[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 30 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        WHY BALANCE THE BUDGET?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the most imperative 
issue facing this Nation, and, that is, the Federal budget.
  The last time our Nation, the greatest Nation on Earth, balanced its 
books, Nixon was President, the first moon landing occurred, and the 
Mod Squad was a top TV show. It was 1969. And in the 28 years that 
followed, the Federal Government has spent almost $6 trillion more 
money than it has taken in. Put simply, this irresponsibility, this 
addiction to deficit spending, poses the greatest national threat to 
our future, to the financial security of our Nation, and to the 
economic well-being of our families. A balanced budget is not simply a 
desirable ideal. It is absolutely necessary.
  And not simply because of our precarious situation as a Nation, but 
because putting a stop to deficit spending is good for all Americans. 
It means a lower cost of living, lower interest rates and a financially 
stable Government.
  A study by McGraw Hill projects that a balanced budget would yield a 
2-percent drop in interest rates. This means yearly savings of $1,230 
on a $50,000 home loan, $200 on an auto loan, and $216 on a student 
loan. Perhaps even more important is the moral responsibility to stop 
robbing future generations of their opportunities and a chance to 
achieve prosperity. A child born today owes nearly $200,000 in taxes 
over his or her lifetime just to pay the interest on the national debt. 
Is such a crushing legacy something we want to leave to our children 
and our grandchildren?
  It is important to note that balancing the Federal budget does not 
require drastic spending cuts or massive tax increases as many would 
have the American public believe. Instead it requires exercising common 
sense and leadership. I know that I have to stay within a budget in 
running my congressional office and caring for my family. This is 
nothing new. Most of us have to stay within our means. Why can the 
Federal Government not do the same thing? The truth is it can. Look at 
what we did in the 104th Congress. Over a 2-year span we reduced 
Federal spending by $53 billion from the level proposed by the 
President, not by slashing prudent and necessary Government programs 
but by eliminating 300 wasteful and duplicative programs, projects, and 
grants.
  I cannot stress the following statement enough: Our national debt 
does not result from the American people being taxed too little, it is 
a product of Government that overspends.
  Since 1981, there have been 19 separate tax increases, the largest 
being President Clinton's tax hike in 1993. Yet the debt continues to 
rise. Today Americans pay more in taxes than ever before in history. In 
fact the average American family pays 40 percent of its income in 
taxes. That is more than it spends on housing, food, and clothing 
combined. Taking more money from the taxpayers has not proven the 
ability for us to reduce our debt. It has, however, proven to increase 
the size of the Federal bureaucracy. We in Congress and in the White 
House have an obligation to serve the public interest, a responsibility 
to work toward a balanced budget while taking less money from 
hardworking Americans.
  There is a right way and a wrong way to prepare our Nation for the 
next century. Following the right way, we should reach a balanced 
budget by the year 2002 and we should keep the budget balanced without 
tax hikes or gimmicks. We should provide permanent tax relief for 
families, and we should offer an honest means of extending the life of 
vital and important programs, like Medicare and Social Security. 
Earlier this year President Clinton submitted his budget proposal. 
Despite his claims and promises, his budget fell well short of these 
criteria.
  First of all, the President's budget will not reach balance in 2002, 
or in any year before or after. Applying the methods used by Congress 
in making budget projections, Mr. Clinton's budget will be $69 billion 
in the red in 2002. In fact, he would have us run deficits in the $120-
billion range until after he left office. Under his plan, an amazing 98 
percent of the proposed spending reduction would occur in the years 
2001 and 2002, when he has retired to Little Rock.
  Shakespeare said it best over 400 years ago, ``Though it be honest, 
it is never good to bring bad news.'' True, President Clinton's budget 
deserves little praise, but this is not a case of partisan carping. 
Every President since President Nixon, Republican and Democrat, have at 
least put forth a proposal on paper that would achieve a balanced 
budget. Yet here we are today with a debt of almost $6 trillion.
  Nevertheless, there is something that we can do to bring about 
economic sanity. Congress can pass the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution.
  The fact that for over 20 years the temporary residents of the White 
House have offered plans to balance the budget underscores the need for 
this amendment. We must remove the concept from policy papers and the 
rhetoric of politicians and bureaucrats and instead place it in the 
Constitution of the United States. Rather than talking about 
eliminating deficit spending, let's do it. An amendment is the only way 
to ensure that Washington permanently changes its ways, to make the 
Government accountable for every one of your tax dollars, and to 
prevent the next generation from being saddled with the cost of our 
profligacy.
  This is not a partisan issue. We must not be separated by party 
affiliation. We must come together and share a vision for our Nation's 
future.
  Knowing that facts do not sustain their cause, supporters of the 
status quo will fall back on their most potent weapon--fear. President 
Clinton has already brandished this weapon through his partisan charge 
that the amendment is a threat to Social Security. But remember what 
the late Paul Tsongas had to say, ``I'm embarrassed as a Democrat to 
watch a Democratic President raise the scare tactics of Social Security 
to defeat the balanced budget amendment.''
  Although I support taking Social Security off budget, the immutable 
truth is, the greatest threat to Social Security is the national debt 
itself. Of the 5.5 trillion dollars of debt, almost $600 billion is 
owed to the Social Security trust funds. If we do not balance the 
budget, that debt will double. Do you really think that if the 
Government goes bankrupt it can pay that $1.2 trillion debt back to the 
trust funds without hyperinflation or a depression? The future solvency 
of Social Security depends solely on putting our fiscal house in 
order--it depends on approving the balanced budget amendment.
  This is not a time to stand helplessly to the side. This is one of 
those moments that will define our country's destiny. First and 
foremost, Congress and the President should come together to affect 
real and meaningful fiscal change and to bolster our efforts, we should 
feel obligated to send to the States the balanced budget amendment. Our 
future is at risk, and that means everything is at risk.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I earnestly urge Members to consider and 
vote for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

                          ____________________