Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, for adding language to his en bloc amendment to address the concerns of New Jersey and Michigan regarding their current operation of wetlands permitting under the section 404 program of the current Clean Water Act. What I am offering now is simply a perfecting amendment. Unfortunately, part of the language that was included in the en bloc amendment contradicts the goal of States rights. I believe that the language in the amendment en bloc goes too far. As the chairman rightly stated in his opening remarks on this bill, his goal is to provide the States with maximum flexibility in wetlands permitting, and to encourage them to take leadership roles. New Jersey is currently doing just that. This amendment simply allows two States that have already assumed the responsibility of permitting wetlands to keep their current programs without going through another lengthy procedure, and without having the final decision thrown into the political arena. It gives my Govenror the choice to either accept the new delineation process, or keep intact the current program. The argument is simple. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] was right in his opening statement on the bill. Let the States decide. Give them the option. These two States have gone through several years of the lengthy assumption process. Let us not penalize them for doing the right thing and for taking the initiative in creating programs that actually do work. I urge adoption of this amendment, coauthored by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg]. Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because if any part of our legislation that is now on the books is broken, it is the disastrous 404 wetlands program. We are simply saying that the two States which have adopted their own program in conformity with the Federal program should not hide behind a Federal program which is now being changed. The States will have the total freedom to adopt whatever State law they want to adopt for their own wetlands program, but they should not be able to continue to use, in effect hide behind, a Federal program which is being changed here. Mr. Chairman, it is of great importance, I think, to recognize that a State may want to assume management of the program. That is what the political process is all about at the State level. That is why we have worked hard to make State assumptions more attractive and more flexible in the bill. In fact, the committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute included a modification specifically designed to allow the opportunity for a State to petition the Secretary for deviations from the requirement of this bill. This allows for the real possibility that States could tailor their Federal delegated program, but does so within the context of a deliberate, open decision process that would allow for input from all affected parties. Mr. Chairman, we tried to strike a balance between total, unconstrained delegation of programs and the need to achieve some degree of reform, even in States with federally delegated programs. This bill already does that. This amendment simply goes too far. Therefore, Mr. Chairman I would say the State may adopt their own State law. They should not hide behind a Federal law which no longer is going to exist. For that reason, we should defeat this amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the town which is the heart of my Congressional District, the historical town of Morristown, NJ, which celebrated the 130th anniversary of its incorporation into Morris County on April 6. Like many early colonial American towns, Morristown was settled by Puritans searching for religious freedom, as well as industrious newcomers from the coast hoping to capitalize on the wealth of the land. In 1738 the Puritans established their church on the town's square or ``Green'' and proceeded to harvest the bounty of the land and the richness in the hills. This spirit of freedom and industriousness proved to be the rock upon which was built one of our Nation's greatest towns. Perhaps, Morristown is most famous for being the military capital of the American Revolution. Gen. George Washington chose the town for its strategic location, iron industry, and citizens' loyalty to the cause of colonial independence. The Continental Army camped there for two bitter winters, with Washington making his headquarters at the home of the early industrialist Jacob Ford. In 1933, President Herbert Hoover established Washington's headquarters at the Ford Mansion as our Nation's first National Historic Park. After the war and throughout the 19th century, Morristown prospered as the region's industrial capital, in addition to being the county seat of government and an area retail center. The town started to take on a new look with the advent of the railroad. Now only a short train trip from Hoboken, the wealthy financiers and industrialists of New York City could get away to the rolling hills and healthy climate of Morristown during the summer months. In fact, one of the town's main thoroughfares, Madison Avenue, became known as ``Millionaires' Row.'' Less celebrated at the time, yet more important to the town's future, were the other new groups of people locating in the town--immigrants. Since the middle of the 19th century, Morristown has been rejuvenated each generation by a new group of ethnic Americans. Germans, Irish, Italians, African-Americans from the South after the Civil War, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, and East Europeans from the former Soviet Union; all leaving an indelible mark on the history and culture of the town. Today, Morristown is not known for its celebrity residents such as when it was graced by the likes of inventor Alfred Vail or the infamous cartoonist Thomas Nast. Instead, the citizens of Morristown, and the spirit that they harbor, are the beacon that attracts people and businesses from across the country and around the world to this small but vibrant town. So congratulations Morristown--you are the spirit of America.