[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H641-H657]
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. 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 for the further consideration of the joint 
resolution, House Joint Resolution 1.

                              {time}  1749


                     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 further 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 joint resolution.

                              {time}  1750

  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] had 52 minutes remaining in the 
debate, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] had 47 minutes 
remaining in the debate.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, when the Chair or the Speaker grants 
unanimous consent that someone may revise and extend their remarks, 
does that mean, is that implicit that that means within the rules, or 
does that actually mean that the remarks themselves can be revised in 
the Record?
  The CHAIRMAN. It means revisions and extensions within the meaning of 
clause 9 of rule XIV.
  Mr. HOKE. That have been adopted by this House in the 104th Congress?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
another distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been many efforts made in this Chamber to 
try and balance the budget. I can well remember the Freeze Budget, the 
1992 Group Budget, the Pork Busters, our good friend Tim Penny who led 
many bipartisan efforts, and I can remember Gramm-Rudman. Every one of 
these was to no avail.
  Remember this button: ``108 in '88?'' That meant under Gramm-Rudman 
our deficit was going to be by law no greater than $108 billion in 
1988.
  Well, guess what? It was $187 billion, not $108 billion.
  Promises, promises, promises, promises, and every one of them was 
broken.
  It is time to keep our promise. The deficit today is over $200 
billion, and it is as far as the eye can see $200 billion. In fact, by 
the turn of the century it is not going to be $200 billion, it is not 
going to be $300 billion. The OMB, the Office of Management and Budget 
is projecting over $400 billion.
  I had a town meeting a couple of weeks ago and I had a very activist 
Democrat stand up and say:

       Fred, I have been against the balanced budget before 
     because I did not think it would work. I thought we had laws 
     that made it work, but I've given up. When you get back to 
     Washington, please, please, please, for our children and for 
     our jobs, pass a balanced budget amendment.

  It is time now to keep our promises. It is time to pass a balanced 
budget amendment, a constitutional one.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  (Mr. BROWDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first commend my colleague, Charlie Stenholm, 
for his leadership on the issue we are debating today. We are 
considering, hopefully for the last time, passage of a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. I have been on this floor three times 
before pressing the Members of this institution to let this debate out 
of Washington. Ratification is my ultimate goal, but more important in 
my mind is the great public debate that will take place around this 
country during the process of ratification.
  The balanced budget debate must be expanded beyond the Washington 
betway and with passage in Congress the debate will begin in earnest. 
For as the states consider ratification, our country will begin a full 
and frank public debate on the role of government--Federal, State and 
local--and the cost of fulfilling that role.
  If the politicians who designed past efforts to bring the budget into 
balance had engaged the public in that process then I doubt we would 
have dug--or been allowed to dig--such a huge deficit hole.
  Mr. Chairman, the balanced budget amendment incorporates into our 
fundamental law the principle that the Federal Government cannot spend 
more money that it takes in, except under special circumstances. That 
principle rightly fits in the Constitution and would not, as some 
suggest, trivialize that basic document. But more importantly, the 
ratification process will allow, even force, the American people to 
focus on what they want from their government, what benefits they will 
surrender in the name of fiscal responsibility, and what burdens they 
will shoulder to do the important tasks they ask their government to 
do.
  [[Page H642]] Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Henry Hyde, 
for his excellent leadership in shepherding the balanced budget 
amendment process this far. I want to thank our new Republican majority 
leadership for scheduling the debate immediately and not having to 
force us to resort to discharge petitions. I want to thank my good 
friend, Charlie Stenholm of Texas, for being such a stalwart for so 
many years to keep the dream alive and all of the other true believers 
that feel like we need to balance the Federal budget in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  We have won the debate as to whether we should have a balanced budget 
at the Federal level, at least we have won the debate everywhere but in 
the White House, in the Office of Management and Budget, and with the 
Secretary of Labor. The question is not should we balance the budget 
but how should we do that, and there are really three basic ways: We 
can raise taxes; we can cut spending, or we can do a combination of 
both.
  There are two serious amendments on the floor this evening and 
tomorrow to get us to a balanced budget. The Schaefer-Stenholm 
amendment requires a three-fifths vote to borrow money, a three-fifths 
vote to raise the national debt ceiling and that is a constitutional 
majority of 218 plus 1 in the House to raise taxes. The Barton-Hyde-
Geren amendment requires a three-fifths vote to borrow money, a three-
fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling, and I think, significantly, a 
three-fifths vote to raise taxes. That third three-fifths vote to raise 
taxes in some ways is the most important three-fifths vote, because I 
believe the emphasis should be on cutting spending.
  Why do I believe that? Go back to 1964; the entire Federal budget was 
$118.5 billion. In 1965 it actually dropped. We spent $118.2 billion. 
Every year since 1965 Federal spending has gone up. In the fiscal year 
we are in now we expect to spend $1,531,000,000,000. That is an 
increase of 1,300 percent in the last 29 years.
  Federal spending has gone up every year since 1965.
  To put that in perspective, in the year we are currently in, we 
expect to spend 70 billion more dollars than we spent last year, and 
last year we spent 53 billion more than the year before. Simply put, it 
is not a lack of revenue as to why the budget is not balanced. It is 
simply the fact that spending is out of control.
  If we want to restrain spending, we have got to balance the budget by 
cutting spending. Put the tax limitation provision in, the three-fifths 
vote, and we will do it. There are nine States that have tax limitation 
provisions. In those nine States their taxes have gone up less and 
their spending has gone up less, an average spending of about 9 percent 
less and an average tax increase--an average in the years between 1980 
and 1990--an average of about 14 percent.
  We should vote for the balanced budget amendment with tax limitation. 
I ask for Members' support.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to this gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take us for a quick ride down our 
spending highway. If we assumed our income equals our spending and we 
are traveling at 55 miles per hour, if for every $1 billion of deficit 
spending we increase our speed by 1 mile per hour, instead of going the 
posted 55 miles a hour, we are going 258 miles an hour.
  And remember, that to get $1 billion of revenue it requires 
approximately 250,000--that is right, a quarter of a million--
individual average tax returns. So not only are we exceeding the speed 
limit by 203 miles a hours, we are spending the money from 50,750,000 
average individual tax returns that we do not have.
                              {time}  1800

  And that is just in 12 months. If we are to have to pay off our 
national debt right now, it would require the taxes from 1,171,000,000 
average individual returns that we do not have.
  Even if the debt never increased and we never paid any interest on 
it, it would require all the revenue received from all the tax returns 
of all individual taxpayers in this country for almost 11 years just to 
pay off the principal. So if you think we can slow this vehicle down 
that is traveling 258 miles an hour by just posting a slow-down sign, 
you are wrong. We have tried it. If you think we can slow it down by 
putting speed breakers in there, we have tried that, too.
  Gramm-Rudman 1 and 2, the Budget Acts of 1990 and 1993, you are 
wrong; we hit those bumps, we picked up speed, and $2 trillion in debt, 
since we hit them.
  It is time we called out a traffic cop with a radar gun to slow us 
down. That is what the balanced budget really is, Mr. Chairman. It is 
time to call out the cops.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I particularly thank the truly 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise in support of the balanced budget amendment. I am a name 
cosponsor with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] on theirs, but I also support 
the Barton three-fifths tax limitation as well.
  But it is the concept of what we are doing. Let me just say I would 
like to congratulate this entire House of Representatives on 
considering the most significant chance to end doing business as usual 
down here that we have probably ever considered, and doing it early on 
in January. I think it makes a huge difference.
  I thought the way I could spend what is left of my 3 minutes is to 
just tell you a story about what has brought me to be so supportive of 
the balanced budget amendment, my own personal experiences.
  I am from the State of Delaware. I was in the legislature of the 
State of Delaware. I was there in the 1970's. During that period of 
time, we had some difficult problems. We never balanced our budget. We 
borrowed money in virtually any way you could possibly borrow money, 
short-term, long-term, whatever it may be. We had the highest personal 
income taxes in the entire United States of America, 19.8 percent State 
taxes, this is. Businesses were leaving Delaware as fast as they could 
make up their minds to be able to get out. Then we came along, and some 
individuals, and I was not involved in this, adopted a balanced budget 
amendment. We have the three-fifths tax limitation. We adopted the 
line-item veto. We have rainy-day. We have other cushions. We have 
everything you could possibly imagine.
  Since that time, since we woke up in the end of the 1970's, we have 
balanced our budget 18 straight times in the State of Delaware. We have 
reduced our taxes five times in the State of Delaware. We have created 
more jobs than practically any other State on a percentage basis; I 
know, we are a small State. We did reduce poverty more than any other 
State during the 1980's. We became a financial success story.
  It is not easy. It was very tough to do this. In addition to all 
those constitutional amendments and changes, we had to struggle with 
small pay increases, in fact, no pay increase one year for State 
employees. We eliminated waste. We had an early
 retirement option. It was a very difficult matter to carry out.

  We expended Medicaid perhaps a little more slowly than some other 
States did. We did create economic opportunities, because we saw the 
other opportunities, because we saw the other side, if we could bring 
in revenues, and we have different banking laws in the State of 
Delaware which have helped us attract jobs to our State, and we have 
made fiscal adjustments each and every year to keep our budget in 
balance.
  We are absolutely convinced that this is the way to go, and I am 
convinced this is what we should do in Washington, DC.
  What if we do not pass the balanced budget amendment? What if we just 
go 
[[Page H643]] on as we have with business as usual? Well then, in my 
judgment, the easier choice will be made virtually every time, that is, 
to extend, to expand, and to add programs. The debt will bury our 
future generations, and the inefficiencies, because of political 
malaise, to make the tough decisions will simply carry on.
  For all of these reasons, I believe that each and every one of us 
should tomorrow realize that this is not just a procedural vote. It 
will lead to many, many years of very difficult votes, both of which 
are going to benefit the people of the United States of America.
  I hope we will all support the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, because we should 
not write fiscal policy into the Constitution.
  Of course, we want balanced budgets most of the time. But it is 
nonsense to speak of a balanced budget without separating out a capital 
budget.
  Every State, every local government, every business has a capital 
budget and an operating expense budget. The operating budget must be 
balanced, but the capital budget enables long-term investment, 
highways, bridges, tunnels to be financed by borrowing.
  Any family borrows to buy a car or a house.
  This amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from ever 
borrowing except in wartime. This is nonsense.
  Second, budgets should be balanced over time, not every year. In good 
times, the operating budget should be balanced or have a surplus to pay 
down the debt. During a recession we should prime the pump, cut taxes, 
increase expenditures, run a deficit to stimulate the economy, to put 
more people to work, and to get out of the recession.
  This amendment would force the Government to violate all we know of 
economic policy and cut spending during a recession to offset the lower 
tax receipts generated by the recession. This is a good way to turn a 
recession into a depression.
  That is why the Owens amendment which I support would suspend 
operation of a balanced budget amendment when there is high 
unemployment.
  Third, the proposed three-fifths rule would require a 60 percent vote 
to pass bills to improve enforcement of the law against tax cheats, to 
close special-interest tax loopholes, or to revoke most-favored-nation 
status of countries that violate human rights. A minority of the House 
would be able to block any of these actions.
  Finally, our large national debt and the Republican decision to 
increase substantially defense spending means inevitably that a 
balanced budget amendment would force us to gut spending on Social 
Security, Medicare, and other vital programs.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not need this dangerous amendment. In the last 2 
years we have cut the deficit almost in half. We need to continue a 
prudent fiscal policy. We do not need to rewrite the Constitution.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr Ney].
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about reality and fact today 
versus uncertainty and doubt.
  And the uncertainty and doubt mentioned is budget estimates. The 
reality is it has been done. It has been done in many States.
  But Ohio sets an example, one of the larger budgets in the United 
States, and you have the executive budget, you have the legislative 
budget office. Sometimes their statistics do not agree. But you come to 
a middle point and you take the conservative end of it. Usually that 
tends to give us the basis to be able to operate on a balancing budget.
  The doubt, it has not all been set out over the course of the next 7 
years. The reality, the State of Ohio, like many other States, has made 
it a reality that we set out a budget pattern. We accomplish a short-
term goal, and it works. The doubt, this system will not work: The 
reality, it does. Last month I was chairman of the senate finance 
committee in Ohio. I guarantee you had we told the members magically 
there is no more cap on the Ohio budget, the end result is they would 
have crawled on glass to get there to spend money. It does work.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Formulating laws and studying our legal system has 
occupied most of my adult life. At each level of my professional 
career, I have taken an oath to uphold the laws and principles of the 
Constitution of the United States of America, and I take this 
responsibility very seriously.
  I feel very great cause for concern over this most recent attempt to 
alter the Nation's most sacred charter, not that it has not been done, 
but simply the process is one that bears a great consideration and 
seriousness.
  Clearly any changes that are to be made to this document should only 
be made upon careful deliberation and dialog. At this time, however, I 
do not feel that we have gone forward in a bipartisan spirit and open 
debate to do this monumental task.
  Oh, I know the stories have been told about the years of trying to 
balance the budget and all the Congresses that have not, but I come 
here a new Member representing my constituents and believing that we 
have the ability to handle this in a manner that shares with the 
American public the direction in which we are going.
  In this Committee on the Judiciary time and time again in a 
bipartisan spirit Sheila Jackson-Lee offered military preparedness, 
protecting Medicare and Medicaid, offering Social Security amendments, 
not to stop the progress but simply to provide for the American public 
a realistic look at the balanced budget amendment.
  There are too many questions that I still have, and they are still 
left unanswered. Precipitive cuts in essential Federal programs, 
especially programs that assure health, safety, well-being, and 
educational opportunities for our citizens clearly are in the national 
interest. The majority wants to balance our budget by cutting spending 
by 30 percent without raising taxes. This will hurt our children's 
programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans' services.
  In Texas alone over 180,000 babies, preschoolers, and pregnant women 
would lose infant formula and other WIC nutrition supplements. If we 
pass the balanced budget amendment, 420,000 children in Texas will lose 
food stamps; over 500,000 would lose Medicaid health coverage.
                              {time}  1810

