Nathan Deal

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's statement, but the obvious fact is that it does cost money to put in place programs to move people from welfare into the work force. If it does not cost any money, then we ought to just say the percentages should be much higher for everybody from the outset. If it does cost money, then it is a hollow promise or the largest unfunded mandate we have ever sent to our States.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I would like to commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] for one of his amendments that is a part of en bloc, and, that is, the criticism that we have raised about the original Republican bill and, that is, that it was weak on work. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] does raise those percentages. In the process he has caused me to have to amend my chart, but I have done so rather hastily and I think I reflect the changes in the percentages that his amendment addresses. It increases, as you will see, over the time period a cumulative increase of 52 percent from the original percentage in the work program as contained in the original bill. However, during that same time period, I would point out that there is only one of those years in which they exceed the percentages that are included in the Deal substitute. But I think it does raise some very legitimate questions. First of all, by block-granting, which includes the work program, the bill proposes to save some $8 billion. It is fine to say on paper that we are raising work percentages, but I do not see any equivalent increase in the funding to make sure that these work programs are able to be implemented. The question then is, if there is no additional funding to achieve this 52 percent cumulative increase in percentages over the years, if there is no additional funding, then is it saying that it does not cost the States anything? If it does not cost the States anything, then why not let us all put 100 percent for every year? I think that is the fallacy that exists in this proposal.

Mr. DEAL

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Tennessee, who joins me along the Tennessee-Georgia border, Mr. Wamp, on the Republican side. He said that we do not need partisanship in this issue. I would come here tonight to suggest that we have a solution that breaks the status quo, that changes the existing programs, and we do it in a way that we think works. We ought to all be seeking solutions that work, rather than political rhetoric. I have listened to the debate all day today, and I have come to one conclusion. We probably need fewer speech writers and more mathematicians. The only trouble is, I am reminded of the saying that ``figures don't lie but lies sure can figure.'' We seem to be caught up in that business of arguing about figures. Now, there is something that is true, and I think my colleague made the point earlier, and that is this, you cannot have it both ways. In your welfare reform package you are either going to make cuts to have the savings to offset the tax cuts that are coming or you are not. You cannot have it both ways. Now, we have talked about various aspects of this plan, and we focused just recently on talking about the child nutrition programs. I am looking here at a document that came from the majority leader's office in which he is talking about the savings from the Republican bill. Now, they are either savings or they are not savings. And according to this, it says that there are $66.3 billion of savings over 5 years. I understand that figure may have increased now because of some other changes. And the one area of title III of the bill of child care and nutrition, according to the majority leader's office, saves $11.8 billion over 5 years. Well, I do not know whether you are talking about cuts or whether you are talking about cuts from base line. The point is, either you have savings or you do not have savings. They are either cuts or they are not cuts. You cannot have it both ways. Now, let us talk about a few of the things that I think are significant, and I pointed this out today. My chart has had to be amended as a result of an en bloc amendment that came on the floor today. But this is a chart that compares and contrasts the Republican version of welfare reform with a substitute that I, along with several of my colleagues, will be offering. It talks about the concept of work. I think all of us should agree that work is the best solution to breaking the welfare cycle. And the question is, how do you get people off welfare and into work and how do you achieve that goal of keeping them in a work force? We both have in our plans percentages of the population that must move into the work force at certain levels. As you will notice, the Republican plan started off at 4 percent. It is has now been amended up to 10 percent. Ours starts in 1997 with 16 percent going to a total of 52 percent at the final termination in the year 2003 and thereafter. As a result of the amendments on the floor today, the work percentages of the Republican plan have now been increased significantly. In fact, cumulatively those percentages are about 52 percent, I believe. But the interesting thing to me is that if it costs to put people into a work program to move them off of welfare into the work force, if it costs money, and it obviously does, if it did not cost any money all of us would say 100 percent from the first day must be in the work force. I would point out, however, that under the Republican plan, they allow people to stay on welfare for 2 years and do not require anything of them. We require within 30 days that they must sign a self-sufficiency plan and they must begin the job search process. We also have a 4-year limit once they enter a work first program. Two years in work first, at the most 2 years in a community service plan, and then a State option if they choose to put them with a voucher system for 2 years at the maximum. Now, if it does not cost any money to move people from welfare to work, then we ought to all put our percentages at 100 percent from the word go. If it does cost money to up the percentages, we have seen the percentages on work under here by an amendment but we have not seen any revenue flow to the States to pay for that. It does not work both ways. It either costs money to do this or it does not cost money to do this. If it costs money to increase your percentages, then we ought to have some reflection in the funding proposal to pay for it. We do not see that.