[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. CRAIG. For the last several days, I have been on the floor
talking about options that are available to us and the reality of what
we are about in the consideration of a balanced budget amendment to our
Constitution. I thought for a little bit of time this afternoon I would
share with my fellow Senators an editorial that appeared in U.S. News &
World Report on June 1, 1992, which I think is so very profound. Many
of the arguments I have made, and Senator Simon of Illinois and Senator
Hatch and Senator Strom Thurmond have made as it relates to the very
important debate that is at hand.
Let me read from that editorial:
In one of his pithier observations, Winston Churchill once
said that ``Americans can be counted on to do the right
thing, after they have exhausted all other options.''
The politicians of this country have now exhausted a raft
of different options to bring Federal finances under
control--deficit limits, tax increases, caps on domestic
spending, cuts in defense spending--but the Nation's budget
remains shamefully out of whack.
This editorial goes on, and we will leave this on the floor for other
Senators to share. But it draws some very profound conclusions. So let
me read the concluding paragraph:
But we can no longer flinch from reality; we can no longer
afford the illusion that we can borrow our way to prosperity.
President Bush, who shares responsibility with the Democratic
Congress for the dreadful state of our finances, should now
work with Capitol Hill to ensure that an amendment to the
Constitution is carefully and wisely drawn, that the country
is fully informed of the consequences, and that we move
forward immediately--to restore our financial solvency.
Somehow 49 out of our 50 States have learned to live within
laws requiring balanced books; surely Washington can do the
same.
The person who wrote this is David Gergen, a man who is becoming well
known around Washington in his relationship to the Clinton
administration. I agree with what he said. I guess my only reaction to
it is: Oh, what a difference a day and a dollar can make. But more
important, I wish David Gergen would whisper very loudly in the ear of
his boss that he was not only right in June of 1992, but that this
statement is phenomenally valid today as we deal with this issue.
So for a few more minutes let me discuss, once again, as I did the
other day, the very essence of the amendment that has been 10 years in
the crafting. This amendment was not dreamed up in just a few hours in
the leadership's office of the Republican or Democratic leadership here
in the Senate. This amendment has been before the Judiciary Committee
time and time again in full hearings; constitutional scholars from
across this land have looked at this amendment, have argued every point
of it; there is a full committee report out. While it is meager, there
are volumes and volumes behind it that back up every section that we
have assembled in Senate Joint Resolution 41.
Let us look at it section by section once again:
Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total
receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the
whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law
for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall
vote.
In our terminology, a rollcall vote means a recorded vote. So, in
other words, we have provided what is the very concern that many
Senators have expressed here today, that in times of extraordinary
circumstances--and there are those times in the history of nations.
Two weeks ago, we voted on an extraordinary circumstance, and that
was money for Los Angeles or the Los Angeles basin after it had been
rocked by a devastating earthquake. That particular vote passed this
Senate by the three-fifths required in section 1 because it was an
extraordinary event. It was not the screwing in of light bulbs or the
vacuuming of carpets, the day-to-day operations of Government. It was a
cataclysmic or extraordinary situation.
Section 2. States held by the public shall not be
increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each
House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall
vote.
When we look at this amendment, it is important that we look at
section 1 and section 2 together because they are in sync, and it is
important to understand them in the whole and not in the separate.
What we are saying is that when the extraordinary event comes along,
that there is an opportunity, if we choose not to raise taxes, to pay
for it, but to recognize an alternative funding mechanism that we can
in fact deficit spend. But we also say that it must be an extraordinary
event, that it cannot come daily, that we should not be doing our--if
you will--O&M budgets, the operation and maintenance budgets of our
Government, in deficit. Today, we are doing that. Today we borrow over
$200,000 annually, at least under the current budget scenario, and it
can be argued just to keep the lights on, just to vacuum the carpet,
just to remove the snow. That is bad business. That is bad budgeting.
That is financially risky.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall
transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United
States Government for that fiscal year, in which total
outlays do not exceed total receipts.
