doom-and-gloom scenario portrayed by many opponents of the 
constitutional amendment. Federal spending is increasing now at about 5 
percent, or about $75 billion per year. Trimming that growth in 
spending to 3.1 percent would balance the budget by fiscal year 2002.
  But the hard truth is that the budget won't be balanced without 
passing the amendment first.
  I am committed whole-heartedly and single-mindedly to passing the 
constitutional amendment which can garner two-thirds support in the 
House, two-thirds support in the Senate, and ratification by three-
fourths of the States.
  With the House scheduled to consider six different balanced budget 
amendment proposals from Members covering the political spectrum, it is 
clear that the overwhelming majority of the House supports the 
principle of amending the Constitution to mandate a balanced budget. 
The question therefore is not whether we should pass a balanced budget 
amendment, but whether the amendment that we pass will be effective and 
enforceable.
  There are three fundamental tests of whether an amendment will 
provide effective fiscal discipline and is an appropriate addition to 
the Constitution. First, an amendment must have enforcement to make it 
more difficult for Congress to borrow money. Second, the amendment must 
not include any loopholes that could be used to circumvent the 
amendment. Finally, a constitutional amendment should be timeless and 
reflect a broad consensus, not make narrow policy decisions.
  Let me first address enforcement. Allowing Congress to waive the 
balanced budget requirement by a majority vote would gut the amendment. 
To be effective, an amendment must require a substantially higher 
threshold of support to deficit spending. A requirement for a super 
majority vote to increase the debt limit is critical to ensure that 
gimmicks are not used to circumvent the amendment.
  Second, taking the Social Security trust fund or capital expenditures 
out of budget calculations would open up a tremendous loophole in the 
amendment. This loophole makes it possible for the Government to fund 
any number of programs off-budget by redefining them as Social Security 
or capital expenditures. This would make the constitutional amendment 
meaningless.
  Finally, we must ensure that the language of any approved amendment 
passes constitutional muster. A balanced budget amendment reflects a 
consensus that Congress and the President should set priorities through 
the regular legislative process. Items such as capital budgeting, the 
treatment of the Social Security trust fund, and specific budget plans 
represent narrow policy issues on which there is not necessarily a 
consensus. These issues do not belong in the Constitution. It would be 
particularly inappropriate to place the concept of capital budgeting in 
the Constitution when there is no consensus on what should be included 
in a capital budget.
  We face a historic opportunity to add a solid, credible, meaningful 
amendment to the Constitution, at last responding to Thomas Jefferson's 
concerns. I urge my colleagues to take responsibility for the future we 
will hand our children and grandchildren. Vote for the balanced budget 
amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, in the years I have watched this body at 
work, I have concluded that only a constitutional amendment requiring a 
balanced Federal budget will force the consensus necessary for real 
deficit reduction.
  Opponents of the amendment are pressing its supporters to present a 
plan to eliminate the deficit at the same time Congress considers the 
amendment itself.
  The debate over amending America's founding document should not be a 
divisive quarrel about narrow special interest spending programs, as 
opponents are seeking to make it. Rather, I believe the discussion 
should be elevated above politics, to a thoughtful and long over due 
discussion of the more fundamental issues of the appropriateness and 
necessity of adding a balanced budget requirement to the Constitution.
  The Constitution both enumerates and limits the powers of the 
Government to protect the basic rights of the people. The Framers of 
the Constitution saw balancing the budget and promptly repaying debt as 
moral imperatives fitting squarely within that framework. Permitting 
the Government to abuse its power over debt was not simply considered 
economic folly, but a violation of a basic right of the people--the 
right to be free from the massive indebtedness of a wasteful 
government.
  Our Constitution currently protects the people from the excesses of 
Government that might infringe on their freedoms of religion or speech, 
right to keep and bear arms, be secure in their persons, homes, and 
papers and other rights. In exactly this same spirit, the balanced 
budget amendment would protect the American people--today and in future 
generations--from the burdens and harms created when a Government 
amasses an intolerable debt.
  Amending the Constitution means dealing with the most fundamental 
responsibilities of the Government and the broadest principles of 
governance. Scaring up special interest opposition only cheapens the 
debate and drags the Constitution through the gutter of politics.
  Demanding to see specific spending cuts before supporting a balanced 
budget amendment is little more than a poorly supporting a balanced 
budget amendment is little more than a poorly disguised argument 
against a balanced budget itself. It is like demanding a list of every 
kind of speech which will be protected before agreeing to support the 
first amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the freedom from the harms of excessive Government debt, 
like free speech, is a right of the people that is absolute, not 
contextual.
  There are literally hundreds of plans to balance the budget out 
there--one, in fact, for every Member of the House and Senate. There 
are countless ways to balance the budget. What is lacking is an 
overriding moral imperative--backed up with the might of the 
Constitution--to force consensus.
  After all, if we could have consensus on how to balance the budget 
right now, we would not be needing to debate a constitutional 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the primacy of fiscal responsibility in the Government's 
affairs, once taken as an unwritten given, should be explicitly 
returned to its rightful place among America's first principles. I urge 
my colleagues to support the balanced budget amendment.
                              {time}  1710

  In closing, I would say that I want to give a lot of credit, much 
credit, to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and 
his work over the 
[[Page H635]] years, as well as all the other people who have worked on 
this specific issue so long and so hard. And over the years we have 
been able to sort out the arguments that would be rallied against the 
language of the amendment that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] 
and I have proposed.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. I think the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we are engaged in particularly serious business this 
evening. In the 206 years of the Republic we have amended the 
Constitution some 27 times. There have been over 11,000 proposals.