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. First of all, I would like to thank the Committee on Rules on both sides of the aisle and their staff for allowing a substitute that I have proposed to be considered and hopefully we will have the opportunity to debate that and proceed with determining where we stand on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I think it is somewhat ironic that we come here to discuss a system that we call well-fair. Recognizing that my comments are a play on the phonetic pronunciation of that word rather than its literal spelling, nevertheless I would suggest that it is a system which is neither well nor fair. It is not well in that it has placed actually a plague on our society that has condemned many generations to repeat and to fall into its prey. It is certainly not fair, in that it does not reward work. In many cases it does exactly the opposite. But I would concur with the comments of our colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], earlier today in which he said that we do not need to spend our time with rhetoric discussing the failures of the current system. I do not come here to justify the status quo. I come here to change it. Our efforts in this debate should be focused on how do we best change the current system to secure for ourselves and for our constituency the kind of system that is humane, the kind of system that rewards work, and a system that moves people out of this cycle of welfare. I have offered as I indicated a substitute that is the work of many of my colleagues that has grown out over a 2-year period. We will propose this substitute and I would briefly like to address some of the areas that I think its strengths are embodied in it. First of all is that we emphasize work. We think that work should pay. That the only true way to break welfare is to put people into work. But we recognize that for many mothers with dependent children that there are two critical ingredients that are presently disincentives that we need to change into incentives. First of all, they need child care. Second, they need to make sure that by going to work, most of which will be at low-paying jobs, that they do not lose health care coverage for their children. Our bill significantly addresses both of these. First of all, CBO has estimated that if we truly wish to move people out of welfare and into work, that the cost for child care alone will be increased by our proposal for doing that. We also consolidate our child care programs into one particular and single program. Second, we recognize that we need an additional year of transitional Medicaid so that these mothers will not lose all health care benefits for their children. We likewise recognize that if you are going to move into the work force, you must have training. We have a 2-year time period for a work first program. We make those programs truly tailored to the needs of citizens who are going to be trained to go into the work force. At the end of that 2-year period if an individual has not found a job in the private sector, States will have two options. One is a private voucher that can be taken to a private employer to be used if they hire a welfare recipient. Second is to place them in a community service program where they can likewise learn job skills and later move into the private sector market. Another important distinction is that we think we can pay for a change of the welfare system within the welfare system itself and we do not need to reach outside into nutrition programs, and we do not. We also in the process of doing this cut the programs by about $25 billion within the welfare system. We spend $15 billion of that making the changes for additional child care and additional training, with a net of approximately $10 billion which will be used for deficit reduction, and our proposal will be the only plan that will apply the savings to deficit reduction. As I said, we do not tamper with the children and elderly and WIC food programs. We think that they are working and that they are working well and do not need to be brought into this net. We do strengthen child support enforcement provisions. Currently it is estimated there are about $48 billion in child support payments out there, only $14 billion of which are actually collected. We have a very tough provision for a registry for enforcing child support. We likewise recognize that teen pregnancy is a big problem. We devote much of our attention to that. We think it is an issue that we should not mandate but give States the flexibility.