That is what Presidents should do.
Now, should President Clinton do it next year if this becomes
constitutional law? The answer is no, because all of us are realistic
enough to understand that he could not do it next year, that it is
going to take a reasonable period of time of the Congress and the
executive working together to bring this budget into balance. And we
will say, when we finally reach a final vote on Senate Joint Resolition
41, that that should occur by the year 2001.
So anybody who stands on the floor today and says we are going to
destroy Social Security, we are going to have to cut $200-plus billion
out of the budget next year either is ignoring the obvious; they are
blind; or they did not pass the first grade in reading, because that is
not what this amendment says at all.
This amendment is very clear that we will work through a 6-year
scenario to arrive at a balanced budget, and it is also assumed that
when a President submits a balanced budget, he will also submit a
revenue statement. He will do exactly as Bill Clinton did just a few
weeks ago when they sent their budget to the Hill. Not only are there
total expenditures in it, but there are estimated receipts.
We have just heard the Senator from West Virginia and others talk
about the impossibility of estimating receipts. We do it every day. We
have done it for years, and we will continue to do it.
The only difficulty here, and they do not like it nowadays, if this
is to pass, is that there is no fallback anymore. You have to be a lot
better at doing what you are doing. You cannot say: If we miss it by a
few billion, we will just go out and borrow the money. If you do that,
it would take a three-fifths vote. In other words, we have to be better
bookkeepers and better accountants and figure our estimated receipts in
a much better way. Many State governments do it, and they are extremely
accurate. Why cannot our system be more accurate? Well, it can, if that
is our dedication.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law
unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each
House by a rollcall vote.
That is a constitutional majority. That is 51 votes. It is a rollcall
vote. It does not happen in the dark of night with the yeas or the
nays. It is: Stand up and be counted for. And the reason it is
important that we say stand up and be counted for is that the ultimate
pressure, the ultimate decider of who is or is not being responsible
under the Constitution, is not this Congress, nor is it the judiciary.
It is the individual voter in your State or my State, Mr. President,
who is going to say, ``Senator Craig violated the amendment.'' That is
why we want a rollcall vote, so that Senator Craig and every other
Senator here can be held accountable.
Today, when we handle the finances of this Nation, there is always a
good reason for having done what we did or did not do. The
accountability is very tough for the average citizen. And it is not by
coincidence that this amendment is not our law; it is the people's law.
It is the Constitution. So we ought to clearly allow them to understand
the mechanism at hand so it is their instrument by which to judge the
performance of the individual Members of the U.S. Congress.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this
article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is
in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for
any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in
military conflict which causes an imminent and serious
military threat to national security----
And that is not just a judgment by the President.
and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a
majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes
law.
In other words, it is serious business. We have engaged our men and
women in uniform by a vote of the U.S. Congress, and in that case, as
we always have done in times of war, spent in an extraordinary way not
only for the safety and security of those men and women whom we have
asked to engage in the ultimate form of foreign policy, war or military
action, but because we have also recognized that we are investing in
our Nation's freedom and, therefore, it is legitimate in that instance
to spend in an extraordinary way. We did that in World War I, and we
paid for it. We did it in World War II, and we paid for it. But
something happened after the Korean war. We quit paying for our wars.
We kept deficit spending and borrowing.
This amendment brings us back to the kind of rationality that gave us
the economic stability coming out of our first two World Wars. That is
part of the responsibility of this amendment.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this
article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on
estimates of outlays and receipts.
Oh, my goodness. We heard a phenomenal amount of debate about
estimates and receipts the last few days. The President is going to do
it in his budget. We do it every year now.
Some will argue we were $20 billion off. I will tell you the reason
we were $20 billion off. There were no consequences to being off. All
we did was borrow the difference. If you miss it, so what? The ``so
what'' ended up being $4.5 trillion worth of debt and $200 billion
worth of deficit on an annualized basis. So the ``so what'' now makes a
lot of difference. It does not mean we cannot do it better. We will do
it better. But it does not mean we have to do it. It is not a mystical
game. It is not in smoke-filled rooms. It is a reasonable and
responsible process.
