Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from California, and again cannot express in the most positive terms how delighted we are to have him back serving with great distinction in the body. The hour is getting late. I would be happy to recognize the gentleman from South Carolina for some brief remarks, so we may hopefully soon conclude.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I might also point out that those who say all that necessary--the only protection that is necessary is protection of a constitutional majority to pass a tax increase--we have researched in the House, and there has not been a tax increase that passed with a minority vote. Now there have been some that passed on a voice vote, two in the last 30 years that passed by a voice vote, but if it came to a vote, in every occasion obviously it won by getting a majority vote. So to say that a constitutional majority is sufficient protection against the tax increase on this floor every time a tax increase is passed by rollcall vote, it has had a majority, and in most cases it has had a constitutional majority, which is 218. A simple majority would be maybe 216, if several people were not voting, and traditionally the Speaker does not vote. But to get real protection against tax increases you do need the three fifths, and, as the gentleman from Arizona pointed out, in many of the States that have tax limitation provisions it is two thirds, and in some it is three fourths. In the President's home State of Arkansas it is a three-fourths vote necessary for a tax increase, so a three- fifths vote, or 60 percent, is certainly stronger than the constitutional majority, but it is by no means as strong as many of the States have in their statutes or their constitutions. I see that the gentleman from California has approached the rostrum, and I would be happy to yield to him and welcome him back to the 104th Congress.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Would the gentleman from Illinois like to have time to answer that question?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman would yield on that point, in the early 1980's, then President Reagan accepted a tax increase with the understanding for every dollar of taxes that were increased, there would be $2 of spending cuts. Well, we got the tax increase, but we got $1.58 of spending increase for every dollar of tax increase. We have researched that back to the mid 1940's. And in no year have we seen when a tax increase was passed, that the next year the spending cuts materialized. In the time that I have been in the Congress, and I was elected in 1984 and sworn in in 1985, we have eliminated in its entirety one Federal program, the Urban Development Action Grant Program. Now, we have reduced some in real terms, but in every year Federal spending in the aggregate has gone up, and it has averaged over $50 billion a year increase in the time I have been in the Congress. And in the nineties it has averaged over $65 billion a year. I don't know about the gentleman from South Carolina or the gentleman from New York or California or Indiana, but in my family household, if I had an extra sixty or seventy billion dollars a year, I believe I could get by. I believe I could make it. And yet we talk and talk and talk about making the tough choices and cutting spending. The reality is in almost every case in Washington, that is a phony game. We take the baseline, adjust it for inflation, adjust it for growth, adjust it for unanticipated consequences that may never occur, and then say that is what we would really like, but we will take 10 percent less than that, and they end up with 10 or 15 percent more than they had the year before. There have been years when the average Federal program had a net increase after inflation and after growth in the economy of over 13 percent. Yet we still cry out about needing more revenue. That is simply not the case. I am going to conclude this special order, if none of the other distinguished gentleman wishes time, by occasion. For the first time in over 200 years, we have a real opportunity to amend the Constitution of the United States to require a Federal balanced budget, and to do so in a way that we would cut spending and not raise taxes by adding a three-fifths requirement for a tax increase. Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers, the author of the declaration of independence, rued the fact that when the constitution was adopted in 1787, it did not have a requirement that the budget be balanced. In the modern era, it is, I think, factual to state that if we do not amend the constitution to require a balanced budget, we will never have a balanced budget. When our current President's economic advisors state that there is not even an attempt to get to a balanced budget and that balanced budgets do not count and that under the most rosy scenario, the budget deficit begins to climb next year and climb to infinity after we get to the millennium in the year 2000, it is absolutely imperative that we act now. This dialog, colloquy that we have had this evening on the House floor is not an exercise in academic opportunism. We are going to vote on the constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget with a tax limitation provision tomorrow morning between 11 and 12 o'clock Eastern Standard Time. And if 290 Members of this body vote in the affirmative, we will have passed it. If less than 290 vote in the affirmative, we will have 4 other amendments that are made in order and whichever of those 4 gets the majority vote will be the vote on final passage for the two-thirds requirement sometime early tomorrow evening. This colloquy this evening on the House floor has the potential to go down in history as the most important colloquy that has ever been heard in this chamber in terms of fiscal responsibility. It is not of the same significance as declarations of war, which we have had in the early 