[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 18 (Friday, February 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, since 1980, we have spent $1.7 trillion, I
regret to say--$1.7 trillion--on interest. In the next 5 years, we will
spend $1.7 trillion on interest. We have to change those habits. We
spend $800 million a day on interest. That would pay for more than the
entire annual Federal budget for Amtrak.
That would be about the same as the annual budget for the FDA. These
are fiscal 1994 figures.
That is one-fourth of the annual budget for our WIC Program that
provides so much help to so many women and infants.
It is 44 times the annual operating budget for Yellowstone National
Park, which we spend each day in interest for which we get nothing
other than higher interest rates.
And one-forth the annual budget for Head Start, for interest; we get
nothing for it.
Clearly, we have to do something. With all due respect for my friend
from Nevada, the Reid amendment will not do anything. The Reid
amendment, in fact, if it had been in effect all these years would not
have reduced the deficit one dime. This morning's New York Times, in an
article by Adam Clymer, says,
The substitute version--
referring to the Reid version--
was intended to serve as a political figleaf that would allow
some Senators to vote for the measure and then, after its
near certain defeat, vote against the original version and
still tell constituents they had supported a balanced budget
amendment.
That is the story right there. That is what it is, otherwise, the
sponsors would not have requested that we have to have 67 votes to
adopt the amendment. It is the first time we ever had that kind of
request.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SIMON. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois, my distinguished
friend, is accusing me as a cosponsor of the Reid amendment as being a
stalking horse. I assure him that I am not. I intend to get every vote
for that resolution that I possibly can. So I do not care what is read
in the paper or what you read into the Record. I want my personal
record to be there that I am not giving you or anybody else cover to
vote for this amendment. If you want to vote for the amendment, which I
think is better than yours--and I am not shopping it to see if I can
get something on it to get a few more votes.
I just want to clear the record, Mr. President, regardless of what
you read in the newspaper--we just heard our distinguished President
pro tempore fuss a little bit about the news this morning.
I just wanted everybody to know this is not a cover for everybody.
This is a legitimate resolution that is put forward for my colleagues
to consider. If they like it better than the Simon resolution, well and
good. If they do not, we will just take our chances. But I am not a
cover for anybody here to vote for this resolution by Senator Reid,
myself and Senator Feinstein and Senator Conrad, to give them cover so
they will not have to vote for the Simon resolution.
Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague from Kentucky, and I am pleased to serve
with him, and we served as lieutenant governors way back when----
Mr. FORD. You will be telling how old we are. Be careful.
Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague recall any other time we had an
amendment offered where the sponsors of the amendment requested that
there had to be a 67-vote approval for the acceptance of the amendment?
Mr. FORD. This is a stand-alone resolution. I have never heard of any
other constitutional amendment being shopped around like any other
piece of legislation to see what you would like to have so I can get
enough votes. You call ours a budget amendment light, or something. I
am not more lighter than you are. You do not have enough votes. You are
light; you do not have enough votes for adoption of your amendment yet.
If you are going to call ours light and start making light--l-i-g-h-t--
of it then I think I ought to be here to defend myself, and I will be
in a few minutes.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, when I referred to his budget amendment
light, I was not referring to the votes, but I was referring to the
substance of it. When the amendment says that you have to balance
estimated outlays and estimated receipts rather than real outlays and
real receipts, that is fairly significant.
When the amendment also says you can have a capital budget and for
State governments and local governments, that frequently is necessary.
At the Federal level, we have no project that requires that. The
biggest project in the history of humanity has been the Interstate
Highway System. Because of a Senator by the name of Albert Gore, Sr.,
we did not, as President Eisenhower requested, issue bonds. But Albert
Gore, Sr., said, ``Let's have a tax increase and do it on a pay-as-you-
go basis.''
That is what we ought to do. That is what GAO has suggested. We ought
to divide within the budget investment and operating expenses, but they
make very clear it would be a disaster for the country to start down
the business of saying, well, capital projects--that means highways,
airports, all kinds of things that would be there.
This amendment by my friend from Nevada has no muscle, has no teeth.
We are going to gum the deficit down with this one. It has no teeth at
all. Our amendment says if you want to increase the debt, you have to
have a three-fifths majority. That is tough. Senator Byrd says it is
too tough. I think it is realistic. I think it has to be tough,
otherwise it becomes meaningless.
Finally, this proposed amendment mentions the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office in the constitutional amendment. It talks
about the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund in the constitutional
amendment. The Constitution does not mention the Secretary of State or
Secretary of Defense or other offices. We should not be doing that.
In just 2 final minutes I want, Mr. President, to talk about
something else. I do not recall whether the Presiding Officer was here
when we had the New York City crisis. But people said: ``How come
someone did not warn us?'' And then they had to make dramatic cutbacks.
Some of the programs for the poor, for example, were cut back 47
percent.
We are here warning you right now for the Nation--and unlike New York
City, which has the umbrella of the Federal Government, there is no
umbrella for the United States of America. Yes, there is the
International Monetary Fund if we had minor problems, but not for a
country that is one-fifth of the world's economy.
To my friends who are in opposition to my amendment, I would like to
speak very directly. Among the labor unions--and I have, by and large,
voted with labor unions. Sometimes we have differed, but by and large,
I have been a strong supporter because philosophically I agree with
it--I can understand why ASFME, some of the governmental unions oppose
this because there will be some diminution of the numbers of people
working for the Federal Government. I do not think there is any
question about that. That is true short term. Long term, I think those
employees will be well served by this so that we do not spend the money
on interest and we can be spending the money on other projects. But I
can understand that.
But for the construction unions and the industrial unions, they get
absolutely nothing out of this continued deficit. When the New York
Federal Reserve Bank study says we lost 5 percent GNP in 1978 to 1988
because of the deficit and CBO says 1 percent is 650,000 jobs, that is
3\1/4\ million jobs. I cannot tell you how many of those jobs are UAW
jobs or Steelworkers or in the construction trades. But there is no
question we lost hundreds of thousands of union jobs because of that
deficit.
When the Wharton School of Economics a week ago yesterday, in their
report, says if this is adopted, their prediction is that 30-year bonds
will drop from 6.5 percent to 2.5 percent, that would be a bonanza for
home construction and industrial investment in this country. Clearly,
among the major beneficiaries if this is passed are those who are
members of the industrial unions and the construction unions.
Then when we spend money on interest--and this past year, past fiscal
year we spent $293 billion. That is more than the total budget was when
I was elected to the House of Representatives. Of that amount, much of
it we spend here, but it is not countercyclical, like money we give,
for example, to someone on Social Security. Someone on Social Security
who receives $800 is going to spend $800. Someone who receives money
from a Treasury bill will spend it if it is a wise investment. But if
things look like they are shrinking, the economy is shrinking a little
bit, they hold on; they save it. Plus 17 percent of those holdings are
held by foreign individuals and foreign governments, and that is the
public acknowledgement. There are those in addition to that 17 percent
who, primarily because of domestic laws in their countries, hide it,
but 17 percent is there for sure.
That means of the money we spend for interest, about $60 billion
every year goes overseas or to other countries. That is money that does
not create any jobs in this country. That is just a drain on our
country. It is a drain that we ought to stop.
In terms of those who fight for those who are less fortunate, for the
poor in our country, the reality is, as the GAO points out, as interest
grows as a larger and larger part of the pie, that squeezes out our
ability to respond to the needs of the poor.
In the Concord Coalition study--and I have to say I have been
impressed. While I do not agree with every recommendation they make, I
have been impressed with the solid work they do in their economic
studies--they say because of the deficit we have not had the industrial
investment we should and the loss in productivity has cost us to the
point where today the average American family gets $35,000 a year. If
we had not had the deficits, it would be $50,000 a year. And again,
3.75 million jobs. If we had something up here to create 3.75 million
jobs, we would be overwhelmed with people fighting for it.
I think it is important that we continue our effort to save those
jobs, and the only way you are going to do it I think is with a
balanced budget amendment.
