[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.
____________________