Political Quotes

On the recordMarch 16, 1994
I have heard it argued over and over again that it isn't necessary to have a balanced budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Opponents of the amendment argue: "Trust Congress" to balance the budget and protect the basic right of future generations not to be saddled with debt for which they had no part in creating--but for which they will have total responsibility for paying. The argument that we don't need constitutional safeguards was made over 200 years ago against the first amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing free speech. They said "Trust Congress" to not pass laws infringing on freedom of speech. But, wisely, the people of the original 13 States, in ratifying the Constitution, did not trust Congress to protect this basic right. In the ratification process of the Constitution it was agreed that a bill of rights, including the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, would be added to the Constitution. Why, in light of the dismal and profligate decades-long record of congressional overspending should anyone now trust Congress to balance the Federal budget without a constitutional obligation to do so? Congress has not balanced a budget for 24 years in a row and has run deficits in 56 of the last 64 years. This year, $300 billion will be incurred in order to service that debt. When I came to Congress in 1985, the national debt was $1.4 trillion.
Said by
Harris Fawell
Republican · Illinois

Editor's note · Context

Debating the necessity of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Share

More from Harris Fawell

Sep 12, 1995

we do not want this construed to mean that there can be just generalized opinions. So I think it is something that ought to remain in the report language. And I repeat, I think if what the gentleman has is centered only upon housing, then…

govinfo.gov
Mar 26, 1998

I have also heard it said this week that union salting is protected by the United States Supreme Court in its unanimous 1995 Town and Country decision, and that title I seeks to overturn this case which held that union organizers are…

govinfo.gov
Mar 26, 1998

I simply want to make it very, very, very clear that we do not in this legislation say that the employer has any right to discriminate against an applicant because the applicant is a member of a union. We make it clear that the Supreme…

govinfo.gov
Mar 26, 1998

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3246, the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act is a pro-employee, pro-employer, pro-labor organization bill that is also good for the economy and good for the American taxpayers. Having introduced last session…

govinfo.gov

Other voices in this conversation