[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.
____________________