Karen McCarthy

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, this week we consider legislation that is the first step in a long process that will lead to a balanced budget. While we all know the litany of numbers surrounding the growth of the national debt, the numbers are so staggering they are worth repeating. Over the past 12 years, it has tripled in size. We are now saddled with a $5 trillion national debt and yearly interest payments of over $200 billion. I was elected to put an end to this practice, and for that reason I support the bipartisan, bicameral constitutional amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. I urge every Member to support it. After we complete work on the balanced budget amendment, we will then turn to the budget and appropriations process. During consideration of the yearly spending bills, I will work hard to cut wasteful and unnecessary Government spending. There are plenty of programs to target, and I look forward to the debate that will take place during consideration of these bills. There will be tough choices to be made to reach our goal by 2002. However, as a former State legislator and past president of the National Conference of State Legislatures, there is one thing I will not cut. I will not support balancing the Federal budget on the backs of State and local governments.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, as debate begins on the balanced budget amendment, there are two issues we need to keep in mind. First, the mere ratification of the balanced budget amendment will not balance the budget. Between ratification of the amendment and the year 2002--when the amendment would come into force--we will continue to face yearly deficits of $200 billion. That is why it is imperative that we stipulate how the deficit will be reduced and why we need to be up front with the American people and explain the detailed steps we will take in balancing the Nation's books. Second, we have to guarantee that we will not balance the budget on the backs of the States. Shifting spending from the Federal Government to State and local governments is not the answer and--despite the Rules Committee not placing in order my amendment on cost shifting-our State and local governments deserve to be protected from any such attempt to do so.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, creates a process that ensures and recognizes that the Federal Government should not pass its obligations down to the State and local governments without adequate funding for its mandates. As a cosponsor of the legislation and a former State legislative leader, I am very sensitive to the potential financial and administrative burdens that Federal unfunded mandates place on State governments. Mr. Speaker, I believe that during this bipartisan debate, one should consider the scope and cost of these unfunded mandates. In the State of Missouri, for example, an analysis of estimated costs of unfunded mandates reveals that for fiscal year 1994, the costs were $205 million, which represents a 57 percent increase since 1992. The National Conference of State Legislatures finds that there are 172 Federal laws that require State and local governments to spend money on Federal mandate programs. Further, estimated cost of unfunded mandates to States could be as high as $500 billion annually. Similarly, the cost to cities could be $54 billion over the next 4 years and counties across this country are spending close to $5 billion a year complying with 12 specific mandates. H.R. 5 responds to the growing concerns about the number and the cost of Federal mandates imposed on States and local governments by ensuring careful congressional consideration before the enactment of new mandates. I support a number of very good amendments introduced to strengthen H.R. 5 while still retaining the basic thrust and affirming States and local government. The standards designed to protect the environment, as well as the health and safety of Americans in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act are the first step in restoring the balance to our Federal system.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday we will begin debate on a resolution to add an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget. The fiscal mismanagement that has existed at the Federal level has compelled this body to seek a constitutional remedy to our exploding debt problem. Over the years, attempts at statutory discipline have failed miserably. The succession of such failed statutory remedies-- from Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in 1987 to the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990--liters the legislative landscape and affirms the need for a balanced budget amendment. It appears obvious that we need the discipline of a constitutional amendment to control Federal spending. However, notwithstanding the need for the procedural discipline that a constitutional amendment will bring, we are fooling ourselves if we think the votes we will cast this week for the balanced budget amendment are the difficult votes. No, the truly tough votes will occur this spring and summer and in subsequent springs and summers when we turn to the budget and appropriations process. At that time we will see whether we are serious about cutting the deficit and whether we will make the sacrifices necessary to end the days of deficit spending. During the course of last year's campaign I pledged support for the balanced budget amendment; I am committed to keep that promise. However, of equal importance will be my commitment to find ways to cut government spending without transferring that burden to the States or the elderly. Reducing government spending should be the goal of every Member in this body, but that goal has to be reached without shifting the costs to other levels of government or those least able to pay.