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, since the November election, there has been a lot of national attention on the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican majority and the Contract With America. During all of this, I have been honored to serve 3 months as a Representative in Congress. It has been a time of both great change and opportunity. More than 7,000 constituents have taken the time to write or call me, visit my office or attend one of my town meetings. Having read each of their letters and listened to their concerns, I have learned that we share common goals--putting our Nation's fiscal house in order, and balancing the Federal budget, making Government more efficient and more accountable, and preserving programs that actually work, that serve the national interest and that take care of the most needy in our country. Unlike a lot of the media commentary on the contract and the speechmaking in Washington, their letters have expressed these concerns in very real terms. Families are worried about financing their children's college education but are also concerned about whether or not the future holds the same opportunities for their children that we enjoy. The people who serve the needy in our communities worry about Federal aid cuts but also feel they could do more with the money if there were less Federal strings attached. And, thousands of constituents just ask why the Federal Government cannot balance their budget like American families do. People just cannot comprehend, and quite frankly neither can I, a national debt of over $4.5 trillion and annual deficits of $200 billion. Many people have offered imaginative and sensible ideas about how to address these concerns and I sense a real willingness to try new approaches, including doing more with less if it means making real strides on our budget problems. Most important, there is once concern that weighs on all of us--our children's future and whether or not we leave them debt-free or debt-burdened. In the pass 3 months, many citizens feel that we in Washington have started the process of really listening, and taking real steps to address their concerns. Whether we agree or disagree on the specifics, the direction is clear: They want accountability. We changed the way Congress conducts business. We brought term limits to the House floor for the first vote ever. We required Congress to live by the same laws as everyone else. We opened all committee meetings to the public and press, and we limited chairmen to a term of 6 years, probably the single most effective way to dismantle the arrogance of power that characterized past Congresses. They want us to make the tough choices. We passed the balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto. And, we passed a first installment of $17 billion in real spending reductions. best. We passed legislation eliminating unfunded mandates on the States and put a halt to Federal regulations and red tape while preserving national standards for health, safety and the environment. They are willing to try new approaches. We are all frustrated that Washington-imposed programs to solve the crises of crime and welfare have not worked. So, we proposed giving our States and local communities the flexibility and the resources to try new approaches. And, we have not overlooked the fact that the Government programs are not a substitute for personal responsibility or community involvement. In all, I have cast over 280 votes so far this Congress. I am told that not since 1933 has Congress been so active in voting on major issues. I weighed each vote individually and carefully and I know that there is still much room for improvement in many of our proposals as we work with the President and the Senate. While we have made a lot of progress, the Congress faces more tough choices in the next 100 days as we lay out a plan to balance the budget by 2002. The goal is clear--we must bring spending under control and allow all Americans to control more of their hard-earned money. It is the specific choices that will be tough and New Jersey will not be immune to them even as our delegation works to assure that we get our fair share. I remember the tough choices I had to make working on the budget in Trenton. As I did then, I will continue to listen to all my constituents and pledge to do my share to make these tough decisions with the utmost of care and fairness. I will do my best to explain our decisions, although I would forewarn that some media and political ``sound bytes'' often have more persuasive power than do the facts. We need an honest dialog with our constituents, and I welcome their ideas at all times.