Look at the area of education. In the last 12 years, in inflation
adjusted dollars, education has been minus 8 percent while interest has
gone up 91 percent. What if 12 years ago we had had a balanced budget
amendment? I think education would have grown. Certainly interest would
not have grown as it did. It would have given us the flexibility to do
some things.
Finally, for senior citizens, because there is a concern, we are
protecting, according to Bob Myers, the Chief Actuary for 23 years of
the system--and I just read a statement by Senator Moynihan, a letter
to the editor he had in the Washington Post where he said he really
learned a great deal about the Social Security System from Bob Myers--
Bob Myers says the only way to protect Social Security trust funds is
to have a balanced budget amendment.
I think we have to do the responsible thing. I think we need a
constitutional amendment. I believe we are heading for one. Whether we
are going to do it next Tuesday or not, I do not know. I hope we do the
responsible thing and pass it Tuesday.
I was on a program last night with my colleague from Nevada, Senator
Reid, and he said it is coming. I would keep in mind what Senator Hatch
said on this floor yesterday and what Senator Brown of Colorado said
the other day, that if we do not pass a moderate constitutional
amendment as I have proposed here, together with many of my colleagues,
the next one that passes may be much tougher than this. We have
something I think is balanced, it is in the best interests of the
country, and I hope we will do the responsible thing and pass it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from
Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for up
to 20 minutes, the time chargeable to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for allowing
me this time.
I support a balanced budget amendment and always have. The borrow and
spend policies of the past must not continue. We all know that. The
ability to expand our economy and provide job opportunities for this
and future generations, much less provide for a nation that can
function beyond simply servicing its debt, absolutely depends upon
bringing the deficit under control. I think that my friend from
Illinois would agree with this sentiment and I agree in principle with
his amendment. I think that the Senator has done the Nation a great
service by his tireless work on behalf of this serious matter. However,
there is room for improvement in most things including, the original
language of Senate Joint Resolution 41.
It is the job and the responsibility of the Congress to control the
spending of our Nation. Unfortunately, we have abandoned this role, to
a large degree, by running large budget deficits during normal times.
By normal times I mean not during war, or recessions. This practice is
not only fiscally irresponsible, but with the huge debt we are now
passing along to our children, it has become morally irresponsible as
well. We as a congress and, being the representatives of the people, as
a nation must begin to regain control of our spending policies. We need
something that forces us to do this. An amendment to the Constitution
would do just that. While one law can be changed by passing another
law, this legislation would make fiscal discipline mandatory.
However, the Congress must not pass the buck once again by
relinquishing control of the budget all together. Congressional control
must be maintained and our amendment does just that. Deficit spending
by itself is not the problem. The problem is chronic deficit spending
in good times not just bad ones. Furthermore, we are not borrowing at
the present time to rebuild infrastructure by building roads, airports,
or an information super highway. Nor have we been borrowing for the
last 30 years to bring a faltering economy out of recession or prepare
for war. We have had the need from time to time during that period and
during these periods, borrowing represents sound fiscal policy. During
times of war or economic downturn, these policies help the economy and
help our Nation as a whole. But this is not what we have been doing at
all. What we have been doing is borrowing to pay the interest on
previous debt.
Let me put this in terms that every American can understand. When a
company decides to expand or buy more efficient equipment, it generally
borrows the money, knowing that this investment will more than pay for
itself in the future. The profit earned is used first to pay off the
loan and the extra is kept as income. The key word in all of this is
invest. Investment as our President has been saying for some time is
good, it provides benefits in years to come. We invest a great deal of
money on the Federal level, upwards of $200 billion. This money is well
spent and will pay dividends to our children and their children. When
we build a highway, it increases economic efficiency and activity, real
dividends that pay off in real jobs and increased incomes. Congress
should not cut off its nose to spite its face. Our amendment protects
this vital investment portion of spending. It keeps responsibility with
the Congress and gives us the flexibility that we need during hard
times and the discipline we need during the good ones to manage the
budget in a responsible manner.
Let me get back to my example of a business borrowing to expand or
upgrade its facilities. Bad fiscal policy is when all of the profits
earned from the improvements are frittered away on other expenses, and
the loan is never repaid. When this happens, the situation goes
downhill fast. If the belt is not tightened and the loan is not paid
off, the company, no matter what, will go bankrupt. It can borrow more
money for a time but eventually it must pay off its loans or the banks
will eventually turn that company down. We are a nation that is getting
perilously close to that last loan. We are borrowing not to invest for
growth, but instead simply and irresponsibly to pay off interest on
past loans. All the while our debt continues to mount and we have
nothing to show for it. This is the type of behavior that must be
stopped and our amendment is the prescription for this sickness. It
stops the bad borrowing but keeps the Congress in control of investing
in our Nation's future.
Our Founding Fathers placed the country's purse strings under the
explicit control of the Congress. Our amendment keeps the control here.
The judicial branch of Government has no business deciding on what
program should be cut or what revenue should be raised. That is our
responsibility. Our amendment keeps that responsibility right where it
belongs. I won't talk on this point too long because, I think there is
complete agreement among us on this point. However, I cannot stress
enough that we in the Congress must make the hard choices, and if we do
not our amendment calls for an internal solution. Should this happen,
this legislation calls for uniform cuts; with everyone and every
program paying equally. That is fair and just and it would be a
congressional action.
Let me speak on another matter of grave concern to many of our
citizens. That is the sanctity of the Social Security system. Many
years ago, our Nation made a pact with its people to help them in
retirement, whether that be in old age or by disability. Our amendment
respects that agreement, in fact it reinforces it, makes it stronger,
safer and more secure. This amendment has a lot to do with responsible
action and nowhere is that needed more than on dealing with Social
Security. It is exempt from our amendment, thus securing and fortifying
its position as a separate trust fund. Neither receipts nor outlays
will be counted as part of the budget under this provision. As my
friend, and colleague from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] has pointed out,
``the Social Security system is not causing the deficit.'' Its revenues
and surpluses should not be used to mask the deficit nor should its
outlays be counted as part of expenditures. Our proposal protects the
sanctity of this most vital program.
In closing, I would like to stress just how strongly I favor a
balanced budget amendment, but it must be the right amendment and our
amendment is it. I have supported and continue to support my colleague
from Illinois in his efforts to control Federal spending, however, our
proposed changes make this a more honest and more workable amendment.
Surpluses in trust funds whether it be for airports, Social Security or
highways, will not be used to mask the true size of the deficit. And,
equally important, it will allow Congress to maintain the flexibility
needed during wars or recessions while protecting our capital
investments and curtailing our practice of borrowing to pay interest on
past loans.
Mr. President, I do not think anyone in this body with certainty can
tell us what will happen in the future if we have a balanced budget
amendment to our Constitution. I do not think we can say with
certainty. And so with uncertainty, we get all the horror stories. And
all the horror stories if this does not pass; something is going to
happen. If it does pass, some other things are going to happen.
The implementing legislation that is required, if and when a balanced
budget amendment passes, will give us some idea and eliminate some of
the uncertainties, but that will be the legislative branch prerogative
to pass the implementing legislation. So I wish to kind of put a little
oil on the water if I can as to all the uncertainties we have been
hearing about in the last few days.
We also hear the horror stories that if the Simon amendment passes,
the courts will become the legislative body. Well, we scurried around
and I guess now you have the Danforth amendment included in the Simon
amendment, because the horror story was that the courts would then
become the legislative body of this land. They would tell us what new
taxes to impose and what programs to cut or what all new taxes and no
programs cut or programs cut and no new taxes. So under the Simon
original amendment the courts would have had jurisdiction over the
legislative body. So we scurry around and find an amendment that will
basically eliminate it. Not good enough. Not good enough because the
Reid amendment says only the legislative body.
Well, then we hear we have no way to say to those of us who will make
a vote, have discipline because the courts will not. So whichever way
you go, you can find somebody on the other side.
It reminds me when I was president of a civic organization, and we
had a question that was bothersome to me. I turned to the legal counsel
for the civic organization, and I said, ``Which way should we go on
this?'' He said, ``Mr. President, go either way and we will make a heck
of a case out of it.'' And so that is what I think we find here. Go
either way and we will make a case on it.