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, next week this House will take up several proposals to amend our Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan consensus version of this amendment that will be offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas, Charlie Stenholm, and the gentleman from Colorado, Dan Schaefer. This measure has several important features not found in competing proposals. it requires a balance of actual outlays against actual receipts. It would not include securities held by the Social Security trust fund when the fund is running a surplus. It requires the President to submit a complete budget plan that is in balance. it includes a thoughtful exemption requiring that the United States be engaged in military conflict before Congress could vote to waive its requirements. Under current policies, according to the analytical prospectus volume of the budget of the United States, future generations are projected to face a lifetime net tax rate of 82 percent in order to pay the bills that we are leaving them. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Stenholm-Schaefer balanced budget amendment, as I am doing.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I planned to speak today on the need for this body to amend our Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget and to urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan consensus version offered by the gentlemen from Texas and Colorado and cosponsored by a majority of House Members including me. Instead, I have been subject to remarks by Members of this body that I am attempting to thwart balancing the budget and unfunded mandates, adopt a line-item veto and other reforms I support. The committees are meeting as we on this floor are attempting to speak freely. Gagging the book deal on the House floor is not going to make it go away. It is an issue that has captured the public's attention. Why are Republicans so afraid of people talking about this? The Chair's ruling has made this the only house in the country where this issue is not being discussed.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in anticipation of the 10th celebration of the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday, which has been designated as a national day of service, to encourage my colleagues and all Americans to be mindful of the national theme: On the King holiday every American can make a difference. The King holiday challenges Americans to remember and celebrate, but most importantly, to act to address the issues for which Dr. King and others gave of their lives, their energies, their talents. One of Dr. King's philosophies evolves around the promise that every individual can achieve his or her dream in America. To accomplish this goal, the Government must be a partner with the people. In keeping the dream alive, we must address the unfinished agenda and direct our efforts to reduce violence, help youths at risk, promote interracial cooperation and economic stability. By doing so, we can make every American experience the land of opportunity once again.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, as the immediate past president of the National Conference of State Legislatures, I am very concerned that our move toward a balanced Federal budget could result in more unfunded mandates for the States, if Congress decides not to reduce program services to march reduced expenditures. Any reductions in the Federal share of funding for mandated programs would seriously increase the fiscal burdens on the States. I agree with the National Conference of State Legislatures that the Federal Government should not attempt to accomplish national goals through unfunded mandates on State and local governments. The NCSL has proposed amendment language to the pending balanced budget measure now before the Judiciary Committee which states that: Except as necessary to enforce obligations to individuals under amendments to this Constitution, Congress shall not impose any obligations upon the States without providing the funds necessary for compliance; nor shall Congress impose any conditions upon spending grants to the States unless such conditions are necessary to specify the manner in which the funds are expended. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to include this language in the balanced budget amendment.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the new Members of this body the voters elected to change the way Washington works. Many of us campaigned on the issue of reform. I want to say to other new Members, ``Don't get cold feet now. We're considering a lot of reforms here today, and I support many of them, but let's be honest. These reforms don't go nearly far enough. They don't begin to address the real concerns of the American people.'' Mr. Speaker, the American people are not angry at Washington because there are too many proxy votings in Congress. They are angry because there are too many lobbyists, too many lawyers and too many special interests with too much influence. They are angry because they see Members taking money and gifts from well-connected insiders and, in some cases, trying to use their offices to amass personal wealth. This is supposed to be the day when we address the rules Members live by, yet in the entire Republican rules package we are considering today there is not a single amendment that addresses any of these issues. I would suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: ``If you really care about changing the way Washington works----''

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: If you really care about changing the way Washington works, if you really want to show that the House of Representatives is not for sale, I urge you to say no to gifts, say no to personal gain in the people's House, and support the gift ban.