[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H675-H682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              WHY I SUPPORT THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise today in 
support of the Contract With America's version of the balanced budget 
amendment that requires a three-fifths vote of this body in order to 
raise taxes. It is the most responsible proposal on the table for 
bringing down our national debt and applying discipline against this 
Nation's outrageous spending programs.
  I support the tax limitation amendment because I agree with President 
Reagan who so often reminded us that the problem is not that the 
government spends too little. It is that the American people are taxed 
too much.
  The budget must be balanced, and it must be balanced by cutting 
spending, not by raising taxes.
  On election day, Mr. Speaker, the people in my area on Long Island 
and the rest of the country spoke loud and clearly. They sent me and my 
new colleagues in the freshman class--in fact they sent all of us here 
to Washington with a very specific mission, to end business as usual. 
No more raising taxes, no more reckless spending, no more of the 
arrogance and the double standards that have plagued this distinguished 
body and that have punished this country for the past half century. My 
neighbors on eastern Long Island want Members of Congress, and in fact 
all of Washington, to start acting like so many families have to act, 
with responsibility for our actions and a good dose of common sense in 
our decisions. But the people's call for responsibility was not an 
angry and hysterical demand for change of any sort. On the contrary, 
Mr. Speaker, it was a very specific endorsement of a very particular 
set of policies.
  The Contract With America is a study in middle class values, and 
ideas and goals that can bring our government, once and for all, under 
control and restore fiscal integrity across this Nation, and the 
notions contained in the Contract With America, to the chagrin of many 
of my Democratic colleagues, have been embraced by the people whom we 
have the privilege and the obligation to serve, and key to our contract 
with the people is a tax limitation balanced budget amendment, a call 
to live within our means, a demand 
[[Page H676]] to keep our books in order. It is a reasonable, common 
sense request that simply requires that we will not spend more money 
than we have.
  But after listening to so much of the discourse today, and as we will 
listen tomorrow, I am shocked that so many people in this body still do 
not quite get it. Some people think that it is OK for Congress to go on 
spending more money than we take in and to spend money faster than it 
is printed while too many middle class families, who we are supposed to 
champion, are at home struggling to try to meet basic needs, while 
parents at home in my area in Medford, and Speonk, and Montauk, and 
Smithtown, are working sometimes two, and three, and even four jobs to 
meet their monthly obligations, to try to put money aside to send their 
children to college. This body has routinely voted to mortgage their 
children's future with reckless spending programs that have left us 
with a $4.7 trillion debt.
  Now let us be absolutely clear about what this means. Congress has 
spent $4.7 trillion and never had the money to back it up. That is a 
pretty bad credit rating in my book, and in the book of most of 
America's families, and in the credit book of most of America's 
businesses. Decency, responsibility and basic fairness all demand that 
we balance the budget and that we do it without raising taxes, but so 
does the law of economics. A higher deficit is proof positive of fiscal 
irresponsibility.
                              {time}  2110

  It leads to higher long-term interest rates, that in turn decrease 
investment and economic expansion. The effect on our country's small 
business community is devastating.
  Let me quote from a letter that is circulating here from the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the largest representative of our Nation's small 
businesses. The Chamber of Commerce writes to each Member of this 
House,

       Perhaps more than any other sector of the American economy, 
     small businesses have felt the effects of Federal fiscal 
     mismanagement and inefficiencies. Large and growing Federal 
     deficits reduce savings and investment, stymie income and job 
     growth, and reduce our overall standard of living. They 
     ultimately lead to increased taxes, higher interest rates, 
     and reduced global competitiveness.

  The bottom line is obvious. We must balance the budget, and we must 
do it without raising taxes, and we must start today.
  We owe it to the American people to start behaving like grownups. But 
just deciding to balance the budget is one thing. Actually doing it is 
quite another, as we are finding out, and it is a much more difficult 
task. But time after time, this House has attempted to rein in spending 
and pare down the deficit.
  Some of us will remember that 10 years ago here in Washington, an 
innovative creation came to the floor, it was called Gramm-Rudman-Mack. 
And it was a good effort to slow the growth in Federal spending, and it 
followed years and years and years of promises to rein in Federal 
spending and get toward a balanced budget. And Gramm-Rudman worked for 
a few years, until it was gutted in the 1990 budget deal.
  Likewise, the Kasich-Penny budget cuts were a courageous proposal to 
reduce spending, but they too were rejected because the choices were 
just too tough for a body that lacks the discipline and the political 
courage to make them work.
  A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that includes real 
tax limitation is the only way of imposing discipline upon Congress 
that it needs to get the job done. Too much time has been spent hoping 
and talking and breaking promises and waiving the rules. And all that 
time the debt has continued to soar.
  The reason I think it has been so difficult for measures like Gramm-
Rudman and Kasich-Penny to succeed is because it is difficult to cut 
spending, and it is difficult to say no to powerful lobbyists and 
concentrated special interests that permeate this town. But ultimately, 
cutting spending is the only responsible way to balance the budget.
  Let me be perfectly clear: We cannot, we must not, force the people 
of this country to pay higher taxes, because we do not have the 
political will to make the tough choices. And time and time again we 
have examples that this body has lacked that political will.
  Simply put, the budget should not be balanced on the backs of the 
taxpayers, and that is why I am a strong supporter of the Barton 
balanced budget tax limitation amendment. The Barton amendment's 60 
percent supermajority is the strongest defense we have against the easy 
route of punishing the taxpayers for this body's spending excesses. It 
forces Washington to cut spending, to get rid of waste, and to do it 
all without raising taxes. Not only is raising taxes in order to 
balance the budget an unfair and irresponsible way to go, it just does 
not work as well.
  The 1990 budget agreement promised to reduce the
   deficit by $500 billion over five years simply by raising taxes. But 
now, 5 years later and after lots of pain, our so-called reward for 
paying higher taxes has not been a lower deficit, has not been a 
reduced debt. As a matter of fact, precisely the opposite effect has 
occurred. Since the 1990 budget agreement, the debt has grown by more 
than $800 billion. And the lesson is simple: More taxes lead to more 
spending and a higher public debt. More taxes do not balance the 
budget. They simply rob the American people of their hard-earned 
dollars.

