Joseph Knollenberg: “Mr. Chairman, although it may not seem so now, this discussion surrounding the balanced budget amendment is truly one of…”

“Mr. Chairman, although it may not seem so now, this discussion surrounding the balanced budget amendment is truly one of the great debates of our time. For over two decades, the Federal Government has suffered from severe fiscal hemorrhaging. We all know it, we can all see the inevitable consequences. The question we face is whether to finally apply a tourniquet, or continue using Band-Aids. Like a tourniquet, the balanced budget amendment is an imperfect tool. It would be great if we could make the tough choices on our own, but we have proven over and over again that we cannot or will not. We have not balanced the budget in 25 years, and there is no evidence we ever will without a balanced budget amendment. We have three very thoughtful alternatives before us today. The Stenholm-Smith amendment is the classic approach, both tough and enforceable. The Kyl amendment builds on the good work of Stenholm by providing important safeguards against a creeping welfare state. And the Barton amendment protects the American people by requiring a supermajority of Congress to raise their taxes. Any one of these three would be a giant step on the road to fiscal sanity. But let us not lose sight of the real issue here. Congress has a spending problem. The entire country knows about it. The American people have tried time and time again to tell us. But many of us are not listening. That is because we are in denial.”