[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 16 (Thursday, January 26, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H700-H712]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 44 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the joint 
resolution, House Joint Resolution 1.

                              {time}  0956


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, with Mr. Walker in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN.
   When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, January 25, 1995, 
all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the Joint Resolution is considered as read, is 
not subject to amendment while pending, and is debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] 
and an opponent.
  No further amendment shall be in order except those designated in 
section 3 of House Resolution 44. Each further amendment may be offered 
only by the named proponent or a designee, may be considered 
notwithstanding the adoption of a previous amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, is considered read, is not subject to amendment, and is 
debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent of the amendment.
  If more than one amendment is adopted, only the one receiving the 
greater number of affirmative votes shall be considered as finally 
adopted.
  In the case of a tie for the greater number of affirmative votes, 
only the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative votes 
shall be considered as finally adopted, except that if the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
Judiciary is one of the amendments receiving the greater number of 
votes, then it shall be the amendment considered as finally adopted.
  The Clerk will designate the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the joint resolution.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 1

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, Congress shall, by 
     law, adopt a statement of receipts and outlays for such 
     fiscal year in which total outlays are not greater than total 
     receipts. Congress may, by law, amend that statement provided 
     revised outlays are not greater than revised receipts. 
     Congress may provide in that statement for a specific excess 
     of outlays over receipts by a vote directed solely to that 
     subject in which three-fifths of the whole number of each 
     House agree to such excess. Congress and the President shall 
     ensure that actual outlays do not exceed the outlays set 
     forth in such statement.
       ``Section 2. No bill to increase tax revenue shall become 
     law unless approved by a three-fifths majority of the whole 
     number of each House of Congress.
       ``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to Congress a proposed statement of receipts and 
     outlays for such fiscal year consistent with the provisions 
     of this Article.
       ``Section 4. Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     Article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this Article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States faces an imminent 
     and serious military threat to national security and is so 
     declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the 
     whole number of each House, which becomes law.
       ``Section 5. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States except those derived from borrowing and 
     total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States 
     except those for the repayment of debt principal.
       ``Section 6. The amount of the debt of the United States 
     held by the public as of the date this Article takes effect 
     shall become a permanent limit on such debt and there shall 
     be no increase in such amount unless three-fifths of the 
     whole number of each House of Congress shall have passed a 
     bill approving such increase and such bill has become law.
       ``Section 7. All votes taken by the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate under this Article shall be 
     rollcall votes.
       ``Section 8. Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     Article by appropriate legislation.
       ``Section 9. This Article shall take effect of the fiscal 
     year 2002 or for the second fiscal year beginning after its 
     ratification, whichever is later.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment is not subject to 
amendment while pending.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] will be recognized for 30 
minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 15 of 
the 30 minutes that I control be allotted to the gentleman from Fort 
Worth, TX, Mr. Pete Geren, for such use as he may see fit.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, each time I approach this podium with 
regard to this subject, I say the words ``This is a historic debate,'' 
and it truly is a historic debate because we are about making a major 
change in the 
[[Page H701]] way this House does business, and to the extent that the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, have led the way 
on this, to me they are true American heroes in the historic sense 
because it is very clear to me that in looking at the history of tax-
and-spend policy and balancing the budget, or our failure to do so, it 
is a direct result of the fact that it is easier to increase taxes than 
it is to cut spending, and that is what this amendment is about, 
providing an opportunity for the American people to expect us to vote 
by more than a simple majority to increase taxes in order to balance 
the budget.
  In 1981, Mr. Chairman, there was a major effort to balance the 
budget, and we increased taxes. In 1983 there was a major effort to 
balance the budget, and the House increased taxes. In 1990 there was a 
major effort to balance the budget, and the House increased taxes. In 
1993 there was a major effort to balance the budget, and again the 
House increased taxes.
  Today we are facing in this fiscal year a $180 billion deficit, and 
it is expected to grow.
  Our expectations of what this House will do to solve this problem 
cannot ignore history because every time we have gotten serious about 
it, we have increased taxes, reached into the pockets of American 
taxpayers, and said, ``Give us more.'' And each time, we have spent 
more. We still have a deficit after all these tax increases.
  So the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] 
would simply put in place a new rule that would require us to pass 
future taxes by a three-fifths' vote, and I commend the gentleman for 
his amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Barton 
amendment because it is a prescription for delay rather than action, 
for ambiguity rather than specificity, for abdication to the courts 
rather than responsibility that lies here in this Chamber. It could 
turn economic recessions into depressions, it fails to define very 
important terms, and it creates a minority reign over our fiscal and 
economic policy.
  First and foremost, it refuses to allow us to look under its hood the 
way any family would if it were buying a car before making a decision. 
There are no numbers, no projections, no nothing. One Republican Member 
yesterday, in a moment of unexpected candor, analogized the secret 
budget-cutting plan to the San Francisco 49ers football team, saying 
that they could not make their game plan public. Well, to continue the 
analogy, I guess the American people would be the San Diego Chargers, 
or, in other words, their adversary to whom this secret budget cannot 
be disclosed. In the name of responsibility, none of us should support 
a budget amendment with a secret plan.
  Second, this amendment is an attack on Social Security as sure as we 
are in this Chamber. Currently, Social Security is off budget. This 
amendment, in one of its rare instances of clarity, says clearly that 
Social Security outlays and receipts are on budget, and if they are on 
budget, they are up for grabs when the budget balancing occurs. If you 
buy the hortatory resolution passed by the Republicans, then you are 
going to be in for a big surprise if you think that Social Security is 
not on the table. This amendment refuses to put an ironclad protection 
into the text of the amendment that we on this side of the aisle are 
insisting upon.
  Then, with unfunded mandates being considered already on the floor, 
the constitutional amendment to balance the budget is the mother of all 
unfunded mandates. We are going to get unfunded mandates coming down by 
the dozens, and it will pass the responsibilities but not the resources 
to the States. Republicans will not put that protection in the 
amendment as well.
  So the other side has all the tools needed to balance the budget now. 
They are now the majority. They need not wait 7 years and two 
Presidential elections to balance the budget. What tool or what power 
is missing today? In the words of former Governor Weicker, this 
amendment is like a quarterback on a football field in the middle of a 
huddle, going into the stands and then yelling, ``OK, team, score a 
touchdown.''
  Let us not wait for the Constitution to do it for us years down the 
road. Let us do it for ourselves.
  We are still left with a troubling lack of definitions on outlays and 
receipts, on standing, and on what role the courts would play. Here we 
are bringing in the judiciary, and they have no institutions whatsoever 
on how they would indeed balance an unbalanced budget.
  So the Republicans now are clearly scared of the big buckle, the 
buckle in the Congress, the buckle among several States, the buckle 
that could occur among the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, let us put those numbers on the table. Let us get on 
with the real business of deficit reduction, like the $500 billion 
already achieved by Congress in the previous 2 years and the new 
administration, because we can make a difference by not supporting what 
I think is a very flawed plan for the great document called the 
Constitution that controls the laws of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members, please do not support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete 
Geren, who controls 15 minutes.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 
seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, yesterday as we began this debate on the 
balanced budget amendment, we heard a lot of discussion about 
alternatives, including the possibility of a capital budget amendment, 
the idea being that, ``Well, American families borrow money, don't 
they? And they get to sign mortgages, don't they? Why couldn't we here 
in Washington continue to borrow money and sign mortgages like American 
families do, and then have a balanced budget built around that 
concept?''
  There is only one problem with that theory. That theory is based upon 
the notion that American families do that, so why not have the 
Government do that? The difference is that when American families sign 
a mortgage, when they buy a home or when they buy a car and sign on the 
dotted line on that mortgage agreement, they agree to pay the debt 
back. Here in Washington, when we mortgage the future, when we 
accumulate debt year after year after year and pile it on, there is no 
agreement ever to pay it back. All we ever do is pay the interest on 
the loan. I ask you, ``Wouldn't you love to be a family that could 
borrow at will from the bank and never be required to do anything more 
than pay the interest?'' Who in America gets that right except the 
Federal Government? Who in America gets away with that kind of 
financing except the Federal Government?
  It just does not work that way. We cannot continue to pile up debt 
and think we can only pay the interest when the interest is eating up 
the money we need to spend on decent and good American policies for our 
own people and expect that this debt is not one day going to cripple 
us. No American family can do it, not under any capital budget plan 
that anybody has suggested to this Congress in this debate.
  It is for that reason that I hope Members will join with us and 
support the Barton-Hyde-Geren-Tauzin constitutional amendment that does 
three very important things: It says, first, ``That we have to balance 
the budget, and we have to get about it now and do it soon''; second, 
it says, ``Do it without taxing us anymore unless you do it with a 
supermajority. Don't tax us anymore, please, because we can't take 
it''; and, finally it says, ``Quit borrowing. Quit borrowing money on 
the backs of our children, end this deficit financing, and get us back 
into a position where we are doing the honest thing, spending only the 
money we were sent up here to spend.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.