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1327, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995. While I had my reservations about whether we could afford a tax cut this year, I am extremely satisfied with this new plan. Since the beginning of the year, I have received over 7,000 letters and calls from constituents who almost universally sent the same message: cut spending, balance the budget, and provide tax relief. I made it my first priority and responsibility in Congress to work in that direction. The key to my support is the added provision clearly stating that tax cuts can only become law as part of legislation that lays out our course for a balanced budget by the year 2002. Furthermore, the legislation strengthens enforcement, through limiting discretionary spending, of our promise to bring the deficit to zero in 7 years. This, Mr. Speaker, this bill strongly clarifies and holds us accountable to our commitment to balancing the Nation's budget, as well as providing tax relief to hard-working American families. And, let's keep these tax cuts in perspective. At current rates, taxpayers will contribute to our Government coffers over the next 7 years more than $7.5 trillion. A $188 billion tax relief package is comparatively small and manageable over 5 years. Yet as the bill is now written, this will be immense relief for millions of American families. For the State of New Jersey, nearly $8 billion will be pumped back into the economy--that's $1,803 over 5 years into the hands of working New Jerseyans. I am also comforted by knowing that the legislation helps those who need it most: families, individuals, our elderly, and small businesses. For families, a $500-per-child tax credit relieves the burden of year- end tax liabilities. New nondeductible contributions of up to $2,000 for single filers annually and $4,000 for married couples annually will encourage greater savings. For the elderly, it repeals the unfair tax hike passed in 1993 on Social Security benefits, and raises the earnings limit from $11,280 to $30,000 by the year 2000. The bill makes long-term care insurance more affordable and more widely available, and it clarifies and improves current law for terminally ill individuals who would not be able to use tax-free distributions for their life insurance policies to pay medical bills and living expenses. It establishes a credit for married couples who file joint tax returns to alleviate the marriage tax penalty, and provides a $500 tax credit for families caring for a dependent elderly parent or grandparent. Finally, individuals and small businesses will benefit and economic growth will be spurred from a 50-percent capital gains deduction for individuals, abolishing the 28-percent maximum rate on capital gains, indexing capital gains to adjust for inflation, allowing small businesses to deduct the first 35,000 dollars' worth of investment each year, and clarifies the home office deduction. Mr. Chairman, this proposal is about fairness. This is an opportunity to help working Americans who feel that their best efforts to provide for their families are thwarted by an oppressive tax system and an uncontrolled Federal debt that threatens our children's futures. Our goal is clear--we must bring spending under control and allow all Americans to control more of their hard-earned money. H.R. 1327 is an equitable and intelligent approach, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my full support for moving forward with taking emergency steps to restore the District of Columbia to a sound financial status. I also want to congratulate Chairmen Thomas Davis of Virginia and James Walsh of New York, and Washington, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton for all their hard work. As a member of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, I am disturbed by the reports of fiscal mismanagement throughout the current financial crisis. Having spent time in this city as a child, and now as a U.S. Representative, residents of the District and visitors to our Nation's Capital deserve better. They deserve to know how their money is being spent and they deserve more accountability. And, frankly, so do all the American people. It is our Nation's Capital, and it should reflect America at its best. That is why I joined as a cosponsor of H.R. 1345, the D.C. Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995. I believe that the proposed Financial Control Board will help put the District of Columbia back on the right track. I have spent the first 3 months of my term in committee hearings on this matter, and from what I have learned, the Financial Board is the only true option we have to making the city solvent again. This Control Board will have the authority to review city budgets, all District master plans, labor contracts before they are approved, all city borrowing, including loans from the U.S. Treasury and borrowing for the D.C. government. The Board will continue to operate at full authority until the District balances its budget for at least 4 straight years and it remain in a reduced oversight capacity until the city pays off all loans taken out under its authority. A five-member board will be individuals with proven financial or management expertise. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Board to be formed as soon as possible so that the city will be returned to a fiscally sound status, such that all citizens, especially its children, are given a better quality of life by the District's government.