  While these alarming numbers are specific to my State of Texas, I 
have to stand up for my people in my State and in the entire Nation. As 
legislators it is our responsibility to examine the effects of this 
legislation in detail and to truly understand the consequences of what 
we are doing.
  When we talk about dropping education benefits, 37 percent of the 
people say they support the balanced budget amendment. When we talk 
about cutting social security, only 34 percent of the American people.
  I simply ask that we detail where we are going and what we are doing. 
I simply ask are we going to cut child welfare dollars or are we going 
to fight for a new flight bomber? It is very important, as we discuss a 
balanced budget, that we focus on the substantive impact and whether or 
not Congress and the President can actually achieve a balanced budget 
amendment.
  We must understand the enforcement mechanism. Who has standing? The 
question has never been answered.
  Does the senior citizen in the 18th district of Texas have the 
opportunity to go to the Supreme Court and say they have been impacted 
negatively by the balanced budget amendment? I think they should. The 
questions are still unanswered.
  We have a great responsibility as we amend our Constitution, and I 
believe that we must give reverence to the Constitution of the United 
States. An open rule, and understanding of where we are going, that is 
what we need in a balanced budget amendment, but we need most of all to 
understand and respect the Constitution.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
[[Page H644]] learned gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. I thank my learned chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am trying to figure out a way of how to get into this 
conversation because so much of what I had intended has already been 
said.
  Let me just say one thing: I was down here in 1982 with the Grace 
Commission. We had a deficit of $200 billion. We had great plans, we 
had suggestions to close that gap, cut the spending. Nothing happened.
  I came here as a Congressman in 1987. Our deficit was still $200 
billion, and we had all of these plans, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, all of 
the great laws. Nothing happened.
  Here we are now with a deficit of still $200 billion or approximating 
that.
  There was a man called C. North Cole Parkinson, who said expenses 
have a tendency to rise to exceed income. That is what is happening 
here.
  I think it is really a bad idea, if there were any other alternative 
to having a constitutional amendment. However, I am convinced now that 
it is the only way of doing this thing. I am not for the three-fifths 
for the tax increase. It is not practical. It will not work. But I am 
for a balanced budget amendment.
  Let me say one other thing: That is the easy part. The hard part is 
to put this into practice. Peter Drucker always said that all great 
ideas ultimately degenerate into work. This is what is going to happen 
here. The easy part is passing this legislation; the hard part is going 
to be to put it into effect.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend for yielding this time to me.
  My colleagues, in the rush to pass a constitutional amendment and 
tamper with the Constitution to do something that we do not have the 
guts to do ourselves, let us tell the American people what we are 
really doing. Let us be honest with the American people.
  If the American people knew what this balanced budget amendment would 
do, there would be a hue and cry in the land.
  We are exempting social security. I agree. We are telling our senior 
citizens that by exempting social security, they will be all right. Who 
is kidding whom? Do you know the Medicare cuts that will come as a 
result of this balanced budget amendment? My senior citizens and senior 
citizens across this country that are on Medicare and cannot make ends 
meet now will face cuts of 20, 30, 35 percent. They cannot get money to 
pay for prescription drugs or the health services they need now. Forget 
it after the balanced budget amendment.
  Medicaid, decimated; veterans benefits, decimated. You veterans who 
think you will continue to get outpatient services under a balanced 
budget amendment, outpatient health services, forget it. That will be 
gone.
  Education, school lunches, magnet school programs, forget it. 
Tremendous cuts. Our children are going to suffer in future years.
  Mass transit, Meals on Wheels, the environment, forget about clean 
water and clean air, there will not be money for that.
  More cops on the beat, housing, health research.
  Federal pensions, we can forget about all the things the American 
people have come to expect.
  Wake up, America. If we do not have the guts here to do what we have 
to do, a balanced budget amendment is not going to do it for us. All it 
is going to do is impose terrible hardships on the American people, 
senior citizens, and our young people.
  If Congress declares war, we have to have a separate vote on a 
military action and then a second vote to decide to unbalance the 
budget. This is unworkable.
  It is a disaster for America, and I will vote ``no.''
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, after hearing the last remarks, the most 
scary scenario of all would be for us to continue to run this country 
into bankruptcy and then there are no programs that are going to get 
the benefit.
  Mr. Chairman, last November the American taxpayers declared that 
enough is enough. They are fed up with the Federal Government's liberal 
tax-and-spend policy. Passing the tax limitation balanced budget 
amendment will insure that the Government will balance its budget 
without raising taxes. The three-fifths rule serves as a vital 
disciplinary tool. It will help Congress resist the temptation to fall 
back into the liberal tax-and-spend habit of the past 30 years. It will 
keep Congress' sticky fingers out of the American taxpayer's back 
pocket. Are not American people already being taxed enough? Forty-nine 
States operate with a balanced budget amendment. Every American working 
family must balance their checkbook each month.
  Is it not time for the Federal Government to start living within its 
means as well? I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Barton 
amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, democracy means majority rule, but it 
also means government of, by, and for the people.
  In the context of democracy, there are two things that trouble me 
greatly about the Barton constitutional amendment for a balanced 
budget.
  First, the resolution seems to trample on the right of the people to 
know under what burdens they must suffer at the hands of the 
Government. The resolution, second, seems to ignore the sacredness of 
the Constitution of the United States.
  On one occasion, President John Adams spoke of the right to know. He 
said, ``Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among 
the people who have a right to know.'' That right, he said, ``is 
indisputable, unalienable, infeasible, and devine.'' Passage of the 
proposed Barton constitutional amendment in its current form denies the 
people the right to know.
  In order to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002, as provided 
in the amendments, an amendment must provide that we must make those 
hard cuts. $1.2 trillion will have to be cut in a range of entitlement 
programs alone.
  Why will not the majority tell us how those cuts will be made?
  These are not social security alone, there are other entitlements 
beyond social security. If the tax cuts envisioned are made, indeed we 
must make cuts beyond that. More than $450 million in additional cuts 
would be made. That will mean farmers in my State and rural 
communities, water sewage, all of those projects will be subject to 
cut.
  One of the sponsors of the amendment has said that we should not let 
the people know because, ``If they know they will buckle at the 
knees.'' I disagree. Knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. A wise 
America is a strong America and will make the decisions as to the 
necessary cuts if they believe, if they believe those cuts are 
necessary for the welfare of this country.
  My second concern is, while I agree that the Constitution is a 
living, breathing document, it is not a document that we should take 
lightly. It is not subject to every political whim, and the people will 
say that we are good politicians. It is a sacred document. It has only 
been amended 27 times in more than 2 centuries. Therefore, we should 
take as sacred our responsibility to first deliberate, then understand, 
then to inform the American people what it is we are about to do.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley].
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  [[Page H645]] Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the constitutional amendment to balance our budget and especially 
the Barton amendment with the three-fifths provision.
  Almost 180 years ago, Mr. Chairman, Thomas Jefferson, a man well 
ahead of his time, stated, ``To preserve our independence we must not 
let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.''
  Now I have heard from a lot of people today saying, ``When the 
American public finds out how you are going to do this, they will be 
outraged.''
  My colleagues, the American public is outraged now, is asking us, 
``How do you do it? If I bounce a check, the bank will shut my account. 
If I go over my limit on my Master Card, they will cut my credit.''
  The United States of America spends money it does not have while 
parents at home have to tell their children, ``You can't go to the 
University of Florida or Florida State. We have to keep you at home 
because we can't afford the tuition.'' Parents make those choices every 
day. The American Government must make those same choices.
  Mr. Chairman, we must balance this budget in order to assure future 
generations the same opportunities we have in this country.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, we are fast approaching 5,000 billion 
dollars in debt, and the interest on that debt is $200 billion every 
year. That interest on the debt is greater than the deficit for this 
year for the first time, and it will be for many years in the future. 
Much of that interest goes to foreign sources, and it denies our 
people's needs that we should be paying that interest. But how did we 
get here?
  The majority of us in this Chamber were not here when the vast 
decisions were made on this issue. For a 12-year period not one budget 
was presented that was in balance by either President Bush or former 
President Reagan. And the Congress, after passing those budgets, those 
budgets which were than presented and signed by those Presidents, all 
of those budgets which were out of balance, not a single one of them 
was vetoed. So, I deplore the history that got us to that point, and it 
was in that period of time that we went from 1,000 billion dollars to 
4,500 billion dollars of debt.
  So, I intend to vote for some of the proposals for balanced budgets. 
I will vote for those that involve capital budgeting because every 
family and every State in this country provides for some degree of 
amortization for its investments in the future, for construction of 
long-term nature at the State level, for homes at the family level. I 
will vote for the protection of Social Security. I will vote to allow 
the fast action when we have a recession and need to do something 
countercyclical to deal with the recession. But I will not vote for 
amendments that allow for a minority to control budgetary decisions.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I will vote against the Barton amendment and hope 
that it is defeated.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini].
  (Mr. MARTINI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, once again the House is about to consider a balanced 
budget amendment. I rise today to throw my support behind this 
important measure, particularly the Barton amendment.
  For the last 25 years, Mr. Chairman, this Chamber has accumulated 
deficits that defy logic. After a quarter century of living on borrowed 
money, today I say ``Enough is enough.''
  Previous attempts to balance the budget without a constitutional 
amendment have failed. Time after time Congress has shown that it lacks 
the discipline to adhere to goals that it sets for itself. It is clear 
only a new approach will bring lasting fiscal restraint on this body.
  Mr. Chairman, the world will not come to an end if this amendment 
passes. Those naysayers who claim that the sky will fall if we embrace 
fiscal responsibility in our Constitution are just the guardians of an 
oversized government that has betrayed the American taxpayers by 
wasting too much of their money. Let us end the congressional spending 
spree and support the balance budget amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth time that I have been on 
the floor on this subject since I came here 6 years ago. I am in my 
seventh year now. We have come within 12 votes one year, 9 votes one 
year, and, I think, even 7 votes one time, and I want to commend the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Schaefer] for bringing once again, I think, a workable solution to 
our problems.
  Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, once said, ``A majority held in 
restraint by constitutional checks and limitations is the only true 
sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly 
to anarchy or to despotism.''
  I think, if he were here today, he would say the same thing. What he 
said was, in my words: There must be a clear, cogent and compelling 
reason to disregard this most basic premise of democracy: majority 
rules.
  Over the past 25 years, Mr. Chairman, a clear willingness to borrow 
from tomorrow for today's gratifications has been shown by 
administrations, Democrat and Republican, by Congresses, Democrat and 
Republican, and the American people. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think 
circumstances justify, or maybe even demand, a three-fifths requirement 
for a supermajority to borrow money as it relates to our national debt 
and to place such a restraint in our most basic document of government, 
the United States Constitution.
  Always in these arguments about spending, Mr. Chairman, those whose 
voices are not heard in these decisions to raise the debt ceiling are 
those who are not here: our children, our grandchildren and their 
children. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, there is a significant and 
profound influence in our body politic to prevent this or any Congress 
from raising taxes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
tax limitation balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Without question, Mr. Chairman, this is the single most important 
budget reform contained in our Contract with America.
  As the recent debate over Federal funding for the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting has demonstrated, every item in the Federal budget 
has a special interest constituency ready to lobby Congress to protect 
their funding and their programs. The outcry from these organized 
interests will only get louder as we continue to look for ways to 
control the size of government. A well-drafted constitutional amendment 
will protect the general taxpayers' interests from this continued 
onslaught of special interests, giving Congress the backbone to cut 
spending first. That is why tax limitation is so crucial to reducing 
the size and scope of government.
  As former President Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, ``The American 
people are not taxed too little. The government spends too much.''
  I say to my colleagues, ``If you agree that Federal spending, not 
lack of new taxes, is the reason for the deficit problem, then support 
the tax limitation balanced budget amendment.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the 
balanced budget amendment, and I believe that this issue should unite 
Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, Perotists and 
populists. I believe that we all should get behind a 
[[Page H646]] balanced budget, and I believe we should for the 
following reasons:
  We are currently spending $212 billion on interest on the debt. Let 
me repeat: $212 billion on interest on the debt.
                              {time}  1830