[[Page H702]]

                              {time}  1010

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, 
Benjamin Franklin was asked, ``What have you wrought?'' And he answered 
simply, ``A Republic, if you can keep it.''
  Those words sometimes fall in a deafening sound on our ears, trying 
to understand if Ben Franklin was talking about Republican and 
Democratic politics. Simply, Ben Franklin was offering the fact that we 
are a Republic, a representative body, a body that should be 
representative of all of the people of the United States of America.
  Sitting on the Judiciary, Committee Mr. Chairman, that was the 
approach which I took to be able to offer to the American people a 
realistic statement on where we wanted to go in balancing the budget, 
strongly debating the issue of amending the Constitution of the United 
States, having been amended only some 27 times in our history; offering 
the thoughts of constituents across this Nation, not to blind side 
America, but to have a real debate in the Judiciary Committee. 
Recognizing that we had established a trust with the American people, 
veterans benefits for the likes of the gentleman in the gallery who had 
thrown himself on a grenade in World War II, vested in this Nation, we 
talked about veterans benefits.
  We talked about military preparedness, because Democrats want 
national security, and we asked the majority party, what would happen 
in a time of crisis when the military, your boys and girls, had to be 
prepared? Why not join us in a bipartisan way and exempt that so that 
this Nation can be prepared for the needs of national security?
  Time after time we were voted down. And then we come to Social 
Security, and I have heard one of my colleagues suggest, oh, we are 
protected by the vote that was offered yesterday.
  I come from a constituency that is filled with hard-working senior 
citizens who are now retired and hard-working men and women who simply 
say, ``Hold on to my Social Security.'' Sheila Jackson-Lee is not going 
to vote against any measure that may help our senior citizens. I voted 
for that yesterday, with great fear and trepidation in my heart. For 
any time in the next week or year or two some small sentence will say 
they have repealed that resolution. There is no depth there. But I am 
trying to help my constituents. There is no guarantee to say that 
because you voted for that, then you have to be assured or can be 
assured, if you will, that Social Security is protected. It is not to 
the depth I would like. Not for the hard-working citizens that I see 
every day, rolling up their sleeves, getting on Metro buses in the city 
of Houston, working hard, long hours.
  But Ben Franklin said, ``What have we wrought.'' And he answered, ``A 
Republic, if you can keep it.''
  And I think we need to, in a bipartisan way, keep a Republic that 
reflects on the needs of Americans, reflects on the needs of women and 
children, reflects on the needs of States who are not recognizing, like 
the State of Texas, that it will lose billions of dollars for working 
men and women, middle class men and women, senior citizens, who have 
invested their time and their life in working for this country.
  I wave the Constitution because it is a sacred document. I do not 
come here in a lack of spirit of cooperativeness. I would have wanted 
the Judiciary Committee meeting to have gone on. But I think that we 
must look at the Constitution and try to keep it. We must do a balanced 
budget amendment that answers the concerns of the American people.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, during my first 2 years in Congress as a 
freshman, I had the opportunity to serve as the coordinator for the 
balanced budget amendment effort. During the last Congress, 
unfortunately, our efforts to pass any balanced budget amendment were 
defeated.
  On this historic day, however, the question before us is not whether 
or not we will pass a balanced budget amendment. The question is which 
of two balanced budget amendments will be adopted. I personally favor a 
balanced budget amendment that places some limit on Congress' ability 
to raise taxes. However, quite frankly, I can and will and intend to 
support any reasonable measure that finally brings fiscal order to this 
body.
  On the first day of this session of Congress, Republicans kept their 
promise. We required Congress to live under the same laws we impose for 
everyone else. We cut committee staffs. We opened meetings to the 
public. We banned proxy voting. We required an audit of this Congress. 
We eliminated some of the wrongs of former Congresses. And we also 
required by rule of the House of Representatives a three-fifths vote to 
increase taxes.
  Now, as we move to the most important item in the Contract With 
America, I urge my colleagues to first adopt a balanced budget 
amendment, and, second, to adopt it with a three-fifths limit on 
raising taxes.
  Now, as we amend this great charter, let us hope that in the year 
2002, people look back and they say on this day we did the right thing.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would urge that this proposition be 
defeated, because I think it ought to do what it pretends to do. But 
the fact is it does not.
  The American people are being told that this is an amendment that 
would require by constitutional edict that the budget be balanced. That 
is absolutely not so. I defy anyone to show me the language that 
requires that. All this proposal does is to say that 7 years from now, 
when Congress passes an unbalanced budget, they simply have to have 60 
percent of the people on this floor to agree to the deal, rather than 
50 percent. That is all it says.
  I would suggest to you all that does is raise the price of getting 
the deal. I have never yet seen a Member of Congress agree to vote for 
a budget because something got taken out that costs money. I have seen 
an awful lot of Members with their hands out saying to committee chairs 
or saying to Presidents, ``Give me, Give me, Give me. Put this in, I 
will vote for it.'' ``Put this road in, I will vote for it.'' That is 
why I think this, as presently drawn, will cost the taxpayers money.
  Second, we ought not to make Mr. Alan Greenspan President of the 
United States. The Federal Reserve has enough power already. Yet what 
this proposal says is that the Congress could not do one blessed thing 
to save one American job in the midst of the most serious recession 
that we could probably have. There is no flexibility for the Government 
to do anything except get on its knees and beg the Federal Reserve to 
loosen up on credit.
  I thought that FDR a long time ago taught us how stupid that idea is.
  Third, if we are going to pass an amendment, it ought to protect 
Social Security. I defy you to show me the language that requires that 
Social Security be protected. Oh, yes, there is hortatory language in 
the fig leaf proposition that was passed yesterday which says ``Oh, the 
committee ought to see to it that it is protected.'' But there is 
nothing that guarantees that they will be so. And as we all know, we 
have heard the Republican leadership of this House on national 
television say, ``Well, we are not going to touch Social Security for 
the first 4 or 5 years.'' Why should we allow people to have a sneak 
attack on Social Security down the line?
  Lastly, they ought to have to tell us where this baby is actually 
going to cut, and they will not do that. They are only going to show 
you after you vote for it.
  I think the American public has a right to know which programs are 
going to be cut, by how much, and if they are not given the right to 
know, I think every Member of this House has a duty to demand the right 
to know. Get real. Get about cutting spending. This is a ``play'' act.
                              {time}  1020

  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin].
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barton-
Tauzin balanced budget amendment. There are some who say this is just a 
Republican proposal. I would point out that there are Democrats in this 
House that for 
[[Page H703]] the entire 6 years I have been a Member have been strong 
leaders, leaders like the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and others of us who have signed 
discharge petitions to bring the balanced budget amendment to the House 
floor.
  Our constituents demand that we operate the Federal Government much 
as they have to operate their family budgets and our city councils and 
our State governments and our county governments must do so. Consider 
that today we are spending $816 million a day on gross interest 
payments. Consider that that is eight times higher than our Federal 
expenditures on education. Consider that those interest payments are 50 
times higher than our expenditures on job training and 55 times more 
than we are spending on Head Start and 140 times more money than we are 
spending on childhood immunizations.
  So we are living on credit. And so as I listen to my constituents, I 
hear them saying, ``we are paying enough taxes. Impose restrictions so 
that you who go to the Congress in Washington, DC, will use the money 
that we have given you already.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the 
House at this time would require a three-fifths majority to raise 
taxes. I want to spend a minute or two talking about democracy, not 
taxes, not balanced budget amendments, but democracy, about due 
process, about equal protection of the law, about majority rule.
  Every time we put a provision in our Constitution that goes away from 
a simple majority, what I want to submit to my colleagues and to the 
American people is that we are doing something that is undemocratic.
  There is diversity in this body. Four hundred and thirty-five Members 
of this body come from all parts of this country: different colors, 
different genders, different perspectives, different regions, 
personalities, and we reflect the diversity of this great Nation.
  Any time we upset that 50 percent plus one majority rule proposition, 
we take away the power or we give extra power to some other part of 
this Nation and some other view in this Nation.
  So I am here today to talk about majority rule and the importance of 
standing up for majority rule. This is not about a balanced budget 
amendment. It is about my ability to have the same right and the same 
responsibility as my colleagues in this body.
  This is counter democratic. It is counter equal protection. It is 
counter majority rule. And I encourage my colleagues to get real and 
defend the constitution rather than amend the constitution to give us 
their notion of what fiscal policy ought to be.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Tate], one of the distinguished members of our 
freshman class, who is a named sponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly encourage my 
colleagues to support the tax limitation balanced budget amendment. I 
urge support for this amendment because it is the only one requiring a 
three-fifths vote to raise taxes, to borrow money, or to increase the 
deficit.
  The tax limitation balanced budget amendment is essential. For too 
many years this Congress has funded its bloated Federal programs on the 
backs of our children. There has rarely been a Federal program that 
Congress has not liked--Washington, DC, has continually and 
relentlessly spent the money of American families, and seemingly with 
no regret. It is time we make the nasty addiction of taxation a lot 
harder to satisfy. Currently, the deficit is over $4.5 trillion--over 
$13,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Mr. 
Chairman, your grandchildren will be paying our debt. This dangerous 
accumulation of debt must be brought to an end. Congress has become a 
fat-cat. It is time we put this one on an Ultra Slim-Fast diet. By 
making it harder for Congress to take the working people's money, we 
will force, not ask, Congress to spend taxpayers' money responsibly. 
Every single American lives on a budget, why shouldn't the Federal 
Government? Forty-nine States operate under a balanced budget, why 
shouldn't the Federal Government? The answer is--it should.
  This amendment is bold. It will be criticized. But it is needed. 
November 8 said something, Mr. Chairman. This freshman class made a 
collective commitment to come here and make a difference. I made a 
commitment--a commitment to cut the size of the Government--and let 
taxpayers keep more of what they earn.
  Americans work hard for their money, and we need to make it hard for 
the Government to take more of it. This amendment is what the people 
have asked for.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extended 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan for yielding time to me.
  My colleagues, again, I have to come down here and oppose this 
amendment and oppose the Barton amendment. I have to tell my 
colleagues, I am not going to discuss it from a constitutional 
perspective because I am not a lawyer.
  I, like some of my new colleagues from the other side, came from the 
private sector. I am a banker. This is a new business to me to be 
involved in.
  When I look at the arguments that are before us, I think we see a 
little transparency. Speaker after speaker who has come down for this 
amendment has come down to talk about how the States balance their 
budgets. The cities balance their budgets. The Federal Government 
should do the same.
  But I would offer for the Record something from the National 
Association of State Budget Officers, which shows the percentages of 
State budgets that come from the Federal budget. So, again, as I said 
yesterday, I do not think we are being honest with the American people 
when we are talking about this issue. We are not being honest about 
what the procedure is in this amendment.
  This will not take us to a balanced budget.

