[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.
____________________