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] license for the Mt. Hope Hydroelectric Project in Rockaway Township, NJ. The proposed Mt. Hope Waterpower Project is an advanced pumped storage hydroelectric plant which is the third largest hydroelectric plant in the country to be licensed by FERC. Since its inception, the sponsors of this project have been diligently working to see that this proposal can become a reality. I introduce this legislation today to allow the project developers to have every opportunity, in this period of electric energy deregulation, to convince power purchasers of the merits of this project. This project will generate 2,000 megawatts of electricity--enough power to heat and light a \1/2\-million homes and businesses in the Northeast at times of peak demand. It brings many benefits to the consumers of not only New Jersey but also New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware. In addition to power production, this project will mean a significant reduction in air pollution and will help New Jersey meet its Clean Air Act goals. It is estimated that up to 50 tons of air pollution in the regional area will be eliminated if Mt. Hope is used for power generation instead of burning traditional fossil fuels. I am very encouraged by the progress this project has made thus far and I hope that with this extension, the project will soon become a reality. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and will work with the Commerce Committee members to see that this legislation is considered soon.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, for Greek-Americans and those who practice the Greek Orthodox faith, I rise in their honor to join in the commemoration of the 174th anniversary of Greek Independence Day. Our mutual respect for freedom and liberty for all mankind dates back to the late 18th century when our Founding Fathers looked to ancient Greece for direction on writing our own Constitution. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson persuaded a noted Greek scholar, John Paradise, to come to the United States for consultation on the political philosophy of democracy. Later, the Greeks adopted the American Declaration of Independence as their own, sealing a bond which has endured between our two Nations ever since. Tomorrow, March 25, marks the date when in 1821, the Greek people rose against four centuries of Ottoman rule. Under the leadership of Alexander Ypsilanti, for 8 years, the Greek people fought valiantly in pursuit of freedom and self-rule. In 1827, allied forces finally lent support, and in 1829, not only did they defeat the Turkish forces, but they also gained recognized independence by the very oppressive power they overthrew. The Greek people continued their struggle against the threat of nondemocratic regimes into the 20th century. At the height of World War II, when Nazi forces appeared to soon overrun Europe, the Greek people fought courageously on behalf of the rest of the world--at a cost of a half a million lives. Prime Minister Winston Churchill declared: ``In ancient days it was said that Greeks fight like heroes, now we must say that heroes fight like Greeks.'' During the Truman administration, the United States finally realized Greece's unwavering commitment to democracy. President Truman, recognizing this commitment, included Greece in his economic and military assistance program--the Truman doctrine. And, in 1952, Greece joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which was later tested when Russia threatened to crush the Acropolis unless Greece abandon the alliance. Greece stood firm. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks Greek's accomplishment as an independent Nation and, more importantly, this day symbolizes their continued defense of democracy which thought first began in 510 B.C.--in Athens. I am grateful for the opportunity to join in observing this very important celebration. Tomorrow I will remember where our own democratic principles were derived, and I will honor the countless, invaluable contributions Greek-Americans brought to this country. The more than 700,000 Greeks who have come here, have benefitted us with a stronger, civilized and more cultured heritage. Mr. Speaker, I salute Greek-Americans for their outstanding achievements.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1158. Mr. Chairman, as a new Member of the House I voted for a balanced budget amendment knowing full well that such a measure would require tough choices. While some contend that we do not need such an amendment, personally I feel our Nation's future depends on it. Our national debt is staggering, our annual deficit continues to grow, and our actions today on H.R. 1158 mark the first real step to protect future generations. We are here for our children and grandchildren, pure and simple. If we act today, we give them the greater measure of security. Most important, this first tough vote may give them a chance to have the opportunities we now enjoy, a great education, the prospect of a good job and a quality of life unparalleled in the world. My hometown paper urges that the majority party start to act in the new Congress, actually to cut spending. It urges Congress to start making the tough spending decisions now. While I don't always listen to my hometown paper, they are right: Don't talk cut, cut sensibly, and my constituents agree. Our vote today will lead to a balanced budget. Let's be clear; this package is a $17.2 billion reduction out of a total of a $1.5 trillion budget. It is a 1.1-percent reduction. The bottom line is that we need to start the process. What better steps than to consolidate a horde of programs, some highly duplicative, some unauthorized by Congress itself, some