  That is 14 percent of our budget; $14 out of every $100 collected 
from our taxpayers go to interest payments.
  Now, to a fiscal conservative, naturally that would be outlandish and 
offensive, to spend $212 billion on interest payments, and to a social 
liberal, to spend $212 billion on interest payments, when you might 
argue that it should go to Head Start, immunizations for children, 
technology investments. All Democrats and Republicans should be behind 
a balanced budget.
  But, Mr. Chairman, if this is the backbone, then comes the courage. 
We must work in bipartisan ways to come up with majority votes to cut 
spending. Not Social Security, but cut spending on a space station that 
is over budget, cut spending in our own personal offices and pass a law 
so we can have that money go to the Treasury Department so we have it 
go to take down the debt. We must come up with cuts in the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, in the Agricultural Conservation and Stabilization 
offices. Across the board we must look at programs in a bipartisan way.
  Finally, I know that tax cuts are as popular as apple pie, but apple 
pie has to be paid for. We are talking about a balanced budget. If we 
have to come up with $200 billion for tax cuts, why do we not 
concentrate on the balanced budget for the next year, and then 
determine if we have money for tax cuts? I think the American people 
want us to make those tough cuts in spending, and balance this budget. 
Because if we balance the budget, that is the best tax cut we can give 
for all Americans. Working Americans, every American benefits from 
lower interest rates, from a growing economy and jobs, and we get much-
needed credibility back in this institution that we can do things.
  I encourage all votes for a balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the constitutional balanced 
budget amendment. As we are all too well aware, Federal budget deficits 
have been and continue to be a chronic problem which plagues the 
Nation. In 56 of the last 64 years, the Federal Government has run a 
deficit. We have now reached the point where the public debt of the 
United States exceeds $4.7 trillion. That is crazy!
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the interest payments 
on the debt will cost the American taxpayers $212 billion this year 
alone. Put another way, 14 percent of every tax dollar that the 
Government collects will be used to pay the interest on the debt. These 
are funds which we could and should be using for programs such as Head 
Start, child nutrition, education, job training, and so many other 
important programs.
  This deficit continues to harm our Nation's economy, stifles economic 
growth, and jeopardizes the future prosperity of our children and 
grandchildren. Our debate today about a balanced budget is really a 
debate about the future of this country.
  Clearly, spending cuts are the best way to achieve a balanced budget. 
Throughout my career, I have never hesitated to make the tough choices 
to cut spending, even where my votes were not always politically safe 
or popular. Spending cuts must continue to be our top priority.
  While the balanced budget amendment is not a panacea for all of our 
economic ills, I believe that it will help. It will provide a badly 
needed element of discipline to the budgeting process, by requiring the 
President to submit a balanced budget, and prohibiting Congress from 
enacting a budget where spending exceeds revenues.
  Mr. Chairman, while I strongly support the balanced budget amendment, 
I want to make it clear to the senior citizens in my district that I 
believe that Social Security should be fully protected. I am pleased 
that earlier today the House passed overwhelmingly House Concurrent 
Resolution 17 which directs Congress to leave Social Security alone 
when it is forced to comply with the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, since I was first elected to Congress, I have supported 
a balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment will not 
eliminate all wasteful Government spending, it represents a significant 
step toward controlling spending. In recent days, much attention has 
been focused on tax cuts. In my view, deficit reduction is the best tax 
cut for all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, the future of our children and their children is at 
stake. Let us pass the constitutional balanced budget amendment to 
ensure that their future is full of hope rather than crippling debt.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barton 
balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues of a few facts: In the last 30 
years, the Federal Government has balanced its budget exactly one time, 
1969. The national debt amounts to $13,000 per person in this country, 
and the interest payments now amount to over $800 per person per year. 
But opponents say we do not need an amendment, just let Congress make 
the spending cuts. Well, most proposals or spending cuts are like the 
magician's trick of sawing in half the lady in the box. There is a 
great deal of hoopla, there is a great deal of fanfare, and then 
something appears to be cut. But when it is all over, nothing much has 
changed.
  That is why we need a balanced budget amendment, to discipline our 
own profligate spending habits. And we need to have the supermajority 
requirement, the tax limitation proposal. We have it in the State of 
Arkansas, where I am from, and it works in Arkansas and it will work 
here.
  Mr. Chairman, deficit spending is stealing. It is stealing from our 
children and it is stealing from our grandchildren, and it must stop.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, on November 8, the American people put their bloated 
Federal Government on a diet. The balanced budget amendment with 
taxpayer protection is step 1 in Washington's weight loss program.
  Federal fat has been growing for the past 25 years. Since 1969, when 
Congress last balanced the budget, the debt has grown to $4.6 trillion. 
How Congress chooses to shed Federal fat is critically important. The 
balanced budget amendment with taxpayer protection causes the 
Government to change its eating habits by cutting spending first.
  Like so many would-be dieters, the leaders of the minority have all 
kinds of excuses as to why the Government can't be made lean. These 
excuses can be termed budgetspeak.
  Budgetspeakers contend that massive cuts would be needed to balance 
the budget. They argue that every Government program is indispensable 
and irreducible.
  Outside the corpulent Capitol, the American people know better. In 
reality, Congress can balance the budget by reducing the increase in 
spending. According to the Clinton administration's own numbers, if 
spending increases by 3 percent rather than by 5 percent, as currently 
projected, the budget will be balanced in 7 years.
  Budgetspeak also contends that by taxing Americans more, the 
Government somehow will spend less. Yet both President Clinton and 
President Bush painfully learned that tax increases cannot solve our 
fiscal woes. Just last week, the President's Budget Director Alice 
Rivlin admitted that the administration had no plan to balance the 
budget.
  Budgetspeakers deride this amendment as a gimmick. They assert that 
Congress should instead make serious choices to reduce the deficit. Yet 
look at the voting record of these budgetspeakers. The National 
Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan watchdog organization, tallied the votes 
of the 103d Congress and graded every Member of Congress on how 
carefully they spent the American people's hard-earned money. Every 
member of the Democratic leadership received an ``F.''
  Mr. Chairman, the American people understand budgetspeak is code for 
why the Government can't diet today.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the contract with America's working 
group that produced this amendment, I urge its passage.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], 
[[Page H647]] a very valuable member of the committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing the opponents of this amendment claim 
that they oppose the amendment because of the spending cuts that will 
affect their favorite programs that they feel are going to hurt people 
when they are cut. But what about their concern for the future of our 
children and grandchildren as we continue to pile debt upon debt on 
them?
  We now are averaging deficits of approximately $200 billion a year, a 
$4.7 trillion debt. That is $18,000 for every single person in this 
country. And as we increase that debt, we increase the interest 
payments. And right now by doing that year after year, we are reducing 
the portion of the debt budget each year that can be used to spend on 
programs, because an increasing proportion of it has to go to pay for 
interest on that debt. We need to stop that increase in the debt, we 
need to cut it back.
  Voting for this amendment is going to be an important part of this 
process, but it is only going to be the beginning. We are going to have 
to step up and make those cuts, but we are going to do it in the 
interests of our children and our grandchildren.
  We must make sure that the budget is balanced by cutting spending, 
which never seems to happen in this House, particularly on the domestic 
spending side. We cannot do it by continuing to increase the percentage 
of people's incomes that goes to taxes.
  We have a situation where year after year, whenever we have a crisis 
with our spending, we increase taxes, we do not decrease the spending. 
And that is why we have got to support the Barton amendment to level 
the playing field, because historically we have found it easier here to 
increase taxes than to cut spending.
  This has historically proven to work in States that have the 
supermajority requirement, and I urge the support of the Barton 
amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, for too long the American taxpayer has suffered from 
Congress' inability to control spending. That is why people all across 
the country, and in particular my constituents in Georgia's seventh 
congressional district, so strongly support the balanced budget 
amendment as the first critical step to reining in reckless spending 
practices of the past.
  Passing a balanced budget amendment, however, is not enough. True 
protection for the taxpayer means passing the BBA with the Tax 
Limitation or Taxpayer Protection Act. Putting real teeth in the 
balanced budget amendment, means we must pass the three-fifths 
supermajority, tax limitation provision to keep future Congresses 
focused on cutting spending and reducing the size of government.
  In the Judiciary Committee, we passed this version of the balanced 
budget with strong support of the Members.
  Here in this body we have heard the message that people are tired of 
the waste, tired of the excess and tired of the debt. Last November the 
people spoke and they want action on the BBA now.
  However, there are still those who continue to persist in a vain 
effort to defeat the will of the people. A number of self-serving 
arguments have been made in defense of the status quo. One such 
argument is that we should not consider the balanced budget amendment 
until we have laid out every single line item to be cut.
  That is like telling coach Seifert of the San Francisco 49ers that 
before he can play the Chargers this Sunday in the Super Bowl, he must 
turn over the playbook before the big game.
  It is an absurd argument to say we cannot vote on the balanced budget 
amendment until we let opponents gut the bill. Just as it is absurd to 
expect the 49ers to play, knowing that their opponent has their 
playbook.
  What does make sense are rules that apply to the big game and 
established the limits that make the game playable. In the same way, 
the American people are demanding new rules, rules that set finite 
limits about spending, and therefore, the size of government.
                              {time}  1840

