Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman's leadership for the fight in the balanced budget amendment. He has been a very dedicated soldier in this regard. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The deficit this year is forecast to be $176 billion. This is actually down from several years of deficits well in excess of $200 billion. The accumulated national debt is now $4.7 trillion. This includes both debt held by the public and debt owed to the trust funds. If we do nothing, the deficit situation will grow far worse. Current CBO projections show the annual deficits increasing to over $300 billion a year after the turn of the century. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the balanced budget tax limitation amendment included in the Contract With America, the Barton language. If that version fails to garner 290 votes, I will support the alternative language offered by my good friend from Colorado, Dan Schaefer. The current amendments before this House are directed at ending annual deficits. This is great. It means that in 2002 we will at least have stopped adding to the accumulated debt. But by then, we will still have an accumulated national debt of over $6 trillion, and our children will have to pay interest on this accumulated debt for every year in the future. That interest will force Federal taxes to be higher than they should be. Under current CBO forecasts, Federal spending will grow an average of 5.3 percent a year. In order to achieve a balanced budget, we must hold that rate of growth at 2 percent, and we can still pay for the tax cuts. This means that instead of spending $2.5 trillion more than if we froze spending, we can spend $1 trillion more. It is clear to me that we can and must do this for our children. Last November the American people sent a clear message to Congress. They want us to pass the toughest balanced budget amendment that we can. This is how I will cast my vote.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I know that our debate has been moving along and we are trying to get to a vote before our time runs out, but I want to make a point. In listening to the debate from those who are opposing this piece of legislation, I do not believe that disclosure is against the public interest. That is what this bill is all about. It is about disclosure. When we bring this information forward so Members understand what they are voting for, the cost, how much it is going to cost and how that is going to be allocated among the States, I do not think it is bad. In fact, I think it benefits the public interest. I come from a State legislature where, when legislation came before us, we understood what that piece of legislation was going to cost because we had some estimates before us. We not only understood how it was going to affect our State general fund, but we understood how it was going to impact potentially the special districts that were within the State, to understand what it was going to cost the cities and the school districts. When we became better informed, we began to understand how best to apply the piece of legislation. In some instances where it may have become too expensive for small communities, then we would provide an exemption. When we looked at what the benefits were to be accrued and what it was going to cost a small community, then we could begin to apply the knowledge to come up with a better piece of legislation. I am standing here today to support this piece of legislation because I happen to believe that disclosure benefits the public interest. That is what this bill is all about.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, change has been the key word the last couple months and today it truly began. The Congressional Accountability Act is the first big step! There are many reasons to support this legislation, but some still have their reservations about complying with the same laws as all other Americans, so I want to address some of the myths surrounding Congressional Accountability. One argument concerns the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government. This is based on the concern over executive and judicial branch oversight of Congress. If this were a problem, then the executive branch would be exempt as well and the Supreme Court would have upheld this separation in precedent cases. However, the opposite is true, the executive must comply and the Supreme Court has never upheld this idea. I have also heard the claim that elected officials, especially members of Congress, are uniquely vulnerable to charges against them and their jury would be an angry electorate. In my mind, political vulnerability is no different from economic vulnerability. This reaction is no different from the complaints of private sector employers facing complaints or suits from disgruntled employees, labor unions, or unscrupulous competitors. We should be required to defend our actions in the same manner as the people in the private sector. Plus, members of Congress are not willing to grant similar exemptions from the laws to elected state and local officials or to their political challengers. So what will Congressional compliance allow? First, this Congress would again become a citizens legislature. Why, because we would become true citizens again. We would have to live under the rules which we have imposed on everyone else. Congressional compliance makes Members of Congress become members of their community and see how government rules and regulations affect people's lives. Just maybe, this bill will make Congress stop and ask the question ``If this law is too burdensome for the U.S. House, then maybe it is too burdensome for everybody else.'' That is why I want to encourage all my colleagues to support H.R. 1. This bill will make us accountable to all the legislation we have passed.