This morning, I entered into the Record the statement by 250
economists around the country who believe it can be done in a
responsible and rational way based on this amendment. So that section
is responsible and it is reasonable.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the
United States Government except those derived from borrowing.
Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States
Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
I think we are going to hear some interesting debate in the coming
hours of the remainder of this week and into next week about taking
certain items off the budget--removing them from the budget, putting
them on autopilot. Is it wise? Well, that was the demise of Gramm-
Rudman. We took just a few things off. And it worked pretty well for a
little while. Then we took a little more things off when decisions got
tough, and it fell apart. And the very pressure we had, the downward
pressure on spending that Gramm-Rudman had produced for us went away.
There are some who are going to offer an amendment, I believe--or
amendments--that would suggest that we take certain items off budget,
and they will say if we do not, Social Security will be cut and slashed
and destroyed.
I have never yet seen this Congress, in tough, decisionmaking
environments, ever touch Social Security. They protect it because they
believe it is a responsible covenant and agreement with the American
people. Money has been invested in its trust funds, and it ought to be
honored and respected. But why should it be off budget when it becomes
such a major portion of consideration of the finances of Government? Of
course, it should not be, and under this amendment it would not be.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with
fiscal year 1999--
We know there is an amendment out there that the authors of this
resolution have accepted that will take that to the year 2001.
That is the 6-year window of implementation. That is when we move
back up to the section that says that the Congress will be responsible
for enforcing and implementing by legislation and doing so by
estimating receipts and outlays or outlays and receipts.
Now some will say--and we have heard the argument before--where are
you going to make the cuts? Well, we are suggesting, first of all, you
create the environment in which cuts have to be made or revenues have
to be raised before you begin that argument. We are not talking about a
budget process here. We are talking about an arena in which a budget
process goes forward. And, yes, we are going to have to rewrite the
budget rules of our Government because under this amendment to our
Constitution, they must change significantly.
Senate Joint Resolution 41 is nearly 12 years now in the making. It
has been looked at by constitutional scholars from all over the United
States. It has been debated at least three times on the floor of this
Senate and four times on the floor of the House. And it has been
adjusted and crafted and changed a little bit in the course of that
time to make it a more responsive document.
This is the product, the work product. Probably this effort has been
given more time than any other piece of legislation that will come to
the floor of the U.S. Congress this year. And it is deserving of that
time because it is our Constitution. It is the law of the land. It is
that document that we so love to talk about and are so proud of, that
our Founding Fathers, in some divinely inspired way, crafted, that has
guided us and directed us for so long.
But we also recognize that it is a document that, with time, can
accept change--27 changes to date, and this would be the 28th amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. So it is not a document that is rigid,
unbinding, or unmalleable. Our Founding Fathers knew that it should be,
that you had to change over time just a little bit because society
would change. But once you have crafted an amendment and placed it in
the Constitution, you would make it extremely difficult to change it
once again.
So it is not unusual--and you heard Senator Byrd and me discussing
the majoritarian approach the other evening, the three-fifths vote; a
tremendous vote it will take here on the floor to even send an
amendment out to the States. Our Founding Fathers clearly wanted to
protect this document, and so do we.
And so, in the course of the next few days, as we continue this
debate, let us recognize the importance of the work at hand, the time
involved, the dedication, and the scholars who were involved with all
of us in crafting this amendment.
It is simple. It is clear. It is a clarion directive to the budgeting
processes of our Government but, most importantly, to developing the
fundamental right that I believe is inherent within the budget, and
that is the right of every American citizen to be unburdened by the
deficits and debt generated by its Government in a profligate way.
So we are debating a fundamental right. And once embodied in the
Constitution, I believe it will be every bit as strong a right as any
of those embodied in the first 10 amendments or any other portion of
our Constitution.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
____________________