  The solution to this crazy cycle of taxing and spending is the solid 
tax limitation proposed by the Barton amendment. By requiring 60 
percent of the Congress to approve a tax increase rather than a simple 
majority, we guarantee that tax hikes will not be the solution to a 
problem that originates on the spending side of the Federal budget.
  To quote Milton Friedman in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, 
it cannot be emphasized too much that the real burden on the economy is 
what government spends or mandates others to spend, rather than how 
much it receives in taxes.
  And he is right. Raising taxes can only lead to an increased debt. If 
we are serious about wanting a balanced budget, if we are serious about 
wanting to live responsibly and within our means, then we must be 
serious about opposing any and all tax increases. And the only balanced 
budget amendment that guarantees that is the Barton balanced budget 
amendment. That is the original balanced budget amendment in the 
Contract With America.
  The Barton amendment imposes a discipline that this House lacks and 
that this House has proven time and again it is willing to waive. The 
economic facts back up the Barton amendment's central theory that too 
much spending is the cause of the deficit, not insufficient revenues.
  Since the 1960's, Federal spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic 
Product has increased by 5 percent, from less than 18 percent in the 
sixties, to more than 23 percent in 1995. But at the same time that the 
rate of government spending has increased so dramatically, the 
Government's revenue from taxes has actually stayed fairly steady, 
between 18 and 19 percent. Essentially, while the rate of government 
spending has increased, the percentage of that spending that the 
Government pays with tax revenues has stayed the same.
  The difference in those two figures is our deficit. These numbers 
prove that the real cause of the deficit is too much spending, not too 
few tax dollars. And the Barton amendment is the perfect antidote to 
this problem. It safeguards the hard earned dollars of America's 
families from the greedy hand of a bureaucratic government. It makes 
sure that the taxpayers do not have to subsidize the spending habits of 
the tax spenders.
  The Barton balanced budget amendment will work. Four of the last five 
major tax increases that this House unfortunately passed did not 
receive a 60 percent supermajority in the House. If we had had the 
Barton amendment in place just 2 years ago, President Clinton could 
never have passed the largest tax increase in this Nation's history.
  Opponents of tax limitation say that it goes too far, that it 
shouldn't be any more difficult to raise taxes than it is to do 
anything else in this body. To them I respond that holding the line on 
taxes is one of the most important obligations of this Congress, this 
new and dynamic 104th Congress. We must do everything that we possibly 
can to guarantee that the incessant urge of this body to tax is calmed. 
Tax limitation is not radical, it is necessary. It is 
[[Page H677]] right, and it is a proper antidote to the perennial 
Congressional sickness of taxing and spending. The American people have 
spoken. More than 80 percent of the hard working men and women of this 
great country have balanced their own budgets, and they expect us to do 
the same. It is now our obligation to act.
  I am proud to stand with my colleague from Texas and my friends from 
across this great Nation who have the courage to cut spending and 
balance the budget without punishing the already overburdened American 
taxpayer. I urge full consideration of the balanced budget amendment 
with the tax limitation included.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
                              {time}  2120

  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, my constituents elected me to do a job, 
to pass the agenda I campaigned on and to disagree with legislation 
that is not good for my district. The tax limitation balanced budget 
amendment is not only good for my district, it is good for my State of 
California and it is good for America and it is good for our future.
  We have the chance to fundamentally change the way Washington 
operates. Nothing will change Congress more than to force basic 
budgetary discipline on Washington.
  I want to point out a little-noticed fact about the three-fifths 
balanced budget amendment. What this amendment does is to let the 
people speak. No one seems to talk about the fact that after Congress 
passes this amendment, 38 of our 50 states must approve it. We should 
let the people speak. Since 49 States already operate under a balanced 
budget requirement, the American people know this balanced budget 
requirement will work.
  If in our personal lives we are required to balance our budgets, if 
in our business worlds we are required to balance the books, and if 
States are required to balance their budget, there is no reasons why we 
cannot have a balanced budget in Washington, DC.
  Because the Barton amendment requires a three-fifths supermajority to 
raise taxes, our budget would be balanced from cutting spending, not 
from raising taxes on hard-working American families.
  I just ask that we support the Barton amendment, the tax limitation 
balanced budget amendment.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas, [Mr. Barton].
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman. I want to 
thank him for taking this special order this evening on the eve of the 
most historic day, in my opinion, in the history of the U.S. Congress.
  Tomorrow, when we vote on the tax limitation balanced budget 
amendment, I think there is a tremendous opportunity to put a halt to 
the spiraling spending spree that this nation has been on at the 
Federal level the last 30 to 40 years.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from New York and perhaps some of 
our other colleagues that are here
 to help me in a little exercise, question and answer.