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta], creator of the urban caucus.
  (Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican 
balanced budget amendment proposal. The amendment forces us to play 
blind man's bluff with the economic prosperity of our Nation, and the 
safety net for our most vulnerable citizens.
  For 2 years, the work of our President and the Congress has reduced 
the deficit. We can make much more progress with more hard work, more 
tough decisions and more courageous votes.
  However, this legislation is far from responsible. It is neither 
hard, nor tough, nor courageous. What's missing here is honesty. 
Honesty that would come if the proponents set out the details of how 
$1.2 trillion in cuts would be made.
  One time, we had a vote on such a plan, though I did not agree with 
it. It came from the gentleman from New York, now Chairman of the Rules 
Committee. It would have balanced the budget over 5 years. It would 
have cut over $698 billion in spending, and offered the American people 
over 500 specific program cuts.
  It would have cut the grants that create jobs and private low income 
housing in cities by $23.9 billion.
  It would have cut child nutrition programs, like school breakfasts 
and lunches, and WIC, by $1.9 billion.
  Medicaid payments to hospitals, serving large populations of the 
poor, would have been cut by $27.5 billion.
  The Solomon plan did not raise taxes. It did not touch Social 
Security. And it increased defense spending. But at least it was 
honest. And altho that sounds a lot like the Contract with America, 
only 56 Republican Members voted for it.
  We must then assume the proponents of this amendment are looking for 
something different. And thus, the question still stands. How do you 
cut $1.3 trillion in spending?
  I, along with John Conyers and Jose Serrano, sent a survey to every 
member of this House, asking how they'll cut the budget. So far, we 
have not received a single response.
  I am convinced that there is a reason why the proponents of this 
amendment won't tell us how they'll find $1.3 trillion in spending 
cuts.
  Because the cuts will be so draconian that they will destroy what is 
left of the safety net.
  Because the cuts will be so severe that we will have to break our 
contract with senior citizens.
  Because the cuts will be so tough that they will bankrupt Urban 
America, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the balanced 
budget proposal.
  I am convinced that they only amendment before us that will balance 
the budget in a responsible way is through the creation of a capital 
budget. That's why the Wise substitute is the only responsible and 
honest amendment. It allows us to borrow money to preserve and expand 
our capital, just like States and cities do, just like every American 
family does in attaining the American dream of home ownership. It is 
important that it would leave enough room in the opening budget to keep 
the safety net in tact, and spend money to meet national priorities 
like education and economic growth.
  The remaining amendments leave us in the dark and could jeopardize 
this Nation's very future.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Chabot], a very valued member of our committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Barton amendment 
which I believe will best protect the American taxpayer. Since this 
House last voted on a balanced budget amendment, just 10 months ago, 
before I got here, I might add, the national debt has increased by $160 
billion, less than a year, $160 billion. That is a whole lot of debt.
  Well, it is time we had the courage to do something about it. It is 
time we passed a balanced budget amendment.
  [[Page H648]] Let us face it, Americans are forced to send far too 
many of their hard-earned dollars to this city. We must pass a balanced 
budget amendment now. I support balancing the budget by cutting 
spending, not by raising taxes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I 
support a balanced budget, but the proposed constitutional amendment in 
no way guarantees that we will achieve one, and even then, not until 
2002 at the earliest. As the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of 
the Committee said in his opening statement, this legislation is about 
process, and I believe this process is flawed for several reasons.
  First, this bill would amend the Constitution to require the Congress 
to achieve a balanced budget by 2002 or the date after which the States 
have ratified such an amendment, but it in no way details how the 
President or Congress would meet the targets necessary to do so. It is 
ironic that as we begin this debate, few, if any of the proponents have 
ever submitted a balanced budget for consideration by the Congress. 
Few, if any, have come to the floor during this debate to explain to 
the American people what a balanced budget would look like. While many 
argue that Social Security is off the table, we have no guarantees. 
Some have gone as far as to say that a balanced budget would make one's 
knees buckle and to disclose such information would most certainly mean 
defeat of this measure. My colleagues, that candor in lack of 
disclosure begs the question that we must answer for the American 
people, what cuts must we make to achieve a balanced budget? Will it 
cut Medicare and veterans benefits? Will it cut education and college 
loans? If that is the will of the Congress, the people deserve a right 
to know.
  Second, this legislation, which I restate is one of process, is 
inherently flawed. Whichever you choose, the Congress may waive the 
requirement of a balanced budget by a vote. So if we are not willing to 
tell the American people how we would balance the budget will we be 
willing to actually follow through in 2002 when the knee buckling hard 
decisions must be made? There is no guarantee.
  I believe we must take efforts to balance our budget, but to impose 
fiscal restraints through the Constitution without any explanation is 
not the way. I have argued for, and I have introduced, legislation 
which provides for a better, more efficient process. Rather than amend 
the Constitution, why not amend the Budget Control Act and require the 
President to submit a balanced budget and the Congress to consider one, 
next year. This process is better in three ways: First, it puts the 
numbers before the American people so they can understand the pain and 
sacrifice necessary to achieve a balanced budget. That is fair 
disclosure. Second, it holds the President and Congress accountable by 
requiring consideration. You have to vote on the issue, not just to 
waive the requirement as the amendment process would allow. And, third 
it allows us to more quickly address our budgetary problems because 
this
 legislation can be adopted and implemented for fiscal year 1997. If we 
are really serious about balancing the budget, we should begin the 
process now, not in 2002.

  My colleagues, like many here today, on both sides of this issue, I 
do not stand before you with an iron-clad plan to balance the budget. I 
believe there is no one in this House who could achieve that plan 
without severe pain and sacrifice. If we are going to get serious about 
achieving that goal, then we must be willing to go to the American 
people and lay out the details.
  Like many of my new colleagues, I came to the Congress from the 
private sector where balanced budgets are a necessity if you wish to 
remain in business for a long time. I learned that the only way to 
achieve cuts was by sitting down together, reviewing the data and 
sharing in the sacrifice. If we are going to balance the budget, we 
must sit down with the American people at the same table and resolve 
together a map toward a balanced budget. I have a plan which provides 
the process to do so which I have offered. This bill, in my opinion, 
falls short of that goal because it fails to tell us how we get from 
here to there and therefore I must oppose its passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to announce that he inadvertently 
shorted the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] by 1 minute and 
has, therefore, added 1 minute back into the time of the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, that last activity of the Chair is not 
debatable, I take it?
  The CHAIRMAN. No, it is not.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], the head of the pork busters 
caucus.
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, during the debate Members argue, of course, 
that we do not need a constitutional amendment because Congress can be 
trusted to balance the budget without one.
  Well, that is what I thought 10 years ago, when I came to Congress. 
Since then, Congress has rejected countless attempts to balance the 
budget. Just last year the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] and I brought a budget plan to 
the floor.
  We specified, for instance, something like $700 billion worth of 
cuts. It would balance the budget in 5 years. And actually, during that 
period of time, Federal spending would go up, about $8.2 trillion of 
spending over 5 years. We did not even touch Social Security.

                              {time}  1850

  We thought it was a pretty good plan. It garnered 73 votes. Congress 
has failed to balance the budget for 25 years in a row. Who can look at 
this record and honestly say that they believe the budget will be 
balanced by trusting the will of Congress? Congress does not lack ideas 
of specificity on how to balance the budget, it lacks the political 
will to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggested that the Barton balanced budget 
amendment be passed.

       Russert: ``Mr. Secretary, you sound like you don't want to 
     balance the budget. I mean, how long would it take to 
     actually balance the budget?''
       Reich: ``The President is against simply balancing the 
     budget . . .''
       Russert: ``. . . what about actually balancing the budget? 
     How long would it take to actually bring its budget into 
     balance with an orderly and disciplined campaign?''
       Reich: ``But Tim, your question assumes that the goal is to 
     balance the budget . . .''
       Russert: ``So the goal of a balanced budget is not your 
     goal?''
       Reich: ``The goal of a balanced budget is not my goal.''

  This was the exchange between Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Tim 
Russert of NBC News on Sunday, January 15. Secretary Reich's comments 
epitomize the attitude of the Clinton administration toward balanced 
budgets, and the balanced budget amendment, which will soon be before 
Congress.
  Secretary Reich's comments, and the President's continued opposition 
to the balanced budget amendment, suggest that the administration did 
not ``get the message'' of the last election. Two recent polls, CBS and 
USA Today/CNN, found that 80 percent of Americans support a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution.
  In the debate over this amendment, you will hear many arguments by 
those opposing it. A recent argument is that those supporting the 
amendment must itemize which programs would be ``cut'' before passing 
the amendment. That's been done: Last year Congressmen Gerry Solomon, 
Fred Upton, and I brought a budget plan to a vote which balanced the 
budget in 5 years without any tax increases. There were no cuts in 
overall Federal spending, but rather, decreases of planned increases in 
spending! We itemized 600 specific spending cuts, saving $700 billion 
over 5 years. Nevertheless, overall Federal spending was still allowed 
to rise $327 billion over 5 years. Yet, the plan garnered only 73 
votes, 218 are needed for passage.
  The point I'm making is that Congress does not lack ideas for how to 
balance the budget. Congress lacks the political will to do it. A 
constitutional mandate will fortify that will.
  Another argument often heard is that we don't need a constitutional 
amendment because Congress could be trusted to balance the budget 
without any constitutional amendment. Technically, that's true. Nor do 
we need the first amendment of the Constitution to guarantee free 
speech. But we all feel safer 
[[Page H649]] with that first amendment rather than trusting Congress 
not to pass laws infringing on our free speech.
  With respect to attempts to balance the budget, we have tried the 
statutory route; and tried, and tried. In 1974, Congress passed the 
Budget Control Act to end deficit spending. The deficit and debt grew. 
In 1985, Congress enacted Gramm-Rudman I which required a balanced 
budget by 1990. Congress ignored it, then repealed it. In 1987, we 
passed Gramm-Rudman II which required a balanced budget by 1992. 
Congress repealed it in favor of the 1990 Deficit Reduction Agreement, 
another 5 year plan to cut the deficit which include $222 billion in 
new taxes. It failed, new taxes and all. With a new President, in 1993, 
in the third year of the previous 5-year plan, Congress tried again 
with the Deficit Reduction Plan which included the granddaddy of all 
tax increases: $250 billion. Most of the 1993 plan's cuts were in the 
out years, years 4 and 5. It is another failure as deficits are 
expected to soar toward the end of the decade.
  Congress has failed to balance a budget for 25 years in a row. Who 
can look at this record honestly and say they believe the budget will 
be balanced by trusting the will of Congress?
  There is a debate as to whether the constitutional amendment should 
include a provision requiring a ``three-fifths supermajority in both 
Houses,'' as opposed to a simple majority, to raise taxes as part of 
any budget balancing plan. I support the inclusion of this 
supermajority provision in the Barton balanced budget amendment. Tax 
increases are not essential in order to balance the budget. As I said, 
we don't even need an overall cut in Federal spending. It can be done 
by simply decreasing increases in spending. Should the Barton balanced 
budget amendment be defeated, I intend to support the Schaefer balanced 
budget amendment and pass the toughest balanced budget amendment 
possible.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], a distinguished member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the 
ranking member, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, having listened to all the remarks that have been said 
by most of the Members, it occurs to me we probably, in these few 
hours, have had to debate what will be a constitutional amendment to 
the Constitution of this country, and hopefully will last more than the 
200 years that we have already spent as a democracy. It occurs to me 
perhaps the best thing we could have done is had every Member who came 
on the floor to speak say exactly how he or she would propose that we 
cut the budget to balance it, if they in fact are supporting a balanced 
budget amendment.
  That is the best thing we could do, because everyone says they want 
to do it and they do not want to inflict pain on seniors when it comes 
to Social Security, and they do not want to devastate children by 
cutting Head Start and other children's programs, but no one who is 
saying they are for this is saying how they will do it. Everyone talks 
about how well families have to balance the budget and local 
governments have to balance the budget and States have to balance the 
budget, and that is right.
  Let us take a family under his balanced budget amendment proposal by 
the majority party. Could a family out in the real estate market go out 
there and buy a house? They could if they could come up with every 
single dollar and dime and cent that that house would cost, because 
under this proposal they could not run a deficit for a year, so that 
family would not be able to take out a 30-year mortgage, not be able to 
take out a 15-year mortgage. They could take out a 1-year mortgage, but 
by the end of that year they had better pay it all up or they cannot 
get that house, and they are out.
  What about student loans? How many folks have children in school or 
desirous of going to college? Forget about borrowing money from the 
Government under the NDSL, the GSL or other student loan programs at 
low interest rates that allow people to do it, because by the end of 
the year that family has to balance its books.
  Auto loans? Want a car? Need a car? the person had better be able to 
pay all the cost of that car by the end of the year.
  I had a amendment which would have changed the way we look at this 
balanced budget amendment, and said if we happen to have a surplus one 
year, then let us use that surplus as a rainy day fund for those days 
or those years that come along when we have a recession.
  I could not even get that amendment considered in committee. I was 
blocked in a closed rule which would not allow the debate. If I wanted 
to add that amendment today, I would not be able to because this debate 
is closed, only to that which the majority said we can debate.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman I cannot offer, as much sense as it 
might make. Understand something, all the money that we spend in a 
year, if we end up with a surplus, those agencies that ran that surplus 
know they cannot use that money. It goes back to the Treasury.
  What does it encourage? The use or lose mentality. ``I have the money 
in my account. I had better use it, or I am going to lose it for next 
year.'' That is not prudent spending.
  Where will the cuts come? I believe we can say that the majority here 
is playing hide and seek. First the Republicans tell us they are going 
to increase military spending, not cut it, just increase it. Second, we 
know we have to pay the debt, the interest on the debt, which is around 
$250 billion. That amounts to about 30 percent of the budget. Off the 
table, we cannot consider it.
  What is left to cut $1.2 trillion to balance the budget? Social 
Security, which the Republicans have refused to include in this 
balanced budget amendment as exempted; Medicare, education, Head Start. 
What is the conclusion? We have heard it before: ``Read my lips.'' The 
problem is we are not being told what there is.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished deputy majority whip, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hastert].
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible support 
of the tax limitation substitute of House Joint Resolution 1 that has 
been put forward by my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. I 
have heard comments from our friends on both sides, but especially one 
comment from one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
several speeches ago that said ``The President, over 12 years of 
Republican Presidents, had never signed the budgets that were 
unbalanced, and he had never once vetoed that budget.''
  That is not true, because the President does not sign a budget and 
the President does not veto a budget. That is part of the problem. The 
President does not have any control over this budget. It is Congress 
that passes the budget. Forty years of Congresses have passed a budget 
that basically is out of control.
  The U.S. Congress has not been able to control itself in meting our 
dollars and cents to the various programs across this country, and do 
it without mounting that debt higher and higher and higher every year.
  In the past, as recently as two short years ago, this House passed 
the largest tax increase in history, and it passed it off to the 
American people as deficit reduction. That is why the substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] is critical. Adopting 
this balanced budget proposal and requiring a super majority vote in 
order to raise taxes will ensure that we can no longer look to the 
wallets and the pocketbooks of the American taxpayers to save us from 
ourselves.
  Mr. Chairman, a national debt of $4.5 trillion should finally 
convince every Member in this Chamber that Congress has not got the 
discipline to solve its own problems. This balanced budget amendment 
will put discipline upon us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding time to me, and for his leadership on his amendment, which I 
will address in my remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with the greatest respect for the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton], and in strong opposition to his amendment. I 
object 
[[Page H650]] particularly to the three-fifths provision of his 
legislation, but after carefully listening to the debate, I have 
concluded that while being a strong proponent for reducing the deficit, 
I do not believe that we should amend our Constitution to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, as I was listening to the debate, I thought it might be 
useful to once again review, and we just made this quickly in our 
office, so this is not a very fancy chart, but just to call to the 
attention of our colleagues once again some of the facts regarding our 
budget.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, we take in each year more money than we 
spend in our budget, except for the net interest on our national debt. 
The projected deficit for this year is $167 billion. The net interest 
on our national debt this year is $235 billion. We have taken in $68 
million more than we spend each year, except for the interest on the 
national debt. That is a great big exception.
  My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], referenced 
that families cannot live within the limits if they have to pay for 
their house in one year, or their car, et cetera, but we cannot even 
deduct this interest from our taxes. This is the price we are paying 
for the failed trickle down policies. Let us not make that mistake 
again in the contract. That is a little bit of a separate issue from 
the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, our other distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr], mentioned that it would be like the 49ers giving 
the play book to the Chargers for this Congress, this majority, to show 
what cuts they would make, we would make, to the American people before 
we approve balanced budget amendment.
  I think that is one, with all due respect to the gentleman, one 
sports analogy too far. The Chargers should not see the 49er play book. 
The public has a right to know what the cuts will be, so if it is true 
that Social Security is not to be cut, why not support the Gephardt-
Bonior amendment? If Members believe that the American people have a 
right to know, then why not support the Conyers amendment, which makes 
all the sense in the world?
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just explore that analogy that was 
made. The interesting analogy that was made by the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr] about the playbook, about the 49ers and the San 
Diego Chargers, makes it clear that the majority's opinion of this 
whole debate is that, as the 49ers, they have to keep the play book, in 
other words, how we will plan to balance the budget, away from the 
Chargers, which would be the American people, so they treat the 
American people as adversaries in this whole process.
  Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, although we take pride 
in San Francisco of the 49ers being a gentlemanly team, when we talk 
about football it is a tough game, and I do not think we should play 
hardball with the American people. I think they have a right to know.
  We should support the Conyers amendment, and in addition to that, if 
we are serious about balancing the budget and reducing the deficit, we 
had better get serious about real health care reform, so that we can 
reduce the increase in health care expenditures that are the rising 
cost of our deficit in our national budget.