with unjustified increases and others paralyzed in the money pipeline with little likelihood of being spent. Specifically, this bill reduces the HUD budget by $7.2 billion dollars. It has become obvious that many HUD programs are not working. The GAO and the inspector general's report reflect those facts. We need to get the money to people who Congress intended to help. The money does no good sitting in Washington. Then there is the issue of scare tactics now that we are at decision time. They are the same tactics used when we made the same tough choices in my State. Again, we were told the sky would fall in. It did not happen. What did happen was smaller, smarter government. And we reduced taxes. We can and we will make the same tough choices in Washington. We can and will balance the budget while ensuring that the needy in our country are cared for. Let us focus on some facts. Just one example: There have been many false accusations about the impact of cuts proposed in the Department of Housing. Despite a reduction of $7.2 billion, not one of the 4.8 million households currently subsidized by HUD will lose housing assistance. In fact, if all these cuts are approved, HUD's spending will still increase $3 billion over last year's level. In the end its the Washington bureaucrats that are running scared. And scared they should be. No longer will we fund programs that don't work; no longer will we allow Federal bureaucrats to sit on taxpayers' money. We will set priorities, we will limit the size of Government, and we will do what we said we would--reduce the deficit, balance the budget, and restore the future to our children. I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with words of support for H.R. 956, the Common Sense Product Liability and Legal Reform Act, as well as H.R. 10, the entire package of commonsense legal reforms which the House of Representatives has passed this week. I strongly support the efforts of this House to bring much needed reforms to our tort liability system. This legislation, if enacted, will benefit the State of New Jersey, its businesses, and its consumers. I have heard from hundreds of constituents and businesses in the 11th District of New Jersey regarding the need for limitations on frivolous lawsuits. These constituents are all too familiar with the rising costs of liability insurance. I have also heard from constituents whose businesses, increasingly in the past several years, have been the targets of frivolous lawsuits which were eventually found meritless. These decisions came only after having spent obscene amounts of time and money defending themselves. These constituents are all too familiar with the phenomenon of costly settlements having to be made to settle even costlier lawsuits. The reality is that even a single frivolous lawsuit is sometimes enough to force a small business out of business. Unfortunately, the costs associated with this reality are then passed on to clients and consumers. Everyone agrees that citizens should have the right to sue and collect reasonable compensation if they are wrongfully injured. These bills will continue to protect fully, that right. I am pleased to support passage of this well-balanced legislation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment which will strengthen H.R. 956, the Common Sense Product Liability and Legal Reform Act and address what I see as a deterrent to research and development of lifesaving pharmaceuticals and medical devices. forcing companies that research and develop medical equipment and lifesaving drugs to back away from developing important new treatments for diseases such as AIDS or cancer. The United States has the most rigorous drug and medical device approval process in the world. Companies which research and develop new medical treatments spend millions, sometimes billions of dollars, on developing and testing these products in order to meet FDA standards and approval, before they are able to make these important products available to the public. In addition to the money spent, the time involved with the process of FDA approval can take up to 10 years. The proposed limitation on punitive damages makes sense. Even when every effort is made to ensure the safety and efficacy of the drug for the illness or condition it is designed to treat, no drug is 100 percent risk free. The FDA recognizes this and in making its approval decision must weight the risks and benefits of each new pharmaceutical in order to minimize, if not eliminate, risk of injury. If injury does occur, despite all the companies research and the government's review, and the manufacturer has complied with all relevant federal requirements, it should not then be held liable for ``punitive damages.'' Without this amendment, there remains a powerful disincentive to certain types of pharmaceutical research. Enacting the government- standards defense will encourage new research and development. I am pleased to support this amendment which I believe offers a fair balance of protection for consumers and businesses alike.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 889. As a freshman Member and a member of the Appropriations Committee, I commend Chairman Livingston and the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, Bill Young, for a job well done. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues this bill is unusual. For the first time in recent years, we are paying in full for a supplemental emergency spending bill. In the past 2 fiscal years alone, Congress spent over $13 billion in emergency spending with no offsetting cuts. For this first time in a long time, this supplemental is not a Christmas tree full of special projects. The needs of the Defense Department are genuine, well documented and in line with our goal of combat readiness. This supplemental bill simply replenishes accounts that have been depleted due to emergency spending for our operations abroad. Even with approval of this bill, personnel and readiness-related funding shortfalls will still exceed $2 billion for the remainder of fiscal year 1995. We may disagree over the particular reductions, but that's the point. Each one of us could have written a different bill with different cuts. I can guarantee my colleagues that we will all have ample opportunities to offer those cuts as we move forward with the next round of rescissions and tough choices. first real step in delivering on that promise. We're changing the old ways of doing business in this House. We pay our bills. Imagine that. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act. I firmly believe that we cannot have meaningful budget reform without the Presidential line-item veto. Regardless who is President, we need this added check and balance on spending if we have any hope of getting Federal spending under control. Most people don't fully understand the importance of the line-item veto. If it does nothing else, the line-item veto will place the public spotlight on Federal spending that deserves closer scrutiny. Under current Federal law, Congress sends the President legislation containing hundreds of spending items and the President, whoever he or she may be, has only two options--sign the bill or veto it. With this act, we are proposing that the President would have a third option--to choose those individual spending items that are questionable, and just veto those items, while signing the bill as a whole. Congress would be given the power to override the President's veto with a two-thirds vote. The line-item veto will force Congress and the President to work more closely on spending decisions, as the Governors and legislators in 43 of the 50 States do now. As the chairman of the New Jersey Assembly Appropriations Committee in Trenton, I worked with Jim Florio, a Democrat, and Christine Whitman, a Republican, under the line-item veto law, and I can tell you that I defend the line-item veto for all chief executives, regardless of party as necessary and desirable. I don't worry about the transfer of power from the legislative to the executive branch, because I know that it may end gridlock by forcing everyone to sit down at the same table and work out our differences. We have seen the alternative in Washington year after year, and it is not the best way to run the Government.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the balanced budget amendment, H.J. Res. 1. This amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget is not a new idea. Balanced budget amendment proposals have been introduced since the 1930's and, in recent years, have fallen just short of passage in Congress on several occasions. In 49 States, there is some form of balanced budget requirement--including the State of New Jersey. In Congress, this balanced budget amendment is only the beginning of the process of amending the U.S. Constitution. It is a big step for Americans to amend the U.S. Constitution, and that is as it should be. Of the several thousand proposed amendments in 206 years, only 27 amendments have been ratified by Congress and by the States--and one of those, the 21st amendment, repeals the ban on alcohol proscribed by one other, the 18th. Amending the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the U.S. House, 290 votes, and in the Senate, 67 votes; and ratification by three-fourths of the States, 38 of the 50 States. The drafters of the Constitution placed a great deal of weight on the powers delegated to the Federal Government and those that remain with the States, giving the States the ultimate decisionmaking powers regarding amendments. They also saw a limited role for the Federal Government in taxation and borrowing--a role which has been greatly expanded during the current century. The Framers of the Constitution clearly saw Federal debt as an emergency matter at times of national or international crisis, not as a means of normal operations. Likewise, taxation was for specific and justifiable purposes. It is the breakdown of both of these principles that has led to our current budget problems. I believe Congress has an obligation to send this question to the States, so that we can engage in a much-needed and lively debate on the broader question--what is the role of the Federal Government and at what cost? Our experiences with State budget balancing requirements have provided several positive outcomes from this important fiscal discipline. It imposes discipline on legislators and executive branch. It, therefore, requires a closer working relationship between these two branches of Government. And, the requirement ultimately will force all parties to sit down and work out their differences to maintain the required balance. Having worked under the balanced budget requirement, I believe it will promote better communication and governance--at least that's been my experience as a State legislator in New Jersey. It has been 25 years since the last time the Federal Government's books were balanced. Of every dollar collected in Federal taxes, 15 cents goes to pay interest on the national debt--more than $200 billion a year, further drawing down the amount available for other Government programs. Clearly, our current situation is not due to under-taxation, but to over-spending. The Federal Government collects $5 in taxes today for every $1 it collected 25 years ago. The problem is that Government spending today is up $6 for every $1 spent in 1968. some may claim that the balanced budget amendment is a gimmick. Rather, I believe it will finally provide the discipline to the Federal budget process that has failed, to date, to control Federal spending-- even with the best efforts of individual Members committed to deficit reduction and despite the demands of the American taxpayers.