  I would first ask the gentleman if he knew the last time we actually 
had a federal budget that spending went down from the previous year? 
Would the gentleman from New York happen to know when that might have 
been?
  Mr. FORBES. I believe it may have been as far back as the Truman 
administration; is that correct?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, it was not quite that far back, but in 
1964, we spent at the Federal level $118.5 billion. To put that into 
perspective, last year we spent over $200 billion just to pay interest 
on the national debt. But in 1964, the entire Federal budget was $118.5 
billion.
  In 1965, while I was a senior at West Junior High School in Waco, TX, 
playing on the football team and going on my first date and watching 
the Untouchables on television, things like this, the Federal 
Government actually spent less money than the year before, $118.2 
billion. So we went down $300 million that year. That is the last year 
that federal spending has decreased from the previous year.
  In each year since then, 1966, 1967, 1968, all the way down to the 
current date, Federal spending has increased.
  Would the gentleman from New York care to hazard a guess as to the 
first year the Federal Government spent more than $200 billion?
  Mr. FORBES. I may yield to one of my colleagues. I did not do well on 
the last question.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. We have the distinguished gentleman from South 
Carolina, from Arizona, the distinguished gentlewoman from Idaho, from 
Pennsylvania, would any of these Members care to hazard as to when was 
the first year the Federal Government spent $200 billion?
  The distinguished gentleman from South Carolina says 1968. That is 
the year I was a senior at Waco High School in Waco, TX. The actual 
year was 1971. So it took us from 1964, when we first--1962, when we 
first broke the $100 billion spending barrier, to 1971, 9 years, and 
then we spent $200 billion.
  When do you think we spent for the first time $300 billion. What 
year?
  Mr. FORBES. 1975.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. 1975 is correct.
  Mr. FORBES. Thank you.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. 1975 we spent $332 billion,
   for the first time spent over $300 billion.

  When do you think we spent $400 billion for the first time?
  Mr. FORBES. Well, let us try 1978.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. 1978. The exact answer is 1977. I see that the 
Speaker has arisen.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Gekas). Only to remind the Members that 
the gentleman from New York controls the time, so that the yielding has 
to conform to that pattern.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I respect the Speaker's ruling. I apologize. I 
knew better than to violate the rules of the House.
  Would the gentleman from New York yield and give me an opportunity to 
ask a question to the gentleman?
  Mr. FORBES. I am glad to yield to my friend from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the gentleman from New York 
yielding.
  As I pointed out, it took us 9 years to go from $100 billion to $200 
billion. It took four years to go from 200 billion to 300 billion. It 
took three years to go from 300 billion to 400 billion. And we first 
broached the 400 billion barrier in 1977.
  When would the gentleman from New York hazard a guess as to when we 
first spent a half a trillion dollars or $500 billion? What fiscal year 
would that be?
  Mr. FORBES. Fiscal year 1979.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Would the gentleman yield for me to answer the 
question?
  Mr. FORBES. Yes, I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The actual 
year was 1979. I would think the gentleman may have looked at my notes.
  Mr. FORBES. These figures are getting bleaker. Is there any frame of 
reference that there is a local government that perhaps has gone 30 
years or a school district that has gone 30 years without balancing its 
budget or a State government that consistently has gone that length of 
time without balancing their budgets?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, to my knowledge and myself and my staff and the Congressional 
Research Service and the Heritage Foundation and the Citizens for a 
Sound Economy and many other conservative think tanks have researched 
this question. We can find no
 record of any other State or local entity that has gone that many 
consecutive years without at least once balancing their budget.

  Mr. FORBES. And yet what we are establishing here is that the Federal 
Government in the greatest Nation on this earth has failed to balance 
its budget for over 30 years?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Has not balanced the budget, the Federal 
Government has not balanced its budget since 1969, as the gentleman 
pointed out in his remarks.
  The point that I am trying to make by this question and answer 
session is that in every year since 1965, Federal spending has gone up, 
so that in the 
[[Page H678]] year that we are in now, Federal spending is expected to 
be $1.531 trillion. That is a 1,300-fold increase in Federal spending 
in the last 29 years. In no year has Federal spending decreased. It has 
gone up.
  In the decade of the 1990's, from fiscal year 1990 through the fiscal 
year that we are now currently in, fiscal year 1995, Federal spending 
has increased an average of $65 billion, an average of $65 billion. 
That is an annual rate of over 6 percent in an era when the inflation 
rate has gone up less than 3 percent per year.
  So what does this all mean? It means, quite simply, that lack of 
revenue is not the problem in Washington, DC. The problem is that 
spending is out of control, increasing at a rate of over $60 billion a 
year in the decade of the 1990's, and annual deficits in the $100 to 
$200 billion range. So we need to do something about it, and we need to 
pass a balanced budget amendment. We need to pass a tax limitation 
balanced budget amendment, because tax limitation keeps spending under 
control and forces the legislative body that is accountable to cut 
spending, not to just spend more money and raise taxes.
                              {time}  2130