We eliminate the worry of the courts telling the legislative body
that is elected by the people what to do and what not to do, and that
was our idea which was finally accepted by the so-called Simon
amendment.
In 1983, the Social Security Program was in horrible shape. Everyone
in this body understands that we were in real trouble with Social
Security. But we all came together in a bipartisan way and corrected
the problem with Social Security in outyears. Now they say the only way
that you can save Social Security is a balanced budget.
Well, we are still collecting out of my check every month, and I
suggest my distinguished colleague from Illinois is having his taken
out every month. I do not know what that has to do with a balanced
budget except if it is out there you can use it to help balance the
budget.
So what the Reid amendment says is that after we have gone through
the 1983 labor to fix the Social Security question, we have included in
this amendment that we would not touch Social Security. On this floor
you hear it. ``Don't touch Social Security.'' Now we are trying to say
a balanced budget saves it. That is the only way because they do not
have this exclusion in this amendment. In the cloakrooms you hear talk,
``We have to save Social Security.'' And over the lunch table we hear
it, ``We should not destroy Social Security.'' So the Reid amendment or
resolution has taken care of that problem.
Do you know something, Mr. President? You can sympathize with me over
this a little bit. I have heard for days now, and really for years: If
40-some-odd Governors can operate under a balanced budget, why cannot
Federal Government? Well, Mr. President, I had the privilege, as you
did, given me by the people of my State to serve as Governor. I even
had the line-item veto. And the Kentucky Constitution states that the
Governor--nobody else--the Governor must reduce expenditures if it is
determined that the State would have a shortfall. But if you want to
raise taxes, you have to call a special session for the purpose of
raising taxes.
Now we hear that we do not want to operate like Governors. We just
want to use them as operating under a balanced budget. We are going to
give you an opportunity to say that you do not want to operate like
Governors. You just want to use them as an image out there that
operates under a balanced budget because Governors must operate under a
balanced budget. Then we think that is good. But we do not want the
Federal Government to do that.
Let us follow the State procedure, if it works. And it is simple. I
operated, as I said earlier, under this procedure. We had an operating
account and a capital account. I never vetoed a budget. I never
exercised the line-item veto in 4 years. And I left $300 million in
surplus. Pretty good, I thought, a lot better than we are doing here.
We had the operating account and we had the bond issue. We have T bills
here. Whatever the legislative process is, after the amendment is
approved or disapproved, if it is, right now they are a little bit
light. They call our amendment light. But they are light in votes, and
they are struggling now to try to figure out a way to get some more.
They are condemning our proposal because it has, in my opinion, more
common sense in it than theirs.
So we had our operating account. We had our bond issue. We had the
payments to be made out of the operating account. We paid it. We had a
balanced budget. We had a surplus. Our estimates were pretty good.
If we had not gotten the agreement, as we now have, to vote next
Tuesday at 3 o'clock, and then 4 hours later on the second amendment,
we would have had the opportunity to vote on each one of those
amendments to the Simon amendment, because many in this Chamber felt
the Simon amendment did not include the exclusion of the courts. That
is one. Social Security is another. You would have the operating and
capital construction accounts to vote on up or down. And we would have
had to vote on each one of those separately. We would delay moving
towards a balanced budget, and the delays would have been, I think,
helpful to those that oppose a balanced budget.
Mr. President, I interrupted the distinguished Senator from Illinois
[Mr. Simon], awhile ago when he was reading from the newspaper that
this amendment is just a stalking horse to give cover to those who want
to vote for a constitutional amendment that probably will not pass, and
then that gives them a reason to vote against Senator Simon.
Let me clear everybody's mind. I am for a balanced budget amendment.
And I intend to vote for a balanced budget amendment, and maybe two
before next week is over. But some ideas around here might just be
worth looking at for a moment. There might be a moment. If you look
into the future and how we are going to operate, this may be a pretty
decent idea to try.
I hear that, ``Oh, well, if we are going to vote for this, we will
not have to do anything for 7 years.'' I thought we were under a budget
constraint now. I thought we had caps on our budget now. I thought this
was the third straight year of deficit decline, unprecedented in the
last 31 years since Harry Truman. I thought we would have to continue
to do that even though we required 2001 to have the budget balanced or
begin that process.
I think this is a way we can do this to accommodate most people,
rather than take the position that it is this way or nothing. I come
from the State of Henry Clay. Henry Clay was a great compromiser. Henry
Clay described compromise as ``negotiating hurt''--negotiating hurt.
You had to give up something most of the time that you really did not
want to, and it hurt to give it up. But for the sake of progress, for
the sake of bringing a consensus together, compromise is a pretty good
thing.
So, we offer to the colleagues in the Senate the ability to say, we
are not going to disturb Social Security. I do not care what you say
about a balanced budget as long as you take it out of your paycheck and
put it into a Social Security account. That is where it belongs.
We talk about capital construction of the highways. We are taxing now
and not spending it. We are not spending it. We have billions; a $15-,
$17-, $18-billion surplus in the highway account. We are not spending
it.
Talk about airports capital construction; 10 percent of every ticket
that is purchased goes into the airport improvement trust fund. There
is $7, $8 billion in there not building airports. What is a balanced
budget going to do for that? We are already charging the tax.
We can have our operating account. We can have our capital account.
Some say that we ought to balance the Federal budget like we do our
house account or our budget at home. We have an operating account at
home. That operating account is the amount of income we have. We buy a
car.
We can buy a car, maybe not a luxury car, but one within our means
and what we can pay for. We decide we want to buy a house, and it may
not be a mansion, but it is what we can pay for. What we should have in
an operating account is our income. We make those payments on those
capital investments that we have, and we keep our operating account
balanced. I do not see anything wrong with it. If Governors operate
that way--and some are beating their chests saying if Governors can do
it, we can do it--here is how Governors do it. I operated under it. I
understand it. I had a veto of the budget; I had the line-item veto;
all of those, when I was Governor. We operated out of an operating
account and out of a capital account. It was in the budget. We made our
payments and we had a surplus.
I do not understand why that is not at least tickling the interest of
some folks. But we are rigid right now. ``It is ours or nothing.''
Well, you may just get nothing, with a capital ``N.'' And you are light
right now on votes. If you are light on votes, why not look at
something that will be workable, because you will get some votes for
this one. With the others, you might just pass this amendment. But the
way you are going now, you are light by several votes.
My colleague keeps talking about taxes. I do not know that this
brings new taxes. That one does. That is all I have heard is ``the
courts imposing taxes.'' Yes; we will have to pay taxes. For the Simons
resolution, the report was $570 in new taxes per individual in my
State. If you want it, I will get it and give it to you. Everybody
quotes the paper around here. I will give you an article out of the
paper. They do not necessarily have to be true, but we sure do quote
them. So all of this propaganda is being put out.
So I hope that those who are so rigidly stuck to one amendment could
at least give this one a little read; look at it a little bit. We take
care of depression; we take care of war; we take care of those things.
I think it is important that we have the opportunity to put something
in place. If you are going to tinker with the Constitution now, give
the Constitution something that will work. Give it something that you
think would have a chance of working. And then the implementing
legislation will set up the procedure whereby we use the operating
account, and what is the capital construction, and how do we pay for
it? Do we use T-bills for capital and pay the bills off?
We heard the Senator from Illinois say that it was Albert Gore, Sr.
that said pay as you go and put on new taxes, and President Eisenhower
was saying let us bond it and pay the bonds off. That was a difference
of opinion then. So we taxed the payoff; rather than having an
operating fund to pay off capital construction, pay off the bond issue.
So I hope that we will give this very serious consideration. I will
have other things to say before the vote comes next Tuesday, and I
welcome any cosponsors. We have had many come to us this morning to
talk about it. We have picked up a good many votes today. We are
further away from passing this amendment than Senator Simon is, but if
we combined our efforts, we would pass it.
You say I am a stalking-horse? No; I am not a stalking-horse. You say
I am trying to give people cover. No; they are not getting cover from
this one. We have a legitimate proposal to be given to the colleagues
in the U.S. Senate, that they can go back home and say: I voted for a
Constitutional amendment to balance the budget that is doable.
