Jane Harman: “I come to the issues involved in a balanced budget amendment cautiously, mindful that many who support strong deficit…”

“I come to the issues involved in a balanced budget amendment cautiously, mindful that many who support strong deficit reduction, as I do, still oppose amending the Constitution. Like so many other issues we deal with, the considerations are not black or white but, in the words of Bill Joel, ``shades of gray.'' On balance, I vote yes because I believe the tough choices to reduce our $5 trillion debt will not be made without the constitutional requirement to balance receipts and outlays. So I will support the Stenholm-Schaefer amendment as I did in the last Congress. But I will also support for the first time the Barton-Tauzin-Geren amendment to raise the threshold for raising taxes to a supermajority of 60 percent. Constitutional amendments are different from laws or House rules for reasons carefully cited in this debate. But having watched Congress' frequent inability to rein in spending and to face tough choices, I feel that to be effective the amendment must put maximum pressure on us to reduce spending first and that is what raising the tax threshold will do. A related and critical issue is the treatment of Social Security in any budget balancing process.”