  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would look at the charts to his left, 
he can see that in the period between 1980 and 1990, in the nine States 
that had tax limitation provisions in their Constitution or their 
statutes, that taxes went up in those States a total of 87 percent 
cumulatively in a 10-year period, but in States that didn't, taxes went 
up 104 percent. That is a difference of 17 percent.
  The States that had tax limitation, spending also went up, but it 
went up less than in States that didn't have it, 95 percent over the 
10-year period versus 102 percent. That is a difference of 7 percent.
  That is statistical verification that tax limitation does work. it 
limits taxes, obviously, and more importantly, it limits spending, and 
in Washington, DC, that is our problem, limiting spending.
  Therefore, tomorrow when we vote on the tax limitation balanced 
budget amendment, it is very important that we get an affirmative vote, 
because that is what is the solution to the problem. It is not simply 
saying ``balance the budget,'' and directly or indirectly putting the 
emphasis on raising more revenue. We don't need more revenue, we need 
the fiscal discipline to cut spending, and the tax limitation amendment 
gives that discipline.
  Mr. Speaker, we do have a number of other distinguished Members here, 
and we certainly need them to have time to speak. I have spoken too 
long.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say I thank the gentleman from New York 
for his special order, and I say God bless you and the other freshmen 
in the 104th Congress for coming to the rescue of us senior citizens 
who have been fighting this fight so long shorthandedly.
  Mr. FORBES. I thank the gentleman.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from New York yield, 
please?
  Mr. FORBES. I am glad to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Idaho.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, as I sat here and listened to the debate 
this evening, I found that our good colleagues from the other side of 
the aisle just
 simply don't understand some of the basic economic dynamics that have 
come into play over the last 30 years, and that is the reason that the 
call and the mounting movement for the support of the Barton amendment 
is now in place.

  I heard the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina say that 
borrowing is the American way. Everybody borrows. We borrow money to 
buy a house, we borrow money to buy a car, we borrow here and we borrow 
there, so why shouldn't the Federal Government borrow?
  I just borrowed money to buy a car, and I engaged in a mutual 
contract where there were mutual benefits of the bargain. I received a 
car, and I borrowed money while they, the lender, made money from my 
borrowing, but it was by mutual consent.
  What my distinguished colleagues misunderstand about the basic 
dynamics of borrowing is the fact that this body, through the public 
trust, has been entrusted with the ability to tax. That is not lending 
from the American people, that is taking money by government fiat.
  Today the American taxpayer has to spend from January 1 to May 20 
just to pay his responsibilities to us because of the power that we 
have. It is not borrowing. That is a complete misunderstanding.
  In fact, today our research shows us that the American people really 
feel that the Federal Government is a bad investment, that we are using 
their money as if we were administering a bad charity, where we were 
taking most of the money for administration, and that is quite true. 
The services that have been referred to in this body just over the last 
few minutes sound very good, but the fact is that most of the services 
are rendered when 80 cents out of every dollar is taken for 
administration. That is not a good bargain, that is not a good 
contract.
  Mr. Speaker, it was Thomas Jefferson who said so well that it's time 
that we chain the government and free the people, and that is what the 
Barton amendment will do. Really, a balanced budget amendment has no 
substance unless the Barton amendment becomes a reality.
  Today this Nation is facing a $4.7 trillion debt, and we talk in 
round, pear-shaped tones about $1 trillion here and $1 trillion there, 
and $100 billion here and $100 billion there, but we must never forget 
how big $1 trillion is.
  If we started paying $1 million a day, day one, year one, and paid $1 
million a day from that time until today, we would still have to pay $1 
million a day seven days a week for 700 more years into the future to 
reach just $1 trillion. Today we very easily talk about our debt being 
$4.7 trillion. That is the legacy that we are leaving to our children 
and grandchildren.
  I would say to the gentleman from New York, and certainly, Mr. 
Speaker, the only chain that we can put on the government at this point 
in time is the Barton amendment. I am very proud to support the Barton 
amendment.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlewoman, as we sit here 
in the bastion of Federal spending, Washington, DC, would the 
gentlewoman care to venture, based on her conversations with the folks 
back home, about what their feelings are about putting a tax limitation 
on the balanced budget amendment?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am 
receiving hundreds of calls from my State of Idaho in support of the 
Barton amendment. The President of the United States referred last 
night in his speech to the fact that there was a shout in 1992 that 
went across the Nation, there was a shout that went across the Nation 
in 1994, but he said America isn't singing.
  But I will say to the gentleman from New York that America will be 
singing when we pass the Barton amendment, because only with the Barton 
amendment will we then begin to see the stability in our tax structure 
and in our government programs that will free small business and large 
business; will we be able to give individuals and businesses the 
ability to anticipate what they will be able to do with their future 
and their capital.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, as I venture around eastern Long Island, 
where I am from, and talk to small business men and women and average 
families on my weekend visits home, they tell me increasingly that they 
do not understand a Washington that feels this compulsion to continue 
to spend, and does not think about looking in the checkbook to see if 
there is really any money there.
  I think that they would tell us this evening that if the Federal 
Government started acting like they do and only spent the kind of money 
that was coming in, as opposed to mortgaging us well into three and 
four generations out, that they would have more respect for their 
Federal government and the ways of Washington.
  It just causes me to pause here for a moment to wonder why we don't 
have multitudes rushing to get on board this tax limitation balanced 
budget amendment and to get it passed as soon as possible. Of course, 
that is what we are working tonight to encourage.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I believe we 
are seeing this growing dynamic, Mr. 
[[Page H679]] Speaker, outside these halls. The only thing is that is 
is incumbent upon us and our colleagues to have the ears to hear from 
the American people.
  It was not due to so much of an ideologic bent that caused the wave 
that we saw in the elections in November of last year. I think it 
focuses to one thing, and that is that a year and a half ago the 
Congress passed the largest tax increase, an unconstitutional tax 
increase, in the history of this Nation, and we saw the reaction to 
that November 8.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman from New York yield?
  Mr. FORBES. I would be honored to yield to my friend, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, since the 1980's the Democrats in Congress have argued 
that fiscal discipline, not a constitutional amendment, is needed to 
balance the budget, but absent a constitutional amendment, Congress has 
refused to make any progress in balancing the budget. In fact, it has 
resisted serious efforts to hold the line on reducing spending. 
Clearly, a constitutional amendment is needed to force Congress to make 
the tough decisions it has dodged for years. I know that my friends and 
neighbors in Pennsylvania and in fact all across America feel that same 
way.
                              {time}  2140