The other one is, you either eliminate or increase taxes, or both. I
do not think this one puts you in the posture of raising taxes. That is
a great, great difference, in my opinion. I have been listening very
carefully as to raising taxes and how much new tax it is going to cost
to pay for the Simon resolution, and I think it is time we take a step
back and look at an opportunity now to have a balanced budget
amendment. I do not have the words to get you out on the edge of the
seat or the ability to say, boy, that is it. I just do not have that
ability.
I do believe sincerely that we have an amendment that is important,
an amendment that should be considered, and maybe, just maybe, we can
put our two groups together and say that we have a resolution here that
could be doable; it is workable, and we could vote for a balanced
budget, and the future of Senator Simon's unborn grandchildren will be
saved.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can ask my friend from Idaho a
question. It is my understanding that Senator Murkowski is going to
speak now.
Mr. CRAIG. I believe he is en route.
Mr. REID. Senator Conrad is in the building. We have arranged for
Senator Murkowski to go first, but if he is not here, perhaps Senator
Conrad can speak first.
I ask that the time run against the three floor managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time divided
one-third/one-third/one-third among the floor managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 30 minutes to the Senator from North
Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from North Dakota,
[Mr. Conrad], is recognized for up to 30 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Nevada.
I thank him for the time. But more than that, I thank him for
authoring this amendment which I think is now the only amendment that
has any chance of passing this Chamber.
Mr. President, the other day I took the floor and explained to my
colleagues why I believed there had to be specific changes to the Simon
balanced budget amendment for it to have a chance of passing.
It is well known that I am one of the swing votes with respect to
this question. Senator Reid from Nevada is recognized as one of the
swing votes, and there are others, on the question of whether or not
any balanced budget amendment would pass the Senate of the United
States.
Let me make clear I believe there is a need for a balanced budget
amendment. I believe there is a need because when I look at what has
happened over the last decade, I conclude that additional pressure is
needed for us to finish the job of getting our fiscal house in order.
Mr. President, I have brought with me several charts to illustrate
that point.
This chart shows the deficits from 1980 to the year 2004 as a
percentage of our gross domestic product. And it shows during this
period what happened during the Reagan and Bush years when deficits
escalated dramatically and we went up to having deficits that were
running over 6 percent of gross domestic product.
Last year we put in place a budget deal that dramatically reduced
deficits as a percentage of our gross domestic product. Real progress
was made, but, Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, look at what
happens as we get past 1996, 1997, and 1998. Then we see the deficit
again start to increase as a percentage of our gross domestic product.
I think it is an indication that more must be done.
Let me go to the next chart, Mr. President, that shows the gross debt
of the United States. I have taken a very long timeframe because I
think this is instructive, and I hope people around the country will
have a chance to learn what has happened with respect to debt in this
country's history.
We saw back in 1940 that our debt in comparison to the size of our
economy, our gross domestic product, was just over 50 percent. Then we
went into the war years, and debt in comparison with the size of our
economy skyrocketed. The United States took on more and more debt as we
financed the Second World War, and we left that war with debt to gross
domestic product of over 120 percent.
Mr. President, that was the high watermark. Once World War II ended,
the United States entered into a period in which debt in relationship
to the size of our economy fell consistently. For nearly 40 years,
almost without interruption, the debt of the United States dropped in
relationship to the size of the economy until we got to the Reagan
years, and then we saw the debt start to grow dramatically in
relationship to the size of our economy. And look what happened. It
shot up. We had gotten down to 34 percent in terms of gross debt
compared to the domestic product of this country, and then it
skyrocketed until we got over 70 percent.
As a result of last year's budget agreement, we have stopped the
growth in relationship to the size of our economy.
So, much was accomplished last year but not enough, not enough
because you can see we are looking at an up-tick, and that is going to
grow as those deficits compared to the size of our economy grow as a
result of the CBO's prediction of what happens once we get past 1998
and 1999. That is why it makes sense to put more pressure on the
process to hold down the growth of deficits, to hold down the growth of
debt.
Mr. President, yesterday a fatal error was made, I believe, by those
advocating the Simon amendment. The fatal error was to agree to limit
amendments to the Simon-Craig underlying balanced budget amendment. I
had urged the day before not to limit amendments, do not limit
amendments, because there are fatal defects with what is before us from
the Simon-Craig coalition.
Mr. President, let me just say the situation that we confront now
leaves us with a Simon balanced budget amendment and a Reid balanced
budget amendment. In my judgment, the only balanced budget amendment
that has any hope of passing this body is the Reid balanced budget
amendment.
I hope my colleagues are listening.
I think most vote counters know the Simon-Craig amendment as it is
before us will not pass. It will fall 3 to 5 votes short. The only
amendment that has a possibility of getting 67 votes in this Chamber is
the amendment that has been offered to us by Senator Reid of Nevada.
Why is that the case? Mr. President, I believe it is the case because
central to the Simon amendment is a raid on the Social Security Trust
Funds in order to provide for a balanced budget. This is the Achilles'
heel of the Simon-Craig amendment. In fact, it is really misnamed. It
is not just a balanced budget amendment. It is a loot of the Social
Security trust funds in order to get a balanced budget amendment. That
is the Achilles' heel of what has been put in front of us by Senator
Simon and Senator Craig.
Let me just point out why I say what they have offered us is a loot
of the Social Security trust funds balanced budget amendment.
Mr. President, Social Security is included in the Simon balanced
budget amendment that is before us today. It assumes that we will
balance the budget by using the Social Security trust funds surplus.
This chart, Mr. President, shows the surplus in Social Security that
is anticipated over the next years, from 1993 to 2004. Look at what the
amendment contemplates that is before us from Senator Simon and Senator
Craig. It says we are going to take $47 billion of surplus from Social
Security in 1993; $62 billion in 1994; $70 billion in 1995; $76 billion
in 1996; $84 billion in 1997. That is how we are going to balance the
budget. We are going to use the Social Security trust funds surplus to
balance the budget.
I hope my colleagues are listening, and I hope they are realizing the
implications of what is before us. This is the same old shell game--we
are going to use the trust funds to balance the budget.
I will tell you there are an awful lot of Social Security recipients
out there who are going to be mighty surprised to find out that when
they go to the cupboard to get their Social Security check, the
cupboard is bare, and the cupboard is bare because the trust funds have
been systemically looted to balance the Federal budget.
Mr. President, we have been doing that and we have been doing that
for too long. That cannot be enshrined in the Constitution. That is why
the other day I urged my colleagues to permit further amendments to the
Simon-Craig underlying balanced budget proposal, because Social
Security needed to be taken out for that amendment to have any chance
to pass, in my judgment.
Senator Reid has done that. Senator Reid's proposal does not use
Social Security trust funds to balance the budget. They are
specifically precluded.
Mr. President, I think all of us remember just a few years ago a
President of the United States addressing a joint session of Congress
and saying to the Members there, ``Don't mess with Social Security.''
Remember that? He got a standing ovation from all the Members. Oh, how
soon we have forgotten, because now we are contemplating a
constitutional amendment that would loot the Social Security trust
funds in order to provide a balanced budget; in my judgment, a profound
mistake and one that will prevent the Simon-Craig amendment from ever
passing this Chamber.
Mr. President, that is why I say there is only one balanced budget
amendment that has any chance of passing this Chamber and that is the
Reid balanced budget amendment.
First, it does not loot the Social Security trust funds in order to
provide a balanced budget.
Mr. RIEGLE. Will the Senator yield briefly just for one moment on
that point?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. RIEGLE. I thank the Senator.
I want to commend him for the great importance of his comments at
this time. I think the threat to the Social Security trust funds is one
of the great dangers in this so-called balanced budget proposal.
The Senator is exactly right in pointing out that under the guise of
balancing the budget or trying to, over the last few years, we have
been looting the Social Security trust funds and in effect using those
balances within the structure of the budget to appear to be paying for
other things that have nothing to do with Social Security. And it is
wrong that we do that. I think the Senator from North Dakota performs a
great service to the country by laying this out. I thank him and
commend him.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Michigan.
I just might say, the Senator from Michigan, who serves on the Budget
Committee with me, may recall that one night we were in session in the
Budget Committee and I asked my colleagues, ``What makes us the same as
Reverend Jim Bakker?''