  Yes, indeed, we need to bring the Federal budget, the operating 
budget of the Federal Government, into balance. It is not a question of 
whether we do it, but how we do it. We need to do it through a sensible 
process, not through an amendment to the Constitution that I believe 
will prove unworkable and detrimental to the national interests. And 
let me explain why I think the proposals that have been brought to the 
floor will run into those kinds of problems.
  First, those proposals with supermajority requirements: The reason we 
have a Constitution is that the Articles of Confederation required 
supermajorities for spending and taxing decisions, and they proved 
unworkable and brought the early version of this Nation into gridlock. 
We should not repeat that mistake by passing an amendment that would 
give 41 Senators, theoretically representing only 12 percent of the 
people of this country, the power to bring Government to a grinding 
halt.
  Second, the enforcement problem: The amendments that are before us 
are silent on how we deal with living up to the promise that we are 
making. Now, some assert that the courts could not get involved. I have 
no reason to believe that that is the case. The courts have authority 
under the Constitution to deal with matters arising under the 
Constitution. Do we really want unelected and unaccountable judges 
making decisions about spending and taxation?
  Third, these proposals depend upon budget estimates, notoriously--
through our recent experience--problematic and unreliable, and 
especially difficult when the economy may be going into recession. 
Recall when we were dealing with 1981 with the fiscal 1982 budget, the 
Reagan administration estimated growth of 4.2 percent. That year ended 
up going into recession, a decline in GDP of 1.9 percent. What would 
that have done if this amendment were in effect?
  The distinction, fourth, between capital and operating: We need to be 
able to make investments. This amendment hamstrings any ability of the 
Congress in the future to make the necessary investments that will save 
operating costs in the long run.
  Finally, the effort to fashion an escape clause for national 
security: Is ``an imminent threat to national security'' going to be 
whatever a future Congress says it is, or are we again inviting the 
Judiciary to get involved? I do not know. No one can know. It is an 
invitation to an intrusion by the Judicial Branch that is absolutely 
inappropriate.
  We evidently are not going to deal with these very substantial 
problems. My prayer is that our colleagues in the State legislatures, 
with the time that they will have to examine the ramifications of this, 
will find the faults and turn this down.
  Today we are being called upon to take the extraordinary step of 
amending to the Constitution. In the 206 years that this Nation has 
been governed by that charter of our democracy, about 11,000 possible 
amendments to it have been introduced in Congress, with only 27 
approved. There's good reason for this conservative approach to our 
Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution must be presumed to be for 
all time.
  It isn't just a reverence for the document as now constituted, 
however, that leads me to oppose the proposed amendments before us 
today. I do consider it essential to get our Government's financial 
house in better order, and I have devoted much of my effort here in 
Congress to that end. But to achieve that end I am not willing to 
sacrifice the ability of our Government to function. We must act to 
eliminate the deficit, but not by putting shackles on the democracy. To 
varying degrees, that is what each of the six versions of a balanced 
budget amendment before us today would do. Each would create more 
problems than it would solve.
  Let me illustrate in five ways.
  To begin with, the amendment proposed by Representative Barton and 
supported by the Republican leadership, would require a three-fifths 
vote in both the House and the Senate to approve an unbalanced budget, 
raise more revenue through taxes, or borrow more money. This would be 
constitutional lunacy. It violates the basic constitutional principle 
of majority rule and would effectively place control of the budget in 
the hands of 41 Senators--who might represent as little as 12 percent 
of the American people.
  All of us, I believe, recognize that there are times when it will be 
necessary to spend more, to tax more, or to borrow more. We could not 
have won the Revolutionary War, or World War II, or the cold war, 
without doing so. It can be hard enough here to achieve a simple 
majority vote on budgetary matters. That's the nature of a 
representative democracy, which is inherently constrained in making 
decisions.
  To raise the threshold for a decision by requiring three-fifths 
supermajorities in both the House and the Senate is a prescription for 
gridlock and failure. As a practical matter this amendment would act as 
a straitjacket in those times when swift action will be most needed. We 
could well be stuck with a policy-by-default that would turn an 
economic downturn into a depression, or a manageable threat to our 
security interests into a major conflict.
  In fact, it was precisely this weakness with the Articles of 
Confederation--its requirements for supermajority votes in Congress to 
make basic budgetary decisions, and the resulting national paralysis--
that led to the convening of the Constitutional Convention and the 
drafting of the Constitution. In that Philadelphia convention, the 
delegates repeatedly considered, and rejected, proposals to require a 
supermajority for action by Congress, either on all subjects or on more 
subjects than the five eventually specified in the original 
Constitution. Those are for overriding a veto, ratifying a treaty, 
removing officials from office, expelling a Representative or Senator, 
and proposing amendments to the Constitution. Amendments to the 
Constitution later added two others: restoring certain rights of former 
rebels, and determining the existence of a Presidential disability. 
None of those constitutional requirements for a supermajority threaten 
the basic functioning of the Government the way the three supermajority 
requirements of the Barton amendment would.
  It's not difficult to imagine the problems that could be created. In 
the midst of a recession or some other national emergency, an attempt 
to raise the debt ceiling or raise additional revenue could be 
supported by strong majorities in both bodies, but be blocked by a 
minority of only 41 Senators, aligned by some particular regional 
interest or political ideology.
