[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 17 (Thursday, February 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I mentioned on the floor yesterday that 
I have a special reverence, as I am sure everyone here does, to the 
Constitution. During our debates on constitutional measures, such as 
this balanced budget amendment, I have been very reluctant to change 
the Constitution in any way.

  Every time somebody says, ``Let's have a constitutional amendment,'' 
we have a lot of folks who say, ``Sign me up. Where is the wagon? I'll 
jump on.'' It does not matter what the amendment is about. People like 
the idea of changing the Constitution.
  To give one example, one of the toughest votes I cast in Congress was 
a vote on flag burning. It was not tough morally--I knew what was right 
and I did what was right. It was tough politically.
  Somebody burned a flag somewhere, and he did it in front of the TV 
cameras. He got a lot of coverage, which I suppose was his goal. His 
case went to Court, and the Court determined that a law that prohibited 
flag burning was unconstitutional.
  So in the House of Representatives, the question was: Should we 
change the U.S. Constitution to prohibit flag burning? Is there anybody 
who is not disgusted when somebody burns the American flag? I do not 
think so. We all are disgusted by that.
  But it was a tough vote because the vast majority of the American 
people demanded that we change the U.S. Constitution to prohibit flag 
burning. I voted against that change.
  I point that out because this has been a troublesome period with 
respect to the question of how and when do you change the Constitution.
  We must, however, today consider that question in the context of 
trying to improve our economic future.
  We look at where we are economically and we discover that we are deep 
in debt. I do not think anybody denies that the current debt load in 
this country is deeply troubling. We have been adding to it at an 
alarming rate every year. We will, by the year 2004 have at least an $8 
trillion public debt. In 1980, it was less than $1 trillion. But to 
repeat, in the year 2004 we will have a public debt of over $8 
trillion.
  Now, that is the honest debt. They will say it is less than that if 
you deduct the assets that we are accumulating in Social Security, and 
other trust funds for future years. We want to save that money to use 
it when we need it. If you take that and reduce the deficit, which you 
should not do because that is dishonest budgeting, then you can show a 
lower debt. But the honest public debt will be $8 trillion 10 years 
from now.
  Also, we are living in a time when the American people have a great 
distrust for institutions. The media spends most of the week showing us 
the blemishes and the difficulties of institutions, especially the 
problems of Congress. And people say to us, ``We want you to be more 
responsible in fiscal policy. Shape up. Balance your budget. Behave. Do 
what we do as a family or as a business.''
  And yet, after saying this, the American people then send other 
signals. People want all the spending. Do you think they want deep cuts 
in Medicare? No. Do they want cuts in Social Security? No. Do they want 
cuts in their favorite programs? No. They want somebody else to have 
the cuts, but they will fight to preserve their own interests.
  They say, ``We don't like Government. We don't like taxes. But, of 
course, we want a good school to send our kids to. If our house is on 
fire, we want the fire department to respond quickly. We sure want a 
police force that is good and responsible and well trained.''
  So there is a contradiction in our country.
  Let me bring it down to one case, a Medicare case. A doctor told me 
awhile ago in North Dakota, ``I have a patient that has been drinking 
all of his life. It destroyed his liver and he is going to die. He is 
on Medicare and now wants a liver transplant. He said he is still 
drinking. Should I, as his doctor, try to get him a liver transplant 
paid for with Medicare funds?''
  About 6 months later, I saw the same doctor. The doctor said to me at 
the time, ``If I do not try to get him a new liver, he will either sue 
me or go to another doctor.''
  Someone was drinking himself near to death, destroying his liver, 
demanding a new liver paid for by Medicare.
  So I saw the doctor later. I said, ``Whatever happened to that case? 
Did the fellow get a new liver?''
  He said, ``Yes.''
  I said, ``Is he still drinking?''
  ``Sure.''
  This case illustrates our problem. Is there any limit to what people 
want spent when it is for them, or their families, or their 
communities? We as a country, have an appetite for spending. That 
desire simply manifests itself in Congress, but it does not originate 
here.
  People want us to increase funding for the Veterans Administration, 
Medicare, Medicaid, the farm programs, and more.
  If people want these programs, and yet we are spending more on these 
programs than we have in revenue, what do we do? How do we reconcile 
that?
  In physics there is the law of inertia. A body in motion stays in 
motion. A body at rest stays at rest.
  That law would suggest that we just keep plugging away. The problem 
is, if we keep doing what we are doing, we are never going to deal with 
this crippling debt.