1940's and some of those types of debates, but in terms of fiscal responsibility and our children's future to have the same type of economic opportunity that we have had, it is important. If the American people agree with the distinguished Members that have participated with us this evening of its importance and if they take advantage of the opportunity to express their serious demand that we pass the tax limitation balanced budget amendment, we will do so. I want to thank the gentleman from New York for having the first special order and the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from South Carolina and the gentleman from California and all the other distinguished gentlemen and gentlewomen that have participated this evening and simply ask that they really search their consciences and come prepared tomorrow to exert every effort in a positive way to pass this historic amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thirteen hundred percent since 1964. This year we are expected to spend $1 trillion, which is 1 thousand billion, $531 billion. Those numbers are from President Clinton's Office of Management and Budget. Those are not the Republican numbers, but the official budget numbers of the President of the United States.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We reached the $100 billion spending mark at the Federal level in 1961 or 1962, and in the current fiscal year, it is expected we will expend just for interest on the national debt, over $225 billion. So we now pay more in interest than the entire Federal budget was in the early 1960's.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would agree with that in a fiduciary sense. No cooperation in America could utilize its assets and abuse its borrowing privileges like we have here in Washington the last 30 to 40 years.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Has not balanced the budget, the Federal Government has not balanced its budget since 1969, as the gentleman pointed out in his remarks. The point that I am trying to make by this question and answer session is that in every year since 1965, Federal spending has gone up, so that in the be $1.531 trillion. That is a 1,300-fold increase in Federal spending in the last 29 years. In no year has Federal spending decreased. It has gone up. In the decade of the 1990's, from fiscal year 1990 through the fiscal year that we are now currently in, fiscal year 1995, Federal spending has increased an average of $65 billion, an average of $65 billion. That is an annual rate of over 6 percent in an era when the inflation rate has gone up less than 3 percent per year. So what does this all mean? It means, quite simply, that lack of revenue is not the problem in Washington, DC. The problem is that spending is out of control, increasing at a rate of over $60 billion a year in the decade of the 1990's, and annual deficits in the $100 to $200 billion range. So we need to do something about it, and we need to pass a balanced budget amendment. We need to pass a tax limitation balanced budget amendment, because tax limitation keeps spending under control and forces the legislative body that is accountable to cut spending, not to just spend more money and raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would look at the charts to his left, he can see that in the period between 1980 and 1990, in the nine States that had tax limitation provisions in their Constitution or their statutes, that taxes went up in those States a total of 87 percent cumulatively in a 10-year period, but in States that didn't, taxes went up 104 percent. That is a difference of 17 percent. The States that had tax limitation, spending also went up, but it went up less than in States that didn't have it, 95 percent over the 10-year period versus 102 percent. That is a difference of 7 percent. That is statistical verification that tax limitation does work. it limits taxes, obviously, and more importantly, it limits spending, and in Washington, DC, that is our problem, limiting spending. Therefore, tomorrow when we vote on the tax limitation balanced budget amendment, it is very important that we get an affirmative vote, because that is what is the solution to the problem. It is not simply saying ``balance the budget,'' and directly or indirectly putting the emphasis on raising more revenue. We don't need more revenue, we need the fiscal discipline to cut spending, and the tax limitation amendment gives that discipline. Mr. Speaker, we do have a number of other distinguished Members here, and we certainly need them to have time to speak. I have spoken too long. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say I thank the gentleman from New York for his special order, and I say God bless you and the other freshmen in the 104th Congress for coming to the rescue of us senior citizens who have been fighting this fight so long shorthandedly.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, to my knowledge and myself and my staff and the Congressional Research Service and the Heritage Foundation and the Citizens for a Sound Economy and many other conservative think tanks have researched this question. We can find no record of any other State or local entity that has gone that many consecutive years without at least once balancing their budget.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The actual year was 1979. I would think the gentleman may have looked at my notes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Would the gentleman yield for me to answer the question?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the gentleman from New York yielding. As I pointed out, it took us 9 years to go from $100 billion to $200 billion. It took four years to go from 200 billion to 300 billion. It took three years to go from 300 billion to 400 billion. And we first broached the 400 billion barrier in 1977. When would the gentleman from New York hazard a guess as to when we first spent a half a trillion dollars or $500 billion? What fiscal year would that be?