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record a substitute amendment that I, along with Marty Meehan, Jack Kingston, David Minge, Scott Klug, and others wish to offer to House Joint Resolution 2, the term limits legislation that the House will consider next week. This amendment will clearly resolve the issue of State preemption by explicitly providing that States may enact limits on the time a Federal legislator may serve that are shorter than the Federal limits in the amendment. Our amendment is based on House Joint Resolution 66, legislation which we introduced on January 27. This legislation has received bipartisan support. As is the case on many issues, the States are moving ahead of the Federal Government on political reform. Twenty-two States have approved limits on the number of terms to which Members of Congress can be elected. Just as in the House, the States disagree among themselves as to the number of years a person should serve in Congress. Nineteen States have enacted limits of less than 12 years for Members of the House. Several other States are considering enacting term limits proposals on their own. There is considerable doubt about whether the States have authority under the Constitution to enact term limits. Article I of the Constitution establishes three qualifications for Members of Congress: age, citizenship, and residency. In Powell versus McCormack, the Supreme Court held that the House's power was limited to judging a Member's compliance with the qualifications in Article I of the Constitution. The Court's holding in Powell was grounded upon its conclusion that the qualifications established in the Constitution are exclusive. Based on this precedent, I am concerned that the Court may not uphold the limits on terms established by the individual States. The amendment we are offering would lay to rest these constitutional questions by explicitly stating that the States have the authority to enact more limited terms. Allowing the States to set limits on terms of Members of Congress would be a step toward restoring the federalism envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. As a strong supporter of States' rights, I believe that the efforts in the States to enact term limits are healthy for our democracy. We should foster this development by explicitly granting the States authority to limit terms of Federal legislators. Beyond the constitutional issues, the principal criticism of allowing individual States to set limits on terms for Members of Congress is that it could result in a disparity in power in Congress among States. For example, voters in Washington State rejected term limits in 1991 largely in response to concerns that limiting the terms of legislators from Washington would give California greater power in relation to Washington State. Our amendment would address this concern by establishing a uniform Federal limit of no more than 12 years in Congress, while allowing States to set lower limits within this overall limit. By providing that no Member of Congress may serve more than 12 years, this proposal would prevent legislators in any State from amassing disproportionate power. Secure in the knowledge that no State would be able to send legislators to Congress for more than 12 years, any State would be able to decide whether its interests would be better served by more rapid turnover in its State delegation to Congress or by allowing its Members of Congress to build experience and effectiveness by serving for up to 12 years. In addition to resolving the issue of State preemption, the amendment seeks to resolve the conflict among supporters of term limits in Congress regarding the appropriate length in terms. As you know, there is a disagreement between those who support a 12-year limit and those who prefer a limit of 6 or 8 years. Although there is stronger support for a 12-year limit, several Members and organizations have threatened to oppose legislation establishing term limits of more than 6 years. I believe it would be truly unfortunate if a difference over the ideal term limit proposal prevents us from enacting any term limits. Our amendment would establish a Federal limit of 12 years in the House, 12 years in the Senate, and would explicitly give the States the authority to set lower limits if they choose to do so. The amendment seek to capitalize on the support in Congress for a 12-year limit, desire to do so. I believe this compromise will improve the prospects for passage of the legislation in Congress as well as the chances for ratification by the States while, at the same time, accommodating the varied opinions on the exact length of limited terms. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this balanced approach to the issue of term limits.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, soon this body will be considering the issue of term limits. It is an issue that details. Roll Call has recently had a headline in which it talks about a civil war over term limits in which organizations that support certain numbers of years have actually had campaigns against those who support longer term limits. I have introduced House Resolution 66, which is a proposition that hopefully accommodates all of those who are interested in this issue. It would set a 12-year outer limit by this constitutional amendment, but would also recognize that States would not be preempted from setting lower limits by State statute if they chose to do so. I would urge those who support the concept of term limits to examine House Resolution 66. It accommodates the principle of term limits, but recognizes the importance of States to set lower limits if they chose to do so.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is hopefully a noncontroversial one that addresses the issue of expedited judicial review. Since we are proceeding in a statutory form for a line item veto and not a constitutional amendment, it should be obvious that until that constitutionality is clarified, it will be under a cloud. This would be an expedited process for allowing that issue to be determined and allow this body, if it is determined unconstitutional, to make necessary changes and, if not, to proceed with its use. I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this should be a non-controversial amendment that can be supported by Members of both sides of the line-item veto issue. My amendment will simply streamline and expedite judicial review of the line-item veto authority in the bill. The amendment will ensure that any questions regarding the constitutionally of line item veto authority are resolved as rapidly as possible. I endorsed the line-item veto in my campaign and have voted in favor of the strongest possible line item