  Imagine a situation in which a badly needed measure was blocked by 
the Senators of the 21 least populous States. Senators from States with 
fewer than 30 million people--less than 12 percent of the country--
could effectively thwart the will of the remaining 88 percent. The 
amendment, in short, would give exaggerated power to small States, and 
would effectively give 41 Senators the power to hold the country 
hostage. Recent experience gives us plenty of evidence that there are 
those who are willing to do so.
  We can't let this provision, which is essentially an act of political 
gamesmanship, back us and future Congresses into a legislative corner 
that would be difficult, if not impossible, to get out of when our 
country most needs decisive and timely action.
  A second major problem with all the different versions of a balanced 
budget amendment before us today is the possibility that judicial 
interpretation and enforcement of an amendment could turn basic taxing 
and spending decisions over to unelected judges. If a deadlock in 
Congress or some other development were to lead to an unbalanced 
budget, no enforcement mechanism has been specified to resolve the 
issue. I would hope that this would not lead to the Federal courts 
stepping in and writing budgets, cutting spending, or raising taxes. 
But that possibility is not ruled out by any of the texts before us. 
And therefore, the general authority of the courts to consider cases 
arising under the Constitution would apply. Anybody who is
 concerned about unelected judges making decisions that should be left 
to elected legislatures should be greatly alarmed about this 
possibility.

  A third concern is an example of subtler, but no less troubling, 
problems of definition and workability.
  We should ask ourselves, for instance, about the meaning and effects 
of these words that appear in both the Barton and Stenholm- 
[[Page H636]] Schaefer versions: that deficit spending is possible only 
if the United States faces ``an imminent and serious military threat to 
national security.'' Would this be a Grenada-type situation? Panama? 
The Gulf War? What about times of national economic crisis, or major 
natural disasters? How can we respond in times of crisis if the 
Constitution itself tells us that we cannot so act?
  A fourth problem has to do with the inherent weakness of budgetary 
estimates on which all of the proposed amendments rely. The level of 
accuracy we've seen in revenue and spending projections is rarely equal 
to the job of making budgets to which we must adhere, on penalty of 
judicial enforcement, during the course of a fiscal year. There are 
Members here who well remember 1981, when we started to dig this 
deficit hole in earnest. The first Reagan budget rosily forecast 
economic growth of 4.2 percent in the year ahead. The economy, 
apparently not in a mood to obey the President, proceeded to decline by 
1.9 percent.
  The relevant lesson is that when we make projections, often 18 months 
or more into the future, our actions are based on economic models that 
are not perfect. And a lot can happen in the space of only 18 months to 
overtake the best projections. Given the difficulty we would face in 
marshalling the supermajority required for us to take corrective 
action, a balanced budget amendment could well leave us stranded.
  Finally, it's impossible to make the investments we need in roads, 
bridges, airports, and the rest of the facilities that are vital to our 
economic health if we don't differentiate between an operating budget 
and a capital budget. Families, businesses, and State and local 
governments can do that, the Federal Government should also have that 
ability.
  Balancing an operating budget makes sense. That's the kind of 
balanced budget States are typically required to achieve. The more 
difficult issue is capital spending and investment: something that all 
States, municipalities, and individuals borrow to do regularly when 
they build a bridge or buy a house. We regularly borrow from future 
revenues to invest in future well-being. By effectively prohibiting 
borrowing for investment on the Federal level, we'd force a wholesale 
shift in investment responsibility to the States and localities. Or 
worse, we'd force a foolish limit on needed investment that would only 
increase operating costs in the long run.
  Each of the proposed amendments before us now all fail for one or 
more of these reasons. That is why I have to reject all of them. But 
let no one mistake my rejection of these proposals for a desire to keep 
the budget unbalanced. The Federal deficit, which has more than 
quadrupled since 1980, continues to act as a drag on the Nation's 
economy, compromising our efforts to deal with our fiscal problems and 
indenturing our children, and their children, for decades to come.
  I do understand why most people believe that the moral authority of 
the Constitution is necessary to force us to act to correct our fiscal 
problems. And I know that the pressure to pass something will likely 
lead to a proposed amendment being passed by the House. So I tried to 
examine the proposals being put forward to see if there were ways I 
would amend them in a responsible manner to make them more workable and 
legitimate. I found two ways to amend--to improve--the six versions 
before us today, to reduce or eliminate the problems that I see with 
them. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee decided not to let me offer 
any of those amendments.
  My first proposed change would have made it clear that the courts 
would not be brought into budget writing by litigation on the 
enforcement of a balanced budget amendment. I would have done so by 
adding a clause stating, ``Neither the judicial power of the United 
States nor of any State shall extend to any case arising under this 
Article.''
  We should make it clear in this way, I believe, that a balanced 
budget amendment doesn't turn into a wholesale abdication of Congress' 
basic responsibility, as the people's elected representatives, to make 
the final decisions on vital budget choices. It is irresponsible of us 
to create any possibility of letting these choices be assumed by 
unelected judges, and any amendment to the Constitution should clearly 
state that it is Congress that will continue to be responsible and 
accountable for the Federal budget.
  The second amendment I tried to be able to present to the House was 
an alternative, simple amendment stating that Congress must pass a 
budget in which ``total operating expenditures . . . for any fiscal 
year shall not exceed total operating receipts'' except in times of 
national security or economic emergency, as determined by majority 
vote. It also would have required the President to send Congress a 
budget in which total receipts exceed operating expenditures for every 
fiscal year, and would have given Congress the power to enforce and 
implement the provision by appropriate legislation.