                              {time}  1900

  But let us just remember once again, we take in more than we spend 
except for the price tag on the failed trickle-down economics.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Franks].
  (Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, Federal spending is out of 
control. It is bankrupting our national Treasury and threatening the 
quality of life that our children will enjoy in the next generation.
  There is only one iron-clad way to stop this runaway freight train, 
and that is through the adoption of a constitutional requirement that 
this institution balance the American people's budget.
  That is why tomorrow I will be proudly casting a vote for the Barton 
balanced budget amendment but with a level of disappointment. That 
stems from the fact that neither the Barton amendment nor any of the 
other amendments pending tomorrow strictly prohibit unfunded Federal 
mandates.
  Virtually everyone who has come to the podium today has indicated 
that there are only two ways to balance the Federal budget: One is to 
cut spending and the other is to increase taxes.
  But, Mr. Chairman, there is a third option, far more insidious than 
the first two, and that would come from the Federal Government 
requiring States and local governments to pick up the tab for programs 
currently operated and paid for by the Federal Government in 
Washington, DC. That could amount to an enormous tax hike for local 
property taxpayers, something that they can ill afford.
  Mr. Chairman, judging from the past, Congress will avoid tough budget 
choices whenever we can. So to shed programs to other levels of 
government is a distinct possibility and we need to prohibit that 
possibility.
  That is why our amendment that would have prohibited unfunded Federal 
mandates had the support of the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the very body that will be charged with ratifying the 
balanced budget in the various State capitals around the country.
  But, Mr. Chairman, while I am somewhat disheartened by the fact that 
unfunded mandates are not at issue in this amendment, we hope to take 
it up separately this summer.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker].
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously we are all concerned with balancing the 
budget. There are three areas, however, Mr. Chairman, that are bones of 
contention. The first one is the area that my illustrious colleague who 
just yielded to me has produced an amendment about, and that is to have 
truth-in-budgeting.
  We should be honest with the American people. As my colleagues just 
indicated before I came up here, Mr. Chairman, we should not play 
hardball with the American people. They are not our adversaries. 
Therefore, we should be honest with them. Let them know where the cuts 
are going to have to occur because they are going to have to occur 
right in their pocketbook, whether we are talking about Social Security 
or whether we are talking about our young.
  It reminds me, Mr. Chairman, of an adage that says you can judge a 
society very carefully by how it treats its elderly and how it treats 
its young. So this is how we must look at balancing the budget.
  The second area, Mr. Chairman, has to do with this supermajority. We 
have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle indicate that 
this is the only way that we can have a sagacious balancing of the 
budget. But in actuality, that supermajority, that 60 percent is not 
going to preclude the raising of taxes. What it is going to do is 
empower a minority rule. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that that was 
the original intent of the Framers of our Constitution. In fact, I 
would submit and suggest to you that that is unconstitutional and we 
should not adopt and accept and support the Barton amendment.
  Third, Mr. Chairman, as we talk about balancing this budget, we 
certainly have to realize that we must be honest and we must be fair 
with the American people and that we must balance the budget fairly.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].
  (Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this balanced 
budget amendment.
  [[Page H651]] Mr. Chairman, when I came to this body I was the owner 
of a small business. It is tough to run a small business, believe me. 
It is tough to survive even. But one thing I learned running a small 
business is that I cannot spend more than I can take in. Nor can I 
spend more than I earn. If I do, I have no choice but to file 
bankruptcy. No bank will bail me out, no government will give me a loan 
guarantee, because my business is not big enough, like Chrysler.
  So I have a choice. I can lose everything. My lifetime savings. 
Perhaps even my wife.
  Now, for some reason, the Federal Government keeps borrowing 
endlessly, without any collateral or consent from taxpayers. Just keep 
borrowing and borrowing. That is not fair.
  The Federal Government should operate under the same rule. Laws 
should apply equally.
  Year after year, I am tired of listening to these promises. We keep 
promising to the American people that Congress is going to do something 
about this runaway deficit. And here it is. We have got a chance, a 
golden opportunity to do something about this. We have a resolution to 
adopt it, but here we go again. More excuses. I am listening to 
criticism from colleagues for not saying exactly where the balancing 
should come from.
  Mr. Chairman, again back to private business. In private business, we 
always set the goal and then decide how we are going to meet this goal.
  To me, the balanced budget amendment is good. We set the goal. Then 
later we sit down together and go through this painful process where 
the cuts should be. That is how I look at it.
  We all know that we can do it. We all know that we should do it. So 
we work together, instead of bickering, and go through this painful 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop talking and start acting.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say you look great in that position.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Wisconsin. He still 
only has 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROTH. I was afraid of that.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us have waited a good long time for this vote 
tomorrow. Because while we have had a chance to vote on this issue any 
number of times, we have never had a chance to win. Tomorrow we 
certainly have a chance to win.
  I want to thank Chairman Hyde and his committee and the Contract With 
America, and I want to thank the American people for their vote on 
November 8 because they are going to make this victory on a balanced 
budget amendment tomorrow possible.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had this issue up before. The last time we had 
it up for a vote, we lost by 12 votes. Some of us had hoped that we 
could have a balanced budget. For example, we had the Solomon amendment 
a year ago. No tax increases, no Social Security cuts, and we only had 
a handful of votes.
  I have come to the conclusion that, of course, in 15 years we have 
had 5 statutes which promised a balanced budget but all were 
circumscribed.

