[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E253-E254]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ERNEST J. ISTOOK, JR.

                              of oklahoma

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 13, 2003

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, today we are re-introducing the Balanced 
Budget Amendment for the U.S. Constitution. Although we recently 
enjoyed four years of balanced federal budgets, the results of 9-11, 
the fight against terrorism, and economic challenges have all pushed us 
back into a sea of red ink.
  Although borrowing can be justified to protect America in a time of 
national emergency, deficits should not be acceptable in normal times. 
So, unless we first set a goal of balancing the budget again, it will 
never happen. And recent experience once again proves that we need the 
discipline that a Balanced Budget Amendment provides.
  I'm especially happy for the support of Wisconsin's James 
Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and also of 
the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Steve Chabot from 
Ohio. And, of course, the long-time leading Democrat on this issue, 
Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas.
  I also want to acknowledge the pioneering work done by National 
Taxpayer's Union, the nation's largest organization representing the 
interests of taxpayers, and their work with Congressman Stenholm and 
Senator Larry Craig who have been working on this issue for the last 
quarter century.
  It's time to set the standard, and show America what our goals are. 
It doesn't matter which side of the aisle you are on. Some people 
complain about the deficit, and say that's why they oppose tax relief. 
Others complain about the deficit and say that's why they oppose 
spending. But everyone who complains about the deficit should support 
the goal of balancing the budget again. It's hypocritical to say you 
oppose the deficit but don't support the balanced budget amendment.
  With the expenses of the war on terrorism, we won't balance the 
budget in the next year or two. And it will take a couple of years for

[[Page E254]]

this amendment to be ratified by the states. We have to set our goal 
NOW to balance the budget again. Unless we commit to it, we'll never 
get the budget balanced again. First we must set the goal, then we work 
toward it.
  Our children and our grandchildren will pay a heavy price if we do 
not return to a balanced budget. They not only would face the high 
taxes of big government, but they would bear the extra expense of 
paying off the bills that we are running-up today.
  This Balanced Budget Amendment is identical to the language passed by 
a vote of 300-132 in 1995, as part of the original ``Contract With 
America,'' and then failed by one single vote in the U.S. Senate in 
1997. Neither the House nor the Senate have voted on it since then. 
Obviously, we now have many new faces in Congress; we now have 212 
House Members who have never been held accountable, because they have 
never had to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. We believe the time 
has come for every Member of Congress to address this issue head-on.
  The amendment includes an exemption for times when Congress declares 
a national emergency. But during peacetime, it would require a 
supermajority of Congress for the federal government to operate at a 
deficit.
  No ordinary law can restrain Congress, because Congress has the power 
to remove that safeguard whenever it wishes by a simple majority vote. 
The only real protection against deficit spending is constitutional 
protection. In light of the current national emergency, we need this 
amendment more than ever to ensure that deficit spending will end.

                          ____________________