  Forty years of deficit spending have got us in that trouble. Like the 
gentlewoman from Idaho said, over $4.7 trillion, and in real dollars 
that we can relate to, that is $18,300 for every man, woman and child 
in America.
  You say, ``How do we solve this problem?'' We solve it by adopting 
tomorrow, and I hope that everyone will call their Congressman and talk 
to him about it, or their Congresswoman, and talk about the Barton tax 
limitation balanced budget amendment. That has teeth, that is the 
centerpiece of the Contract With America.
  It also will have along with it in the next days and weeks ahead, a 
line-item veto to cut out pork-barrel spending. Unfunded mandates that 
we have put upon our States and local communities will be eliminated. 
Welfare reform, we will make sure that we have able-bodied people that 
do not want to be on welfare back to work. With regulation reform and 
sunsetting Federal agencies, all of those programs together will make 
sure we have fiscal responsibility here in the United States.
  Frankly, those who are here with us tonight on the Republican side of 
the aisle want to put Congress on a diet and I think that all of the 
Members of Congress who look at this clearly and carefully, Republicans 
and Democrats alike, will want to vote for the Barton amendment. It 
deals with tax limitation as well as balanced budget.
  We need to lead by example here in this Congress. States, counties 
and all local governments have to live on a budget, a balanced budget. 
They cannot have deficit financing. Our families cannot have deficit 
financing. Our businesses cannot have deficit financing. So how can the 
Federal Government expect others to have their houses in order when we 
do not have ours? Even the Wall Street Journal has endorsed the Barton 
tax limitation balanced budget amendment.
  This point I think is also important, Congressman Forbes from New 
York, who has been doing a great job here tonight leading this debate, 
many organizations have endorsed this proposal: Americans for Tax 
Reform, United States Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Against Government 
Waste, National Federation of Independent Business, National Taxpayers 
Union, Coalition for America, National Association for Manufacturers, 
Realtors, Homebuilders, and hundreds of other groups.
  I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do what is 
best for America, to make sure we get our fiscal house in order, we 
spend less, we tax less, but we spend on items that the Contract With 
America talks about, those things that people really need, and 
eliminate the waste, eliminate the wasteful spending, and let us get 
America back on track.
  I yield back to the gentleman from New York and thank him for taking 
the leadership role here in this debate tonight.
  Mr. FORBES. Would the gentleman yield for some questions here for 
just a moment, if we could?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I just want to make sure we preserve time 
for my friend the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FORBES. My concern is that of course in November, the American 
people took dramatic action and they allowed the Republicans to take 
control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. 
I think the effort here obviously was that they wanted things done 
differently in Washington.
  If the gentleman from Pennsylvania would comment on an overriding 
concern I have that watching this body for so many years that the 
naysayers, the doomsayers often tend to win the day when something as 
dramatic as balancing the Federal budget with a tax limitation is 
brought to the floor.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think we have seen a whole new changing of 
the President last night in his State of the Union address. It is very 
clear for the doomsayers; they like to say we are going to cut Social 
Security. Absolutely hogwash. As you well know, Congressman, 
the fact of the matter is that Social Security is off the table. All of 
our senior citizens will be protected. And the fact is that people 
across America in every single district, in every single State are 
saying we want a balanced budget amendment and we want the Barton one, 
the one that is going to call for tax limitations.
  People do not want to see wasteful spending. When they see their tax 
bills, they know that is happening in this Congress. I think people are 
getting the message all across America. I hope those on the other side 
listened to what the President said last night about reaching out to 
America. He saw the result from last November's election and he wants a 
join us in the Contract With America. Let us get this bill to his desk 
and get it signed.
  Mr. FORBES. I think the gentleman from
   Pennsylvania.