                              {time}  1910

  No, there is no other solution than a balanced budget amendment.
  This morning at 9 o'clock something happened I hope that does not 
happen to our country, but this morning at 9 o'clock we had a hearing 
here on Capitol Hill on the Mexican peso devaluation. We were told by 
our leading people in this country, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
Secretary of State, the Federal Reserve chairman, ``We've got to do 
something; we've got to do something.''
  Well, that debate is for another day, but I hope that that never 
happens in our country, that happens to our dollar, but it is going to 
happen if we have these huge deficits. We now have a deficit of $4.6 
trillion. How much further can it go?
  Since the last time we had elections, our national debt has increased 
by $170 billion.
  My friends, actions have consequences, and this type of profligate 
spending is going to come back and bite us hard.
  Other countries come to the United States for help. Where are we 
going to go for help? Its time is now. If not us, who? If not now, 
when?
  Let us vote for the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise], a gentleman who has worked on budget matters 
for so long.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege of working with the 
chairman for many years here and I want to thank him very much.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the Congress that is trying to be family 
friendly. We hear a lot of talk about helping middle-class families and 
we talk a lot about how families have to balance their budgets, all of 
which is true. So we can learn from families.
  I have heard the analogy often about families sitting down around the 
table at the end of the month, which is what we have to do, what every 
family I know has to do, to balance their budget. And as the families 
balance the budget they know there is something crucial. They know the 
difference between consumption and they know the difference between 
investment, they know what it is, they know what is the difference 
between a dollar that is spent on children going to a roller rink or to 
a movie, or a dollar spent for food or basic consumption and the dollar 
spent for investment into the house, into the car, into education.
  So, families break their budgets up. Yes, they have to balance, but 
they break those budgets up into operation and maintenance, or 
consumption and investment, and so that is why we make mortgage 
payments every month and that is why we borrow for our automobiles and 
that is why we borrow for the most important probably of all, to send 
our children to college and to school. So those are investments that we 
spread out over a long time, that is the cost of them.
  The way we balance our budget is we balance the consumption and we 
balance, and then we add in debt service on those investments. Not many 
of us, this Member certainly not, cannot afford to buy a House in one 
year or a car or a college education.
  That is what my amendment and the amendment that many others are 
cosponsoring tomorrow does. It says you should take Social Security off 
budget. Everyone said they do not want to touch Social Security. We 
give Members that opportunity. You cannot touch it; it is gone; it is 
off budget.
  But the other thing we do in this that none of the other amendments 
will do that will be in order, is to have a capitol budget so the 
roads, the bridges, the infrastructure, those things which in some ways 
families would pay mortgage payments on, the Federal Government can now 
account for in the way that a family does. You pay the mortgage on our 
House; we would have debt service on our roads, on a bridge, on water 
or sewer systems, particularly those things that bring back far more in 
economic return than what we ever spent on them.
  We have to make sure this country grows. My major concern with many 
of the balanced budget proposals, as well-intentioned as they are, is 
because they chop off growth because they count a dollar for investment 
the same as a dollar for welfare or a dollar for food. That is my main 
concern.
  I urge Members to look at the Wise substitute tomorrow, the only one 
we will have a change to truly invest in growth and have a chance to do 
what American families do, recognize the difference.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia makes a 
very good point. I think some folks that may be watching may think 
those of us who are saying this balanced budget amendment is the wrong 
way to go are against ever balancing the Federal budget when of course 
we want to balance the budget, but we want to be realistic. That is why 
the gentleman from West Virginia's alternative is really a sound way to 
go because, as I explained earlier, if this was a family, and we are a 
family in America and we were trying to make decisions for this family 
of America, we would want to be able to purchase a home and, we 
[[Page H652]] would like to be able to get a 30-year mortgage or send 
our kids to college and be able to get some student loans to help pay 
the cost.
  If the gentleman can explain, does the balanced budget amendment that 
is on this floor by the majority party, the Republicans, allow for 
that?
  Mr. WISE. There is no capitol budget program. It counts a dollar of 
consumption exactly the same as a dollar of investment, even though the 
investment dollar will bring you back much more in economic growth and 
tax revenues.
  Mr. BECERRA. And the gentleman's proposal which does provide for 
capitol budgeting, could that allow for that type of process, a 30-year 
mortgage?
  Mr. WISE. Yes, it would.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I support passage of a strong balanced 
budget amendment.
  We must obtain control over our debt. This Government has not 
produced a balanced budget since 1969. Today we are saddled with a $176 
billion deficit, nearly $300 billion in annual interest payments, and a 
debt of some $4.7 trillion.
  This situation cannot continue.
  We will soon consider several versions of the balanced budget 
amendment. I believe the Barton amendment, which requires a three-
fifth's vote to raise taxes, is superior. However, if the Schaefer-
Stenholm amendment, which does not include this provision, garners the 
most votes, I will support it on final passage.
  Neither of these measures represents a cure-all for out problems. But 
each would require the Federal Government to finally be accountable to 
the American people.
  While a balanced budget amendment will require hard decisions, it is 
not synonymous with a threat to our seniors. Rather, it is our 
monstrous debt and the interest on it that most threaten social 
security and other truly vital programs.
  The time for easy decisions is over. We must prioritize. I urge 
passage of a strong balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has 18 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 9 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend a little bit of time explaining 
exactly how the tax limitation provision in the balanced budget 
amendment would work. There has been gnashing of teeth about how 
stringent that process might be and how difficult it might be to 
implement. Fortunately for the United States Congress, there is ample 
evidence of how tax limitation amendments to balanced budget amendment 
requirements would actually work.
  I think it has been pointed out on the floor earlier, there are 9 
States that have a tax limitation provision either in their 
Constitution or by statute, including the State that the President is 
from, the State of Arkansas, which has a three-fourths requirement to 
raise taxes.
  The Heritage Foundation has done extensive data collection to see if 
in those States that have tax limitation, it does work or it really 
does not work, and the record shows at the State level that tax 
limitation in point of fact does work.
  Between 1980 and 1990, in those States that had a tax limitation 
provision, taxes went up by a total of 87 percent in that 10-year 
period. In the States that did not have tax limitation provisions, 
their taxes went up 104 percent.
  That is a difference of 17 percent. In States that have tax-
limitation provisions, taxes went up 17 percent less in a 10-year 
period between 1908 and 1990 than in those States that did not have the 
tax limitation provision.
  Why do we want a tax limitation provision at all?
                              {time}  1920

  Ultimately you want that, because you want to make government more 
effective, you want to make government more responsive to the people, 
and you want the Government to spend less money.
  If you do not have as much money to spend, you do not spend as much 
money.
  The States that, again, have a tax-limitation provision by statute or 
in their constitution, their spending did go up, but it went up about 9 
percent less than in those States that did not have a tax-limitation 
provision on the books, again, in the period between 1980 and 1990.
  So what does that mean? If you take those numbers and put them at the 
Federal level, a 9-percent reduction in Federal spending would be over 
$100 billion in the fiscal year that we are in today. So the bottom 
line is not only do we need to balance the budget in Washington, we 
need to balance it by having a tax-limitation provision on the books, 
because tax limitation does work.
  If we do that, we are going to have to make some tough calls. You 
know, people have asked me, ``Well, Congressman Barton, you are the 
sponsor of this provision. How are you going to balance the budget? 
Where are you going to cut?'' My answer is quite simple, ``I think we 
look at every Federal program.''
  We passed a resolution on the floor earlier this afternoon that 
specifically exempts Social Security. So some people have come to me 
and they say, ``Well, that is only for this year. Why not exempt Social 
Security in totality by putting it into the constitutional amendment?'' 
And the simple answer to that is because if you exempt any program in 
the amendment itself, it goes into the Constitution. It would not be 
totally hypothetical to think at some point in the future everything in 
the Federal budget would be in that program. We could have an instance 
where the Social Security budget at some point in time, if it were 
specifically exempted in the Constitution, not only would include the 
Social Security budget as we know it today, it could include the 
defense budget. We do not want to put into the Constitution any 
specific exemptions.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me simply state that the three-fifths 
requirement for a tax increase is important, because it balances the 
amendment. We have the three-fifths requirement in the Stenholm-
Schaefer amendment to raise the debt ceiling; we have the three-fifths 
vote requirement to borrow money in a given fiscal year. If we do not 
put the three-fifths requirement in for a tax increase, we have really 
created an incentive, intentionally or not, to balance the budget by 
raising taxes.
  So I would respectfully request that when we actually come to the 
vote tomorrow that the colleagues in the Chamber vote for the Barton-
Hyde-Tate-Geren tax-limitation, balanced budget amendment and send it 
to the Senate where we encourage the Senators to do likewise.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. As I was listening to the gentleman recite the record of 
the States and the supermajorities in those States, it dawned on me, 
someone else has mentioned before that in those States where the taxes 
were raised even in the face of the supermajority, it almost had to be, 
did it not, a bipartisan vote that finally carried the day?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentleman is correct.
  If I could respond, the gentleman is correct, because in the nine 
States that have tax-limitation requirements, it is a bicameral, 
bipartisan legislature, and my understanding is that it was a 
bipartisan effort.
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis], who serves as our chief deputy whip, in addition 
to his other responsibilities.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from the 
[[Page H653]] State of Michigan, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, our Constitution is an extraordinary document. Our 
Constitution is the only document of its kind in the world to have 
lasted so long and to have been used so often as a model for other 
nations.
  This balanced budget amendment that we consider tonight would 
dishonor our Constitution. It substitutes good politics for what is 
good policy, for what is right.
  Make no mistake. I want a balanced budget like everyone else. I do 
not want our children and unborn generations to bear the burden of the 
deficit and increasing national debt.
  But I believe we must deal with this issue in a responsible and 
sensible way. Passing the buck to future sessions of Congress is not 
responsible.
  The new Republican majority must tell the American people what they 
are going to cut, whether it is Social Security, Medicare, a school 
lunch program for our children.
  Our knees, the American people's knees, will not buckle as some on 
the Republican side have suggested.
  Two years ago Members on this side of the aisle made the hard choices 
needed to reduce the deficit. We reduced the Federal deficit by over 
$500 billion. We acted responsibly. I expect no less from those on the 
other side of the aisle.
  Now they are in charge. They are in control. Lay your cards on the 
table face up. Tell us the hard choices you are willing to make, be 
straight with our children and the elderly. Tell them what they will 
have to do and what they will have to do without.
  We do not need this amendment to our Constitution, Mr. Chairman. What 
we need is courage, raw courage, to make the tough choices facing our 
country.
  Have the courage to do the right thing and vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], the only unicameral State in the Union.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, in February 1982 President Ronald 
Reagan said the Federal Government has taken too much tax money from 
the people, too much authority from the States, and too much liberty 
with the Constitution. Truer words were never spoken.
  That argument is as germane today as it was 13 years ago. Last year 
we experienced the largest tax increase in American history, and yet, 
sadly enough, the deficit continued to grow. The time has come to 
restore fiscal sanity in our Government and pass the Barton balanced 
budget amendment.
  I was sent to Washington to reform government, to change the way 
Congress does business. In the first 3 weeks of the 104th Congress, we 
have barely scratched the surface of the Contract With America, the 
vehicle for the very reform that the American people sent us here to 
do.
  The balanced budget amendment is at the heart of this contract. Since 
1935 the American people have been waiting for Congress to pass this 
measure. Patiently they have waited year after year, only to see 
another legislative year pass by with no balanced budget amendment.
  How long will we make them wait?
  The opponents of the balanced budget amendment and our own President 
of the United States last night said before we pass the balanced budget 
amendment and send it to the States for ratification we must specify 
every cut for the next 7 years. I ask those opponents if someone 
decides that they want to lose weight and live a healthier life, do 
they not first take a pledge to eat right and exercise, and after 
taking that pledge, then lay out a plan and a schedule of how they will 
attain their goal?
  Ladies and gentlemen, our Government is fat with debt. The only way 
to insure a healthy America is to pledge to this country a balanced 
budget and define that commitment within the United States 
Constitution.
  Once we have sealed our commitment, we will lay out a national diet 
of fiscal responsibility, balanced by the exercise of spending cuts 
across the board, and with any good diet, we will forbid the 
consumption of pork. We will insure our agreement by mandating that 
only the consent of three-fifths of this body, as laid out in the 
Barton amendment, not just a simple majority.
  We need to consider this Barton amendment. We need to seriously 
consider this, because it is very important. We need to put handcuffs 
on our Federal Government so they cannot turn to raising taxes every 
opportunity they get.
  My colleagues, this Nation is broke. Tax increases alone have not 
solved the problem. We must begin now to put America back on track.
  I stand in strong support of the Barton balanced budget amendment and 
encourage my colleagues to join in this effort.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in strong support of the 
balanced budget amendment for three reasons. First of all, we have no 
choice. We are spending $800 million every single day on interest. Soon 
we will be spending $1 billion every single day on interest on the 
national debt. We cannot ask our children to support a growing number 
of seniors living 20 and 30 years after retirement and spend a billion 
dollars a day on interest on the national debt. We will destroy their 
standard of living, we risk our own democracy.
  It is that serious.
  We must balance the budget. We have no choice.
  Let us look at the record of this body. I have been here 12 years, 
since 1985, and I have submitted balanced budgets, line by line, cuts. 
They were reasonable when the problem was manageable.
  I have had the Democratic chairman of the Committee on the Budget get 
up and say to the moderate Republicans who proposed this budget, ``Good 
thinking, thoughtful, real good effort. We are going to do most
 of this.'' But it never happened.