I think many of my colleagues remember, Rev. Jim Bakker--Jim and
Tammy, who used to have the PTL show on television--is now in a Federal
prison. I asked my colleagues why he was there. And there was sort of a
silence as people were trying to recall the events that led to his
incarceration. And I reminded them that he is in a Federal jail for
raising money for one purpose and using it for another. That is why Jim
Bakker is in jail.
Under that test, all of us could be in a jail because we have gone
out and told the American people we are raising money for the Social
Security trust funds, we are running surpluses, so when the baby
boomers retire we are ready to pay the bill. But, do you know what?
There is no money in the trust funds. There is a piece of paper.
Mr. RIEGLE. Stack of IOU's.
Mr. CONRAD. A stack of IOU's. There is a chit. There is a chit that
says, ``Well, we will pay you back in the by-and-by, but right now we
are using the money for some other purpose.''
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. Senator Ford, the senior Senator from Kentucky, answered
the question here earlier and I want to ask you the same question.
A newspaper reported that those supporters of this amendment were a
stalking horse for the leadership. Recognizing the background and the
personality of the Senator from North Dakota, are you a stalking horse
for the leadership on this amendment?
Mr. CONRAD. I think the leadership would be mighty surprised to find
me to be a stalking horse for them on almost any subject. I am somebody
that is viewed as very independent around here.
I am a stalking horse for one thing. I truly want to accomplish a
mechanism to hold down budget deficits and to move us towards a
balanced budget, but to do it in a way that does not endanger the
economy of this country, does not harm future economic growth, does not
use the Social Security trust funds as a mechanism to balance the
Federal budget. I have been opposed to that from day one.
Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to my good friend.
Mr. REID. As long as it is on the time of the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. I would be happy to have it charged to my time. I
appreciate the caution of my colleague from Nevada.
The Senator from North Dakota has been a stalwart on the Budget
Committee in terms of these things.
Is the Senator from North Dakota aware of the statement by Bob Myers,
the actuary for 23 years for the Social Security system, that says the
balanced budget amendment that I have introduced is the only protection
that the Social Security system can have?
Mr. CONRAD. I am.
If I might just say, on my time, I think he is right with respect to
a balanced budget amendment. Of course, he wrote the letter--and I have
read the letter, read it carefully--he wrote the letter before the Reid
amendment was available to us.
I have enormous respect and real affection for my colleague from
Illinois. He has been someone who, by the way, has been rather
consistent in his view that we should not use Social Security trust
funds to balance the budget.
Mr. SIMON. We agree.
Mr. CONRAD. I know he has been put in a difficult situation here by
being part of a coalition of others having different views. I just say
to you, I believe this deeply: I think at this juncture, the only
balanced budget amendment that has a chance of passing this body is the
Reid amendment.
As I said the other day, I was very hopeful that the Simon-Craig
amendment would have remained open for amendment so that some of these
things could have been addressed. That did not happen. I understand
perhaps the reason for it.
But I say to you now, I believe the tide has changed. I believe if
one sits down and carefully thinks about where we are, the only chance
to pass a balanced budget amendment is the Reid amendment.
Mr. SIMON. If my colleague would yield just once more here.
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to.
Mr. REID. On the time of the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. On my own time, yes, Mr. President.
In terms of doing statutorily what the Senator is suggesting, I would
strongly favor that and I have favored it for some time. But to do it
in terms of a constitutional amendment, I believe, is unwise for
several reasons; one of them being the reality that starting in the
year 2024 Social Security is not running a surplus, but a deficit. That
means that anyone 35 years of age or younger right now would, if this
amendment were adopted, be in some jeopardy.
So I favor statutorily doing that. I do not favor blocking that off
in terms of the Constitution because of the long-term implications.
And then I would finally say, the need to pass something. When
Senator Riegle says it is just a slip of paper that is there, that is
what is there for Social Security trust funds right now, called U.S.
bonds.
And where are we headed? Every other nation, when we go down that
road, every other nation has monetized the debt, had hyperinflation.
The most recent example is Mexico. In 1988, they had a 12.5-percent
deficit relative to GDP. They had 114 percent inflation. That 114
percent inflation means cutting the Social Security trust funds in
half, cutting savings in half, and everything else.
So we are talking about something that is calamitous for the future
of our country and, I regret to say--and I have great respect for my
colleague from Nevada--that because of the loopholes in the amendment
of my colleague from Nevada, I do not think if, it had been in effect
for the last 12 years, that it would have saved one dime.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield on my time?
Mr. CONRAD. If I might just complete my thoughts, and I will be happy
to yield again.
Mr. CRAIG. If you can yield to me on my time, I would like to ask a
question.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we can come back to that. I very much
would like to complete my statement and thoughts because I have spent a
great deal of time soul searching on this question.
I am convinced at this moment that no balanced budget amendment will
be adopted by this Chamber other than the Reid amendment. I think I can
count the votes. The Simon amendment is not going to achieve the
necessary votes, and it will not because of certain defects.
The first of them I have identified as the Social Security problem.
We can talk about 2024. What is happening right now has significant
implications for 2024. The Social Security trust funds are running huge
surpluses and, under the terms of the amendment that is before us from
Senator Simon and Senator Craig, they will use these surpluses to
balance the budget. That is, I believe, a profound mistake. Using trust
funds to balance the operating budget is a mistake and it is a mistake
that will continue until at least the year 2015 or 2020, and beyond
that it is hard to project.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield on that point? That was the point I
wanted to cover.
Mr. CONRAD. I would like to come back because I have a number of
other points. I would very much like to come back and hear the thoughts
of the Senator.
Let me talk about a matter I addressed the other day with respect to
another defect that I see in the Simon-Craig amendment that I think
will cause it to fail. That is the matter of using estimates. The Simon
amendment in section 6 provides that Congress can implement the
balanced budget amendment by the use of estimates.
We have had a bitter experience with estimates. This chart shows the
problem with estimates. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 1985 versus Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings 1987 versus the actual deficit. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings for 1985
is in blue; Gramm-Rudman-Hollings for 1987 is in green; and the red bar
is the actual deficit. Look at the experience we have had.
For 1986, blue bar: That is what Gramm-Rudman-Hollings said we would
experience by way of deficits. That was the law. Instead, the red bar
shows what we experienced. Instead of $172 billion of deficits, well
over $200 billion, $221 billion.
For 1987: They were pretty close.
For 1988: You can see the variance. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 1985
predicted; Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 1987 is this level; here is the actual
deficit.
Let us go to 1990, where you see the real disparity. Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings of 1985 said we would have a deficit of $36 billion that year,
and we had a $221 billion deficit. For 1991, the 1987 Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings predicted deficits of about $64 billion. Instead, we were
approaching $270 billion of deficits.
Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. CONRAD. Not at this point, but I will be happy to yield later.
The point is, Mr. President, estimates are the Achilles' heel here.
We can make any kind of estimate around here--any kind of estimate. We
will bring back the old ``rosy scenario'' and we all know what will
happen. The President will send up a budget that will overestimate the
revenue and will underestimate the expenditures, and it will say that
we are in balance and we will not be.
Mr. President, that is a very serious problem with respect to the
Simon-Craig amendment. I might add, the Reid amendment suffers from
some of this same trouble because it, too, uses estimates. I tried very
hard to get that part of it changed with respect to the Reid amendment.
I failed on that. But I believe that is an Achilles' heel of the Simon
amendment. At least, in the Reid amendment, there is a provision that
calls for the Congress to institute a system that would allow us to
look back and institute across-the-board cuts if the estimates are off.
That will provide an enormous incentive not to phony up the estimates.
No. 3: In the Simon-Craig amendment, there is no provision for
recession. It would be a serious economic mistake for us to implement a
constitutional amendment that would require a supermajority to take the
steps necessary to emerge from a recession. The worst thing in the
world you can do if you are in recession is to cut spending and raise
taxes. That is the worst thing you can do. That has the potential of
turning a recession into a depression.