veto at every opportunity since coming to Congress. As a supporter of line-item veto, I believe that it is important that any questions regarding the constitutionally of the line item be resolved as quickly as possible. As long as legal questions remain, the President may be reluctant to fully utilize the line-item veto, and any spending cut through the line-item veto process would certainly be challenged. The effectiveness of the line-item veto will be severely handicapped until the legal questions are resolved. It is in nobody's interest to leave the legal status of line-item veto authority in limbo for an extended period of time. Under my amendment, any Member of Congress may bring action in Federal district court challenging the constitutionally of the line- item veto. The decision of the district court would be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Both the district court and the Supreme Court would be directed to advance any case challenging the line-item veto on the docket and expedite consideration of the case. Hopefully, the procedure established by my amendment will result in a final resolution regarding the constitutionally of line-item veto authority before the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills are sent to the President. If the courts uphold the constitutionally of line-item veto authority, the President will be free to utilize the line-item veto authority without any question. If the courts strike down the line-item veto authority, Congress will have time to consider legislation to take corrective action and pass legislation strengthening the ability of the President to cut out wasteful items in tax and spending bills that is consistent with the ruling of the court. If my amendment for judicial review is not added to the bill, it is unlikely that the courts would consider the issue until the President exercises the line-item authority. Every rescission submitted by the President under the line-item veto authority for fiscal year 1996 would almost certainly be challenged and potentially blocked until the issue worked its way through the court system. This will effectively prevent the President from truly utilizing the line-item veto for fiscal year 1996. Whether or not you support the line-item veto, I encourage you to support the Deal judicial review amendment.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, term limits for Members of Congress is an idea whose time has come. We have seen 22 States attempt to limit the membership in this body by statutory law within their States. Those limitations have ranged from 6 years to 12 years, with variations in between. We have seen constitutional amendments proposed in this body that likewise range from 6 years to 12 years with variations in between. Today, Mr. Speaker, I, along with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], have introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would set an outward boundary of 12 years for membership in both this body and the body across the way. But it also has the unique provision of allowing States the authority by statute to set any limitation less than that that they choose. I say to my colleagues: If you believe in States rights, if you believe in federalism, if you believe in term limits that allow States flexibility, I would urge you to join with us in cosponsoring this constitutional amendment.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of the Barton-Geren- Tauzin constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, for the last few days we have heard a lot of partisan rhetoric about a balanced budget. I would like to remind my good friends on the Republican side of the aisle that no constitutional amendment will be passed without the assistance and the hard work of Members like the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pete Geren], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and especially the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who have labored long and hard in the trenches, in fact, for more than 30 days. It is with our bipartisan support that an amendment, which I think will pass today, will come about. Mr. Chairman, if a balanced budget amendment occurs, there will then be hard decisions that will have to be made to implement it in this body. I would remind Members that last year we had the opportunity to vote on trying to just slow down the largest-growing part of our budget, that of entitlements, to slow them down to the growth of inflation plus 1 percent on top of that. I would remind Members that 80 percent of the votes that came for that proposal came from the Democratic side of the aisle. Therefore, let us put aside partisan politics and get on with it. Let us ask the question: Will these two proposals, the one we are talking about now and the one that will follow, really make any difference? Since 1977 there have been 15 tax increases approved by Congress. Had we had the Barton-Tauzin-Geren amendment in place, 9 of those 15 would have been blocked. background Since 1977, Congress has passed 15 bills increasing taxes: Four received more than 60 percent votes in the House and Senate in each vote and would not have been affected by either Barton-Geren or Schaefer-Stenholm. Two were passed by voice vote once but received more than 60 percent vote in every other vote in the House and the Senate. Two bills received less than 60 percent vote, but more than a constitutional majority, in at least one vote in the House or Senate. Seven bills received less than a constitutional majority in at least one vote in the House or Senate. conclusion Using recent history as a guide, both Barton-Geren and Schaefer- Stenholm will be effective in blocking tax increases. The tax limitation in Barton-Geren would have been only marginally more effective in blocking tax increases than Schaefer-Stenholm since 1978. If a three-fifths supermajority requirement for tax increases had been in the Constitution since 1977, 9 of 15 tax bills would have been blocked. Seven bills raising taxes by a total of $558.9 failed to receive a constitutional majority and would not have passed if the tax limitation provision in Schaefer-Stenholm had been in effect. Tax Bills That Would Have Failed if House Joint Resolution 28, Schaefer-Stenholm Amendment, Had Been in Effect 1. 