John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Jose Serrano] a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extended his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman indicate to us whether we plan to finish the balanced budget amendment tomorrow or carry some of the bill over until Friday?

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], a gentleman who has worked on budget matters for so long.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], who serves as our chief deputy whip, in addition to his other responsibilities.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver]. (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a very able and committed member of the Committee of the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, all I can think of is what has been the weight or the effectiveness of the discussion on amending the Constitution of the United States that has transpired on this floor today, and I think on balance, as we study our Congressional Record, as our citizens across the several States examine the arguments for this important policy change, I think that there will come up a shortage of logic that would persuade people that we have now reached a system or a process that would make sense in making this massive change out of desperation, to be sure, to the Constitution because the bulk of all of the arguments that I have heard for this amendment is that we are failing, we have tried everything else, and there is nothing left to do. In my judgment that is not enough. In my judgment we have already started reducing the deficit annually, and from that modest position that we find ourselves, Mr. Chairman, we could easily begin to build on increasingly reducing the deficit and, ultimately, the national debt. So, Mr. Chairman, I leave this first day of leading the debate on this side on a constitutional amendment disturbed that there has not been a persuasive case made for a constitutional amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 1 and have long opposed the concept a constitutional amendment to balance the budget because it seeks to trivialize our most fundamental document by inserting an ill-defined and unenforceable promise about budgetary policy. The Constitution deals with real--not illusory--promises to safeguard the rights and liberties of all Americans. And while many are quick to point to simplistic Gallup polls indicating widespread support for such an amendment, they severely underestimate the real desire of the American people to see their Government take real responsibility for reducing the deficit--rather than simply taking credit for promising to do so after two more Presidential elections have passed into history by the year 2002. Make no mistake. All Members of this body want to see the Federal budget balance. Its crushing weight will dampen the dreams of our children, constrain capital flows, increase interest rates, and exert often regressive influences on the economy. Only using the Constitution both tivilializes that precious document and delays action for 7 years. in the past 2 years, President Clinton and the Congress didn't delay but acted on a budget that has brought us 3 consecutive years of deficit reduction for the first time in modern history. That is the way it should be, but that is not what House Joint Resolution 1 is all about. The proposed amendment is the epitome of ``trust me'' politics. It rightfully is the heart of the Republican Contract With America--because it is all style and symbolism, and no substance. Most significantly, the new majority refuses to put its money where its mouth is by supporting the truth in budgeting concept. Not only that, they blocked our right to offer that measure as a perfecting amendment. Why is that? Are Republicans hiding the real numbers because as one of their leaders said that the ``Congress may buckle,'' or because as one of the majority members in the Judiciary Committee said that the ``States may buckle?'' What I object to most is the fact that I believe that its proponents, relying largely on public opinion polls, are trying to buy their budget cutting wings on the cheap. And because they are not answering fundamental questions raised by the amendment, they are selling the American people a pig in a poke. Well, I am from Detroit, and we know that when buying a car, we first need to look under the hood. This budget is going to force over $1 trillion in cuts, but no one will say from where. Will our military have to be cut in half'' Will Medicare be on the chopping block. Will veterans' benefits be up for grabs? How about student loans. When we tried to provide protections for these programs in the Judiciary Committee, the Republicans in lockstep said no. And, yes, what about Social Security? Upon taking office, the new majority promised that Social Security would be protected from the hemorrhagic budget knife which must surely follow if the proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution passes. Less than 7 days later, one of its chief lieutenants, the respected Judiciary chairman, Henry Hyde, said during committee markup of the measure, that Social Security couldn't be taken off the table because if it was, the cuts in other programs would be ``too draconian?'' Senior citizens of America beware. The balanced budget amendment removes current ``off-budget'' protections of Social Security and places the program on the chopping block. It is clear and simple. House Concurrent Resolution 17, a Republican proposal to provide implementing legislation without touching Social Security is a mirage, totally unenforceable, without any sanction if Congress fails to do it. The only way, I repeat the only way to protect Social Security from cuts under this amendment, is to put it in the text of the