  I have submitted budgets, I have been part of bipartisan teams to 
submit budgets, I voted for tax increases and spending cuts, and it has 
gotten worse and worse and worse.
  So our record is bad. In the States, that has been the harness, a 
balanced budget amendment, which forces attention to this matter on a 
year-by-year basis. It has worked for them. We must try it, because we 
are squandering the Nation's resources and compromising our children's 
future.
  Third point: How do we achieve it? Of course, we cannot tell you. How 
many times have you walked into factories in your districts? I can tell 
you I have walked into a factory in my district, faced with the 
absolute panicked look on the faces of the leadership who had just 
found out they were going to have to be required to cut 20 percent of 
their workforce in 1 year. I said to them, ``How will you do it?'' 
Their answer was, ``We don't know.''
  I came back a year later, and I said, ``How did you do it?'' They 
said, ``Well, we did this, and then we did that, and then we found out 
we could do this and do that, we discovered that not only could we do 
it, but we improved the quality of the product.''
  I remember in one factory I went to, I said ``So what now?'' I get 
this terrible stare that said, ``We just learned we have to do it 
again.''
  Now, do we know how to do it? No. But we do know that if we have to 
do it, we can do it. We do know that if we have to do it, we will face 
up to the fact that those kids cannot support public employees retiring 
10 years before they can retire. We do not like talking about that. We 
do not want to make that decision.
  These are tough times. Let us do it, let us have the guts, the 
courage to serve not only our people but our children.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind the committee that the majority 
does have the right to close.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a very able and committed 
member of the Committee of the Judiciary.

[[Page H654]]

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have sat throughout this debate, the entire course of 
it, and I think we beat this dog probably as much as we can beat it, as 
we say in North Carolina. I have not heard anybody come here who has 
not expressed a commitment to a balanced budget. But the American 
people should know that it is really the debt, the national debt that 
is the drag on us.
  So a balanced budget is not going to get us there. It is going to 
take a series of surplus years to start the reduction in the national 
debt.
  I think everybody has talked about that at one level or another. I 
want to come at this from a slightly different angle because the real 
problem that I have with the balanced budget amendment, this balanced 
budget amendment and all of the balanced budget amendments that are 
coming before us under the series of amendments, is that they 
jeopardize my right to have an equal vote in this institution.
  Every amendment that is coming before this body has a three-fifths 
majority of some kind in it. Everything that I stand for tells me that 
my vote and the votes of my constituents, based on constitutional 
principles, ought to be equally valued.
  So I cannot support a constitutional amendment that says to me that 
next week or next year or in the year 2002 somehow my vote in this body 
is going to be less valuable than another Member of this body.
  This three-fifths majority devalues my vote.
  The second problem is that despite all of the protestations to the 
contrary, the American people do not operate their lives on a balanced 
budget every year. We fund the acquisition of homes by borrowing, we 
finance education by borrowing. Those are investments that we make 
because we think they are important.
  Over time, over a long period of time, we pay those things off, but 
they pay dividends to us in the meantime.
  Now I had an amendment that I offered before the Committee on Rules, 
I tried to get it to address this issue of devaluing my vote.
  I went to the Rules Committee and I said, ``Here is an amendment that 
would have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but when we 
were going to waive that balanced budget amendment, we come back in 
here and we would take a vote by majority so that every Member of this 
House would continue to have an equal value to their vote because that 
is the constitutional principle, that is the majority rule principle, 
that is the American way, that is the fair way.''
  But the Committee on Rules, I say to my colleagues and the American 
people, elected not to make this amendment in order. I had nine other 
amendments that I tried to offer to this bill in the Committee on the 
Judiciary on which I sit. The committee closed down at 6:30 on 
Wednesday, 2 weeks ago, and said, ``We are not going to take any more 
amendments. We don't care whether you are a member of this committee or 
not, we are not going to let you offer any amendments.''
  So I am being deprived of the value of my vote; I am being deprived 
of the opportunity to offer amendments on this floor, and I think that 
is the disservice that we are doing to the American people.
  We have got to debate these things regardless of the outcome of the 
vote and come in and vote and take those hard choices, and then we can 
maybe balance the budget.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the impeccable 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. TAUZIN. Let me first thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde], for assuming my position as the second sponsor of the 
Barton-Tauzin amendment which has been an amendment before this body 
for many years. I can think of no finer gentleman to assume this role 
in this new majority than my friend, Mr. Hyde. I also want to 
congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pete Geren], for 
the role he is playing in the effort to pass the Barton-Hyde-Geren-
Tauzin--many Members--bipartisan amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a 
required balanced budget and to require it in the right way. I want to 
make just three points tonight:
  In this age of cyberspace and high-speed technology in communications 
there is a word that is very current and very popular right now called 
a new way of seeing things. It is a paradigm, it is called, a new way 
of looking at things, a new way of seeing things, a new order of 
things. The old paradigm here in the U.S. Congress and in America has 
been very simple. People elected Members to go to Congress to get back 
as much of their tax dollars as they could, and bring them back home 
and spend them at home, and let me tell my colleagues that paradigm has 
worked wonderfully. We have all done a marvelous job of that. Every one 
of us has been extraordinarily good at coming to Washington, bringing 
back our taxpayers' dollars back to home and spending them at home. In 
fact we have done such a wonderful job of it that we spend a great deal 
of money more back home, more than our taxpayers sent to Washington, 
DC. It is called a deficit. It is called a debt. We have operated under 
this old paradigm for many, many years now, and we have riddled our 
country with debt as a result while we have brought the bacon home.
  I think the message of the last few elections has been very simple. 
The message of the last few elections has been to cut it out. It is 
time for a new paradigm. It is time for us to elect Representatives to 
Washington who will stop spending money we do not have.
  The new paradigm is to come up here and balance the budget. I ask, 
``How do you do it? Do you do it by borrowing in a capital account, as 
some have recommended?'' Well, this Government borrows. Unlike most 
families in America, Mr. Chairman, we borrow and never pay the debt. 
The debt just piles up. We never
 pay the mortgage. It piles up on us and our children.

  Second, do we balance the budget by raising taxes on Americans again, 
and again, and again? That is the easy way, but they are telling us to 
cut spending first, and I say to my colleagues, ``If you want to cut 
spending first to balance the budget instead of taxing the dickens out 
of the people at home, you need to vote for the Barton-Hyde-Geran-
Tauzin amendment to the Constitution.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, all I can think of is what has been the 
weight or the effectiveness of the discussion on amending the 
Constitution of the United States that has transpired on this floor 
today, and I think on balance, as we study our Congressional Record, as 
our citizens across the several States examine the arguments for this 
important policy change, I think that there will come up a shortage of 
logic that would persuade people that we have now reached a system or a 
process that would make sense in making this massive change out of 
desperation, to be sure, to the Constitution because the bulk of all of 
the arguments that I have heard for this amendment is that we are 
failing, we have tried everything else, and there is nothing left to 
do.
  In my judgment that is not enough. In my judgment we have already 
started reducing the deficit annually, and from that modest position 
that we find ourselves, Mr. Chairman, we could easily begin to build on 
increasingly reducing the deficit and, ultimately, the national debt.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I leave this first day of leading the debate on 
this side on a constitutional amendment disturbed that there has not 
been a persuasive case made for a constitutional amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I speak out in support of the 
balanced budget amendment not only because I believe it is good policy 
or that it is a policy that is supported by many of the leaders of this 
body, but because it is a policy that is supported by the people of my 
district. There was no issue that I found stronger support for than a 
balanced budget amendment during my campaign, and I believe the reason 
that the public recognizes that 
[[Page H655]] we need this is because they have seen in more than 30 of 
our States that the States, when they implement their constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget, that the leaders in their legislative 
bodies are able to balance the budget. Yes, they have to work hard, 
make tough decisions, stay until late at night, but they are able to 
when the fire is put to their feet.
  The people of this great country have been very patient with this 
body, asking for the past 15 years that we balance our budget. They are 
not holding us to a higher standard. I believe we need to submit to 
their will, pass a balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas] for yielding this time to me.
  The distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight just a moment ago said that at the conclusion of 
the first day of a very important and historic debate in this country 
on the balanced budget amendment he had not heard convincing argument, 
a persuasive argument, for enacting a constitutional amendment 
requiring the Congress and the President, that is to say, the 
legislative and executive branch, to enact an annual Federal budget 
that is balanced. Well, let me provide that argument, counterargument.
  Congress has failed to control the deficit despite legislative 
attempts to cut Federal spending. At the end of 1994, Mr. Chairman, the 
deficit was projected to be $223 billion, and the public debt, the 
national debt that is passed on to our kids and grandkids, all future 
Federal taxpayers, which is the accumulation of each year's deficit, 
will reach $4.7 trillion. Left unchallenged the deficit will grow and 
continue to reach crisis proportions early in the next century.
  The choices are hard, but necessary, and that is why we must enact a 
balanced budget amendment to impose a very real fiscal restraint in 
this body.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity 
to address the body tonight inasmuch as we really have a historic time 
to pass what will be a balanced budget amendment with a three-fifths 
tax limitation which is what the country really wants. If we put our 
fiscal house in order everything else in the Contract With America can 
be accomplished, but this is the most important part of the contract. 
We want to make sure that if we have people, we have families, that 
have to be on budgets, this Congress has to be on a budget, and I thank 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] for this time that he has 
yielded for this purpose.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], an institution within 
an institution.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], an institution, 
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. I think the gentlemen are suggesting I should be 
institutionalized.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say as to the supermajority on raising 
taxes:
  When the government expands its power from one level of gross 
domestic product to another in terms of its fiscal reach, that ought to 
be an extraordinary decision because we are reaching into people's 
pockets and we are taking a great rate of the blood, sweat and tears 
that they have earned through their own work. So that extraordinary 
reach ought to be an extraordinary decision, and that ought to call for 
an extraordinary vote. So to increase taxes, to increase the reach of 
government, it seems to me is an extraordinary decision. It has not 
been until now, but we are going to try to make it an extraordinary 
decision, and not have that left to a simple majority vote.