              Enough State Support to Win Its Ratification


                   Money From the Federal Government

       The percentage of each state's budget that came from the 
     Federal Government in direct aid in the 1992 fiscal year, the 
     latest for which figures are available.

                                                                Percent
Alabama..............................................................58
Alaska...............................................................17
Arizona..............................................................29
Arkansas.............................................................28
California...........................................................33
Colorado.............................................................26
Connecticut..........................................................16
Delaware.............................................................15
Florida..............................................................20
Georgia..............................................................28
Hawaii...............................................................15
Idaho................................................................31
Illinois.............................................................21
Indiana..............................................................31
Iowa.................................................................21
Kansas...............................................................26
Kentucky.............................................................26
Louisiana............................................................33
Maine................................................................30
Maryland.............................................................20
Massachusetts........................................................21
Michigan.............................................................27
Minnesota............................................................20
Mississippi..........................................................39
Missouri.............................................................27
Montana..............................................................28
Nebraska.............................................................23
Nevada.............................................................N.A.
New Hampshire........................................................34
New Jersey...........................................................19
New Mexico.........................................................N.A.
New York.............................................................27
North Carolina.......................................................26
North Dakota.........................................................32
Ohio.................................................................23
Oklahoma.............................................................26
Oregon...............................................................16
Pennsylvania.........................................................26
Rhode Island.........................................................26
South Carolina.......................................................31
South Dakota.........................................................38
Tennessee............................................................36
Texas................................................................26
Utah.................................................................23
Vermont..............................................................31
Virginia.............................................................17
Washington...........................................................20
West Virginia........................................................32
Wisconsin............................................................20
Wyoming..............................................................21

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers.

       In the abstract, all's fine. But what about higher state 
     taxes and lesser services? Vermont and West Virginia are 
     among a handful 
     [[Page H704]] of states where the amendment does not seem to 
     stand a chance. In West Virginia, for instance, the strong 
     opposition of United States Senator Robert C. Byrd means that 
     the matter will probably never come to a vote. In Vermont, 
     Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat, has taken the lead in warning 
     officeholders in other states that a balanced-budget 
     amendment might mean that the Federal Government would simply 
     foist obligations onto the states.
       In New York, the Legislature's lower house, the Assembly, 
     will probably reject the amendment if it ever reaches a vote 
     there. Sheldon Silver, the Democratic Speaker, said he was 
     ``concerned that in times of recession, when deficit spending 
     is used to stimulate the economy, that particular method 
     would be lost to us.''
       In most of the other large states, including California, 
     Pennsylvania and Illinois, which, like New York, have full-
     time legislatures with highly trained professional staffs, 
     the leading politicians are withholding judgment on the 
     amendment until they figure out the degree to which it would 
     require them to raise their own states' taxes or lower their 
     own spending.
       In interviews, many officials agreed with Robert C. 
     Jubelirer, the President pro tem of the Pennsylvania Senate. 
     ``These guys aren't going to ratify a balanced-budget 
     amendment,'' Mr. Jubelirer, a Republican, said of his 
     colleagues, ``and then be told you have to raise taxes in 
     Pennsylvania. If we're told that is not the case, I think 
     ratification is do-able.''
       Officials in Connecticut took a similar stance. In New 
     Jersey, Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican, strongly 
     supports the amendment in principle, her spokeswoman said, 
     and would like to lead the charge for it.
       The issue of a constitutional amendment requiring a 
     balanced Federal budget has been before the states in one 
     form or another for years. Twenty-nine legislatures have 
     voted for a measure calling for a constitutional convention 
     to deal with the matter. But most of those states acted 
     before 1980, and the legislatures of three states--Alabama, 
     Florida and Louisiana--subsequently voted to rescind their 
     votes on the convention.
       Many state officials say they want any constitutional 
     amendment to include a provision prohibiting the Federal 
     Government from passing on new obligations to the states 
     without money to cover them. A measure limiting, although not 
     outlawing, what are called unfunded mandates is now pending 
     in Congress and will almost certainly become law. But chances 
     are remote that such a provision would be written into a 
     constitutional amendment.
       Once Congress approves a constitutional amendment, there is 
     no limit on how long the states have to ratify it. But the 
     prevailing view among proponents and opponents of the 
     balanced-budget measure is that if 38 legislatures do not 
     adopt it in the first year or two, it will never be added to 
     the Constitution.
       ``The political momentum slides across the country when 
     time drags,'' said George D. Caruolo, leader of the 
     Democratic majority in the Rhode Island Senate. ``People 
     become more interested in parochial concerns, and the whole 
     thing becomes more complicated.''
       Parochial concerns are, indeed, the chief enemy of the 
     balanced-budget amendment. ``When it comes to that vote,'' 
     said David Harris, the Republican Secretary of Finance and 
     Administration in New Mexico, the first question legislators 
     will ask will be, ``What does it do to us?
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  (Mr. DEAL of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of the Barton-Geren-
Tauzin constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, for the last few days 
we have heard a lot of partisan rhetoric about a balanced budget. I 
would like to remind my good friends on the Republican side of the 
aisle that no constitutional amendment will be passed without the 
assistance and the hard work of Members like the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Pete Geren], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and 
especially the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who have labored 
long and hard in the trenches, in fact, for more than 30 days.

                              {time}  1030

  It is with our bipartisan support that an amendment, which I think 
will pass today, will come about. Mr. Chairman, if a balanced budget 
amendment occurs, there will then be hard decisions that will have to 
be made to implement it in this body.
  I would remind Members that last year we had the opportunity to vote 
on trying to just slow down the largest-growing part of our budget, 
that of entitlements, to slow them down to the growth of inflation plus 
1 percent on top of that. I would remind Members that 80 percent of the 
votes that came for that proposal came from the Democratic side of the 
aisle.
  Therefore, let us put aside partisan politics and get on with it. Let 
us ask the question: Will these two proposals, the one we are talking 
about now and the one that will follow, really make any difference?
  Since 1977 there have been 15 tax increases approved by Congress. Had 
we had the Barton-Tauzin-Geren amendment in place, 9 of those 15 would 
have been blocked.
                               background

  Since 1977, Congress has passed 15 bills increasing taxes:
  Four received more than 60 percent votes in the House and Senate in 
each vote and would not have been affected by either Barton-Geren or 
Schaefer-Stenholm.
  Two were passed by voice vote once but received more than 60 percent 
vote in every other vote in the House and the Senate.
  Two bills received less than 60 percent vote, but more than a 
constitutional majority, in at least one vote in the House or Senate.
  Seven bills received less than a constitutional majority in at least 
one vote in the House or Senate.


                               conclusion

  Using recent history as a guide, both Barton-Geren and Schaefer-
Stenholm will be effective in blocking tax increases. The tax 
limitation in Barton-Geren would have been only marginally more 
effective in blocking tax increases than Schaefer-Stenholm since 1978.
  If a three-fifths supermajority requirement for tax increases had 
been in the Constitution since 1977, 9 of 15 tax bills would have been 
blocked.
  Seven bills raising taxes by a total of $558.9 failed to receive a 
constitutional majority and would not have passed if the tax limitation 
provision in Schaefer-Stenholm had been in effect.
    Tax Bills That Would Have Failed if House Joint Resolution 28, 
            Schaefer-Stenholm Amendment, Had Been in Effect


                      1. 1977--Social Security Tax

                                Summary

       Increased Social Security payroll tax rates and the taxable 
     wage base for both employers and employees.

                          Size of tax increase

       $80.4 billion

            Votes failing to receive constitutional majority

       The Senate initially passed the bill by a vote of 42-25 on 
     November 4, 1977.
       The House passed the conference report by a vote of 189-
     163.


           2. 1982--Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act

                                Summary

       Made a variety of tax changes, including repealing or 
     curtailing several tax breaks and other tax changes to 
     increase revenues by $99 billion and cut welfare, Medicare 
     and Medicaid spending by $17 billion.

                          Size of tax increase

       $99 billion

            Votes failing to receive constitutional majority

       Senate initially passed the bill by a vote of 50-47 on July 
     22, 1982.


             3. 1982--Transportation Assistance Act of 1982

                                Summary

       Authorized $71.3 billion for highway construction over 1983 
     to 1986 and increased gasoline taxes.

                          Size of tax increase

       $22 billion

            Votes failing to receive constitutional majority

       The House adopted the conference report by a vote of 180-87 
     on December 21, 1982. (R 73-46, D 107-41.)


               4. 1987--Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

                                Summary

       Made a variety tax changes to increase revenues by $11.9 
     billion, made several spending cuts in entitlement programs 
     and raised several user fees.

                          Size of tax increase

       $11.9 billion.