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman and commend him for his leadership 
in this fight.
  I rise tonight simply to add my voice to those voices that have 
spoken out.
  As I sat back and listened, all too often on this floor we talk in 
kind of government-speak. We talk about the Barton amendment or the tax 
limitation amendment. In Arizona when we carried this debate forward, 
we called it the supermajority amendment. Unfortunately, there are a 
lot of people back home who perhaps do not understand those terms. But 
it is really straightforward, and it is important that people 
understand.
  Paul Harvey has said, and I admire him greatly, that self-government 
without self-discipline does not work. Tomorrow there will be a 
historic vote on the floor of this House. It is a vote which is focused 
around that notion. That is, that to preserve self-government, we must 
institute self-discipline. And what is the form of that self-
discipline? It is a change to the United States Constitution. But it is 
a change that many people in this body I do not believe understand yet 
and that many people at home may not yet understand.
  Oh, they understand that we will vote tomorrow on a balanced budget 
amendment, and they understand that the Federal Government must balance 
its budget because they know they have to balance their own budget. And 
they are very much aware that we are awash in Washington in a sea of 
red ink that is literally drowning the Nation and threatening our 
survival.
  But this debate tomorrow goes one step beyond that. We cannot simply 
agree to balance the budget. We must recognize that that alone is not 
at the root of America's problem. The root of America's problem is that 
government taxes too much and it spends too much.
  I was born in 1949. One year later, the average American family with 
children paid $1 out of $25 in federal taxes. In 1993, just a short 
year ago, it was $1 out of every $4 in taxes.
  In 1950, it was $1 out of $25. Today it essentially is something in 
excess of $1 out of every $4. We cannot continue on that path.
  [[Page H680]] The tax burden is crushing our families. It is crushing 
our small businesses. It is crushing our economies.
  How many households are required, indeed compelled, to have both 
spouses work just to have one pay the tax burden for that family? And 
mind you, and I might remind those on this floor that that $1 out of 
$25 and the $1 out of $4 is just Federal taxes. It does not even begin 
to contemplate the addition of State and local taxes.
  What have we gotten for this massive increase in taxes? We have 
gotten a massive Federal Government which fundamentally fails to do its 
burden.
  Is the crime rate in America lower in 1993 than it was in 1950? Did 
we buy safer streets with that massive increase in taxes? We did not.
  Are welfare recipients in our cities better off? Has the level of 
poverty in America fallen? It has not. We have failed.
  Those who have argued that each problem that comes along simply needs 
a few more dollars have been proven flat wrong. Government is not the 
answer. Higher taxes are not the answer.
  How then do we stop those taxes? The answer is what Paul Harvey said. 
It is self-discipline. We need to add to the American Constitution 
something that is necessary in order to restrict the ability of the 
people who sit on this floor to continue to tax ``you'' to pay for what 
``he'' needs, and we need to do that in the form of what has been 
called in this discussion tonight the Barton amendment, or the 
supermajority amendment, or the tax limitation amendment.
  It is this simple. It says that it has been too easy in America to 
raise taxes, so we are going to raise the threshold, not from 50 
percent, not one-half of the Members of this body plus one, but a 
slight raise, indeed for me not enough, to a 60 percent requirement to 
try to institute some discipline.
  Those who have gone before me tonight have pointed out that Congress 
time and again has said that it was going to cut taxes, has said that 
it was going to cut spending, and it has failed over and over and over 
again. Without external discipline, it will fail again.
  If we enact a balanced budget amendment alone, we may indeed balance 
our budget, but we will do it at the expense of raising taxes.
  The message sent by the people of America on November 8 was clear. It 
was that we must balance the Federal budget not by tax increases, not 
by increasing the burden on the backs of the American family who are 
already overtaxed, but by cutting spending. And the most important step 
we can take in that direction is to pass a balanced budget amendment 
with a restriction that says, ``You cannot raise taxes again, Federal 
Government, unless you get 60 percent of the Members of Congress to 
agree.'' We need to put that in the Constitution so it is sacrosanct.
  Let me briefly conclude by the history in Arizona. Two years ago in 
Arizona, we fought this battle and we won. We won with citizen support. 
We took an initiative to the streets. We said to the spenders at the 
Arizona State capitol, no more.
                              {time}  2150