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I respect the Speaker's ruling. I apologize. I knew better than to violate the rules of the House. Would the gentleman from New York yield and give me an opportunity to ask a question to the gentleman?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. 1978. The exact answer is 1977. I see that the Speaker has arisen.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. 1975 we spent $332 billion, for the first time spent over $300 billion. When do you think we spent $400 billion for the first time?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. 1975 is correct.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman. I want to thank him for taking this special order this evening on the eve of the most historic day, in my opinion, in the history of the U.S. Congress. Tomorrow, when we vote on the tax limitation balanced budget amendment, I think there is a tremendous opportunity to put a halt to the spiraling spending spree that this nation has been on at the Federal level the last 30 to 40 years. I would like to ask the gentleman from New York and perhaps some of our other colleagues that are here to help me in a little exercise, question and answer. I would first ask the gentleman if he knew the last time we actually had a federal budget that spending went down from the previous year? Would the gentleman from New York happen to know when that might have been?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, it was not quite that far back, but in 1964, we spent at the Federal level $118.5 billion. To put that into perspective, last year we spent over $200 billion just to pay interest on the national debt. But in 1964, the entire Federal budget was $118.5 billion. In 1965, while I was a senior at West Junior High School in Waco, TX, playing on the football team and going on my first date and watching the Untouchables on television, things like this, the Federal Government actually spent less money than the year before, $118.2 billion. So we went down $300 million that year. That is the last year that federal spending has decreased from the previous year. In each year since then, 1966, 1967, 1968, all the way down to the current date, Federal spending has increased. Would the gentleman from New York care to hazard a guess as to the first year the Federal Government spent more than $200 billion?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We have the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, from Arizona, the distinguished gentlewoman from Idaho, from Pennsylvania, would any of these Members care to hazard as to when was the first year the Federal Government spent $200 billion? The distinguished gentleman from South Carolina says 1968. That is the year I was a senior at Waco High School in Waco, TX. The actual year was 1971. So it took us from 1964, when we first--1962, when we first broke the $100 billion spending barrier, to 1971, 9 years, and then we spent $200 billion. When do you think we spent for the first time $300 billion. What year?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. We are going to consider the tax limitation balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. No one, perhaps except President Clinton and some of his senior economic advisers, seriously questions whether we should balance the budget anymore. The question is how to do it. In the Contract With America, the Republican majority says we should balance the budget with a three-fifths requirement to raise taxes, and put the emphasis not on raising taxes but on cutting spending. Why is this? If we look at Federal spending over the last 40 years, there has been no year in which Federal spending went down. Every year Federal spending has gone up. In the years that we have had major tax increases, and we have had 16 major tax increases in the last 30 years, Federal spending has gone up and the deficit has gone up also. Therefore, the American people want a real change. They want a tax limitation balanced budget amendment that puts the emphasis on balancing the budget by cutting spending, not by raising taxes. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote for the Barton-Hyde-Dade- Geren balanced budget amendment to the Constitution with the three- fifths requirement for a tax increase.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend a little bit of time explaining exactly how the tax limitation provision in the balanced budget amendment would work. There has been gnashing of teeth about how stringent that process might be and how difficult it might be to implement. Fortunately for the United States Congress, there is ample evidence of how tax limitation amendments to balanced budget amendment requirements would actually work. I think it has been pointed out on the floor earlier, there are 9 States that have a tax limitation provision either in their Constitution or by statute, including the State that the President is from, the State of Arkansas, which has a three-fourths requirement to raise taxes. The Heritage Foundation has done extensive data collection to see if in those States that have tax limitation, it does work or it really does not work, and the record shows at the State level that tax limitation in point of fact does work. Between 1980 and 1990, in those States that had a tax limitation provision, taxes went up by a total of 87 percent in that 10-year period. In the States that did not have tax limitation provisions, their taxes went up 104 percent. That is a difference of 17 percent. In States that have tax- limitation provisions, taxes went up 17 percent less in a 10-year period between 1908 and 1990 than in those States that did not have the tax limitation provision. Why do we want a tax limitation provision at all? Ultimately you want that, because you want to make government more