            Votes failing to receive constitutional majority

       The House initially passed the bill by a vote of 206-205. 
     (R 1-164, D 209-40.)
        5. 1992--h.r. 4210 tax fairness and economic growth act

                                Summary

       Permanently increased top tax rate and imposed a surtax on 
     incomes above $250,000 in addition to other tax increases to 
     offset a two-year temporary middle class tax cuts, expanded 
     IRAs and other tax breaks.

                          Size of tax increase

       $77.5 billion.

            Votes failing to receive Constitutional Majority

       The House passed the conference report by a vote of 211-189 
     on March 20, 1992 (R 1-149, D 209-40.
           [[Page H705]] 6. 1992--h.r. 11, urban aid tax bill

                                Summary

       Created enterprise zones, changed passive loss rules and 
     made other changes in the tax code. Increased taxes on 
     securities firms, owners of real estate, increased estimated 
     taxes for individuals and corporations, capped the business 
     deduction for moving expenses and other tax increases.

                          Size of tax increase

       $27 billion.

            Votes failing to receive Constitutional Majority

       The House adopted the conference report by a vote of 208-
     202 on October 6, 1992. (R 39-122, D 169-79).


                 7. 1993--omnibus budget reconciliation

                                Summary

       Increased taxes through an increase in the top tax rate, an 
     increase in the gas tax, taxes on Social Security benefits 
     and other tax changes, made changes in entitlement programs 
     and placed caps on discretionary spending.

                          Size of tax increase

       $241 billion.