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, last night in response to President Clinton's State of the Union Message, New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman did not need equal time to get her message across. That message was clear. Governor Whitman did not just promise change, she delivered. In New Jersey we cut spending and taxes. In New Jersey we have a balanced budget. In New Jersey we have kept our promises. Just like New Jersey, Americans want a smaller smarter government. They want us to make the tough decisions here. The time for making excuses is over. The time to act on our promises is now. It has worked in New Jersey and it can work here in Washington.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the balanced budget amendment, House Joint Resolution 1. This amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget is not a new idea. Balanced budget amendment proposals have been introduced since the 1930's and, in recent years, have fallen just short of passage in Congress on several occasions. In 49 States, there is some form of balanced budget requirement--including the State of New Jersey. In Congress, this balanced budget amendment is only the beginning of the process of amending the U.S. Constitution. It is a big step for Americans to amend the U.S. Constitution, and that is as it should be. Of the several thousand proposed amendments in 206 years, only 27 amendments have been ratified by Congress and by the States--and one of those (the 21st amendment) repeals the ban on alcohol proscribed by one other--the 18th. Amending the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the U.S. House (290 votes) and in the Senate (67 votes), and ratification by three-fourths of the States (38 of the 50 States). The drafters of the Constitution placed a great deal of weight on the powers delegated to the Federal Government and those that remain with the States, giving the States the ultimate decisionmaking powers regarding amendments. They also saw a limited role for the Federal Government in taxation and borrowing--a role which has been greatly expanded during the current century. The Framers of the Constitution clearly saw Federal debt as an emergency matter at times of national or international crisis, not as a means of normal operations. Likewise, taxation was for specific and justifiable purposes. It is the breakdown of both of these principles that has led to our current budget problems. question to the States, so that we can engage in a much needed and lively debate on the broader question--what is the role of the Federal Government and at what cost? Our experiences with State budget balancing requirements have provided several positive outcomes from this important fiscal discipline. It imposes discipline on legislators and executive branch. It, therefore, requires a closer working relationship between these two branches of Government. And, the requirement ultimately will force all parties to sit down and work out their differences to maintain the required balance. Having worked under the balanced budget requirement, I believe it will promote better communication and governance--at least that's been my experience as a State legislator in New Jersey. It has been 25 years since the last time the Federal Government's books were balanced. Of every dollar collected in Federal taxes, 15 cents goes to pay interest on the national debt--more than $200 billion a year, further drawing down the amount available for other Government programs. Clearly, our current situation is not due to under-taxation, but to over-spending. The Federal Government collects $5 in taxes today for every $1 it collected 25 years ago. The problem is that Government spending today is up $6 for every $1 spent in 1968. Some may claim that the balanced budget amendment is a gimmick. Rather, I believe it will finally provide the discipline to the Federal budget process that has failed, to date, to control Federal spending-- even with the best efforts of individual Members committed to deficit reduction and despite the demands of the American taxpayers.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the balanced budget amendment. Our current financial crisis is due to overspending pure and simple, and I firmly believe that a balanced budget amendment will impose discipline on Congress and the executive branch to live within defined means. Having worked under a similar mandate in the State of New Jersey as a State legislator, chairing the appropriations process, I am fully prepared to work within the same spending and taxing restraints on the Federal level to make those serious decisions. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Barton amendment to provide, finally, discipline to the Federal budget process.