Mr. President, the Reid amendment wisely has provided an exemption
for when we are in recession, and a recession not determined by
Congress but a recession determined by the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office Director based on a specific definition of recession.
The fourth point: The Simon-Craig amendment has no provision for a
capital budget. We have heard a lot of talk on this floor that the
States almost uniformly have a balanced budget requirement, but what
budget are they balancing? They are balancing, almost without
exception, their general fund operating budget. In fact, I am told by
GAO that 48 States provide for their balanced budget requirement to
apply to their operating budget. In practice, according to GAO, it does
not apply to their capital budget.
Somebody watching me will say, ``What is he talking about; operating
budget, capital budget? Why don't they balance all the budgets?''
Probably the easiest way to explain it is, when you buy your home, you
do not pay for it all within 1 year. You have a mortgage, and that
makes economic sense because that house is not going to depreciate, is
not going to lose value over time. In fact, it is going to add value
over time, in all likelihood. So issuing a mortgage and paying it off
over time makes sense. The same is true of governments--State
government and Federal Government. When it acquires capital assets, it
should not be required to pay cash on the barrelhead for long-lived
assets. That does not make economic sense.
The Reid amendment addresses that specific problem. It provides for a
capital budget, just the way the States have a capital budget, that is
treated differently for the purposes of a balanced budget amendment.
I was talking at noon today to the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky, who is former Governor of the State of Kentucky. I asked him:
``Senator Ford, when you were Governor of Kentucky, did you have a
balanced budget requirement?'' He told me he did. And I asked him:
``Did you have a capital budget?'' And he told me, yes, he did. I asked
him if the balanced budget requirement applied to the operating budget
or the capital budget? And he said quite clearly, the operating budget.
That is the way the States operate, and if people want to talk about
a balanced budget amendment that is the same as what the States have,
more than 40 of the States have provisions for a capital budget and
they balance their operating budget. Why? Because it makes economic
sense. What is before us in the Simon-Craig amendment does not have
that provision.
Again, I just want to say, I implored my colleagues the other day: Do
not close your minds to the prospect or the possibility of allowing
other amendments to the Simon-Craig balanced budget amendment because
there are problems with it that we could have an opportunity to correct
so we would strengthen it.
Yesterday, a decision was made to shut it down and not have any more
amendments. I believe that was a mistake. I believe that killed the
chance for the Simon-Craig amendment to be adopted by this Chamber, at
least this year.
Mr. President, that is why I believe, as we meet today, the only
amendment that has any chance of being adopted by this body is the Reid
amendment, and I am quick to acknowledge the prospects are mighty slim,
because those who are the advocates of the Simon-Craig amendment
probably are not going to budge, just as they would not budge to allow
amendments. That means we will not get enough people, who really do
want to see a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, to vote
for one.
There is a fifth issue that I identified the other day as being a
serious matter, and that is allowing the courts into this whole
process. I think it would be a profound mistake to allow the courts of
the United States to write the budgets for the country.
Judges are not elected by anyone. Federal judges are appointed; they
are not elected. This country believes in having elected people make
budget decisions. The Reid amendment excludes the courts specifically
and completely from involvement in this process. Can you imagine the
possibilities here, Mr. President, if we allow the courts into the
process? Why, we will have the 1994 budget decided by probably 1996 or
1997.
Mr. President, I would be quick to acknowledge the Simon-Craig forces
have altered their amendment to in large measure exclude the courts.
There is still a provision that will allow court determinations on the
question of whether or not there is an unbalanced budget. I think we
would be better off without that. The Reid amendment specifically and
completely precludes the courts from being involved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 30 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Can I have 2 additional minutes?
Mr. REID. The Senator can have 5 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
We have a weekend here to think this over. I hope we use that time
wisely. Right now, we are on a collision course that is going to lead
nowhere. Right now, we are on a course that is going to mean the defeat
of the Reid amendment and the defeat of the Simon-Craig amendment and
will have raised the issue, but we will not have advanced the ball.
Mr. President, there is another possible outcome. The other possible
outcome is that people decide we really do need to do something about
holding down the growth of debt in this country, that the only
amendment that has a chance of passing is the Reid amendment, and that
all of us who want to see something done should come over and support
the Reid amendment.
The reason, again I say to my colleagues, I believe the Reid
amendment is the only one that has any chance of passing is because it
does not loot the Social Security trust funds to balance the budget. It
does not do that.
It has a provision for dealing with the problem of using estimates.
It has an exclusion for a time of recession. It has a provision for a
capital budget just like over 40 of the States do that have a balanced
budget provision. That makes simple economic sense.
Finally, Mr. President, it excludes the courts so we do not find
ourselves in an absurd situation of having the Federal courts deciding
the budget of the United States. No one ever elected a judge. No judge
in this country, no Federal judge is elected by the people. The House
of Representatives, the Senate of the United States, the President of
the United States were elected by the people to make those decisions,
and we should make them. The buck stops here.
Mr. President, I have thought long and hard about this question. I
have enormous respect for the Senator from Illinois. I have worked
closely with him on the Budget Committee. I have grown not only to
respect his efforts in this regard but to admire him as a person. I
also have affection and high regard for the Senator from Idaho. He is
sincere about what he is doing. I, too, am sincere. I have reached a
conclusion that may be different from the conclusion they have reached.
My conclusion is that the only chance to pass a balanced budget
amendment is the Reid amendment that is before us on Tuesday next.
I hope those who really do want a balanced budget amendment will
think over the weekend. Are they going to make what they view as the
best the enemy of the good, or are they going to support an amendment
that might actually pass? Are we going to have an issue, or are we
going to have an amendment? That is the question.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield just for a
moment, someone has handed me a quotation from Leon Panetta. I do not
ascribe to this. But Leon Panetta said, ``There are going to be some
Members who are going to have an alternative proposal in order to give
them cover to come out against the Simon proposal.'' This is the
Seattle Post Intelligencer, February 18.
Two questions to my colleague.
Mr. CONRAD. Maybe if I could just answer on the first one----
Mr. REID. This is on Senator Simon's time, right?
Mr. SIMON. This is on my time, right.
Mr. CONRAD. I can only speak for myself. I think there are those who
have that agenda. It is not mine. I am persuaded that the amendment
that is before us on the Senator's side cannot win. It is going to fall
three to five votes short. It is going to fail, I believe, because of
the reasons I outlined. Virtually all of those are addressed in the
Reid amendment. I say to you, I implore you to think about passing that
Reid amendment. It is the only one, I believe, that now has a chance.
I understand the stalking-horse. Frankly, there are those who have
that agenda. I think we should be quick to acknowledge there are some.
Not Senator Reid, I can tell you that. Not Senator Ford, I can tell you
that. They want a balanced budget amendment as much as I do. I think
they have reached the same conclusion. There are fatal defects. And,
again, I am not sure why the decision was made to foreclose amendments.
I understand there is a difference of opinion on that side. But I think
once that decision was made, the only balanced budget amendment that
has a chance is the Reid amendment.
Mr. SIMON. Two questions. One is those estimates that the Senator
has, is it not true where they are way off, those are multiyear
estimates?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
Mr. SIMON. The reality is particularly if we fail with three-fifths
to extend the debt ceiling, those estimates are going to be very, very
tight.
Then on the recession, is the Senator from North Dakota aware that
since 1962 we passed 11 economic stimulus programs, each one of which
has received over 60 votes?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes. Let me say, if I can respond first on the question
of estimates; were these actual multiyear estimates? Yes. Were they
flawed? Yes. We have seen in every year the estimates flawed. Yes. If
we have this balanced budget amendment as outlined by the Senator from
Illinois pass, do I believe there will be games played? Absolutely. I
saw it every year of Gramm-Rudman, every year the administration came
up here with ``old rosy scenario'' in which they overestimated the
receipts. They underestimated the expenses in order just to meet the
Gramm-Rudman restriction.
Mr. SIMON. The Reid amendment relies on estimates infinitely more
than our amendment, because we have the discipline, the teeth, of
saying if you want to raise the debt, you have to have a three-fifths
vote.
