[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 17 (Friday, January 27, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E200-E201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. MIKE WARD

                              of kentucky

                    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 bill (H.J. Res. 1) 
     proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, one of the most important votes of my career 
will be cast during my third week as Kentucky's Third District 
Representative. That vote, Mr. Speaker, will be my vote on the proposed 
balanced budget constitutional amendment.
  It would be easy to follow the advice of the pollsters and political 
consultants--the easy, politically smart vote is probably to vote for 
this amendment.
  But, the people of the Third District expect me to study the issues 
carefully and to vote for the long-term best interest of our community 
and our Nation. Sometimes, this will require me to cast a politically 
difficult vote.
  The balanced budget amendment appears to be such a vote.
  Anyone who reads Wall Street Journal editorials knows that you will 
rarely find a more conservative viewpoint, nor one more devoted to 
reducing the size of government and reducing taxes. But, on November 
18, 1994--a few days after the Republican's election landslide--the 
Wall Street Journal carried an important editorial headlined ``Balance 
By Amendment?''
  Here is what the Wall Street Journal editorial had to say about the 
proposed balanced budget amendment:

       While we yield to none in wanting a smaller government and 
     have been big backers of the line-item veto and the like, 
     we've always had our doubts about the budget amendment idea. 
     While politically appealing, it makes no particular sense 
     economically. We fret that it will prove the Republican 
     equivalent of the Democratic health care proposal--playing 
     well in polls and focus groups but falling apart when you try 
     to write a law.
       To understand the economics, start here: If all American 
     households were required to balance their budgets every year, 
     no one could ever buy a house * * *
       * * * Ultimately, the pertinent question about government 
     borrowing is the same as it is for households or 
     corporations. How large is the debt compared to available 
     resources, and for what purpose are the proceeds spent?
       While no single statistic can capture the reality, one of 
     the best measures is the trend of outstanding debt as a 
     proportion of yearly output * * * Debt was more than 100 
     percent of GDP (gross domestic product) at the end of World 
     War II, declined to around a quarter in 1974, and then grew 
     to more than half today. We would certainly argue that 
     winning the World War was worth borrowing 100% of GDP, and 
     winning the Cold War was worth borrowing 50 percent * * *
       * * * crude goals (such as outright budget balance) tend to 
     impose large short-run costs, in political pain and economic 
     dislocation. * * * Perhaps in their current euphoria 
     Republicans feel confident about this question (that a 
     balanced budget amendment will be sustainable), but our 
     advice is that they should look before they leap.

[[Page E201]]

       ``* * * they should look before they leap.''

  Mr. Chairman, that is the most important phrase of this editorial. 
It's exactly what I ask that we do before we vote for this amendment.
  The supporters of this amendment should tell me and tell the American 
people what cuts will be required to achieve this budget balance. Tell 
us how we will get there.
  None of us think we can go on running 1980's-style deficits. That 
decade saw the national debt increase from approximately $1 trillion to 
almost $4 trillion. Those deficits left a terrible legacy of debt and 
interest obligations for our grandchildren. We must never repeat that 
borrowing binge.
  Yet, we should ``look before we leap.'' We are being asked to vote 
for a balanced budget amendment without being told where the cuts will 
be made.
  Mr. Chairman, that is like being wheeled into the operating room 
without knowing whether the surgeon plans to repair an ingrown toenail 
or do brain surgery.
  I support tough choices to keep our deficit on a downward track, so 
that our economy can outgrow the debt burden of the 1980's. We must do 
that while fulfilling our Nation's commitment to a strong national 
defense, to Social Security and Medicare, to job training, to Head 
Start, to education and school lunches.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I fear that the rigid, inflexible, and arbitrary 
requirements of this balanced budget amendment will only be achieved by 
doing exactly what we are promising the American people that we will 
not do: cutting Social Security and Medicare, cutting national defense, 
cutting Head Start, cutting job training, and cutting education and 
school lunch programs.
  Show me how to meet the balanced budget amendment without gutting 
these programs, Mr. Chairman, and I will support that goal. But 5 years 
from now, if this amendment is adopted, these very programs will likely 
bear the brunt of an unnecessary, economically unwise, budget straight 
jacket.
  Why else, Mr. Chairman, would the House Republican majority leader 
have stated on Meet the Press on January 8, 1995: ``The fact of the 
matter is once Members of Congress know exactly, chapter and verse, the 
pain that the Government must live with in order to get a balanced 
government (sic), their knees will buckle.''
  Mr. Chairman, we have economic problems for sure. But, we also have 
the greatest Nation and the strongest economy in the world. This 
economy must grow so that we can provide good incomes and educations to 
young families, and income security and good health care to our growing 
population of older Americans.
  The amendment proposed today will impose economic pain on every 
American, and will work against the economic growth and expanding 
opportunity which we should seek for the next Century.
  Let's not make that mistake, Mr. Chairman. Let's ``look before we 
leap.'' Let's reject this unwise amendment to our Constitution.


                          ____________________