constitutional amendment. Proponents, and particularly Republican proponents, are telling Governors and other States' representatives that any fears that Washington will cascade Federal responsibilities to States in the form of unfunded mandates--a scenario many consider inevitable if the amendment becomes law--are magically resolved by the imminent passage of unfunded mandates legislation. You've got to be kidding. In the 103d Congress I chaired the committee with jurisdiction over unfunded mandates. So I know that whatever unfunded mandates legislation Congress passes now, can and most likely will be superseded with subsequent legislation passing the responsibilities--but not the bucks--to the States. The amendment, in fact, is the mother of all unfunded mandates. The only way to stop that from being so is to say in the text of the constitutional amendment. But Republicans in lockstep said no to that. They stopped us from an amendment on the floor to that effect also. Starting to get the picture? It's great to say we'll balance the budget in 6 or 7 years--well after two more Presidential elections--but how are we going to do it? Is defense going to be cut in half--even as Republicans state they'll seek increased funding? Will Medicare, veteran's benefits, student loans, or agricultural subsidies be reduced and by how much? That evasiveness may make for good politics but do not make for good economic policy and could turn a mild recession into a dramatic economic downturn. Many countercyclical entitlement program for instance, such as unemployment benefits, require budgetary flexibility to keep our economy strong when its runs sour. Today a 1 percent increase in unemployment would increase the deficit by $57 billion-- both because of declining taxes and increasing demand for benefits. With such a proposed constitutional amendment, the Federal Government would be forced to increase taxes or cut benefits by $57 billion during an economic contraction. This would dramatically aggravate the economy, create economic pressures increasing rather than decreasing the deficit, and generally make a bad situation far worse. Had the constitutional amendment been ratified in 1991 when the recession combined with the savings and loan crisis created a $116 billion shortfall in receipts, the amendment would have plunged this country into a devastating economic contraction which would have been bad for all our goals, including deficit reduction. And the amendment's failure to provide definitions for ``receipts'' and ``outlays'' would only mean more chaos. Are loan guarantees or contingent liabilities of Government corporations considered ``outlays''? We do not know from the text of the amendment. What about zero coupon bonds on the revenue side? Does Congress have the prerogative to declare certain items off budget, or outside the traditional ``receipts'' and ``outlays'' categories. It's unclear. spelled out. The budget identified in the amendment requires only estimates of overall spending and revenues, which are always inaccurate because of unanticipated economic circumstances. So what happens if revenues fall short, or there are overages in entitlement outlays at midyear? Does Congress enact a supplemental appropriations bill? Does the President impound funds despite statutory requirements to provide outlays? Do the courts step in? Finally, there is nothing in the proposal before us to explain what the enforcement mechanism will be if Congress fails to honor its promise to balance the budget. Do the courts step in on their own initiative and start making budget decisions will-nilly? Do impacted States and taxpayers have the right to bring suit to make Congress keep its Contract with America? Does a sequestration procedure kick in which would cut back all expenditures by a fixed amount? Do the capital markets ``go on hold'' while the international monetary system is kept in suspense about whether the U.S. Government will be brought to a halt? I think what this amendment does is to pass the buck ultimately to a unaccountable Federal judiciary whose role is not to decide how much the American people should be taxed and on what tax dollars should be spent. Isn't it ironic that one of the first promises of the Republican contract is to abdicate budgetary responsibility to another branch of Government. Make no mistake, if the amendment is ratified, critical decision about taxes and Federal spending could be made in a secret chamber without any checks whatsoever. Do individuals affected by any of the above courses of action have the right to sue? Much of our information about the level of outlays on the mandatory side of the budget are not even calculable until 3 months after the fiscal year. In the past weeks the Republican leaders have publicly admitted that they will not spell out what cuts will be necessary to bring the budget into balance because Congress' knees would buckle, or because the States' knees would buckle or because the American taxpayer's knees would buckle. Well buckle or not, the American people have a right to know. And the amendment I will be offering later will require Congress to specifically enumerate how it will eliminate the deficit in the next 7 years before it will go into effect. Well, do not fear: By passing the amendment before us, we are on a ``glide path'' to a balanced budget, because that's what the Republicans say--but do not vote to specify--about the effect of the proposed amendment after only 2 weeks of consideration by Congress. This effort is not serious, and by its snake oil promises, does not augur well for the accountability which Americans have demanded in this new Congress. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 45 seconds to the former Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from New York, Charles Schumer.