[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 13 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H302-H303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SUPPORT MY BALANCED BUDGET SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, very shortly in this House, probably within 
the next 3 or 4 weeks, the House leadership has scheduled a vote on the 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have some concerns 
about whether this is even necessary.
  I note with interest that the deficit has dropped in the last 4 years 
from $300 billion a year to $107 billion this year and it is coming 
down like that; that 4 years ago it was 4.7 percent of our gross 
domestic product, a hefty portion. Today it is 1.4 percent, the lowest 
point it has been since 1974, the lowest of any industrial democracy. 
So I question whether it is needed.
  If it is needed, if people still seem to think it is, I have to offer 
the suggestion that you do not balance the budget by putting something 
in the Constitution that says in 7 years you have to have a balanced 
budget. You balance the budget the old-fashioned way, vote by vote by 
vote, cut by cut by cut, each year through the appropriations process.
  That is what has brought the deficit down, on a bipartisan basis, 
Democrats leading the charge sometimes, Republicans the other times. 
That is what has brought the deficit from being 4.7 percent of our 
economy down to here about 1.4 percent.
  Now, having said that, if a constitutional amendment is necessary, I 
am greatly concerned because the argument I hear is that the Federal 
budget ought to balance its budget like every family, like every 
business and every State government has to. And that is a fair 
statement. There is a difference, though. If you forced every family, 
if you forced every business, and particularly if you forced every 
State government to include the language of this balanced budget 
amendment in their constitutions or in their bylaws or their operating 
procedure, this country would be belly up.
  This balanced budget amendment does not do what every State, what 
every family and every business does, and that is to permit borrowing 
for capital expansion, for growth, for increasing in productivity. 
Because while 49 States have some form of capital budgeting in place, 
and incidentally operates under a balanced budget procedure, such as 
the State of West Virginia, which has a strict balanced budget 
requirement in its State constitution, while almost every State has a 
balanced budget requirement of some kind, there is a difference between 
the way that States operate and the way the Federal Government 
operates.
  Every State borrows for the roads, the bridges, the water systems, 
the sewer systems, the infrastructure, the schools, the prisons, the 
things that are necessary for long-term growth. Every State has that 
kind of capital budget. Not so the Federal Government.
  So that is why I would urge Members, if you feel you have to support 
a balanced budget amendment, I hope you will support my balanced budget 
substitute, my constitutional amendment to the Constitution, which 
would say that you balance the budget in the same amount of time, by 
the year 2002; that you have the same procedures, except that you can 
have capital budgeting; that is, you can have investment in physical 
infrastructure, the roads, the bridges, and so on, No. 1; and, No. 2, 
that Social Security is off budget.
  I am fascinated that every Member in this House at some time or 
another has voted in favor of taking Social Security off budget. Well, 
if it was good enough last year, the year before, and the year before 
that, why is it not good enough this year, particularly if we are going 
to enact such a stiff proposal and put it into the Constitution?
  So if you want the Federal budget to operate like every State, like 
every business and every family, then recognize the fact that every 
family knows

[[Page H303]]

that it has to borrow for long-term items.
  My wife and I had to borrow for our house. It is called a mortgage. 
Over 20 years. We have to borrow for the car, 4 to 5 years of 
financing. We have to borrow for our children's tuition, because we 
understand that that is what is going to pay back greater dividends in 
the years to come.
  So that is what my balanced budget amendment to the Constitution 
would do. It would recognize that borrowing and permit it to continue. 
You cannot go home and say that I supported a balanced budget amendment 
to the Constitution that is just like every State, every family, and 
every business has to do, because every State, every family and every 
business could not operate if they had to operate under the terms of 
the balanced budget amendments that this House will be voting on.
  If you are interested in supporting my proposal, my substitute, I 
would urge you to cosponsor my balanced budget amendment, which was 
dropped in the hopper today, which has been introduced, which already 
has 19 cosponsors and which permits and which requires a balanced 
budget but also permits our Federal Government to do what every State 
government and city is permitted to do, and that is to borrow for 
physical infrastructure and to spread that out over the cost of the 
life of that asset.
  Why should you consider the same dollar that goes for pencils for the 
Federal courthouse to be the same dollar that is spent for a highly of 
highway? We all know the mile of highway has a much greater life FTE. 
And yet that would be precluded. That would be ruled out. That would be 
greatly threatened by the balanced budget amendment this House will be 
voting on.
  So if you want to balance the budget in the same way the family does, 
the State does, the business does, then you ought to be supporting my 
proposal, my amendment to the Constitution which was in the hopper 
today.
  We will be talking a lot more on this, Mr. Speaker, I am very 
confident of that, but I would urge Members to look closely and to 
recognize that there is a very significant difference between the way 
the States operate, the way businesses operate, the way families 
operate, and the way this budget would have the Federal Government 
operate.

                          ____________________