  I do not want my kids by the year 2004 to look at the size of the 
public debt and say, ``Do you know, Dad, you participated in all of 
this. This country is $8 trillion in debt.'' Eight trillion dollars.
  I do not want to leave my children with this problem.
  So the question is, what do we do?
  Will the constitutional amendment to balance the budget balance the 
budget? No, not by itself, of course not. It will not change the 
deficit by one penny. But, it will require the President to submit a 
balanced budget and Congress to enact a balanced budget.
  Will that be tough? It will be excruciatingly tough. Can it be done? 
I do not know. Should we do something to see if we can change the 
inertia of our country? Of course, we should.
  To sum up, I do not relish this discussion about changing the 
Constitution. And yet we must find ways to change what has been 
happening with this country's fiscal policy. I have for a decade 
described it as a dangerous and irresponsible fiscal policy. I have not 
changed my mind on that.
  I compliment this President. I supported this President in some tax 
increases and spending cuts that a lot of the American people did not 
like. A lot of people in this body did not vote for it. But, even after 
the deficit reduction bill, all of the numbers demonstrate we have not 
yet conquered our financial problems.
  Lastly, as my colleagues know, I will try to offer an amendment to 
remove the Social Security computation under this constitutional 
amendment offered by Senator Simon.
  In the 1983 Social Security reform bill we began to build surpluses 
in the Social Security trust fund because we are going to need them 
when the baby boomers retire.
  If we allow those surpluses to be used continually to offset 
operating budget deficits, we will not be honest. We must in my 
judgment perfect this constitutional amendment to balance the budget at 
least in this respect: By being honest with the American people about 
how we are using the Social Security funds. We should put the Social 
Security funds aside in a trust fund. They ought to be saved for the 
purpose for which they are collected and they ought not be under any 
condition used to show as an offset against the operating budget 
deficits.
  The commonly used budget deficit figures that we now use are not 
accurate. Those numbers are the deficits after you subtract the Social 
Security surplus. The deficit is really about $70 billion higher than 
is now quoted on the floor of the Senate. I do not mean to be a bearer 
of bad news, but that is a fact and it is time all of us recognize that 
and respond to it. My amendment will allow all of us to respond to that 
under the constitutional amendment offered by Senator Simon.
  As soon as the floor situation permits, I intend to offer that 
amendment. I hope my colleagues will support that amendment for the 
reasons I have discussed.


                       Balanced Budget Amendment

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I want to comment on the statements 
of the Senator from North Dakota. I agree with him that the bad news is 
really upon us. The history of the Senator when he was in the House has 
clearly demonstrated he was foretelling that bad news for a long time.
  Relating to his amendment on Social Security, I have the greatest 
desire to see that we deal with it. But I have to say in this process, 
it has not been without a great deal of compromise. The constitutional 
amendment that I offered over 17 years ago was an amendment that had 
some Social Security protections but it also had an automatic tax that 
would go in effect, across the board, on income to offset any deficit 
that existed at the end of the year. I remember the senior Senator from 
Louisiana at the time, Senator Long, ridiculing that and making quite a 
point of how unworkable that would be.
  I felt very strongly about it, that a price had to be paid when 
Congress did not respond responsibly to a deficit. To me the best way 
to do that was with a constitutional provision that would increase your 
taxes if the Congress did not balance the budget. Anyway that fell by 
the wayside. The only reason I raise it is because I have agreed, in 
this process, to try to find a road, to try to build a coalition, that 
would pass this amendment.
  The Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, has worked a long time, as 
have many others, trying to forge a coalition of at least 67 Senators 
who would support a balanced budget constitutional amendment that will 
bring some sanity to the deficit expenditures that we have had over the 
last 30-some years. I do not think anything is so ironclad it cannot be 
considered for some modification. But I think it is important that we 
attempt to build on this coalition the Senator from Illinois has so 
carefully put together. He has not done this in an autocratic or 
dogmatic way. Just the contrary, he has extended himself time and time 
again in an effort to ensure that everybody has input and that we 
consider everyone's position. Yet it is necessary to build a coalition 
in order to get 37 votes. The Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, has 
been supportive of this effort, as well.
  Having managed the bill in 1982 from the Democratic side, and the 
Senator from Utah handled it on the Republican side, it was an 
interesting process. We had some very attractive amendments that were 
offered. They were defeated. They caused some political consternation I 
am sure. But the point was we needed to pass a constitutional 
amendment, we needed to get enough votes to carry it over to the House. 