1977--Social Security Tax Summary Increased Social Security payroll tax rates and the taxable wage base for both employers and employees. Size of tax increase $80.4 billion Votes failing to receive constitutional majority The Senate initially passed the bill by a vote of 42-25 on November 4, 1977. The House passed the conference report by a vote of 189- 163. 2. 1982--Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act Summary Made a variety of tax changes, including repealing or curtailing several tax breaks and other tax changes to increase revenues by $99 billion and cut welfare, Medicare and Medicaid spending by $17 billion. Size of tax increase $99 billion Votes failing to receive constitutional majority Senate initially passed the bill by a vote of 50-47 on July 22, 1982. 3. 1982--Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 Summary Authorized $71.3 billion for highway construction over 1983 to 1986 and increased gasoline taxes. Size of tax increase $22 billion Votes failing to receive constitutional majority The House adopted the conference report by a vote of 180-87 on December 21, 1982. (R 73-46, D 107-41.) 4. 1987--Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act Summary Made a variety tax changes to increase revenues by $11.9 billion, made several spending cuts in entitlement programs and raised several user fees. Size of tax increase $11.9 billion. Votes failing to receive constitutional majority The House initially passed the bill by a vote of 206-205. (R 1-164, D 209-40.) 5. 1992--h.r. 4210 tax fairness and economic growth act Summary Permanently increased top tax rate and imposed a surtax on incomes above $250,000 in addition to other tax increases to offset a two-year temporary middle class tax cuts, expanded IRAs and other tax breaks. Size of tax increase $77.5 billion. Votes failing to receive Constitutional Majority The House passed the conference report by a vote of 211-189 on March 20, 1992 (R 1-149, D 209-40. Summary Created enterprise zones, changed passive loss rules and made other changes in the tax code. Increased taxes on securities firms, owners of real estate, increased estimated taxes for individuals and corporations, capped the business deduction for moving expenses and other tax increases. Size of tax increase $27 billion. Votes failing to receive Constitutional Majority The House adopted the conference report by a vote of 208- 202 on October 6, 1992. (R 39-122, D 169-79). 7. 1993--omnibus budget reconciliation Summary Increased taxes through an increase in the top tax rate, an increase in the gas tax, taxes on Social Security benefits and other tax changes, made changes in entitlement programs and placed caps on discretionary spending. Size of tax increase $241 billion. Votes failing to receive Constitutional Majority The Senate initially passed the bill by a vote of 50-49 on June 25, 1993.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take us for a quick ride down our spending highway. If we assumed our income equals our spending and we are traveling at 55 miles per hour, if for every $1 billion of deficit spending we increase our speed by 1 mile per hour, instead of going the posted 55 miles a hour, we are going 258 miles an hour. And remember, that to get $1 billion of revenue it requires approximately 250,000--that is right, a quarter of a million-- individual average tax returns. So not only are we exceeding the speed limit by 203 miles a hours, we are spending the money from 50,750,000 average individual tax returns that we do not have. And that is just in 12 months. If we are to have to pay off our national debt right now, it would require the taxes from 1,171,000,000 average individual returns that we do not have. Even if the debt never increased and we never paid any interest on it, it would require all the revenue received from all the tax returns of all individual taxpayers in this country for almost 11 years just to pay off the principal. So if you think we can slow this vehicle down that is traveling 258 miles an hour by just posting a slow-down sign, you are wrong. We have tried it. If you think we can slow it down by putting speed breakers in there, we have tried that, too. Gramm-Rudman 1 and 2, the Budget Acts of 1990 and 1993, you are wrong; we hit those bumps, we picked up speed, and $2 trillion in debt, since we hit them. It is time we called out a traffic cop with a radar gun to slow us down. That is what the balanced budget really is, Mr. Chairman. It is time to call out the cops.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, for yielding, and I thank him for his efforts in this regard. I extend my appreciation also to the Members from across the aisle, including the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], and I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], on the Democratic side for his leadership in undertaking this effort to pass the balanced budget amendment. We are going to hear a lot of reasons over the next few days and into next week as to why this balanced budget amendment should be passed. Many of the Members who will speak are like me; they come from a legislative background, working in State legislatures, and most of those legislatures have constitutional requirements in their States that say that they cannot spend more money than they take in in revenue. My State of Georgia is one of those that has such a constitutional requirement, and I have had the privilege of serving on the budget committees and on the appropriation committees of our State and have faced the possibility of actually being called