[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 17 (Friday, January 27, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

                                 ______


                               speech of

                     HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 25, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 1) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Barton three-fifths tax limitation balanced budget amendment. As an 
original cosponsor of the Barton amendment, I believe it is the best 
choice of the various options before the House today.
  It is clear that Congress is utterly incapable of controlling the 
growth of spending. Solution after solution has failed to get the 
deficit under control. We have raised taxes and found that the deficit 
has increased.
  I think the key to understanding why the three-fifths majority is 
essential is to examine the recent history of tax increases. Since 
1977, there have been seven major tax increases that would have failed 
under Barton. Had the Barton amendment been in place over these years, 
a total of $558.9 billion in tax increases would have been blocked. 
That's half a trillion dollars that would have been spent by Americans 
on their priorities--new houses, new cars, college educations, and so 
forth. Instead, the American people got half a trillion in Federal 
spending, much of it on wasteful projects that benefit parochial 
interests.
  One, the 1977 Social Security tax.--This $80.4 billion tax increase 
increased both tax rates and the taxable wage base for employers and 
employees. The conference report passed the House by a vote of 189 to 
163. Had the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would have 
failed.
  Two, the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act.--TEFRA was 
the first of the series of packages that was going to take care of the 
deficit problem. The bill increased taxes by $99 billion and cut 
Medicare and Medicaid by $17 billion. It passed the Senate by a 50 to 
47 margin. Had the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would 
have failed.
  Three, the 1982 Transportation Assistance Act.--This bill increased 
gasoline and highway taxes by $22 billion. The House adopted the 
conference report by a 180 to 87 vote. Had the Barton amendment been in 
place, this tax hike would have failed.
  Four, the 1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.--This bill 
contained a variety of tax changes and user fee increases totaling 
$11.9 billion. It passed the House by a one-vote margin. Had the Barton 
amendment been in place, this tax hike would have failed.
  Five, the 1992 Tax Fairness and Economic Growth Act.--This bill 
increased taxes by a total of $77.5 billion, including a permanent 
increase of the top tax rate, surtaxes on incomes above $250,000, and 
other tax and fee increases. It passed the House by a 211 to 189 
margin. Had the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would 
have failed.
  Six, 1992 urban aid tax bill.--A variety of tax changes totaling $27 
billion. The conference report was adopted by the House by a 208 to 202 
vote. Had the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would have 
failed.
  Seven, 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.--President Clinton's 
tax bill increased tax rates, the gas tax, taxes on Social Security 
benefits, and many user fees. This $241 billion tax increase was the 
largest in history. It passed the Senate by a margin of 50 to 49. Had 
the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would have failed.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I support the Stenholm-Solomon amendment. It is 
solid legislation and will make a genuine difference in the way we deal 
with the budget. It will force Government to live within its means and 
insure that we will no longer allow deficits to spiral out of control.
  However, the Barton amendment is better because it takes this debate 
in a new direction. Not only are we going to balance the Federal 
budget, but we are also going to insure that there will be no more one-
vote margins for tax increases. If we truly want to restrain the power 
of Government, I believe the Barton amendment is essential.
  Over the years, the Government has shown that it lacks the discipline 
needed. We have been far too eager to see the people's money as the 
answer to our spending problem. For that reason, I believe the Barton 
amendment is the best alternative before the House today.


                          ____________________