Unfortunately, in that case it was defeated by the House.
  I think we have to be very careful. We should not shut the door 
completely but we need to be cautious on opening the door. The 
constitutional amendment before us has gone through the Judiciary 
Committee, has gone through public hearings, and has tremendous support 
throughout the country. People who are paying attention to this issue 
understand what is in this amendment. Those opposed to it are certainly 
exploiting, in my judgment, every word that is in there to try to point 
out an example of how it will not work.
  We know from 200 years of arguments before the Supreme Court over the 
interpretation of constitutional provisions, just how much you can 
exploit or represent the interpretation of certain clauses and certain 
words.  To me, we need to pass this balanced budget amendment and to do 
it as soon as we can.

  Deficit spending is nothing more than a continuation of a mortgage, a 
mortgage that our children and grandchildren, and perhaps their 
children are going to have to pay unless we do something this year. 
Even if we do it this year, the debt is $4.5 trillion. That is a lot of 
money and I will not go into the details of how many stacks of money or 
how far such a debt would reach to the sky, because we have heard all 
that. Later in the debate I will have some charts to point out some of 
the significance of how bad this debt is.
  We are saddling future generations with a burden they will never be 
able to dig themselves out of if we do not do something and do 
something now.
  In 1980, for instance, interest on the debt was $75 billion. In 1983 
that number had increased 400 percent, to $295 billion. By 1996, 
interest on the debt is expected to exceed Social Security payments as 
the single largest Government expense in the budget of this Government. 
And right now, every single day, our Government is spending $800 
million--that is right, Madam President--$800 million on interest 
payments alone.
  I remember coming to this body in 1977, and I remember at the end of 
President Carter's term the debt was something in the neighborhood of 
$994 or $995 billion. There was a tremendous campaign throughout this 
country lodged by then Governor Reagan of California, concerned about 
how this debt had grown.
  I think our enormous debt has brought the country down. The increase 
in the debt under 8 years of President Reagan, and then 4 years of 
President Bush where that debt, as bad as it was in 1978 and 1979, of 
nearly $1 billion, has grown almost five times that amount, in 13 
years. That is not something we can be proud of. Some people might 
say--well, the country has not been brought down. It has not been 
destroyed. But indeed it has been damaged severely. The standard of 
living here in this United States is not what it was 20 years ago, we 
know this just by how many people within a family have to work today to 
maintain the economic standards that they need.
  Since coming to the Senate I have continuously sought and supported a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I have not done this 
for political reasons, though in my State it is popular. I have done it 
because I truly believe the Congress will not do it, the Presidents 
that we have in the future will not do it. Not that they are not well-
intended, and not that there will not be efforts to do so. This 
President has brought to the floor of this body, and the House, a 
package we passed where we actually reduced the growth of the deficit. 
To my recollection this is the only time in my term of office where we 
have actually seen a real reduction in the growth of the deficit. But 
nothing is long term even under the Clinton proposal. Yes, health care, 
if adopted as proposed by the Clinton administration, might continue 
the downward trend of the deficit. But those are big ``if's''. We must 
not allow the debt to skyrocket as it has in the last 25 to 30 years.
  What kind of legacy, Madam President, are we leaving for our 
children? As the debt stands now a child or young adult on average can 
expect to pay well over $100,000 in extra taxes to cover interest 
payments on the debt during his or her lifetime.
  Each year that we run a $200 billion deficit, another $8,000 is added 
to that figure. Over the last 20 years, the net annual interest payment 
has risen from $14 billion in 1970 to over $180 billion in 1990, money 
which could have gone to vital domestic programs or to pay off the 
Federal debt. Much too much of Government spending is needed to pay off 
past debts instead of investing in our future.
  Despite the need to control deficit spending, collectively, however, 
Congress lacks the necessary self-discipline to balance the budget. I 
do not know who could argue differently.
  Congress has attempted on several occasions without success to 
control deficit spending through legislation. The only solution 
remaining, in my judgment, is a constitutional amendment. We tried to 
control it through the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings sequester approach. We 
revised it again and again when it was too tough to meet the deficit 
targets; we could not do it. In its place, we enacted the 1990 budget 
summit agreement, which was really a disaster because we started off 
with figures and the numbers that were not really what the true figures 
turned out to be.
  The amendment before us today is a simple amendment. There is nothing 
here that would establish any permanent level of expenditures or taxes. 
There is nothing here that would prevent the Congress from approving 
any particular item of expenditure or taxation.
