[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E337-E338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

                                 ______


                               speech of

                         HON. BRIAN P. BILBRAY

                             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. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as my California colleagues in the Senate 
continue to grapple whether or not to pass a balanced budget amendment 
I wish to insert an editorial published in the San Diego Union Tribune 
into the Congressional Record.
  I commend it to my California colleagues Boxer and Feinstein, and 
urge them to support the balanced budget amendment.
           [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 26, 1995]

           Dissecting the Proposed Balanced Budget Amendment

                           (By Brian Bilbray)

       The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, as 
     proposed in the Republican's ``Contract with America,'' and 
     developed into legislation with members of both parties, will 
     accomplish a simple thing: It will set up a spending 
     structure based upon priorities. The reason that we now have 
     a $4.06 trillion debt is the result of a process without 
     priorities.
       And yet those who still do not get it--liberal Democrats in 
     Congress and the White House--recently mounted a systematic 
     campaign against the balanced budget amendment, which is 
     scheduled to be voted on in the House of Representatives 
     today. The so-called ``right to know'' provision announced 
     two weeks ago by Sen. Tom Daschle--in consultation with 
     President Clinton--illustrates the state of deep denial that 
     exists inside the Washington Beltway.
       The liberals' strategy is to discredit the amendment. They 
     seek to accomplish this by scaring the American people, 
     telling them that passage of a balanced budget amendment 
     threatens Social Security, Medicare, agriculture supports and 
     veterans benefits. However, opponents of the balanced budget 
     amendment have made a tactical error.
       Eighty percent of the American people support a balanced 
     budget amendment. They know it will force the same fiscal 
     discipline on the federal government that they live with 
     every day. The biggest spenders in Congress are the most 
     ardent foes of the amendment because it hampers their ability 
     to deliver to the special interests. These big spenders' so-
     called ``right to know'' amendment is really just 
     obstructionism masquerading as principled scrutiny. Their 
     amendment would require Republicans to provide a seven-year 
     budget detailing what cuts they plan to make in order to get 
     a zero budget deficit.
       When President Clinton presented his five-year budget in 
     1993, Democrats did not demand that he spell out where future 
     cuts would be made. And yet they demand it from the 
     Republican leadership.
       The very nature of their demand underscores the depth of 
     their misunderstanding of the issue: A balanced budget 
     amendment is not about programmatic changes to a $1.6 
     trillion federal budget. It is about fundamentally altering 
     the process of allocating taxpayers' dollars to these 
     programs. It is about setting spending limits and priorities.
       Which brings us to the best illustration of the fundamental 
     differences between supporters of the amendment and its 
     opponents: No one denies that a balanced budget amendment 
     will force us to bite the bullet--the difference between 
     Republicans and the liberals in Congress is who chews the 
     lead.
       The big spenders in Congress and the White House are 
     opposed to a provision in one form of the balanced budget 
     legislation to require a three-fifths ``supermajority'' vote 
     in order to pass an income tax increase. Clearly, as has been 
     demonstrated by 40 years of a Democrat-controlled Congress, 
     their systemic bias is to raise taxes instead of reducing 
     expenditures. Who takes the hit? The taxpayers.
       From my perspective, spending cuts, not increased taxes, 
     are the way to reduce the deficit. Thirty-one million 
     Californians have lived with a balanced budget amendment for 
     nearly 20 years. There is no reason why we cannot impose the 
     same discipline at the federal level.
       The three-fifths vote requirement provides a safeguard for 
     American taxpayers who have heard too many times that higher 
     taxes will result in deficit reduction. Historically, higher 
     taxes have in fact resulted in higher spending. The 
     requirement of a supermajority vote will address our problem 
     [[Page E338]] of a structural deficit caused by out-of-
     control spending. The balanced budget amendment will force 
     the federal government to set priorities and then live within 
     those priorities. The real culprit behind our national debt 
     and yearly deficits is a process without discipline and 
     virtually no mechanism to enforce discipline.
       The liberals in Congress who demand a seven-year budget to 
     chart our course to a zero deficit miss the point. They wish, 
     obviously, to perpetuate a process that is as destructive to 
     future generations as it is to our own.
     

                          ____________________