BALANCING ACT: AMENDMENT NEARS VOTE; EMERSON FEELS HOUSE WILL APPROVE MEASURE

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Since coming to Congress in 1981, U.S. Rep. Bill Emerson has maintained that the constitution should be amended to require a balanced budget. Starting with his first term and every new term since, Emerson has introduced on the first day of the session, a resolution requiring a balanced budget.

Now, after years of debate, Emerson believes that there is a consensus - at least in the House of Representatives - to pass such an amendment.

"The balanced budget amendment was an issue back then, and even before I came to Congress, and it has been ever since," declared Emerson from his Capitol Hill office Friday. "It is more of an issue today than it has ever been."

Two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate must approve a resolution for a constitutional amendment. Emerson predicted Friday that the House of Representatives will approve a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget next week. But the Cape Girardeau Republican said he is uncertain whether the measure can get the two-thirds it needs in the Senate.

If Congress did approve a constitutional amendment requiring the balanced budget - which likely would win quick approval by the 38 state legislatures necessary to make it part of the constitution - legislation would have to be passed to implement it.

Emerson said he does not believe such legislation would have to include a provision to raise taxes. He would oppose any effort to make tax hikes part of the implementing legislation. He prefers a freeze on spending.

But the congressman stressed the highway trust fund and Social Security trust fund should not be part of the process to balance the budget. "Both trust funds are sound and healthy. I don't think we ought to mess around with them. Social security and the federal highway trust fund are sustained by individual taxes that are committed to these very specific purposes," explained Emerson.

The House is scheduled to vote June 10 on an amendment sponsored by Congressman Stenholm, of Texas, of which Emerson is a co-sponsor.

Explaining the amendment, Emerson said: "The president would have to propose a budget that is in balance and Congress would have to adopt a budget that is in balance, unless three-fifths of both houses in a roll call vote agreed that an unbalanced budget in that given fiscal year was inappropriate for reasons of national emergency. Congress would define national emergency."

If the House approves the amendment, Emerson said he would hope the Senate could act quickly, so there would be time to work on the implementing legislation this summer before Congress adjourns for its August recess.

"There is an element in the House dead set against the balanced budget amendment, but I don't think it will amount to a third of the members," noted Emerson.

As for the Senate, Emerson said the proposal faces serious opposition from Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine and President Pro Tem Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

"It only takes 34 voting against it to cause it to fail in the Senate," said Emerson. "A threat goes a lot further in the Senate than the House."

Emerson maintains that the members of the House have already concluded that the people are concerned about the deficit and want action. He isn't sure the Senate has reached that point.

"I think the Senate is going to dance around a little while and add to the fury of the people by posturing a lot," said Emerson.

Another reason for the growing support for a balanced budget amendment, Emerson noted, is that Congress has been unable to balance the budget on its own. With the exception of Fiscal Year 1969, he pointed out that the federal government has been operating with a deficit budget for 30 years.

Passage of legislation, such as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill several years ago, in an effort to bring a balanced budget have failed. Too often, the provisions of that legislation are waived, he said.

"I think it is necessary as a forcing mechanism for Congress to do what it ought to be able to do without the forcing mechanisms," said Emerson of the amendment. "In the complex times, the complex society we are living in, and our complex government, everyone has a different order of priorities. It is hard to make it happen.

"If it is constitutional, we must have a balanced budget. There is no skirting it."

Emerson predicted quick ratification by state legislatures. "If we pass it this year, I would guess that it would be ratified by the 30th of June next year. It would be the first order of business of many state legislatures."

The implementing legislation would be a high priority in Congress, and Emerson said it is possible that would be passed before it is ratified by the states.

"Some people who are opposed to the amendment are saying we are going to hamstring the process and it will be impossible to do anything," said Emerson. "I certainly disagree with that."

In this fiscal year, federal spending as a percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, will climb to 25 percent, which is its highest level since World War II. Every state except Vermont requires a balanced budget.

A balanced budget amendment would phase in over five years. Emerson said there is no question the phase in will require some federal programs to be cut back and force state and local governments to also make decisions about programs they want to fund.

But Emerson points out, sooner or later, Congress is going to have to face up to the deficit.

"We are being consumed by interest as a proportion of the federal budget every year. Interest on the national debt is of a magnitude equalling defense and social service spending," said the congressman. "There will come a time when half the federal budget is going to be to pay the interest on the debt, which means we will have to borrow deeper until it comes to 75 percent of the budget.

"The constraints are going to come anyway in a few short years because there would not be anything left for anything other than payment of debt."

Emerson points out that during the last decade, there has been a big growth in revenues coming into the treasury, however, the rate of spending has exceeded the growth in revenues. He maintains that freezing spending could bring a balanced budget in five years.

Another advantage of a freeze is that it would have an anti-inflationary effect because there would not be a certain percentage added to the budget each year.

Emerson said balancing the budget without raising taxes, should not necessarily be considered "doomsday" because there would be money left in the private sector for people to spend on what they consider their priorities to be.

He concedes there will be strong disagreement whether to end the deficit with a tax increase, budget cuts, or a combination.

"It will cause a very healthy debate about what our priorities really are," said Emerson. "That is why we have come to this. We have not been able to agree on a realistic set of priorities.

"We have a wonderful system and framework within which that debate must occur. It will be a very hardy debate. It will arouse a great deal of citizen participation and will bring us to some more fundamental understandings of the role of government than the public currently has."

If Congress can pass the amendment and the implementing legislation before the August break, Emerson believes there will be less election year politics involved in the debate.

Although a freeze in spending will force some cutbacks, Emerson believes the public will support it if the freeze is fairly distributed.

"I think people are willing to endure the pain, providing it is equitably distributed," said Emerson. Ultimately, if we don't do something, we won't have anything left but to pay interest on the debt."