  The Arizona constitution had in it from statehood a balanced budget 
requirement. But the spenders, those who believe that they can solve 
every problem facing society just by raising taxes and creating a 
government program, got carried away and year after year after year, 
they raised our taxes and increased government spending.
  Do you know what they did? They damaged the Arizona economy. It 
plummeted from one of the best climates in the Nation, with a healthy 
economy and happy families and a prosperous place to come to an economy 
where we tax more than the State of Massachusetts and where it was a 
damaged economy.
  So, we said no. We went to the streets with an initiative called 
``It's Time'' initiative, and by a vote of over 70 percent we amended 
the Arizona constitution to say that there would be no future net 
increases in Arizona's taxes without a two-thirds majority of the 
members of the legislature.
  We must do that here. We must do it now. I implore those citizens 
listening tonight to join us in this fight. It is not an initiative, 
but your voice heard by your Member of Congress tonight or tomorrow 
that can make the critical difference in this race.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I heard a story about a little boy recently 
who wrote a letter to God, and in that letter he said: ``Dear God, 
please send me $10.'' I guess he thought that would be the best way to 
get the money. And the post office, not knowing where else to send the 
letter, sent it to the Office of the President. The President thought 
it was a very cute story, so he decided to send the little boy a 
dollar.
  A couple of weeks later the little boy received the dollar in the 
mail, and he was very, very disappointed. So he wrote another letter 
back to God, and this time it said, ``Dear God, thank you very much for 
the money. But as you recall, I asked for $10. Next time please don't 
send it by way of Washington. Those folks took $9 out of the $10.''
  I do not think truer words were ever spoken. The fact is, this place 
taxes too much.
  When I was a little boy from a small family of 6 children, my father 
bringing up his family had to pay roughly about 2 percent of his income 
to the Federal Government. As Archie Bunker would say, ``Those were the 
days.'' But now we have taxed our way into oblivion. And what have we 
got to show for it?
  As the previous speaker mentioned, is the crime rate any better, and 
as a result of the Great Society programs of the 1960's, has our War on 
Poverty succeeded? With the programs we have instituted here in 
Washington, DC., have we really made things better or have we made 
things worse? I would submit we have made things much worse, and that 
is because of these failed programs. We have taxed and broken the backs 
of the American people, of the small businesses out there, and it is 
time to draw some lines in the sand. It is time for us to follow up and 
to do that thing that Thomas Jefferson regretted not putting in the 
Constitution, and that is a balanced budget requirement.
  We can even go one step better and make it tougher to tax. I cannot 
fathom how anybody in this body would not want to make it tougher to 
raise taxes on individuals out there who are struggling to make ends 
meet. I personally have four children. I consider myself the most 
average of average people. I came here not a man of wealth, but a man 
that had to struggle from paycheck to paycheck, and I understand what 
it is like out there in the real world to try to raise a family. My 
wife had to work a second job as well just to try to make ends meet, 
just so that we could pay our debt to Uncle Sam. And frankly, I think 
my children would be much better off, and so does she, if she would be 
able to spend a little bit more time at home with them rather than work 
to pay off Uncle Sam.
  If this truly is going to be a family-friendly Congress, and one that 
cares about people, let us draw that line in the sand. Let us pass the 
Barton amendment. Let us make it tough to raise taxes.
  I live in the same State as Mr. Shadegg does and served in the State 
legislature, and let me tell my colleagues, in the 1980's we were 
fourth in the Nation in per capita tax increases. It seems our answer 
for solving the problems of Arizona year after year after year was to 
raise taxes. And finally, when we got some common sense from the 
people, we, through the initiative process, passed a two-thirds 
requirement for any tax increase. And you know something, it did not 
paralyze government. In fact, after 3 consecutive years of decreasing 
taxes, out of a $4.5 billion State budget we had a $800 surplus this 
year by decreasing taxes.
  The same phenomena could happen at the Federal level. But we have to 
make tough decisions. But the people who elected us, elected me, 
elected me to come here and fight hard for them, not for government. 
They elected me to come here to stop spending and fight taxes at the 
same time, and I intend to do that.
  Just finally, I would like to reiterate what my colleague, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] did. Please, those who are out 
there, please, 
[[Page H681]] we implore you, call your Congressman or your 
congresswoman, ask them, no, demand that they support the Barton 
amendment. It is crucial to each and every one of us.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank the gentleman 
tonight for pulling this together. I think there is a lot of confusion 
as to what is going on.
  To follow up on what the gentleman from Arizona said, as I campaigned 
in Indiana, and I was I think in over 40 different parades in the small 
towns and cities, nobody came out and said, ``Hey, Mark, will you see 
if you can expand the power of the government in Washington? Will you 
see if you can figure out how to spend more money ought there? And by 
the way, can you tax me a little bit more?''
  That is not what the American people sent us here to do. They sent us 
here to reduce the size of government and to reduce the burden and to 
give them control over their lives.
  We are saying that in our unfunded mandates. We are saying it in the 
line item veto, and we are looking at it here in the balanced budget 
amendment with tax limitations.
  This is for your children's future. I have 3 children. I am concerned 
not so much about myself. A number of my colleagues here have and I 
have a little bit of gray hair, some a little less than that, and this 
is not really just about our future. It is about our kids' future and 
whether we are mortgaging it, and that is both on the tax side and the 
spending side.
  I believe myself that none of the amendments that are coming up are 
satisfactory. They are not tough enough. There should be a spending 
limitation that is written in there to protect the taxpayers and the 
citizens of America. There should be some sort of a penalty if you do 
not reach a balanced budget.
  I am concerned that some of these spending cuts can be illusory, that 
we will wind up with a deficit. There is no penalty for having that 
deficit, and it could accumulate.
  This does not start until the year 2002. That is putting a lot of 
faith that we can stand here and get it to that point. So I have a 
number of concerns with that.
  Yet, tomorrow and in the next few days the key thing is not whether 
we are going to pass a balanced budget amendment, because there is a 
majority in this body to pass a balanced budget amendment. This is a 
tax debate, and it is not even all taxes. We are down to income taxes 
and we are reduced to saying can we not at least have some protection, 
not a two-thirds protection. You know, if we polled Indiana, they would 
want 100 percent protection.
  At one point I answered a question to one of the newspapers in 
Indiana. They said, ``Would you support a tax increase?'' I said, ``If 
we were in war, and if the only way to pay for it was through a tax 
increase, I might consider a tax increase,'' because people want the 
spending reduced. They do not want their taxes raised. And we are down 
to one little clause, a 60 percent supermajority on the taxes, and we 
cannot get, it seems, to this point enough to get over the top. We need 
the people of America to call in, to let their Members know that we 
need their help, we need their vote or we may get an amendment that 
will merely lead to illusory budget cuts and certain taxes.
  We have been down this road before. It was miserable. We need to stop 
it. People have lost faith in us, and we need to give them a down 
payment on faith by passing the Barton amendment.
  Mr. FORBES. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORBES. I yield to my distinguished colleague from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues not feel like we are at a 
telethon tonight and we are not asking you to give anything, we are 
trying to give you money?
  Let us really explain what we are talking about here in real terms. 
Does the gentleman agree with this statement, that if every Republican 
voted for the Barton amendment we could not get there by ourselves? 
Does the gentleman agree with that statement?
  Mr. FORBES. I do.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the gentleman yield further for another question?
  Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Does the gentleman believe that there are 60 Members in 
the Democratic Party, which in many ways has a great tradition in this 
country, who believe that the time has come to limit government, to 
turn over fiscal responsibility back to the States, and that there are 
60 Members in that great party that will step up and help us fill the 
mandate of November 8? Does the gentleman believe there are 65 Members 
over there that could do that?
                              {time}  2200

