[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 17 (Friday, January 27, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             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 bill (H.J. Res. 1) 
     proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, amending the Constitution to 
provide incentives for fiscal restraint will give us the discipline we 
need if we are going to continue to reduce our overwhelming deficits. 
But we need to ensure that our budget process balances this critical 
discipline with the flexibility that will enable us to make fiscal 
policy adjustments that are fair, responsible, and realistic.
  Truth-in-budgeting is of primary concern to me. We must disclose, up 
front, how we plan to meet our financial goals. How will the budget be 
balanced? What benefits and programs will have to be reduced? Are 
Social Security and Medicare threatened? Will we achieve this goal by 
sacrificing the health and welfare of our senior citizens and our 
children? Will we resort to cutting or eliminating critical medical 
research, or emergency energy assistance for senior citizens and the 
poor, or job training and retraining initiatives? What about 
educational programs, funds for building and preserving bridges and 
highways, childhood immunization, health care, and veterans' benefits? 
Will our national security be placed at risk?
  For example, according to the Children's Defense Fund, balancing the 
Federal budget by fiscal year 2002, as called for in the Republican 
Contract With America, would require slicing all other Federal 
expenditures by 30 percent if we do not cut Social Security or defense 
spending or raise taxes. Children's programs could suffer even more if 
cuts in such programs as Medicare or veterans' services were limited. 
If this were the case, in California alone, 682,000 children would lose 
free or subsidized school lunch program lunches; 550,150 cases now 
served by the State child support agency would lose help in 
establishing paternity or collecting child support; 19,150 or more 
California children would lose the Federal child care subsidies that 
enable their parents to work or get education and training; and 21,250 
of our children would lose Head Start early childhood services.
  I am also concerned about adequate funding for the critical 
investments that will enable our Nation to grow and thrive in this 
competitive international environment. America cannot prosper if we do 
not set aside funds for essentials like our schools, our 
infrastructure, and our national security--investments that provide 
long-term economic returns. If we amend the Constitution to provide for 
a balanced budget, we must deal with capital spending honestly and 
effectively.
  I also cannot support a balanced budget amendment that leaves the 
Social Security Program wide open for cuts. In these times of deficit 
reduction and spending cuts, Social Security is a most appealing 
target. But cuts in Social Security would deprive older and retired 
Americans of critical benefits that are rightly theirs--benefits that 
have been promised to them to help ensure their economic security in 
their golden years. A proposal that does not protect Social Security 
lays the groundwork for pulling the rug out from under older Americans 
at the time in their lives when they are most vulnerable. Social 
Security must be exempted from balanced budget calculations.
  I also cannot support requiring the support of a supermajority--or 
three-fifths--of the House of Representatives in order to raise taxes, 
run a deficit or increase the debt limit. This gives the minority--the 
other two-fifths--the ability to control the process of passing the 
budget.
  I can well remember the California State budget crisis in the summer 
of 1992 when the State legislature and Governor were held hostage 
because a two-thirds majority was needed to approve budget changes made 
by the Governor. This created gridlock. By example alone, this 
represents the need for the majority, not two-thirds or two-fifths, to 
control the budget process and to change our spending priorities. The 
Federal Government must be able to respond quickly to disasters, like 
the California earthquake and flood, and to run a deficit during a 
recession.
  I have always maintained that the budget must be balanced--that the 
large annual deficits we are carrying are unhealthy and detrimental to 
our Nation. We cannot continue to perpetuate this burden on our future 
generations. That is why I supported the President's deficit reduction 
plan during the last Congress--the largest deficit reduction plan in 
history--and why I now support a constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me 
in this unique opportunity to rise above partisan politics in the best 
interests of our country and meet this challenge responsibly, honestly, 
and realistically.


                          ____________________