[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.
____________________