Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a question. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes] and myself have served as staffers in the other body and have some healthy skepticism. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] as a Member maybe could enlighten us a bit. Under the balanced budget amendment, and part of the reason I am sure the gentleman has his tax limitation supermajority in it, is it not possible to have a category that would say with waste and fraud as a deficit reduction?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I am most concerned that most of the agreements that are made wind up with tax increases because the spending cuts are not real. Is it possible to give another possibility of how this could evolve? While I think the tax increases could be permanent but the spending cuts never occur, a common tactic is to have an asterisk saying, ``Specifics will come at a later date.'' Is it possible under a balanced budget amendment to do that; that is, to have illusory spending cuts but the tax increases be real?