  This alternative would have avoided the gridlock of supermajority 
requirements, would have left us with the flexibility to make capital 
investments, and would have placed the burden on Congress to find the 
appropriate mechanisms to enforce the new balanced operating budget 
requirement. I'm not sure that even this would have ultimately proven 
acceptable in light of my serious
 reservations about amending the Constitution, but this simple approach 
certainly would be far less troublesome than any of the other choices 
we face today.

  I'm deeply concerned, all of us are, about the growing national debt. 
It has brought us to this point, where we consider exercising one of 
our most solemn powers, the power to amend the Constitution itself.
  The irony of this is that after a dozen years of profligate spending, 
we're finally moving in the right economic direction. Over the past 2 
years, we've finally achieved a level of fiscal discipline that hasn't 
been seen around here in a long time. We've approved a hard freeze on 
discretionary spending. We've reduced the rate of increase in most 
entitlements, and actually cut some. It would truly be a shame if, at 
this promising moment, we were to wave the rhetorical wand, pass this 
amendment, and allow ourselves to believe that we've won the battle, 
only awaiting State ratification of that amendment. Rather, there can 
be no letup in the hard work needed to produce sensible budgets, with 
reduced deficits, over the next several years.
  In the end, we should be mindful that when we amend the Constitution, 
history will judge our actions with an especially critical eye. The 
Constitution grants primary responsibility for the budget to Congress 
for a reason: the decisions we make ultimately reflect the needs and 
preferences of the people we represent. The progress we're finally 
making is proof of the ability of this body, at its best, to discharge 
its responsibilities. We must continue and strengthen the discipline 
recently shown here. That is the best way for us to honor both our 
fiscal responsibility and our obligation to preserve and protect the 
Constitution.
  I urge my colleagues to continue the hard work we've already begun to 
discipline our spending habits and reject the seductive and popular 
gimmickry of these balanced budget amendments.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, for 40 years, 40 years, this body 
failed to pass a balanced budget amendment. No line-item veto. And yet 
the Gephardt bill tries to scare you with the Social Security card.
  Well, if you are so concerned with the Social Security card, all 
those arguing with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], then why 
not support the three-fifths to raise taxes, because it would take a 
three-fifths vote to increase the tax on Social Security.
  But no, it is smoke and mirrors. You want to raise taxes at will. You 
want to be able to pass on unfunded mandates, the big tax and spenders. 
I would say there is not a Member of the Black Caucus except the only 
Republican that did not vote in the last Congress to increase the taxes 
on Social Security. No Republican voted for it. There is not a Member 
that is arguing here today, except maybe the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm], that did not cut Medicare by $56 billion, and not a penny 
went for health care. Why? Because not a single Republican or Democrat 
voted for it in the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Do you get the picture? Why not vote for Gephardt? Because Gephardt 
kills the rule of three-fifths in his bill to raise taxes. He kills the 
limitations to raise the debt ceiling. They want to be able to raise 
the debt. Does that tell you something about the real issue on the 
balanced budget amendment?
  What about the limit on cutting spending. Gephardt kills that. And 
[[Page H637]] that is why we do not support it. And we are asking him 
to support the three-fifths that would stop those things and also the 
unfunded mandates.
  Why does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] and the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the last Congress they voted to cut Medicare, 
they voted to cut Social Security, and they also voted to increase the 
marginal tax rate of every middle-income American. All of them. But yet 
now they switch their story. I guess it is easier to switch than fight.
  Take a look at the leadership and the Rivlin memo to Gephardt and the 
Rivlin plan. The plan is to cut Social Security. The plan was to cut 
Medicare. The plan is to cut veterans benefits and further dismantle 
the military. But yet now we are talking about protecting Social 
Security. I will bet you will not find hardly anyone, if anybody, that 
wants to touch Social Security in here.
                              {time}  1720

  Then support the three-fifths, let us not have the smoke and mirrors. 
The gentlewoman from Colorado says we had hard choices in the Clinton 
tax package, that the liberal leadership twisted arms and only passed 
by one vote last Congress, one vote. Well, she did. She cut Medicare 
and Social Security. Those were the hard choices. They cut in 1986 
IRA's. Now they want to support them back. They cut the annuities for 
senior citizens.
  Get a life.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise today, to urge my colleagues to support the Gephardt and Wise 
substitute amendments to the Barton balanced-budget amendment.
  I have supported a balanced-budget amendment before my election to 
Congress, and I am going to support one today. But as long as I have 
believed in a balanced-budget amendment, I have also believed that 
Social Security is a sacred contract between the Government and its 
people. That is why I offered my own substitute balanced budget 
amendment. While not made in order by the House Rules Committee, my 
substitute, like the Gephardt and Wise proposals, specifically exempted 
Social Security from budget cuts and eliminated the unconstitutional 
and unworkable super majority requirement for raising revenue.
  Not specifically exempting Social Security in the text of a balanced 
budget amendment--as the Republicans fail to do in their proposal--is 
to place this contract directly in the path of the uncertainty of the 
annual budget process and subject the program to possible cuts. That is 
irresponsible and unacceptable.