Mr. CONRAD. Let me be very clear. I tried to be clear in my
statement. The Reid amendment also has estimates. I argued against
that. I think the use of estimates is a mistake in the one amendment of
the Senator from Illinois, as well as his. When I looked at the rest of
the Reid proposal, I think it is far superior, and it is the only one
that has a chance of passing.
In addition, Senator Reid does have the provision to address the
question if estimates are wrong. It is not as much as I might like to
have, but I say to the Senator on these other grounds that the only one
that has a chance of passing at this point, I believe, is the Reid
amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Illinois leaves----
Mr. CRAIG. I have a person waiting who has been here now for a time
ready to speak. I will yield 1 minute of my time, and 1 minute only.
Let us move.
Mr. REID. I ask Senator Simon: Are you saying that your estimates are
better than mine?
Mr. SIMON. No. What I am saying is, we provide that estimates can be
used. But we also provide that revenue has to match outlays, which the
one of the Senator from Nevada does not provide; and, second, we
provide that if you want to increase the Federal debt, it requires a
three-fifths vote. That means that there is real teeth. Those teeth are
not in the version of the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. We will discuss this later, Mr. President.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from Alaska,
let me make one brief comment about the figures in the Social Security
trust funds that the Senator from North Dakota has talked about.
Mr. President, those trust fund dollars are not here today. They are
borrowed out and used to fund current activities of the Government. The
reason he chose the year 2003 is that is when he and I are ready, or
getting very close to being ready, for our Social Security checks, what
happens at that time? The actuarials say some very real things happen
at that time. Taxes have to go up to pay for it or budgets have to be
cut.
So let us not use the straw or the stalking-horse, whichever one must
call it, about the Social Security issue. It is false to in any way
argue that either one of these proposals puts the Social Security trust
fund in jeopardy. If in the year 2003 this Congress does not choose to
raise taxes to fund the checks at that time, those trust funds are in
jeopardy. The Senator from North Dakota serves on the Budget Committee,
and he knows that. So let us not play games with the Social Security
issue.
I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, we would all agree we have the deepest respect with
regard to the efforts of Senator Reid and those that are supportive of
the Reid substitute amendment.
Furthermore, Mr. President, I think we have to recognize that some
say we should learn by history, some say in reality we do not learn
much. We have heard explanations given of Gramm-Rudman 1, Gramm-Rudman
2, the 1990 budget agreement. But the American people are absolutely
bewildered by this witchcraft of budgeteering that is occurring.
The American public looks at their lifestyle in relationship to their
checkbook, the reality that they will write a check, and they have
enough money to cover that check. And the fact that the Government
somehow, through this witchcraft, carries on and accumulates debt.
Now the American public is being told that the interest on that debt
is having to be borrowed, and they are asking, where is Congress? And
it appears Congress puts forth a convoluted effort to address any
alternative other than reducing spending. We have seen the
administration's efforts to increase taxes but not reduce spending. But
we are faced with an extraordinary opportunity here for the first time
to do something that would mandate self-discipline.
My colleagues suggest that we should have the self discipline. We
certainly should. But we do not. Otherwise, we would not have
accumulated $4.5 trillion worth of debt.
I come from a banking background. I know that interest goes on, night
and day. I have said this time and time again. It is like having a
horse that eats while you sleep. Now we are borrowing money to pay the
interest on the debt, which is 14 percent of our total budget and
growing.
Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the substitute offered by the
distinguished Senator from Nevada, and I urge my colleagues to reject
this transparently flawed substitute. It will never bring us even close
to achieving a balanced budget. I will tell you why.
The reason is that it exempts capital investments. I will tell you
what those capital investments are, because they are truly staggering,
and that is an extraordinary loophole. But first, I would like to draw
a picture of today's reality.
I have said it before. The Government is broke. The reason that we
have that $4.5 trillion debt, the reason we are today borrowing more
than $200 billion just to cover the cost of interest on the debt, is
that Congress has always, always, always, found loopholes to avoid the
hard decisions needed to balance the budget. We all agree on that. How
long can it last? Tomorrow? The next day?
Well, we have seen what has happened to some of the South American
countries. We have seen what double-digit inflation did in this country
in the seventies. Remember December of 1980. Remember what the prime
rate was, Mr. President? The rate at that time, the prime rate, 20.5
percent, inflation running at 11 percent. So for those who say it
cannot happen, it has happened. It could happen again.
We have seen the disintegration of the monetary system of many South
American countries as a consequence of too much debt, and the inability
to pay that debt.
Some of the opponents of the balanced budget amendment contend that
it would make it impossible for the Government to respond to an
emergency or crisis because outlays and receipts will always have to be
in balance. But our amendment, the amendment of the Senators from Idaho
and Illinois, is not inflexible.
My colleagues should not generalize about it. They know that in any
economic emergency, Congress, by three-fifths majority, can waive the
balanced budget requirement.
Mr. President, in the past 5 years, Congress has provided emergency
funding in response to numerous natural disasters--earthquake,
hurricanes, and floods. Three weeks ago, we passed the largest disaster
relief bill in our history--more than $7 billion--to help the victims
of the California earthquake.
In every instance where we have provided emergency benefits, some of
us supported using offsetting spending cuts, which I think was the
responsible thing to do to ensure that the emergency spending would not
increase the deficit. And in every case, every single case, Congress
rejected these offsets.
Where is the self-discipline? We face emergencies, but we are not
willing to make offsetting spending cuts. What do we do? We simply add
it to the deficit because it is very convenient to pass the cost on to
future generations.
But the American public is starting to wake up and say, hey, how
long, how far? They are becoming very concerned.
I maintain that if you left this question to the public, they would
say take the medicine now, drop the budgetary witchcraft that is going
on. The public understands the revenue stream that comes in. They
understand the expenditures. But they do not understand how you can
keep spending, because they know if they try that, their checks are
going to bounce.
The constitutional amendment that we are debating now would allow
Congress to meet any emergency. I am confident that Members of future
Congresses will not allow this amendment to prevent us from providing
emergency assistance. However, it may put a greater degree of pressure
on some Members to find offsetting ways to pay for those emergencies
instead of always putting such spending aside and outside the scope of
the budget.
Mr. President, during the recent debate on aiding the victims of the
California earthquake, I proposed, as an alternative to public funding
of Presidential elections, that we have a checkoff on our IRS return.
The checkoff would provide the individual American taxpayer with the
opportunity of simply checking $3 to go for disaster relief instead of
public taxpayer funding for Presidential elections. Well, we had a bit
of a bipartisan debate on that and ultimately we failed in that effort.
But the point is, Mr. President, that was a way to offset some of the
efforts and tribulations associated with disasters such as we have with
earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes.
Mr. President, I have heard it said that operating a Government with
a balanced budget amendment would somehow harm citizens of the Western
States. It is true moving from a $200 billion a year deficit to a zero
deficit is not going to be easily done. East, west, north, south, I do
not care where you come from. We are all going to feel the pain of
withdrawal from our 33 years of addiction. For 33 years we have been
running a deficit, out of the last 34.
The American people understand tough medicine. They would rather take
it sooner than later. People are ready to make the sacrifice. I have
served as chairman of the Veterans Committee, and ranking on that
committee.
The veterans have told me they will take an equitable cut, as long as
it is equitable--across the board, fair, and equal. I think most
Americans are willing to make that kind of a sacrifice. The only way to
reduce spending will be to set priorities, saving the most important
programs, and cutting the least important ones.
My greatest concern for the West is not the specter of a balanced
budget amendment kicking in in the year 2001, but the budget that was
delivered to Congress just a few weeks ago. Under this administration,
some say the West may not have anything to worry about by 2001, because
much that has been taken away from us under the current system has
occurred. The only difference is that under a balanced budget
amendment, maybe we would not see the same rise in funding for
regulatory programs such as the increase for the EPA, which we cannot
afford now. It is amazing to me that the majority of the Members cannot
understand the merits of having some balance in that Environmental
Protection Agency. We should be considering a cost benefit or risk
analysis in the process of decisionmaking, but we cannot seem to come
to that.
Without a balanced budget amendment, programs important to the West
are being cut right and left. We borrow money to pay for the creation
and enforcement of new regulations. The Department of Interior is
letting Park Service personnel go by the hundreds and hiring hundreds
of lawyers.