            Votes failing to receive Constitutional Majority

       The Senate initially passed the bill by a vote of 50-49 on 
     June 25, 1993.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Barton substitute for 
several reasons. First of all, I will be offering one later in the day 
that does two things: It takes Social Security off budget, and it says 
that the Federal Government may be involved in capital budgeting for 
physical infrastructure.
  What that means is that we build for growth in our balanced budget 
amendment, and we permit those things that help add to an economy, the 
roads, the bridges, the airports, the water, the sewer systems, the 
buildings. Those things that are necessary for growth can be accounted 
for and reflected and encouraged, not discouraged.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to talk for just a second about the 
provision of the Barton amendment that does trouble me. That is the 
supermajority. Yes, it is a great bumper sticker, three-fifths vote to 
raise taxes, 60 percent vote instead of a 50-percent vote; 60 percent, 
a supermajority, instead of a regular majority.
  Where does this stop, Mr. Chairman? Should we have a 60-percent 
majority, for instance, to change Social Security? Perhaps so. Should 
there be a 60-percent majority required before a program can be cut, 
whether it is welfare or defense or something along those lines? Should 
there be a 60-percent majority for just about anything that we feel is 
important?
  I guess what is most concerning to me, Mr. Chairman, on this is that 
where does the 60-percent majority stop and what are the priorities? I 
get concerned when somebody tells me they want a 60-percent majority in 
the Constitution to take money from a mother and father. Laudable, yes.
  However, I am equally concerned, or more concerned, when I know that 
the toughest vote I will ever cast is whether or not to go to war, and 
yet it is only a 50-percent majority to take the son or daughter from 
the mother or father to send them to war.
  Certainly, Mr. Chairman, majority rule is what has governed this 
country. Majority rule is what should continue. For those reasons, I 
oppose the Barton substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would announce that the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Barton] has 9 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Pete Geren] has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yield time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barton substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the balanced budget 
amendment. It is a step that Congress should have taken before now. The 
American people are depending on us to take the necessary action to put 
our financial house in order.
  Almost exactly 1 year ago I signed a discharge petition to force the 
Democratic leadership to allow us to vote on a balanced budget 
amendment that had been locked away. What a difference an election 
makes.
  I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Henry Hyde the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for making sure 
that we will get to vote on the balanced budget amendment in a timely 
manner as the people have indicated that they want.
  This is a measure that I have supported since the day I arrived in 
Washington as a freshman Member of this great body. It is a measure 
that the American people have overwhelmingly called on us to pass. And 
now, the time has come for us to pass this amendment.
  Every year we pass a budget that is not balanced and every year we 
put our children and grandchildren further in debt. No more.
  Cutting the spending and establishing priorities about how we spend 
the people's money are ideas whose time have come. In fact, they are 
past due.
  Why do we need a balanced budget amendment to do that? We need it 
because it has become crystal clear that the Congress is not capable of 
making the cuts to balance the budget without the discipline of a 
balanced budget amendment.
  Opponents of the balanced budget amendment have resorted to the same 
old tired arguments that we can make the tough choices without the 
amendment. Well, we have not made those choices in over a quarter of a 
century.
  Some of the enemies of the amendment have even resorted to trying to 
scare our senior citizens into believing that a balanced budget 
amendment would cut Social Security.
  That simply is not true. As chairman of the Social Security 
Subcommittee, I would not support any measure which would jeopardize 
the safety and soundness of the Social Security trust fund and the 
longstanding contract that we have with our senior citizens.
  That contract was made long before the Contract With America was ever 
conceived. We must and we will honor it.
  The balanced budget amendment is the best insurance that I know for 
protecting the long-term solvency of the Social Security trust fund. 
Budget deficits and the need to borrow and pay interest on that 
borrowing are the real threats to Social Security.
  I suspect that the reason that the spendaholics have taken these low-
road attacks on the balanced budget amendment is because they are 
afraid that their pet pork programs will be found lacking merit when we 
sit down to decide what we need and what we can live without.
  What a shame that some would stoop so low as to try to frighten 
elderly Americans to protect programs that are likely to be found 
unworthy of our support when deciding how to spend the people's money.
  We all know that the Social Security trust fund operates in the 
black. It should not even be a part of this debate. The real issue is 
whether we will live up to our responsibilities or not.
  Anyone who does not have the guts to live up to the responsibilities 
needs to find a new line of work. And they need to stop trying to scare 
senior citizens.
  We must reject the business-as-usual approach by the naysayers who 
have run us into debt over the last quarter century. We have tried it 
their way and we have huge debts, yearly deficits and interest payments 
on the debt that eat up 18 percent of each year's budget.
  It has been a long time coming; but, the time has finally come. I ask 
my colleagues to let us make this change that will turn our wagon away 
from the valley of debt and head back toward the economic high ground.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], a subcommittee 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. CANADY of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Barton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Barton balanced 
budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  The enactment of a balanced budget amendment is a top priority of the 
American people and it is very fitting that this amendment is among the 
first matters to be taken up by the House during the 104th Congress.
  The balanced budget amendment is a top priority for the American 
people because they are frustrated and dismayed by the inability of 
Congress to do business in a responsible manner and to balance the 
Federal budget. The American people are rightly fearful that our 
children will pay dearly in the future for our imprudence and lack of 
discipline today.
  [[Page H706]] We have all heard the statistics concerning the 
national debt. But those statistics bear repeating. During the past 
decade the national debt has tripled. The Federal Government now owes a 
staggering $4.7 trillion. Interest alone on the debt is over $200 
billion annually. We now spend more on interest than we do on many 
major functions of the Federal Government.
  The massive and mounting Federal debt threatens to severely damage 
our economy and to undermine the soundness of all governmental programs 
and activities.
  Congress has engaged in extended efforts to control Government 
spending and to reduce and eliminate the Federal deficit. Those 
legislative efforts have been--by any reasonable standard--a total 
failure.
  Placing limitations on debt is a time-honored tradition in the 
Congress. Unfortunately, it has also been a time-honored tradition 
regularly to increase the statutory ceiling on the Federal debt. 
Indeed, since 1960 Congress has on 64 separate occasions acted to raise 
the limit on the debt.
  The Gramm-Rudman Act of 1985 established steadily declining deficit 
targets supposedly culminating in a balanced budget for 1991. But 
Congress has continually revised this law, circumventing its goals and 
indefinitely postponing the illusive balanced budget.
  In the past 10 years, Congress has passed five balanced-budget 
statutes. But we are no closer to balancing our budget. With its 
insatiable appetite, Congress continues to spend money--borrowing and 
taxing more and more.
  The history points up a basic institutional failure on the part of 
both the legislative and the executive branches of the Federal 
Government--and a failure that has involved Members of both political 
parties. And this history points unavoidably to the conclusion that we 
must take a fundamentally different approach to the budget process.
  In short, we must provide for external discipline to rein in the 
deficit. Adoption of the balanced budget amendment will impose--by 
constitutional mandate--the requisite discipline on Congress.
  The Barton amendment would discourage the Congress from deficit 
spending, increasing taxes, and raising the limit on the national debt. 
It would force Members of Congress to make tough necessary and long-
avoided legislative choices about how to spend the hard-earned dollars 
of American taxpayers.
  The three-fifths vote required to raise taxes is a vital part of the 
amendment. It discourages Congress from relying on tax increases rather 
than spending cuts to balance the budget--and forces Congress to limit 
the growth of the Federal Government.
  We should only amend our Constitution when there is no other means to 
deal with an urgent need. A constitutional amendment should be adopted 
only as a last resort.
  But I would submit to this House that we are faced with an urgent 
need to balance the budget, and with a long, disgraceful history of 
failed legislative attempts to force a balanced budget. We must move 
beyond these failed legislative approaches. We must reject the scare 
tactics of those who oppose a balanced budget. We must amend the 
Constitution to require a balanced budget.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], one of our more thoughtful Members on the 
subject of constitutional issues.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, as we move to balance the budget, pressure 
to raise taxes will intensify. Even with taxes as high as they are, we 
currently raise only about $3 in taxes for every $4 we spend.
  Faced with equalizing taxes and spending, big spending groups will 
lobby us with more fervor than ever before, trying to scare folks into 
believing that taxes must go up rather than have spending come down.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress is not known for resisting such pressure. We 
need a safeguard to make it tougher to raise taxes than to cut 
spending. We need a two-thirds supermajority of 60 percent on proposals 
to raise taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, in Oklahoma, continuous tax increases prompted the 
people to pass a restriction. Oklahoma now requires that to raise taxes 
there must be a 75-percent supermargin in the legislature or a 
statewide vote approving it. It worked. Taxes in Oklahoma have stopped 
going up.
  Mr. Chairman, we need similar protection for the American people. The 
60 percent requirement is tame. It is reasonable. We need it. We need 
the Barton amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski].
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition, of course, 
to the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. I 
have had the occasion to express my concern on the House floor on past 
occasions on the balanced budget amendment.
  I have always, Mr. Chairman, and I say with pride, voted to defend 
the Constitution of the United States as it presently exists, as 
opposed to the suggestions that we solve our fiscal problems in this 
country, and we solve our lack of intestinal fortitude in this 
Congress, by changing permanently the one instrument that 5 billion 
people in this world envy the most, the Constitution of the United 
States.
  At this point in the history of the United States, more than 10,000 
amendments have been offered to the Constitution of the United States 
in more than 208 years. Of those 10,000, only 27 have been enacted.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear to me that as a result of the change of the 
structure of the House and the makeup of the House today on both the 
majority side and the minority side, that there will likely be a two-
thirds majority of this House for some form of a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I fear the destruction of the Constitution, and I think 
that, as we learned from Prohibition in the 1920's, we may realize that 
what we think is a good solution and a fast solution to inject 
intestinal fortitude into this Congress and into this Government, that 
we may instead wreck havoc on the Constitution.
  I think particularly the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton] requiring a three-fifths majority to either raise 
taxes or to run a deficit is particularly egregious. It indicates the 
lengths to which we are going to put into place an amendment to our 
sacred Constitution. The Barton amendment is an irresponsible proposal 
that must be rejected. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
proposal.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rob Andrews], one of the 
real leaders for fiscal responsibility.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Barton amendment.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the balanced 
budget amendment.
  As we all know, the greatest and gravest problem confronting our 
Nation is our skyrocketing budget deficit and national debt. In the 
last 14 years, the national debt has quintupled. Interest on this debt 
is now one of the largest portions of the Federal budget. If we do not 
take decisive action we will condemn our children and grandchildren to 
pay for our excesses. For the sake of future generations, we must 
correct this situation and passing the balanced budget amendment will 
do just that.
  I do not take the step of supporting a balanced budget amendment to 
our sacred Constitution lightly. I would prefer that we not have to 
take this step. But the fact of the matter is that we have adopted, 
time and again, statutory measures to balance the budget and they have 
all failed because Congress has failed to live up to the letter of the 
law.
  After careful consideration and analysis, I am convinced that a 
balanced budget amendment is the only way that we can instill the 
discipline needed to balance the budget. With a constitutional 
amendment, there can be no escape from fiscal accountability.
  This morning, the American people have heard a lot of horror stories 
and gloom and doom scenarios about what will happen under a balanced 
budget amendment. The real truth, however, is that these scare tactics 
are not an argument against a balanced budget amendment--they are 
instead an argument against a balanced budget. So if you are opposed to 
what we are trying to do here today--fine. But, I wish that the 
opponents of a balanced budget amendment would quit trying to scare the 
American people with these gloom and doom scenarios.
   [[Page H707]] When we vote this morning, I will support the three-
fifths tax limitation. Should the three-fifths fails to receive the 
requisite number of votes for passage--and I think it will--I will then 
support the Stenholm version. I will oppose the other substitutes, 
which I believe are nothing more than an attempt to water-down and 
diminish the full effectiveness of a clean balanced budget amendment.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not close and say that the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pete Geren] and the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Tauzin] have worked very hard on this issue and we would not be 
standing here today debating this issue had it not been for all the 
work the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has done. He is the 
unquestioned leader in this Congress on the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], another of the outstanding leaders in the 
balanced budget effort, who is also, as manager, the leader of the 
congressional Republican baseball team.
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, this morning I rise in strong support of 
the contract version of the balanced budget amendment and that three-
fifths vote requirement for tax increases.
  The Federal budget can and should be balanced through spending cuts 
and not through tax increases. That was the message of the voters last 
fall: Cut spending first. That preference for spending cuts even if 
only effective after the year 2002 should be embodied in the U.S. 
Constitution.
  I thank very much my friend from Texas [Mr. Barton] for his 
leadership on this particular issue. We have worked long and hard on 
this. I encourage each and every one of my colleagues to support the 
Barton substitute.
  My colleagues, let us do this for our children and for our 
grandchildren. Vote for the Barton amendment.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I come to the issues involved in a balanced 
budget amendment cautiously, mindful that many who support strong 
deficit reduction, as I do, still oppose amending the Constitution. 
Like so many other issues we deal with, the considerations are not 
black or white but, in the words of Bill Joel, ``shades of gray.''
  On balance, I vote yes because I believe the tough choices to reduce 
our $5 trillion debt will not be made without the constitutional 
requirement to balance receipts and outlays. So I will support the 
Stenholm-Schaefer amendment as I did in the last Congress. But I will 
also support for the first time the Barton-Tauzin-Geren amendment to 
raise the threshold for raising taxes to a supermajority of 60 percent.
  Constitutional amendments are different from laws or House rules for 
reasons carefully cited in this debate. But having watched Congress' 
frequent inability to rein in spending and to face tough choices, I 
feel that to be effective the amendment must put maximum pressure on us 
to reduce spending first and that is what raising the tax threshold 
will do.
  A related and critical issue is the treatment of Social Security in 
any budget balancing process. Valid issues about fairness and viability 
of our Social Security system need to be addressed at a future time, 
but the Social Security trust fund which is funded by a 15-percent 
annual flat tax on America's workers must be protected. I support the 
Wise amendment because it takes Social Security off-budget and support 
House Concurrent Resolution 17.
  Let me add two final thoughts. First, by taking clear action today 
the House is standing up to its responsibility to start the debate. No 
doubt what we finally do will be further amplified in the Senate, in 
conference, and in our statehouses. Everyone must participate in the 
national debate on the best form of the balanced budget amendment, and 
the blueprint to achieve a balanced budget.
  Second, deficit reduction cannot wait on ratification of a balanced 
budget amendment. I will continue to support responsible bipartisan 
measures to cut spending now--in the interest of my constituents, our 
children, and our future.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], a 
strong supporter of tax limitation.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Texas for all the hard work that he has put into this amendment and I 
hope that Members on that side of the aisle will recognize that this is 
the constitutional amendment that really has teeth in it. We try to 
play these games back and forth about the Constitution and what kind of 
balanced budget it should be.
  This amendment is the real amendment. Congress, for instance, passed 
a law requiring a balanced budget in 1981, 1985, 1987, and in 1990, and 
we never get there.
  The most important part of this is that the Government is too big, it 
spends too much, and it is too intrusive in our lives. We have to make 
it very difficult for anyone in this Congress to raise more money from 
the American people. Right now they pay over 53 percent of their 
income, which goes to the cost of government. It ought to be very hard 
to raise any more taxes. We ought to look at spending first and cutting 
that spending.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to vote for the Barton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good 
friend from Texas, Mr. Barton.
  The Barton amendment would require Congress to balance the Federal 
budget by the year 2002. It would require a three-fifths vote of 
Congress to run a budget deficit, and a three-fifths vote to increase 
the public debt. Most importantly, it would require a three-fifths vote 
to raise taxes.
  Since 1930, the Federal budget has been balanced only eight times. 
The last time the budget was balanced was 1969--26 years ago. During 
the 8 years in which the budget was balanced, Federal spending averaged 
16.2 percent of gross domestic product [GDP] and revenues averaged 17.5 
percent.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, spending will be 21.7 
percent of GDP this year and revenues will be 19.2 percent.This means 
Federal spending is 34 percent higher today than it was on average 
during the 8 years in which the budget was in balance. Revenue is 10 
percent higher today than it was on average during those 8 years.
  Clearly, the problem is not that taxes are too low, the problem is 
spending is too high.
  Let me briefly review the dismal record of past efforts to increase 
taxes in order to reduce the deficit. In 1982, Congress increased taxes 
by $98 billion; in 1984, Congress increased taxes by $49 billion; in 
1987, Congress increased taxes by $28 billion; in 1989, Congress 
increased taxes by $14.2 billion; in 1990, Congress increased taxes by 
$164 billion; and finally, in 1993, Congress increased taxes by $241 
billion. Despite a decade of tax increases, the deficit is still 
projected to exceed $200 billion a year for the rest of this century.
  Raising taxes to solve our deficit problem hasn't worked in the past, 
and there's absolutely no reason to think it would work any better in 
the future. Indeed a study by the Joint Economic Committee shows that 
since the end of World War II, Congress has increased spending by $1.59 
for every dollar of additional taxes.
  The Democratic leadership insists that a constitutional amendment to 
require a balanced budget is a copout. They claim that Congress
 already has the power it needs to balance the budget. This may be 
true, but it should be abundantly clear by now that in the absence of a 
constitutional amendment Congress will never make the tough choices. 
Congress has not only failed to balance the budget in 26 years, it has 
systematically passed and then ignored four separate laws requiring it 
to balance the budget.