  My constituents in northern Michigan understand that balancing the 
budget will require difficult choices and painful cuts. Almost to a 
person, they have indicated to me that they are willing to make the 
tough choices. But people in Michigan also understand a promise. Simply 
put, cutting Social Security is the same as cutting the Federal 
Government's credibility. Social Security is not just statistics--it is 
the only thing which stands between thousands of elderly Americans and 
true poverty. In Michigan, more than 1.5 million people receive these 
benefits--that is 1.5 million real people with real bills to pay and 
very real obligations to meet.
  The Republican leadership claims that the adoption of House 
Concurrent Resolution 17, offered by the gentleman from Illinois, 
Congressman Flanagan, would protect Social Security from cuts. But, Mr. 
Chairman, if the Flanagan resolution were currency, it would be the 
peso--not worth a heck of a lot.
  As we all know, this resolution has no force of law, and is really 
nothing more than saying to our Nation's senior citizens ``I know we've 
pointed a loaded gun at you, but we promise we won't pull the trigger--
at least not until the Nation's bill for the tax breaks for the rich 
and spending in the GOP Contract With America comes due.''
  Mr. Chairman, the Gephardt and Wise substitutes are tough and 
responsible and keep the promises that our Nation has made. I urge my 
colleagues to support these balanced-budget substitute amendments.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I come before you today behalf of the people of my 
district to support a balanced budget amendment with three-fifths 
supermajority tax increase provisions because, Mr. Chairman, most every 
one of them is demanding relief:
  Relief from a Congress that has strapped each and every one of them 
with a debt of over $4.5 trillion. Relief from a Congress that has 
taken away from many of them the incentive to save and invest as a 
result of burdensome and stiff taxes. And relief from a Congress that 
has created more than ever a sense of distrust of this institution.
  A balanced budget amendment with three-fifths majority tax provisions 
will give them this relief, Mr. Chairman. We have before us the 
opportunity to restore the trust in this institution, the opportunity 
to bring about an economic climate that will encourage savings and 
investment, and an opportunity to begin addressing the problem of our 
ever-increasing debt by slowing spending.
  We can do all of this by supporting a balanced budget amendment with 
a three-fifths majority for tax increases.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my strongest belief that the tax burden placed on 
our society has created the circumstances I have mentioned. As a result 
of raising taxes, we have decreased the ability of the American people 
to save and invest, thereby damaging our economy.
  Mr. Chairman, it makes it difficult for someone to save and invest 
when they wake up every morning knowing that Congress is making them 
work from January to May to pay their taxes.
  Clearly, Mr. Chairman, raising taxes has not been the answer. There 
are the nine States which have similar supermajority requirements in 
order to raise their taxes. And in those nine States, State taxes have 
gone down an average of 2 percent. Compare those numbers, Mr. Chairman, 
to the 41 other States without some type of supermajority requirement 
to raise State taxes. Their State tax burden has gone up 2 percent. I 
repeat, Mr. Chairman, nine States have supermajority tax requirements 
for tax increases, and these nine States have lower tax burdens.
  Mr. Chairman, today this country is at a crucial crossroads of its 
history. Now we have at the time opportunity to change the way Congress 
goes about its business of taxing and spending. Opponents of the idea 
of a balanced budget amendment with a three-fifths provision scoff at 
that idea. They say it will not work. I say nonsense. Having a balanced 
budget amendment with the three-fifths provision for tax increases will 
work.
  Do we want to keep raising taxes and borrowing money we do not have? 
I do not think so, because either way the taxpayer gets stuck with the 
tab. Taxpayers know it, and they are sick and tired of it.
  Mr. Chairman, we were sent here to make some tough decisions. We were 
sent here to reform the way we do business. It is something that should 
and rightfully be expected of us. Requiring a three-fifths majority for 
tax increases in a balanced budget amendment will invariably bring 
about the necessity of slowing spending. So it will ultimately force 
this body to make some long overdue decisions about how we are spending 
taxpayers' dollars and whether they should or should not be spent.
  Some do not want to confront these decisions but they must be 
confronted. Otherwise, we are only saddling ourselves and our future 
generations with more debt and more red ink.
  The American people are demanding a balanced budget. They expect 
Congress to curb its spending. They want to trust us and deserve that 
tax relief. Passing House Joint Resolution 1 will give them all.
  I urge my colleagues to support this.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  [[Page H638]] (Mr. PETERSON of Florida asked and was given permission 
to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Nation's future and for 
the protection of our children and grandchildren's well-being. Right 
now both are in jeopardy because of the tremendous national debt that 
we continue to accumulate. Why do we keep borrowing from future 
generations?
  I will answer my own question: because the Government has not made 
the tough decisions necessary to balance the budget and because of 
conflicting signals from the American people to cut spending but not 
from their favorite programs.
  To stop us from passing the buck and to force the Nation to commit to 
making the sacrifices necessary for the long-term in economic security, 
I will join many of my Democratic colleagues in supporting the 
constitutional amendment to the balance the budget.
  The bipartisan balanced budget amendment generally referred to as the 
Stenholm-Schaefer amendment, which I cosponsored when I first was 
elected to this House 4 years ago, contains no gimmicks and no shell 
games. It simply requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts.
  I along with many of my fellow Democrats have led the fight for this 
amendment long before the Republican contract was drafted. We have 
pushed to bring this amendment to the floor each Congress and 
continually voted for its passage. And we came very close to passing 
this amendment previously.
  Today, I reaffirm my support for the Stenholm-Schaefer balanced 
budget amendment and join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in 
taking aggressive action now to protect the Nation's economic security 
and our children and grandchildren's future.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I planned to take a couple of minutes to 
talk, but basically about the same thing that gentleman has mentioned. 
