Anna Eshoo: “I rise in opposition to the Barton substitute. It is not a responsible solution to our budget problems. It seems that…”

“I rise in opposition to the Barton substitute. It is not a responsible solution to our budget problems. It seems that fiscal straitjackets are in fashion this year. It may seem politically palatable to limit tax increases, but it is not a serious solution to our budget problems. The Barton amendment places a formula in the Constitution and would put us in a straitjacket without allowing for capital budgeting. Our constituents do not want to see complicated tax policy linked to a balanced budget constitutional amendment. They want a law that says the budget must be balanced, just as they do at home. Each household in this country must balance its own budget, but nobody tells them how to do it. Similarly, our Constitution should not force this body into a legislative straitjacket. The Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse-Eshoo-Byrne balanced budget substitute recognizes the distinction between long-term investments and operating costs--just as the majority of the States require balanced budgets. It is these long-term investments which pave a better way for our children and theirs and which create jobs. Most importantly, our long-term needs are constantly changing. Nowhere in the Barton substitute is there the flexibility to allow for these changing needs. In addition, the Wise-Price-Pomeroy-Furse-Eshoo-Byrne balanced budget substitute does not allow a three-fifths majority to the House to vote to deficit spending.”