  I think with the encouragement of the American people that there are 
certainly 60 of our distinguished colleagues on the Democrat side that 
would come join us.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If the gentleman would yield further, would you agree 
that it is probably the best thing that could happen for the future of 
this country, not just in the 104th Congress, but for the 21st century, 
for two parties with different opinions coming together under one roof, 
based on the principle that if we continue to spend this way we will 
bankrupt the American character, and this would really be a way to 
fulfill what President Clinton said in his State of the Union that we 
can work together to make this country better? And we have a historic 
opportunity and all we need is 60 Democrats who will help us fulfill 
our mandate. Do you agree with that statement?
  Mr. FORBES. I agree with the gentleman on that statement. I think we 
have proof in 1990 and 1993 where there was a rush to raise taxes that 
the American people want this body unified, the House of 
Representatives to act responsibly, and embrace tax limitation, a 
balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you.
  Mr. FORBES. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. WELLER. Well, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes], 
my good friend from Long Island. I want to commend you for your 
leadership in organizing tonight's discussion of the tax-limitation, 
balanced budget amendment.
  I just came from my office, and I have been receiving phone calls 
tonight from taxpayers in my congressional district which, of course, 
is the south suburbs of Chicago, rural areas, industrial communities, 
probably the most diverse district in the State of Illinois, and I have 
received a good number of phone calls.
  I am glad I answered the phone. Because they were calling in support 
of the tax-limitation, balanced budget amendment and from those calls, 
and every one of them were from middle-class average working men and 
women. They are concerned about the massive deficit and its impact on 
the future and their children's future, and they point out, or I had 
three of them point out, they are aware that the average cost today for 
every man, woman, and child in the 11th Congressional District in 
Illinois, as throughout this country, is $18,000 for every man, woman, 
and child. The average taxpayer is aware of these things.
  Congress for far too long has thought that the average taxpayer just 
did not know. Well, the taxpayers are better informed today.
  You know, in the past Congress has said, ``Trust us, we will balance 
the budget. We have got the discipline. We will do it.'' Well, they 
have never kept their promise, and they have failed.
  One call tonight from a working man from the city of Joliet, an 
industrial community of about 100,000 in the heart of my congressional 
district, was frustrated. He is a man who drives a long distance to 
work, works in industry, and he was frustrated by last year's tax hike 
which, of course, the administration and the liberal majority in the 
previous Congress proposed as their solution and imposed it upon the 
people and the taxpayers in my district as well as yours, and they were 
aware that that tax increase last year cost the taxpayers in my 
district $410 million, $60 million in higher gasoline taxes which 
drives up costs for average working middle-class families, just to go 
to work or go to the store, and $90 
[[Page H682]] million in higher taxes on Social Security benefits for 
the senior citizens in my district alone.
  Well, that family, as well as others, they have seen their taxes go 
up, and they have not seen any results in reduction of the deficit or 
long-term discipline over controlling Congress' historic ability to 
overspend. They want to be able to afford to go to work and take care 
of their families' needs, and they want to be able to live comfortably 
in retirement. They want Congress, they told me tonight, to have 
Congress to have the discipline and the confidence to cut spending and 
to oppose higher taxes and, at the same time, protect Social Security.
  Today with the passage of the Flanagan resolution, this Congress is 
on record saying that Social Security is off the table.


                          ____________________