Some of us have been here, and I have been here 18 years. I voted on 
the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget back in 1982.
  We have consistently voted on it. I have supported it. I am a 
cosponsor of the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado and the 
gentleman from Texas. Some of us have struggled and fought. We came 
close, 9 votes one year, 12 votes, if I remember right, last year. We 
may see a culmination. If we don't, we are going to continue to fight.
  It was not a contract with America that started us on this effort. It 
was because some of us feel that we need to have a constitutional 
amendment for a balanced budget, but a sound one, one that makes sense, 
not a three-fifths majority, and that we need to do that in order to 
arrive at balancing the budget in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will 
once again compliment my colleague the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm] for leading this battle, along with my friend over here, the 
gentleman form Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] who really intently feel 
seriously about this to the point of making the hard decisions 
necessary to balance this budget.
  We stand with them in this fight.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, every year, we hear the same arguments used 
against the balanced budget amendment: it is unnecessary, binding, and 
a blot on the Constitution. We are told we need to tighten our belts, 
make the tough choices, stand up to special interest groups.
  There is one word you'll never hear used against the amendment 
though: commitment.
  That is because opponents here in Congress do not share our 
commitment for cutting spending and reducing the deficit. As Robert 
Reich made it clear last week, neither does the administration. It is 
just not important to them.
  But it is important to the American people. It is important to our 
future. It is important to our children.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress does not lack for choices, it lacks 
commitment. The balanced budget amendment represents a commitment to 
the American people to make the tough choices and cut spending. It's 
the one budget agreement Congress can't repeal.
  As a long-time cosponsor of the balanced budget amendment, I am 
excited this legislation is before us, and I look forward to 
successfully passing it, here and on to the States for ratification.
  Last night, Bill Clinton told America that he was working to cut 
spending and reduce the deficit. He said his budget would cut $130 
billion over the next 5 years. What he did not say was that spending 
will continue to rise and the deficit will continue to climb.
  In fact, the legacy of the Clinton tax increase of 1993 is higher 
spending, lower growth, and higher deficits. The 1993 reconciliation 
bill was just one in a long line of budget agreements designed to 
balance the budget through tax increases and spending constraints. Each 
time, the taxes were gathered, but the spending cuts never 
materialized.
  We are presented today with the unsavory picture of Congress and the 
executive branch piling fiscal failure upon failure. The situation is 
intolerable and it cries out for change. In my mind, that change can 
begin with passage of the balanced budget amendment. Not an end unto 
itself, the BBA will create a bulwark of fiscal discipline to the 
congressional budget process, beyond which neither Congress nor the 
President can tread.
  The BBA will reform the budget process by forcing Congress to make 
decisions between increasing taxes and cutting spending. If the tax cap 
provisions are included with the BBA, then Congress will have no choice 
but to prioritize its spending decisions. Even without the cap, 
however, the BBA will provide a line of defense for the American 
taxpayers that simply doesn't exist today.
  A balanced budget amendment is an idea whose time has come. While it 
is not the final answer to our fiscal problems, it will provide a 
measure of discipline that does not exist now, and it will instigate 
reforms that otherwise would not occur. For that reason, I applaud this 
effort and support the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, beside asking Americans to give their lives for their 
country, there is nothing more profound that any of us can do than to 
amend the Constitution of the United States.
  After serving in this House for 10 years, I have come to the 
conclusion that without an amendment, the budget will never be 
balanced. That is why I support the balanced budget amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  Mr. Chairman, I support a balanced budget amendment because I do not 
believe that the President and the Congress will find the collective 
courage necessary to balance the budget without a Constitutional 
imperative. It is my sincerest hope that the weight of the Constitution 
will force the balanced budgets necessary to secure a prosperous 
future, our nation's sovereignty, and a government that makes smarter 
decisions.
  America has always been the land of opportunity. A better life for 
each successive generation is one of the defining characteristics of 
our nation. Each generation's hard work paved the way so that those who 
followed could travel farther down the road of prosperity. 
Unfortunately, in recent decades, the economic policies of this country 
have caused us to lose our way. Nations, just like families, must plan 
for the future. As a nation we have failed to plan. We 
[[Page H639]] have borrowed to achieve a false sense of prosperity 
today, leaving the bills for our children to pay tomorrow.
  In 1992, our government spent $290 billion more than it had. In 1992 
alone, $1,150 was borrowed from every single person in America. Over 
the past 20 years, the average budget deficit has grown from $36 
billion in the 1970s, to $156 billion in the 1980s, to the 
unprecedented $248 billion hole we have dug for ourselves so far in the 
1990s. This irresponsible spending has resulted in a debt hole so deep 
that this year's interest payment ($213 billion)--just the interest 
payment--will be larger than this year's deficit ($176 billion).
  Today's talk about balancing the budget, while also calling for 
increased defense spending and lower taxes sadly assures me that fiscal 
responsibility will be trumped by politics as usual. These are the same 
misguided economic policies that tripled our national debt during the 
past 12 years. Republican George Bush called it ``Voodoo Economics.''
  In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said that if he could add one amendment to 
the Constitution, it would be to prohibit the Federal Government from 
borrowing money: ``We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle 
posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' 
Our recent history makes it clear we should heed Jefferson's wisdom.