  We, collectively, not just those who oppose this constitutional 
amendment, have not been able to balance the budget and nobody can 
dispute that fact. There is no plan out here that will put this country 
on sound fiscal ground and bring a balanced budget. We are kidding 
ourselves to think that there is.
  This amendment would simply mandate that total spending of the United 
States for any fiscal year not exceed total revenues for that year 
unless 60 percent of the Congress approves specific amounts of deficit 
expenditures. I cannot think of a better solution than to force this 
body to balance the budget and, if you cannot get the 60 votes for 
deficit spending, well and good. Then you have to cut spending or raise 
taxes to bring about a balanced budget. This amendment would require 
the President to submit a balanced budget, thus placing the 
responsibility for honest budgeting on both the executive and 
legislative body.
  The Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon, has argued this point so 
well on the floor, time and time again, that the President should 
submit a balanced budget. I happen to be a strong supporter of that 
provision.
  The requirement for a balanced budget could be waived in time of war 
or military conflict. However, under the amendment, it will take a 
majority of the full membership of each House to raise taxes. We all 
know how unpopular that is. I do not see any reason not to require a 
constitutional majority to raise taxes. A balanced budget amendment 
demands accountability. In an effort to strike a balance between 
flexibility and enforceability, this amendment allows the Congress in 
times of recession or national emergency, to authorize specific deficit 
spending or increase taxes. However, they must go on record as having 
voted to do so. The voters can then decide if their representatives in 
Congress are serious about fiscal responsibility.
  At present, Members avoid accountability through deficit spending, 
failing to make the tough political decisions required to choose 
between too many programs competing for too scarce dollars.
  Critics argue that the amendment lacks the necessary enforcement 
mechanism and claims that Congress' tendency to manipulate deficit 
reduction laws such as Gramm-Rudman, in the context of a constitutional 
amendment, would result in the trivialization of the Constitution. 
However, elevating a balanced budget requirement to the level of a 
constitutional amendment provides the necessary teeth to ensure that 
concrete steps are taken to balance the budget.
  The President and the Members of Congress are sworn to uphold the 
Constitution. Failure to abide by the amendment would constitute a 
violation of public trust. I think the American public will react 
strongly if Congress just manipulates the figures, as we have done 
previously. The American people will decide through their electoral 
process whether the Congress and the President have lived up to the 
Constitution of the United States. We have seen Presidents and Members 
of Congress voted out of office because of accusations, and because of 
valid charges, that they have not lived by the Constitution to which 
they are sworn.
  The ultimate proof that a balanced budget amendment can work is in 
the experience of almost all States, which have some constitutional 
provision limiting their ability to incur budget deficits. 
Consequently, more States run budget surpluses than deficits.

  While the economic demands and available resources may be different 
for States and the Federal Government. The overall success of State 
constitutional budget limitations illustrates that a balanced budget 
amendment can provide the incentive and discipline necessary to place 
our Nation on the road to fiscal responsibility.
  This amendment and the whole idea of a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget has been the subject of countless congressional 
hearings and numerous articles. The Senate approved such an amendment 
in 1982 and in 1986, the Senate failed by one vote to pass a balanced 
budget amendment.
  Gramm-Rudman was used as the reason to defeat the amendment. Members 
were urged to give Gramm-Rudman a chance. Well, Gramm-Rudman didn't 
work.
  Clearly the public wants a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. 32 States have passed resolutions calling for a balanced 
budget amendment convention. Only 2 more States for a total of 34 are 
needed. Unfortunately, 3 States have passed resolutions of rescission 
because of concerns over the possible scope of any constitutional 
convention. However, the legality of these rescission resolutions is 
questionable.
  Despite the apparent success of the State effort, it does not seem 
likely that the magic number of 34 will be forthcoming any time soon. 
Therefore, it is up to the Congress to get the process moving.
  After passage in both Houses, three-fourths of the States must ratify 
the amendment before it can be incorporated into the Constitution.
  Our bottom line is immersed in red ink. Drastic action is needed. 
However well intentioned we may be in trying to reduce the deficit we 
have failed.
  A constitutional amendment is needed because legislative rules can 
always be waived and the next Congress can always reject the procedures 
and/or laws of its predecessors. If Congress adopts and three-fourths 
of the States ratify, this amendment will become part of the 
fundamental law of the land impacting on generations far into the 
future.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senator Simon's amendment. It is time 
to say no to deficit spending and reimpose fiscal responsibility into 
the budget process.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________