                              {time}  1950

  Sixty percent is not that tough to get over 50 percent, but it is a 
little tougher, and we want to avoid the bias towards increasing taxes 
as the line of least resistance to balancing the budget.
  I would say to my friend from North Carolina, the only amendment that 
the gentleman offered to be brought before the Committee on Rules was 
one we did vote on in the full committee, and he lost 13 to 19. I will 
agree the Committee on Rules did not have a relitigation of that issue, 
and I wish they had because the gentleman is a member of the committee. 
But the other nine amendments that the gentleman says he had, I never 
did see them, but he said he had them. He must not have thought too 
highly of them, because he did not even offer them.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I also favor the Wise capital budgeting 
balanced budget amendment version because I do not support adding 
public-policy-related supermajority requirements to the Constitution.
  Supermajority votes are appropriate in the checks-and-balances 
interplay between the co-equal branches of government, like 
ratification of treaties, override of vetoes, and the impeachment or 
approval of executive or judicial branch officers. They are also 
appropriate for explusion of Members of Congress, an extreme action 
which constitutes, in a sense, an override of the will of the people.
  But final say on issues like annual budget policy should not be 
constitutionally delegated to a minority, as Madison warned in the 
Federalist Papers. If we constrain revenue and expenditure numbers to a 
supermajority requirement, we put ourselves on a slippery slope to 
other ideologically based encroachments on the principle of majority 
rule, a fundamental tenet of our Constitution as it now reads.
  Irresponsible borrowing certainly must end, but responsible governing 
should not.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the balanced 
budget amendment because it represents the strongest incentive to force 
the Federal Government to live within its means.
  If we act now, we will still have the flexibility to set budget 
priorities to protect Social Security and other vital programs. If we 
delay, the budget deficit will continue to grow and could eventually 
threaten every Federal Government program in the future.
  Today, interest payments take up 14 percent of our Federal budget. 
That means every day, we pay more than $800 million just to service the 
Federal debt. If we take no action, that percentage will continue to 
increase and claim even more Federal dollars, at the expense of other 
important programs.
  The longer we wait, the worse the alternatives are going to be. If we 
act now, some small sacrifice will be required of all Americans. If we 
wait, I am afraid we will be facing tremendous sacrifices and as we are 
to make drastic cuts to programs throughout the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, we can't afford to wait any longer. The time is now to 
pass this amendment and get on with the job of restoring fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 1, proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States.
  Virtually every Member agrees that we must reduce the Federal 
deficit. We began in the 103d Congress with responsible steps to raise 
revenues in a limited way and to reduce spending, and those efforts 
must continue. But passing a constitutional amendment to require a 
balanced budget is not responsible. There are two possible outcomes, 
neither of which is desirable.
  One is that a balanced budget amendment will be ignored and the 
respect due our Constitution will be eroded.
  The other is that a balanced budget amendment will be obeyed, harming 
the economy and limiting the Federal Government's ability to meet 
national needs.
  But I don't only oppose House Joint Resolution 1 because it is a 
balanced budget amendment; I oppose it because it is a bad balanced 
budget amendment.
  House Joint Resolution 1 puts the entire range of Federal activity, 
from responding to hunger and homelessness, to protecting health and 
safety, to investing in education, training, research and development, 
and infrastructure for long-term growth, at risk, along with the 
contracts the United States has made with our senior citizens, our 
veterans, our states and cities.
  The populations most reliant on federally supported income support 
programs are our elderly and our children.
  But, however earnestly some Members promise to keep Social Security 
off the table, there is nothing in House Joint Resolution 1 to protect 
it when the time comes to balance the budget.
  The Children's Defense Fund estimates that, if Social Security and 
defense are protected, the BBA would force cuts in other Federal 
spending of 30 percent. The impact on children would be devastating. If 
the cuts simply reduce caseloads, 6.6 million children could lose 
Medicaid health care coverage, and 4.3 million could lose food stamps; 
in New 
[[Page H656]] York, over half a million children would lose Medicaid 
and nearly 300,000 would lose food stamps.
  But programs for poor children, like those for other poor and 
underserved people, may not see cuts held to 30 percent; having no 
votes and no highly paid lobbyists, our most vulnerable people may be 
hit even harder.
  House Joint Resolution 1 does not permit a waiver of the balanced 
budget requirement when the economy is weak, so it is likely to have a 
countercyclical effect. As unemployment rose and our people's need for 
federal assistance grew, tax receipts would be falling, and spending 
would have to be cut even deeper to meet the BBA's requirements. 
Recessions would become more frequent and deeper.
  House Joint Resolution 1 does not provide for unforseen situations 
such as natural disasters--the recent flooding in California. Tax 
increases or spending cuts would be required to offset spending to meet 
emergencies. A disaster would bring suffering on many more people than 
its immediate victims.
  The requirement of supermajority votes for raising taxes undermines 
the principle of majority rule, giving excessive power to a minority of 
the Members of each House. It also distorts the process of achieving a 
balanced budget and is likely to lead to indiscriminate cuts and 
possible elimination of critical Federal programs.
  Mr. Chairman, beyond these issues, there are many unanswered 
questions about and deficiencies in House Joint Resolution 1. 
Democratic Members of the Judiciary Committee tried to deal with these 
questions and deficiencies by preparing amendments for full Committee 
markup and the floor, but amendments offered in Committee were defeated 
on party-line votes, markup was cutoff before more than half of our 
amendments were offered, and the Rules Committee denied us the right to 
offer them on the floor.
  I can only note that, had these changes been made, House Joint 
Resolution 1 would be much longer and much more detailed--an even 
clearer argument against making economic policy in the Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress already has the tools to reduce the Federal 
deficit and has been using those tools for the last 2 years. We know 
the choices will be extremely difficult, but making those choices is 
the only way to bring the deficit down.
  We do not need a constitutional amendment, and we most emphatically 
do not need House Joint Resolution 1. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this and any other balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I support a balanced budget 
amendment but suggest that a provision to limit Federal spending to the 
growth of the economy is also desirable.
  The problem of Federal deficits is simply a symptom of the larger 
problem of massive growth in the Federal Government. James Buchanan and 
Richard Wagner discussed what happens when the populace begins to 
believe that the Federal Government need not practice fiscal restraint. 
Their 1997 book ``Democracy in Deficit''--published before the era of 
$200 billion a year budget deficits--describes how this opens the door 
to ever-increasing deficits, which are then monetized by the Federal 
Reserve, leading to continuous reduction in the value of the balanced 
budget amendment.
  While such an amendment sounded somewhat radical sixteen years ago, 
it sounds almost mainstream today. I suggest, however, that instead of 
a balanced budget amendment, we apply to the Federal Government a 
variant of what Michigan applied to its State government in 1978 when 
it adopted the Headlee amendment to the State constitution. The basic 
components of the Headlee amendment are: First a limit on the size of 
State government achieved by holding state revenue to the same fraction 
of personal income that it was when the amendment passed in 1978; 
second, a requirement that the state maintain its proportional share of 
spending to local government and reimburse local units for any mandates 
imposed by the State; and third, a provision requiring a vote of the 
local populace for any increase in local taxes.
  The purpose of the second provision was to prevent the State 
government from avoiding the limitations on its growth imposed by the 
first provision by shedding its financial support of the local units 
and requiring them to provide services and programs that the state was 
unable or unwilling to pay for. A blue ribbon commission appointed by 
Governor John Engler to study the Headlee amendment recently concluded 
that the Headlee amendment had been effective in limiting the growth of 
State government.
  In order to keep the requirement of a balanced budget from resulting 
in massive tax increases and a deterioration of the economy, my 
suggestion is to limit the growth of federal spending by setting a 
limit on the amount of Federal outlays relative to gross domestic 
product [GDP]. This would cap Federal outlays at the percentage of GDP 
consumed at the time of submission of the amendment to the states. 
Federal outlays could never, in any year, exceed the growth of GDP. In 
this way, if outlays were less than the ratio in one year, there would 
be a permanent reduction in the ratio of Government spending to GDP. 
The Federal Government could not mandate that the States provide any 
service that they are not already providing, unless it fully funded the 
mandate. Combining this with a phased-in balanced budget requirement 
would result in attacking the real problem--the growth in Federal 
outlays over time, whether this growth is funded by taxes, borrowing, 
or inflation of the currency.
  Of course, there are details, and as they say, ``the devil's in the 
details.'' An emergency provision to allow deviations from the limits 
during time of war is an example. The definition of federal outlays, 
which would appear to work at this time, will no doubt be strained over 
time. However, it is probably easier to set standards regarding outlays 
than debt, considering the pitfalls to defining debt that your 
editorial pointed out.
  There are at least three reasons why a provision to limit spending 
should be part of a balanced budget amendment. First, it is a moderate 
proposal. It does not require a reduction in the absolute size of the 
Federal Government, but only that the Federal Government not get larger 
relative to the size of the economy. Second, it has been tried at the 
State level and appears to have accomplished its basic purpose. Third, 
it gets directly at the problem of growth of the Leviathan rather then 
trying to get around it indirectly by limiting how much the Government 
can borrow and then hoping that political pressure against taxes will 
restrain Government growth.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Barton three-
fifths tax limitation version of the balanced budget constitutional 
amendment. Earlier this month in an article in the Wall Street Journal, 
Milton Friedman, who received the 1976 Nobel Prize in economics, argued 
why a tax limitation amendment is so very important.
  The Barton amendment's limitation on taxes would force the 
achievement of a balanced budget through a reduction in spending rather 
than an increase in taxes unless a super-majority of three-fifths voted 
to raise taxes. The other amendments are not as strong, because there 
is nothing in them to prevent balance from being achieved by a massive 
tax increase. And, nothing to prevent further increases in Government 
spending as long as they were accompanied by higher taxes.
  After all, as Mr. Friedman argued, ``the real burden on the economy 
is what the government spends--or mandates others to spend--rather than 
how much it received in taxes.'' If you raise taxes, you can spend 
more--even with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, if 
that amendment does not limit tax increases.
  I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity and cut Government 
down to size. Vote for the right kind of balanced budget amendment--the 
Barton three-fifths tax limitation amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
balanced budget amendment, House Joint Resolution 1. This amendment to 
the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget is not a new 
idea. Balanced budget amendment proposals have been introduced since 
the 1930's and, in recent years, have fallen just short of passage in 
Congress on several occasions. In 49 States, there is some form of 
balanced budget requirement--including the State of New Jersey.
  In Congress, this balanced budget amendment is only the beginning of 
the process of amending the U.S. Constitution. It is a big step for 
Americans to amend the U.S. Constitution, and that is as it should be. 
Of the several thousand proposed amendments in 206 years, only 27 
amendments have been ratified by Congress and by the States--and one of 
those (the 21st amendment) repeals the ban on alcohol proscribed by one 
other--the 18th.
  Amending the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the 
U.S. House (290 votes) and in the Senate (67 votes), and ratification 
by three-fourths of the States (38 of the 50 States). The drafters of 
the Constitution placed a great deal of weight on the powers delegated 
to the Federal Government and those that remain with the States, giving 
the States the ultimate decisionmaking powers regarding amendments.
  They also saw a limited role for the Federal Government in taxation 
and borrowing--a role which has been greatly expanded during the 
current century. The Framers of the Constitution clearly saw Federal 
debt as an emergency matter at times of national or international 
crisis, not as a means of normal operations. Likewise, taxation was for 
specific and justifiable purposes. It is the breakdown of both of these 
principles that has led to our current budget problems.
  [[Page H657]] I believe Congress has an obligation to send this 
question to the States, so that we can engage in a much needed and 
lively debate on the broader question--what is the role of the Federal 
Government and at what cost?
  Our experiences with State budget balancing requirements have 
provided several positive outcomes from this important fiscal 
discipline. It imposes discipline on legislators and executive branch. 
It, therefore, requires a closer working relationship between these two 
branches of Government. And, the requirement ultimately will force all 
parties to sit down and work out their differences to maintain the 
required balance.
  Having worked under the balanced budget requirement, I believe it 
will promote better communication and governance--at least that's been 
my experience as a State legislator in New Jersey. It has been 25 years 
since the last time the Federal Government's books were balanced. Of 
every dollar collected in Federal taxes, 15 cents goes to pay interest 
on the national debt--more than $200 billion a year, further drawing 
down the amount available for other Government programs.
  Clearly, our current situation is not due to under-taxation, but to 
over-spending. The Federal Government collects $5 in taxes today for 
every $1 it collected 25 years ago. The problem is that Government 
spending today is up $6 for every $1 spent in 1968.
  Some may claim that the balanced budget amendment is a gimmick. 
Rather, I believe it will finally provide the discipline to the Federal 
budget process that has failed, to date, to control Federal spending--
even with the best efforts of individual Members committed to deficit 
reduction and despite the demands of the American taxpayers.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution is fundamental law; 
indeed, it should deal only with fundamental questions. I agree with 
Thomas Jefferson: ``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 
government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle 
posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' I 
urge you to keep these important words in mind as we debate the crucial 
issue of balancing our budget.
  In my 14 years in Congress, my record has demonstrated my strong 
commitment to the senior citizens of this country. For this reason, I 
resent the attempt by some in this Chamber to scare senior citizens 
with misinformation about how the balanced budget amendment might 
affect Social Security. There is nothing in the balanced budget 
amendment that says that the Social Security trust fund will be cut or 
that Social Security benefits will be reduced for anyone.
  The fact is that Congress can balance the budget without touching 
Social Security. The budget can be balanced in the year 2002 by simply 
restraining the growth of all other Federal spending to 3 percent per 
year, instead of allowing it to increase by 5.4 percent annually under 
current policies. A balanced budget amendment is the first step toward 
guaranteeing the financial security of our retirees. Because the 
Government must continue borrowing from the Social Security trust fund 
to finance the current debt, we are on a course of destruction toward 
the painful task of cutting benefits or raising payroll taxes. By 
enacting a balanced budget amendment, we halt this troublesome path by 
imposing the budgetary discipline necessary to safeguard our future 
generations.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to make very clear my 
support of the three-fifths proposal contained in the Barton amendment. 
Raising taxes should be a matter of last resort. The process of raising 
taxes should not be simple or easy. We need a mechanism to force 
spending reduction before new taxes are levied, just as we need a 
mechanism to force a prioritization of spending issues to achieve a 
balanced budget.
  The majority party is committed to following through on its promises. 
The balanced budget amendment is supported by 85 percent of the 
American people. If hard-working taxpaying families have to live within 
their means from paycheck to paycheck, then there is no excuse that it 
has been 25 years since the Federal budget has enjoyed a surplus. The 
balanced budget amendment is a common sense mechanism that will enforce 
the necessary budgetary discipline in Congress and I urge support for 
the Barton amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate 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. 
Gekas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Walker, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
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.

                          ____________________