effective, you want to make government more responsive to the people, and you want the Government to spend less money. If you do not have as much money to spend, you do not spend as much money. The States that, again, have a tax-limitation provision by statute or in their constitution, their spending did go up, but it went up about 9 percent less than in those States that did not have a tax-limitation provision on the books, again, in the period between 1980 and 1990. So what does that mean? If you take those numbers and put them at the Federal level, a 9-percent reduction in Federal spending would be over $100 billion in the fiscal year that we are in today. So the bottom line is not only do we need to balance the budget in Washington, we need to balance it by having a tax-limitation provision on the books, because tax limitation does work. If we do that, we are going to have to make some tough calls. You know, people have asked me, ``Well, Congressman Barton, you are the sponsor of this provision. How are you going to balance the budget? Where are you going to cut?'' My answer is quite simple, ``I think we look at every Federal program.'' We passed a resolution on the floor earlier this afternoon that specifically exempts Social Security. So some people have come to me and they say, ``Well, that is only for this year. Why not exempt Social Security in totality by putting it into the constitutional amendment?'' And the simple answer to that is because if you exempt any program in the amendment itself, it goes into the Constitution. It would not be totally hypothetical to think at some point in the future everything in the Federal budget would be in that program. We could have an instance where the Social Security budget at some point in time, if it were specifically exempted in the Constitution, not only would include the Social Security budget as we know it today, it could include the defense budget. We do not want to put into the Constitution any specific exemptions. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me simply state that the three-fifths requirement for a tax increase is important, because it balances the amendment. We have the three-fifths requirement in the Stenholm- Schaefer amendment to raise the debt ceiling; we have the three-fifths vote requirement to borrow money in a given fiscal year. If we do not put the three-fifths requirement in for a tax increase, we have really created an incentive, intentionally or not, to balance the budget by raising taxes. So I would respectfully request that when we actually come to the vote tomorrow that the colleagues in the Chamber vote for the Barton- Hyde-Tate-Geren tax-limitation, balanced budget amendment and send it to the Senate where we encourage the Senators to do likewise.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentleman is correct. If I could respond, the gentleman is correct, because in the nine States that have tax-limitation requirements, it is a bicameral, bipartisan legislature, and my understanding is that it was a bipartisan effort.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Henry Hyde, for his excellent leadership in shepherding the balanced budget amendment process this far. I want to thank our new Republican majority leadership for scheduling the debate immediately and not having to force us to resort to discharge petitions. I want to thank my good friend, Charlie Stenholm of Texas, for being such a stalwart for so many years to keep the dream alive and all of the other true believers that feel like we need to balance the Federal budget in a bipartisan fashion. We have won the debate as to whether we should have a balanced budget at the Federal level, at least we have won the debate everywhere but in the White House, in the Office of Management and Budget, and with the Secretary of Labor. The question is not should we balance the budget but how should we do that, and there are really three basic ways: We can raise taxes; we can cut spending, or we can do a combination of both. There are two serious amendments on the floor this evening and tomorrow to get us to a balanced budget. The Schaefer-Stenholm amendment requires a three-fifths vote to borrow money, a three-fifths vote to raise the national debt ceiling and that is a constitutional majority of 218 plus 1 in the House to raise taxes. The Barton-Hyde- Geren amendment requires a three-fifths vote to borrow money, a three- fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling, and I think, significantly, a three-fifths vote to raise taxes. That third three-fifths vote to raise taxes in some ways is the most important three-fifths vote, because I believe the emphasis should be on cutting spending. Why do I believe that? Go back to 1964; the entire Federal budget was $118.5 billion. In 1965 it actually dropped. We spent $118.2 billion. Every year since 1965 Federal spending has gone up. In the fiscal year we are in now we expect to spend $1,531,000,000,000. That is an increase of 1,300 percent in the last 29 years. Federal spending has gone up every year since 1965. To put that in perspective, in the year we are currently in, we expect to spend 70 billion more dollars than we spent last year, and last year we spent 53 billion more than the year before. Simply put, it is not a lack of revenue as to why the budget is not balanced. It is simply the fact that spending is out of control. If we want to restrain spending, we have got to balance the budget by cutting spending. Put the tax limitation provision in, the three-fifths vote, and we will do it. There are nine States that have tax limitation provisions. In those nine States their taxes have gone up less and their spending has gone up less, an average spending of about 9 percent less and an average tax increase--an average in the years between 1980 and 1990--an average of about 14 percent. We should vote for the balanced budget amendment with tax limitation. I ask for Members' support.