  Our current spending spree cracks the foundations of our nation's 
sovereignty. At the beginning of the 1980s, foreigners owed Americans 
much more than we owed them. Today, we are the world's largest debtor 
nation. We owe foreigners much more than they owe us. And foreigners 
are collecting these debts by buying our office buildings, our 
companies, and our farms. We are selling our nation to anyone who will 
bankroll our outrageous spending. In an era when economics plays a 
larger role in the global order, our spending binge threatens our 
sovereignty and ability to influence international events. It's much 
harder to get Japan to tear down its trade barriers when we our 
indebted to them.
  A message sent loud and clear in the 1994 elections was that 
Americans want us to make wise decisions. A balanced budget will force 
the achievement of this goal because the decisions made depends on the 
amount of money you have to spend. This is proven true in our daily 
lives. A person with $3 to spend on lunch will make an entirely 
different set of decisions than that same person with $10 to spend. The 
Government just puts it on a credit card.
  We must remember, however, that voting for a balanced budget 
amendment is the easy part. The amendment has overwhelming public 
support and simply voting ``yes'' puts each of us on the right side of 
public opinion without having to make the tough choices that will put 
the budget into balance.
  It would be a cruel hoax on the American people to pass a balanced 
budget amendment without beginning to actually balance the budget. If 
we start our work today, the impact will be less painful and our 
decisions less difficult than if we continue to postpone tough 
decisions.
  To ensure that we make good on our commitment to balance the budget, 
I am working to draft the Balanced Budget Enforcement Act of 1995. This 
bill would force us--today--to begin bringing the budget into balance 
by the year 2002, while the ratification process proceeds. It would do 
so by setting spending caps and using across-the-board cuts if the caps 
aren't met. I don't believe this bill is the only answer to our 
budgetary problems, but it is an answer and it will lead to balanced 
budget.
  There is little argument that balancing the budget is essential to 
the future of our country. However, the bickering begins and political 
courage fades when we begin to talk specifics. It is time to summon the 
courage and start today.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
balanced budget amendment.
  Our current financial crisis is due to overspending pure and simple, 
and I firmly believe that a balanced budget amendment will impose 
discipline on Congress and the executive branch to live within defined 
means.
  Having worked under a similar mandate in the State of New Jersey as a 
State legislator, chairing the appropriations process, I am fully 
prepared to work within the same spending and taxing restraints on the 
Federal level to make those serious decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Barton 
amendment to provide, finally, discipline to the Federal budget 
process.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, Harry Truman used to say, in an earlier and perhaps 
better era here in D.C., ``The buck stops here.'' In today's 
Washington, D.C. your buck barely gets a chance to wipe its feet before 
it is back out the door in the form of some new Federal spending.
  Without the fiscal discipline of a balanced budget amendment, I doubt 
this Congress will be able to make the tough choices that are required, 
no matter what party is in charge. It is time to quit passing the buck, 
or in this case, the debt, to future generations and put our fiscal 
house in order.
  The national debt is nearly 5 times higher today than it was when 
Ronald Reagan became President in 1981. That is a disgraceful 
bipartisan legacy of irresponsible spending and tax giveaways.
  The total debt of the Federal Government totals more than $4.6 
trillion, $16,000 for every man, woman and child in America. Interest 
alone will total more than $225 billion this year. That is 10 times 
more than all the funds spent by the Federal Government on all 
education programs and assistance this year.
  Some oppose the balanced budget amendment over genuine concern for 
the fate of Social Security, child nutrition, education funding, or 
other meritorious programs. An honest assessment of those programs 
shows us they have not done well during this decade of spend and debt. 
We accumulated $4 trillion of debt, but there is not a penny in the 
Social Security Trust Fund. It is full of IOUs. How are we going to 
cash those IOUs in when we need them?
  Twenty percent of Oregon's children live in poverty. Many go to bed 
hungry every night. We know of the shortfall in education funding. It 
is time to get our priorities straight, make some tough decisions. As 
we make those tough choices, I am confident these programs, the 
programs I care about, will do better than they did during the 
spendthrift decade.
  My home State of Oregon has a balanced budget amendment, as do most 
other States. Every local government in Oregon is required to balance 
its books every year, as does every responsible family. The Federal 
Government can do the same.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute and 30 seconds 
to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Barton 
balanced budget amendment. Some say that to propose a balanced budget 
amendment without proposing how we would get there is wrong. I say 
nonsense.
  The American people are pleading with us to set aside bickering and 
at least agree on the goal of living within our means. We must take 
that first step toward a balanced budget amendment, with or without the 
support of the President. Then we can debate the spending cuts 
necessary to achieve that goal.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had 
40 years to control the power of the purse and prove that Congress 
could be fiscally responsible. The result: Congress has left this 
country with a crippling debt and with higher taxes. Americans can no 
longer afford this sort of behavior from their Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, now the burden of proof should be on the Congress to 
justify dipping further into the taxpayers' wallets. That is why we 
must pass the 
[[Page H640]] Barton substitute that requires a three-fifths majority 
to raise taxes. We must force this Congress to make tough choices in 
spending cuts, not taxing our way to a balanced budget. Protect the 
taxpayer. Pass the Contract With America version of the balanced budget 
amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of a balanced 
budget amendment. I am disappointed that the majority will not allow us 
to vote on mine and other amendments which I believe solve some of the 
problems, but there are many similarities between the amendments we 
will look at.