back into special session after having passed a legislative budget anticipating revenue and then finding some 6 months into the legislative year that the revenues were not coming in as rapidly as we had anticipated. When you have a constitutional mandate that you have to take in as much money as you spend, you are called back into open session, and you go back in through the budget and you decide what you can cut in order to conform with your constitutional requirement. I think there would be nothing at all wrong with this body having to do the same. We have heard the statistics. The last year we had a balanced budget in this country was the last year President Lyndon Johnson served, in 1969. For 25 straight budget years we have taken in less than we have spent. For 55 of the last 63 years we have not had a balanced budget in this country. The $4.7 trillion of accumulated debt is staggering. We will hear arguments made that we can just simply do it if we have the will power; we can do it statutorily. We have tried it statutorily. Gramm-Rudman I, Gramm-Rudman II, the Budget Act of 1990, and the Budget Act of 1993 have all made statutory efforts to try to bring this spending crisis under control. But since 1985, when they first began, we have added over $2 trillion to our national debt, in spite of those legislative efforts. With all of the little things like pay-as-you-go and sequestration, we have still not been able to bring it under control. There have been those who argue well, we do not really need to do this because it is not that significant. I would suggest to you that it is. As much concern and debate as you hear about people being concerned about foreign aid and spending for helping other countries, it is staggering to believe that we send $41 billion overseas to those overseas investors in terms of interest on those foreign-held securities of our country, more than twice the amount of our entire foreign aid budget. The situation is serious. Now is the time to come to grips with it. I am sure you have all ridden up and down the highways of our country and seen the travel trailers that have the rather humorous bumper sticker on it that says we are spending our children's inheritance. WE all look at that and laugh about it, and we think, well, that is a couple who have worked hard, they have earned money, and they have a right to spend what they have accumulated, and they do not have any obligation necessarily to pass it on to their children or to their grandchildren. We are doing far worse than that, ladies and gentlemen. What we are doing is we are not only spending the money that goes to buy the travel trailer and taking, we are asking our children and grandchildren to cosign the note with us, and at our death, as our generation passes away, they will not even inherit the travel trailer. All they will inherit is a past-due note that right now is $4.7 trillion. That is just not right. That is not the kind of generational attitude that we need to leave. It is one we need to begin to change. I for one believe the only way we will do it is with a constitutional mandate in the form of a balanced budget. I look forward to the debate that will proceed this week and hopefully to the final passage of a version of the balanced budget amendment. I am one of those who likewise will probably vote for the Barton version that requires a three-fifths vote in order to raise taxes, because I don't think that is the way we should balance our budget. I think we should balance it through cutting our spending programs. But whatever version it is, and I think that the Stenholm and Schaefer version is the most likely one to have the necessary and requisite number of votes, it is important that we do it, that we do it now, that we send it to the Senate, and they in turn send it to the States for ratification. I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. DEAL

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on my side of the aisle on this issue and to the chairman and to his party for allowing this issue to come to a vote. I would like to speak briefly on the issue of accountability. It has been said that ignorance is bliss. Perhaps so, but for too long the bliss of this body has fostered the chaos of others. With the passage of this legislation, Congress will no longer have the excuse nor the luxury of irresponsibility, both of which are the handmaidens of ignorance. We will know what our legislation will cost and who will be expected to pay that cost. This bill will not prevent needed legislation from passing, but it will require that the full effect of legislation, including the cost, be acknowledged by this body. No longer will Congress have the luxury of going to the candy store and sampling the wares and expecting somebody else to pay for our visit. It may signal the end of an era of bliss based on ignorance and the beginning of a time of responsibility and accountability based on facts. All of us should welcome this new era.

Mr. DEAL

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Speaker, people all over this country now are contemplating going on a diet after feasting during the holiday season. I think it is only appropriate that this body consider doing the same thing. Two years ago there were some 2,231 House committee staffers. That is more than five committee staff people for every Member of this body. In the next few months we are going to be asking the American people to go on a diet as we seek to reduce Federal spending and cut back on Federal programs that affect them. Have you ever seen an advertisement for a weight loss program where the spokesperson was overweight? How can we, with any sense of responsibility, talk about a balanced budget and deficit reductions unless we first show some responsibility in reducing the size of House committee staffs and, in the process, save approximately $30 million per year in the process? I rise in support of this proposal.