  In 1978, Congress passed a law requiring a balanced budget by 1981. 
In 1985, Congress passed a law requiring a balanced budget by 1991. In 
1987, Congress passed a law to require a balanced budget by 1993. In 
1990, Congress passed a law to balance the budget by 1995. None of 
these laws have produced the intended result.
  Unlike the failed statutory efforts of the past, a constitutional 
amendment will force Congress to set budget priorities and make the 
tough decisions. Congress will finally have to choose between the 
special interests and the national interest.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Barton amendment.

[[Page H708]]
                          BALANCED BUDGET LAWS                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Law                           Goal       Result  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 95-435...............................        1981        1981
October 10, 1978................................          $0        -$79
                                                                 billion
Public Law 99-177...............................        1991        1991
December 12, 1985...............................          $0       -$269
                                                                 billion
Public Law 100-119..............................        1993        1993
September 29, 1987..............................          $0       -$255
                                                                 billion
Public Law 101-508..............................        1995        1995
                                                                  (est.)
November 5, 1990\1\.............................        +$31            
                                                     billion       -$176
                                                                 billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\While the 1990 law excludes Social Security from its deficit         
  calculations, on a unified budget basis, meeting the original -$83    
  billion deficit target would have resulted in a +$31 billion surplus  
  in 1995.                                                              

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Ladies and gentlemen, may I review with you the impact of the 
balanced budget amendment and the Contract With America on Social 
Security recipients.
  The cuts in the Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance under 
the balanced budget amendment would have a total cut of $73.2 billion. 
The average cut in each of the congressional districts would be $168 
million. The average cut per each recipient would be $1,556.
  When you add in the cuts in Old-Age and Survivors and Disability 
Insurance under the Contract With America, the total spending cuts in 
Social Security would then jump to $100.3 billion with an average cut 
per congressional district of $229 million and an average cut per 
recipient of $2,130. I refer you to the Economic Policy Institute 
figures on this subject.
  I think that is too much. I protest that a constitutional amendment 
would do this to the seniors in America. I am totally at a loss to give 
anyone any explanations of how they would give an explanation to their 
constituents about a matter of this magnitude.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I agree with those who say it should not be 
necessary to amend the Constitution and it should not be. If the 
Founders had ever thought that we would so disregard public service as 
to spend more than we got, they would have put it in there in the first 
place. We owe them an obligation to use their flexibility of the 
amendment process to change it, for surely from their graves they would 
wish they could change us.
  Second, I am going to vote for both the Barton amendment and the 
Stenholm amendment because the difference is that one requires a 
supermajority in raising taxes. I can support that. Nine States already 
do and they are still able to have their taxpayers believe they would 
like to cut spending.
  But the message of both of those votes is to cut spending first. That 
is an easy message to deliver. My only admonition to my friends on both 
sides of the aisle is, make sure you pass one of the two out of here. 
That is still the continuing obligation that you have on public 
service.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass], another 
outstanding Member of the freshman class.
  (Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Barton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the balanced budget amendment with 
the three-fifths tax limitation. And I do so as a freshman Member of 
this body. I have only been here for 3 weeks and I don't know all the 
tricks of the trade and what all the Washington insiders say and think. 
But I do know what the people of New Hampshire say and think.
  They say they want a balanced budget, not more debt for their kids.
  They say they want smaller Government, not more Federal mandates in 
their lives.
  They say they want less Federal spending to balance this budget, not 
more taxes for them to pay.
  That is what the November election was about and that is what this 
amendment is about. The three-fifths limitation not only ensures a 
balanced budget, but helps ensure that it is done through a shrinking 
of Government and not a growth in taxes. That is what the people want 
and that is what this amendment delivers.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Crane], who year in and year out gains the most 
outstanding ranking as the most conservative Member of Congress.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I salute his efforts in trying to get a balanced budget amendment 
finally passed in this Congress that imposes some discipline with 
regard to the question of escalating taxes.
  I came here in 1969. The last time we had a balanced budget was that 
year. In the years since, we cut taxes once, very significantly, in 
1981. Ironically, it produced almost a doubling of revenues in the 
course of the ensuing decade, but the spending has been out of control, 
and I hear a lot of good rhetoric on how we have got to discipline 
ourselves on spending. But we must remember that when you do not have 
some discipline from the standpoint of imposing restrictions on 
constantly raising taxes, we could be confronted with what we went 
through in 1993 with passage of the biggest tax increase in the history 
of civilization, and it still was not addressing that question of 
spending.
  We are being overtaxed currently. We have got to get it under 
control. The supermajority requirement is a perfect way of approaching 
it. I urge my colleagues to support Barton.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Jose Serrano] a member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this whole issue of the balanced budget 
amendment and the three-fifths super majority is one that if you really 
analyze it can confuse you a lot.
  First of all, we all come here with an equal vote and now we are 
being told in order to accomplish something legislatively we have to 
get a special super majority.
  How is it going to end? Any time we find an issue we do not have the 
courage to deal with ourselves we are going put forth a super majority 
so that everybody can deal with it that way and then throw it off to 
someone else?
  The other issue that seems to create a problem here is that we cannot 
still get the truth from the other side, from the proponents of this 
bill, what it is they intend to do once they balance the budget the way 
they want to balance the budget.
  This whole issue of Social Security that some people think we are 
trying to scare some folks here, this is a honest issue. This is a 
truthful issue.
  Why will people not tell us what is going to happen to Social 
Security and Medicare once this constitutional amendment takes effect?
  When I was much younger the airline industry went out to try to get 
new customers and they said ``fly now; pay later.'' What I am being 
told to do now is vote now and find out later. If we vote now we are 
going to find out later that we are going to be in deep trouble on the 
real contract, besides the Constitution, which is the only contract we 
have with America. The real contract was with senior citizens about 
their Social Security and their Medicare and now we are going to sell 
them this approach: We will balance the budget hopefully someday, and 
then next year and the year after we will tell you how we hurt you.
  I think that is not right and that is not fair. We do not need a 
balanced budget amendment. We need to balance the budget and I am for 
that. We do not need a three-fifths super majority. We need to respect 
each individual vote in this House. We should not be afraid to exercise 
our right here. We should not support this amendment.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 
seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, when I first came to this body in 1989, I 
was not in favor of a balanced budget amendment. Since that time, I 
have reached the conclusion that the only way that the U.S. Congress 
will exercise true fiscal responsibility is through a balanced budget 
mechanism that forces us to reduce spending and set new budget 
priorities.
  For 6 years, I have listened to the opponents of a balanced budget 
amendment say that we should exercise our current constitutional 
responsibility, and achieve deficit reduction through 
[[Page H709]] the regular authorization and appropriation process. And 
yet, we don't do it.
  I have listened for the last few weeks, and today, as the opponents 
say that we should tell the American people where the cuts are going to 
be made before we pass a balanced budget amendment. If you support a 
balanced budget, if you support deficit reduction, that argument is 
irrelevant. No one is disputing the fact that this amendment will 
require painful cuts.
  But, that is what the American people are demanding. True, many 
people may not be aware what a balanced budget will mean in terms of 
cuts in programs. But, the people want reduced Government spending and 
an end to deficit spending. It is time for us to give the people what 
they want.
  The Barton-Geren amendment is the most fiscally conservative proposal 
before us--which is why I support it.
  I urge you to show courage, and do what the people demand.
  I believe that today we will finally pass a balanced budget 
amendment. Once we do, and we have to begin to make the tough cuts in 
spending that it will require, there will be a tendency by the Congress 
to avoid the painful choices we will have to make. Only the Barton 
amendment makes it more difficult to resort to tax increases to avoid 
the pain of spending cuts. We need such a mechanism.
  The only way to really reduce the size of the Federal budget is to 
reduce spending. The only way to justify politically unpopular but 
necessary cuts is with an amendment that makes it more difficult to 
turn to the option of more taxation. The only way to avoid future 
budgets like we got in 1992, is to pass the Barton-Geren balanced 
budget amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to review the important 
factor of judicial review under the proposed amendment. As currently 
drafted, the Barton substitute is totally silent on the issue of 
judicial review, creating what could be a serious legal quagmire.
  One potential uncertainty concerns the applicability of the political 
question doctrine, which is designed to restrain the judiciary from 
inappropriate interference in the business of other branches of the 
Federal Government. We will not have to worry with that doctrine 
anymore because we are inviting the judiciary to come into the 
legislative business of Government, and we are not even giving any 
direction as we amend the Constitution of the United States to create 
this exception.
  Many scholars have indicated that the political question doctrine is 
unlikely to limit judicial intervention in the present case.
  An additional area of confusion relates to judicial limitations 
concerning standing. While a taxpayer may not be able to show 
sufficient injury to have standing to bring suit in Federal court that 
would allow him to challenge congressional failure to comply with the 
balanced budget amendment, standing may be far more compelling if 
sought by a Member of Congress or an entire House of Congress or an 
entitled recipient who has been denied benefits as a result of the 
questionable impoundment of funds. This is certain to be a thicket of 
confusion and tangled litigations and appeals.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. I wish it could be more.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my friend from 
Michigan, the first amendment is silent on judicial review. All of the 
amendments are silent on judicial review. The courts will review or 
not. They have been doing it since 1791, and unfortunately or 
fortunately we have limited control over them.
  As to my friend from North Carolina, the Constitution provides many 
interesting examples of supermajorities. One of the most interesting is 
the 25th amendment where the President and his advisers, his Cabinet, 
have a dispute over whether he is able to continue serving as 
President, and that dispute can finally be resolved by a two-thirds 
vote of Congress.
  We have overriding vetoes, we have treaty ratifications, and so on.
  The 14th amendment is very interesting. That requires a two-thirds 
vote to rehabilitate, to remove disqualifications from someone who had 
engaged in rebellion.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield that 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Denny Hastert, our chief 
deputy whip.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, today, the American people will see who 
wants to do their business and who wants to give them the business.
  Today, we vote on the balanced budget amendment. Since any amendment 
requires two-thirds of the final vote, the fate of the balanced budget 
amendment lies in the hands of our friends on the other side of the 
aisle.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with 
Republicans and those who are supporting this to pass a tax-limitation 
balanced budget amendment.
  The reasons to vote for the Barton substitute are clear.
  The American people want their Government to be fiscally responsible. 
They want us to balance the budget in order to lower our debt and make 
our children's futures brighter.
  But they want us to cut spending first, not raise taxes even higher. 
The Barton substitute makes it more difficult for the Government to 
balance the budget on the backs of middle-class taxpayers by requiring 
a three-fifths vote on tax increases.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass the Barton substitute. It 
is the best alternative for the middle-class taxpayer.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I first want to stand and commend my 
colleague and fellow Texan for the yeoman's work he has done in 
promoting his proposal to amend the Constitution to require a balanced 
budget. Joe has worked tirelessly for an ideal he believes in 
passionately, not only this year but for most of his career here in the 
House of Representatives.
  I also want to say, as I have before, that I know Joe is sincere 
about his desire to move us toward a balanced budget. I have seen Joe 
cast the hard votes which both opponents and supporters of a 
constitutional amendment say must occur if we are ever to reduce our 
deficit. For example, last July, when I offered my entitlement cap 
proposal on the floor, which CBO scored as saving approximately $150 
billion over 5 years, Joe was one of the 37 Members, 9 Republicans, who 
got onto my good-guy list by supporting this amendment. I know that 
whatever the ultimate conclusion of this debate may be, we can count on 
Joe to be there in the future for the hard votes.
  I do want to take this opportunity to clarify one issue which has 
become somewhat confused in the rhetoric over the past few
 weeks. It is true that Joe's amendment has a stronger restriction 
against raising revenues, the three-fifths vote requirements, but to 
say that Schaefer-Stenholm is absent on tax restraint is simply wrong.