  There is, however, a real problem: How do we enforce it? We have 
looked to a super majority in various amendments as a way to enforce 
it, or future legislation as a way to enforce it. Will it work? The 
problem I see with these amendments is that they rely upon estimates, 
not actual. Will it actually require us to balance the budget? No. Why?
  Mr. Chairman, I read in the Barton amendment, section 1, the last 
line ``Congress and the President shall ensure that actual outlays do 
not exceed outlays set forth in this statement.'' What about receipts? 
How do we guarantee that the projection of revenue is actually going to 
show up?
  If we say ``Well, it will,'' look at the last 14 years. CBO has 
missed in every one of those years by an average of, overestimating 
revenue, an average of $25 billion per year. What is going to happen? 
At the time we figure out that receipts did not come in, it is too late 
to cut spending. We have already spent it. It is the end of the fiscal 
year. Even if we could get three-fifths to raise taxes, it is too late 
to do that.

                              {time}  1740

  There is one option and one option only, that is, increase the debt 
limit. You are going to put a permanent ceiling on the debt limit and 
you cannot raise it without three-fifths.
  What you have done is in contravention of the Founding Fathers' 
intent, you will have placed control in 40 percent of this body or the 
other body to hold us hostage.
  Let us say they decide they want more welfare spending, and they are 
not going to vote for increasing the debt limit unless you give them a 
higher debt limit to spend more money on welfare, or defense, or 
anything else.
  We had better back up. I will vote for and support the best 
constitutional amendment we can, but I certainly hope the other body 
can do a better job and perfect this before we have to send it to the 
State legislatures.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Barton balanced budget 
amendment.
  We are going to vote either tonight or tomorrow on this amendment and 
we are going to have the opportunity to complete 2 pieces of work that 
were begun 200 years ago and about 100 years ago. One is the 
Constitution itself.
  Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789 very clearly and very well. He said:

       If there is one omission that I fear in the document called 
     the Constitution, it is that we did not restrict the power of 
     the government to borrow money.

  What this constitutional amendment does is it puts into the 
constitution the restriction that the Founding Father and founder of 
the Democratic party, Thomas Jefferson, wanted to have put in the 
Constitution, the restriction on borrowing money. It is the three-
fifths majority that is required to raise the debt ceiling. That is the 
operative language that makes it very, very difficult, not impossible--
by no means impossible--but it creates the hurdle over which we have to 
jump in order to borrow more money to make it possible to deficit-
spend. It is the essential element of this constitutional amendment 
with respect to spending.
  On the taxing side, we are going to complete the 16th amendment to 
the Constitution which allowed the income tax in the first place. That 
is, that we are going to require that there be a three-fifths majority 
to raise taxes as well.
  These two together will complete the spending and taxing limitations 
and restrictions that were begun 200 years ago and need to be 
completed, need to be fulfilled in the Constitution of our country.
  Our country was founded on limited government, not unlimited 
borrowing. To limit government, we need that supermajority. To limit 
borrowing, we need a supermajority to increase the debt. And the BBA 
will reinforce the theme of the Constitution.
  The other thing that the BBA does is it will change the way that the 
American people have been cheated out of the definition of government. 
The proper definition of government is what the people are willing to 
pay for on a pay-as-you-go basis.
  We really have no idea what we as a Nation believe our Government 
should be, what the size and scope of it should be, what its role 
should be, what its definition should be, because just as in a family 
you do not know how you want to define your lifestyle except by what 
you are willing to pay for, just as in a company you do not know what 
you are willing to do, what you want to do in terms of defining the 
direction of your company and where you want to go, the same is true 
with respect to our Nation and our national identity and what we are 
willing to pay for in terms of defining what our government is going to 
be.
  We have been cheated out of that as a Nation. We do not know what 
that is. Until we are required to match revenues against expenditures, 
until that happens, we will not know as a Nation what it is that we 
want our Government to do.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of the balanced budget amendment. I have been for the balanced 
budget amendment for the last several years, because I do not believe 
that we can find the will to make the necessary cuts to save the future 
generations of this country without the support of the American people 
through a balanced budget.
  The fact is the people say:

       Listen, Joe, you are a liberal Democrat, how can you 
     possibly be for a balanced budget amendment? It is going to 
     cut the very programs that much of your family and others 
     have stood for generations.

  I say to them that those very programs that stand up for the working 
people and the poor and the senior citizens of this country have 
suffered the worst cuts over the course of the last 15 or 20 years in 
this country as a result of budget deficits.
  Look at the housing budget. Cut by 77 percent over the course of the 
last 15 years. Look at those who have press conferences that say they 
want to protect fuel assistance for the poor. Look at what has happened 
to the fuel assistance program. Cut by 30 percent.
  Aid to education. All of the programs that are designed to assist the 
very poor, our vulnerable citizens, are the programs that get cut.
  And after all, who pays the debt? It is the working families of 
America that pay the lion's share of America's taxes. We see a greater 
and greater percentage of those taxes going for one particular item, 
and, that is, to pay the interest on the debt.
  What accounts have gone up in the last 15 years? National defense. We 
have seen the budget doubled. We have seen a fantastic increase, from 
$70 billion a year to $240 billion a year on the interest payments 
alone on the national debt.
  Does a working family get to educate their kid? Do they get to take 
care of a senior citizen, a parent? Do we see the bellies of our 
poorest children filled as a result of interest payments on the 
national debt?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
expired.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Cunningham) having assumed the chair, Mr. Walker, chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that 
[[Page H641]] Committee, having had under consideration the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________