  After years of wrestling with various formulations, in June 1992 the 
principal sponsors of the leading Senate and House versions came 
together and arrived at the bipartisan, bicameral consensus version of 
the BBA embodied in Senate Joint Resolution 41/House Joint Resolution 
103 of the 103d Congress. As my colleagues know, this language is now 
embodied in H.J. Res. 28, as well as the Schaefer-Stenholm amendment to 
be considered today or tomorrow. This is the strongest version--indeed, 
the only version--with a realistic possibility of obtaining two-thirds 
majorities in both bodies.
  H.J. Res. 28 is not a simple balanced budget amendment; it does 
contain a meaningful tax limitation. If this balanced budget amendment 
had been in effect since 1977, 7 of the 15 tax increases which were 
approved would not have been possible, at least in the form in which 
they passed. Interestingly enough, the three-fifths supermajority 
requirement for tax increases would have blocked only two additional 
tax increases.
  Therefore, recent history indicates that some of the hysteria about 
the differences between these leading constitutional proposals is 
[[Page H710]] not founded in fact. Although the debate on tax 
limitation has made it appear that Barton-Geren and Schaefer-Stenholm 
are dramatically different, the practical effects would have been very 
similar.
  I also want to point out that a balanced budget requirement itself 
would promote tax limitation. As long as the power to deficit spend 
remains unrestrained, the deficit will be used as an excuse to raise 
taxes. A civic-minded public will be at least somewhat susceptible to 
this appeal for ``shared sacrifice,'' while the higher taxes actually 
pay for more spending. In contrast, once a balanced budget becomes the 
norm, the public will see the clear, $1-for-$1 relationship between 
higher taxes and bigger Government and reject those taxes. Therefore, 
even if it did not contain explicit tax limitation language, the 
amendment would operate to limit tax increases.
  It also should be noted that a balanced budget requirement itself 
would promote spending restraint. Currently, Federal spending escalates 
because the special interest political rewards for spending outweigh 
the generalized public interest in spending restraint. Without a 
balanced budget amendment, there is no clear procedural or political 
barrier to ever-spiraling spending--because it is the unlimited ability 
to borrow that creates the unlimited ability
 to spend without immediate consequence. In contrast, the amendment 
would perfect the democratic process, by visibly reconnecting the 
demand for new spending with its true costs to taxpayers and the 
economy.

  Finally, I would like to emphasize that the experience of the States 
proves how requiring a balanced budget also promotes restraint in 
taxing and spending. In 1992, the CATO Institute noted that 49 State 
governments have balanced budget requirements and found that:

       From 1940 to 1990, State and local spending climbed from 12 
     to 14 percent of national income [while] Federal spending 
     climbed from 13 to 28 percent. * * * It is inconceivable that 
     Federal spending would have skyrocketed as it has if Congress 
     had had to raise taxes every year to pay for its spending, as 
     the States do. (National Review, June 8, 1992.)

  Clearly, the most effective amendment is the one that passes. The 
bipartisan bicameral language offers the best opportunity to effect a 
change that is good for the country. Votes in 1986, 1990, 1992, and 
1994 and the whip counts that many folks have conducted this year 
demonstrate that, in both bodies of Congress, support for the 
bipartisan, bicameral balanced budget amendment is plus or minus the 
necessary two-thirds majority by a hairsbreadth
  This is a situation that must not be wasted. Vote for the 
constitutional amendment in which you most sincerely believe. But if 
you believe in a balanced budget amendment, do not squander this rare 
opportunity.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state my opposition to the 
Barton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, if you actually read the bill rather than read the 
title, you will find that the amendment does not require a balanced 
budget. It only requires a three-fifths vote to pass an unbalanced 
budget. It requires nothing before the year 2002.
  So since there is no plan and since the sponsors propose no plan to 
get to a balanced budget, we can assume, based on the testimony, that 
unless you are going to cut Social Security, you are not going to have 
a balanced budget.
  If we use our past experience to guide us, we can find that Congress 
is unwilling to make the tough, necessary cuts to bring the deficit 
down, but we have been very willing to add pork to a budget to get the 
extra votes needed to pass it.
  Mr. Chairman, if we actually look at that history, we will see that 
the three-fifths vote may make it more difficult to pass an unbalanced 
budget, but it is also going to make it more difficult to pass a budget 
with a lower deficit, so either you are faced with no budget at all or 
a budget with a higher deficit.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this should be called the pork protection 
plan rather than the balanced budget amendment. Simply put, it will 
allow a minority of Members in either the House or the Senate to hold 
out for the spending projects in their district.
  The way you reduce the deficit, Mr. Chairman, is the tough decisions. 
Making the tough decisions ought to require only a majority of the 
vote, because we have seen no evidence that we can get a majority of 
the Members to step up to the plate to make those spending cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, if the Barton amendment passes, we will find we will 
need a three-fifths vote to pass a budget only, and the only way to do 
that is to pork it up to make sure we can get the requisite votes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Barton amendment would fail.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we would not be here today if 
it were not for the tireless efforts of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], and I think it is 
so important that we recognize their tireless efforts over the last 
decade to bring us where we are on the verge of this victory. The 
taxpayers of America, future generations, and this Congress owe the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton] a thank you for their hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, if you listen to the opponents of this amendment, you 
would think that this is going to bring about the end of Western 
civilization. They talk about these cuts; they talk about the disaster 
that would come if all we do is only spend what we take in.
  Mr. Chairman, right now, if we do not do anything, our Government 
will increase in spending, between now and 2002, 50 percent. Mr. 
Chairman, all we need to do to balance the budget is limit that 
increase to 30 percent, not increase by 50 percent, limit. Let me 
repeat that point: Right now, if we do not change anything, spending in 
this Government will increase by 50 percent between now and the year 
2002. To bring our budget into balance, all we need to do is limit that 
increase to 30 percent rather than 50 percent.
  I raise that point to those who talk about the draconian side effects 
of living within our means. Mr. Chairman, people say that this is not 
fair.
  Spending somebody else's money, spending other generations' money 
year after year, decade after decade, Mr. Chairman, that is not fair.
  Let me quote Thomas Jefferson on this point:

       The question whether one generation has the right to bind 
     another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such 
     consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles 
     of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to 
     saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them 
     ourselves.

  Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that we are morally bound to pay 
them ourselves, and that is why our balanced budget amendment is so 
critical.
  Why three-fifths? Many people ask that. You can look over the last 15 
years of the experience of our Government. In the best of times and in 
the worst of times, Government grew. In spite of all the rhetoric about 
what happened in the 1980's, Government grew. Government grew by almost 
50 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, in our legislative process, there is a bias toward 
growing Government. The power of the bureaucracy to influence 
legislation, the power of the bureaucracy to frame issues gives them 
influence in the legislative process that needs to be checked, that 
needs to be offset. That is why we need this three-fifths limitation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support this important 
initiative, this historic initiative. It is fair. It is reasonable. And 
it is most importantly a practical response to a real-world problem 
that we can use this year to document last year, to document in every 
year but 2 years in the last half of the century to document. This 
institution is not going to live within its means unless we do this.
  It is a fact. Anybody who says they want us to do without it, I 
applaud that, but it is not going to happen.
  [[Page H711]] The CHAIRMAN. All time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton] has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strenuous opposition 
to the balanced budget amendment.
  This debate is about far more than the critical task of balancing the 
Federal budget. The amendment strikes me as a dangerous and insidious 
means of fundamentally altering articles 1, 2, and 3 of the 
Constitution, upsetting the separation and balance of powers that has 
served this Nation so well for two centuries.
  Has our confidence in our ability to make the tough choices ebbed so 
dramatically that we would cast away for all time the carefully wrought 
balance among the three branches of Government?
  At a time when U.S. constitutional law experts have fanned out around 
the globe, advising brand-new democracies on how to write their 
constitutions, it is a bitter irony that we find ourselves on the verge 
of forsaking the very model so many seek to emulate.
  Many of my colleagues who support this amendment have done so out of 
reluctance to saddle future generations with the burden of our national 
debt.
  I concur. But I am equally loathe to consign our children to relive 
the terrible constitutional crises of our past:
  A Supreme Court nullifying acts of Congress designed to pull the 
United States out of the Depression and to ease the pain of our fellow 
citizens; and
  The Congress and the President locked in combat over the President's 
efforts to impound appropriated funds.
  And unless the amendment before us is merely hortatory, a suggestion 
I am certain its proponents would roundly deny, our children face the 
prospect of an unelected judiciary plunging into the adjudication of 
patently political questions they have strenuously and wisely sought to 
avoid for over 200 years. I fear that we face the unprecedented 
prospect of the courts ordering cuts in fundamental Federal programs in 
order to effect compliance with the amendment.
  Even for those who believe that achieving a zero budget deficit is 
the paramount objective of our times, I would contend that this 
provision does not belong in our Constitution.
  For the entirety of U.S. history, our Constitution and the very small 
number of amendments we have adopted thereto have served two key 
functions: allocating power within our democracy, and protecting 
fundamental individual rights.
  The amendment under consideration today has a strikingly different 
purpose: enshrining a particular fiscal policy in the Constitution. I 
would submit that article 1 already provides ample authority to the 
Congress to hew to that fiscal policy. But it dishonors our sacred 
Constitution to clutter it with a particular view of budgeting and 
economics that has not stood the test of time.
  In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have 
raised serious concerns about forcing the Federal Government to always 
adopt a balanced budget. Herb Stein, a senior fellow at the American 
Enterprise Institute and an adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, and 
Reagan, objects to a balanced budget because it would result in 
``needless confusion, evasion, and litigation'' and ultimately would be 
very ``unfair.''
  The balanced budget amendment has been mischaracterized as a way to 
protect the American people's pocketbook. The Contract With America 
heralds it as ``keeping Congress from passing the bill on to you, the 
American people.'' Who do you think will foot the bill if not the 
American people?
  No matter how you disguise it the American people will end up footing 
the bill. It's just a question of which Americans. Aside from Defense, 
which the Republicans have vowed not to increase, more than 80 percent 
of Federal spending consists of payments to individuals. Wealthy 
individuals and corporations get their Government benefits from tax 
subsidies.
  A three-fifths vote requirement for tax increases serves to enshrine 
a principal of protecting the rich and burdening the poor. Although the 
middle class will end up bearing the brunt of any effort to balance the 
budget, the mix of tax increases to payment cuts will determine whether 
it is the rich or the poor who must make the greatest sacrifices.
  However, even conservative economists who are not concerned about 
this equity issue and who believe that draconian spending cuts are 
necessary, recognize that a balanced budget amendment is simply bad 
fiscal policy. They know that a constitutional
 amendment would risk making recessions more frequent and deep.

  In years of slow growth or recession revenues rise more slowly while 
costs for programs such as unemployment insurance increases more 
rapidly. Consequently the deficit will be larger during recessions and 
smaller during expansions. Under the fiscal straitjacket of a balanced 
budget amendment greater deficit reduction would be required during a 
recession while less deficit reduction would be required during an 
expansion. This is precisely the opposite of what most economist feel 
should be done to stabilize the economy and avert recessions.
  Also, the balanced budget amendment is bad fiscal policy because, 
unlike most State balanced budget amendments, the amendment before you 
today fails to distinguish between operating budgets and long-term 
investments. Businesses and homeowners know the difference between 
borrowing to consume and borrowing to invest. It is ludicrous to 
enshrine a fiscal policy that forces the Federal Government to be 
shortsighted and that makes long-term investments more difficult.
  Finally, the balanced budget amendment is premised on a faulty notion 
that all debt is bad. Government bonds represent wealth to their 
holders--in large part the American public. When the Government spends 
more than it takes in, it adds to their wealth. This does not mean that 
the Government should always run a big deficit, but rather that our 
Government should choose carefully whether a deficit is wise at any 
particular time. As a government that makes fiscal policy we must be 
free to decide whether achieving a balanced budget is really in the 
best national interest of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to protect the Constitution, 
support sound fiscal management, and get down to the business of making 
the hard choices we were elected to make. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 1 minute, 
to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I urge that we step back from this 
amendment today and take the time that is necessary to analyze what 
this amendment would do to our Constitution.
  You know, as a member of the board of supervisors in Santa Clara 
County, I am mindful we spent more time analyzing the impact of a use 
permit for a golf course than this body has spent analyzing the impact 
of this amendment.
  Whether you are for or against the amendment, our people sent us here 
to make sure that we avoid the law of unintended consequences, and I do 
not think we can honestly say that we understand the unintended 
consequences of this amendment today.
  What is an outlay under the amendment? Is it a Federal loan program? 
Would it include guaranteed loans? Would it include working capital for 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation? Does it include the Postal 
Service? Does it include the Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae? We do not 
know. What about tax compliance? Does it include a bill that raises 
taxes for some and not for others?
  I urge that we take our time and do the job people sent us here for.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired for the minority.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] is recognized for 4 minutes to 
close the debate.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman. Let me say 
what a pleasure it is to have the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] presiding over this historic debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Texas.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas was asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde] for his leadership in this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the new Republican majority 
leadership for their support. Special thanks to Lamar Smith, the task 
force leader on this item in the Contract With America, for his 
excellent work to get the three-fifths' vote in the contract.
  [[Page H712]] I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Geren], the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit,] 
and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and all the other strong 
Members who, in a bipartisan way, have been pushing for a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution.
  We have won the debate that there needs to be an amendment. The 
question is what kind of an amendment?
  Opponents have spoken on this floor, talked about the mechanics. They 
have talked about issues that are not the principal issue. The 
principal issue is how are we going to amend the Constitution? How are 
we going to get spending under control?
  It is not whether the Committee on the Judiciary is going to have 
oversight capability. The basic premise is we have simply got to stop 
spending as much money as we have been spending.
  Since 1965, which was the last year Federal spending went down, 
spending has gone up every year for 29 straight years: an amazing 
percentage of 1,300 percent.
  We are going to spend more money this year on interest on the debt 
than we spent for the entire Federal budget in fiscal year 1971. It is 
amazing.
  We do not have the backbone in the Congress of the United States to 
say no. We have to amend the Constitution, and if we are going to do 
it, let us look at the problem. The problem is not lack of revenue. The 
problem is too much spending. If you want to limit spending, what do 
you do? You limit revenues. How do you limit revenues? By limiting the 
ability to raise taxes. That is what generates the revenue.
  There are nine States that have tax limitation provisions either in 
their constitutions or on their statutes. The chart to my left shows 
that those States that have tax limitation provisions, they work. Taxes 
go up less in those States. They still go up, but they go up less. When 
the taxes go up less, spending goes up less. That means there is a 
greater likelihood that the budget will be balanced.
  My brother, Jay Barton, is a history teacher in Mt. Pleasant, TX. He 
is not a political expert.
  He called my staff this morning, and the said, ``Tell Joe Congress is 
like an addict. They are addicted to spending. They say give us one 
more spending fix, one more year, and then we will do the right 
thing.'' We have not balanced the budget since 1969.
  We have not had spending go down since 1965. Unless we do go into a 
cold turkey withdrawal by passing a constitutional amendment with a tax 
limitation provision, spending is going to spiral out of control and 
when that happens society as we know it today is simply going to 
collapse.
  The plain and simple solution is a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, with a three-fifths' tax limitation provision in it. This 
three-fifths provision is not overly difficult. We have three-fifths to 
borrow money in the Stenholm/Schaefer amendment, three-fifths to 
increase the debt ceiling; let us go the third leg, put the three-
fifths' provision to actually prevent tax increases.
  As has been pointed out since 1970, there have been 16 major tax 
bills on the floor of the House. Seven of those did pass with more than 
60 percent. Seven failed, and two passed by voice vote. The largest tax 
increase in history passed this body a year-and-a-half ago by 2 votes, 
by 2 votes, 218 to 216. It would have failed if we had had the three-
fifths' provision in. Would we have not addressed the budget problem? 
No. We would have done it by cutting spending, not raising taxes. 
Please vote for the tax limitation balanced budget amendment.
  The chart follows:

 DO YOU REALLY THINK THE PROBLEM IS THAT TAXES ARE TOO LOW? SPENDING IS 
                             SIMPLY TOO HIGH                            
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Federal          
                        Year                          spending  Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1964................................................     118.5  ........
1965................................................     118.2     (0.3)
1966................................................     134.5    16.3