Mr. President, I think we can maintain a strong defense under a
balanced budget. We can implement a strong resource development policy
under a balanced budget, and we can take care of core Government
functions like aviation and the Postal Service. Those of us who care
about these core functions believe the only way to protect it for our
children is to reduce deficit spending now. We must address the
realities associated with the increased interest costs we are going to
face in a few years, when our interest costs are going to be more than
our current military budget.
Mr. President, it is mandatory that we have a healthy country to meet
our obligations. It is mandatory that we tell our environmental friends
that we need a healthy economy to meet our environmental obligations. I
have said the country is broke. If we do not get our finances in line
by addressing entitlements, mandatory spending, and distinguish low-
priority programs from crucial Government programs, we are going to be
looking at cutting the Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation
Administration, and Defense.
Mr. President, I want to return to the primary issue before us today:
Why we need to change the Constitution to address the deficit crisis. I
will run through three charts briefly, because they show the history of
the budget agreement failures in the last 10 years. It is interesting
to note that every genuine effort made here has failed. During that
period, we have had budget summits, reconciliation bills, tax
increases, sequesters, minisequesters, and all of those efforts failed
to achieve their intended goal--a zero deficit--for the simple reason
that we held entitlements off the table and found more loopholes and
excuses for not doing the one thing that actually would have worked:
Cutting Federal spending.
Chart one shows the promise. Remember Gramm-Rudman 1, which was
adopted in 1985? As you can see, Gramm-Rudman was supposed to bring us
down to a zero deficit over this 6-year period from 1985 to 1991. From
a projected high of $172 billion, the deficit was supposed to come down
by $36 billion a year to zero in 1991.
In reality, by 1991, instead of a zero deficit, we had a $269 billion
deficit. That is history lesson No. 1.
History lesson No. 2: In the second chart, I have shown the revisions
we made in Gramm-Rudman in 1987. We were all enthusiastic about it. In
that year, we revised the original target. Quite frankly, this
agreement was an even more astounding failure than the original Gramm-
Rudman, which certainly was not the fault of the Senators involved but
of the Congress. We found enough ways to get around the law. When the
deficit was supposed to be $100 billion in the year 1990, in reality,
it turned out to be double that. It was supposed to be $100 billion
but, in reality, it was $221 billion. Then we move over to 1991. The
deficit was supposed to be $64 billion. Instead, there was over a 400-
percent increase, and it was up to $269 billion. In 1992, the deficit
was supposed to only be $28 billion, and headed down. But, in reality,
it was up 1,000 percent to over $290 billion.
Of course, by 1990, it was clear that none of the targets would be
even remotely met. So at that time, President Bush entered into a
summit agreement and made the mistake of breaking his no-tax pledge. I
happened to be down at the White House at the time he made that
decision. He was genuinely convinced that if he allowed the tax
increase, Congress would respond and reduce spending. It did not work.
The third chart shows how the deficit was supposed to come down by
that agreement in 1990. Unlike the earlier budget agreements, this time
the deficit targets were allowed to be adjusted and the deficit targets
did not include off-budget trust fund balances. This chart shows that,
by 1995, the on-budget deficit was expected to be only $83 billion. In
fact, the chart shows the actual deficit is nearly 270 percent higher,
at $225 billion, over here. Here is the actual deficit, and here was
the projected deficit.
Why did all these agreements fail? Because we allowed spending to
increase by more than 53 percent, from $990 billion to more than $1.5
trillion. I would also note that these agreements failed because we, in
Congress, decided to create budget exemptions for more than 135
different programs. We simply exempted them. We exempted the economic
development revolving fund, the check forgery insurance fund, and the
Higher Education Facilities Loan and Insurance Program--and that is
just 3 of 135 programs we exempted from the cuts.
Mr. President, that is Congress' sorry budget control track record
for the past 10 years. The bottom line: Interest payments increased 57
percent, from $136 billion to $213 billion; and the national debt, in
10 years, more than doubled, from $2.1 trillion to more than $4.5
trillion.
If these trends are not reversed, interest will consume upward of
$365 billion--$1 billion for each day--and the national debt will more
than double to $9 billion in 10 years. That is our past record of
trying to correct this problem. This is why the only solution to the
problem is to change the Constitution. It is evident that history
speaks for itself.
Mr. President, let me talk very briefly about the Reid
substitute. When I first read the language of this amendment I was
reminded of the Potemkin villages that the Russian Tsars used to allow
foreign guests to visit. These villages gave the visitor the false
impression that Russian peasant life was rich and bountiful when, in
fact, they were merely facades for show like a Hollywood set. These
villages were designed for one and only purpose--to deceive the foreign
visitor.
The same can be said of this proposed substitute except in this case
it is not the foreign guest, but the American public that is being
misled. If this amendment is adopted, we will effectively have
abandoned any hope that our Nation's debt and deficit will ever be
controlled. For this amendment is so transparently flawed, that it is
impossible to believe that it is being offered as a serious alternative
to our amendment. If this substitute is adopted, it will be proof
positive that this institution will stop at nothing to avoid facing our
fiscal responsibilities.
The central element of this substitute is the requirement, and I
quote: ``the operating funds of the United States for any fiscal year
shall not exceed total estimated receipts to those funds for that
fiscal year * * *.'' And in defining operating funds, the substitute
excludes so-called capital investments.
What are capital investments, Mr. President? Providing a Federal
grant for constructing a bridge would surely qualify. And so would a
new aircraft carrier. But the Federal Government makes many more
investments that yield long-term benefits to our Nation. In a section
of the President's budget, the administration provides its definition
of investment outlays. Let me quote from the President's budget:
Investment outlays are outlays that yield long-term
benefit. They take several forms and are made for many
purposes. They can be direct Federal outlays or grants to
State and local governments. They may be aimed at improving
the efficiency of internal Federal agency operations or at
increasing the Nation's overall stock of capital for economic
growth. They can be for physical capital, which yields a
stream of services over a period of years, or for research,
development, education, and training, which are less tangible
but also increase income in the future or provide other long-
term benefits.
Here is the crunch, Mr. President. Capital investments are outlays
that yield long-term benefits. They take several forms. They are made
for many purposes. They can be direct Federal outlays or grants to
States and local governments. They may be aimed at improving the
efficiency of internal Federal agency operations. It is wide open. It
means just about anything the Government can justify.
So, as anyone can see, the capital investment exception contained in
this substitute could be used to effectively take all Government
spending off the table for balanced budget purposes. Would anyone in
this body disagree that the Head Start program should be considered an
investment in our human capital? Of course, it should.
Mr. President, we are down to a time where we must start making the
tough decisions. If we do not make them now, the medicine is going to
be worse later.
I encourage my colleagues to support the balanced budget amendment
because I am absolutely convinced this is almost the last chance we
have. If we do not take it now, it is simply going to elude us. The
fact is that we have amended the Constitution only 17 times, out of
necessity. This is another necessity. The survival of our economic
system is at stake here because nothing else has worked.
Thank you. I thank my colleagues and particularly my friend from
South Carolina who has been so patient.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Alaska for
his outstanding statement.
I now yield to the great Senator who is the original sponsor of this
issue, this very important constitutional amendment, Senator Strom
Thurmond, such time as he may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend all Senators who have
joined in on the underlying resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 41. I
especially commend Senator Simon, Senator Hatch, and Senator Craig for
their great work and tireless efforts on this important issue.
Mr. President, I am compelled to rise in reply to the earlier remarks
against the balanced budget amendment by various distinguished
Senators.
As everyone in this Chamber and the Nation realizes, there is no
greater supporter of a strong national defense than I am. I have
supported our military forces in war and peace, while in uniform, and
as a civilian for over 70 years. I am always vitally concerned about
threats to our defense capability and our defense budget. In my
judgment, one of the greatest threats to the long-term security of this
Nation is an ever-growing budget deficit. We must have the capability
to meet military and economic threats in the 21st century and we may
not be able to do so if we bankrupt ourselves now.
It is obvious we will not discipline ourselves without a balanced
budget amendment. Therefore, we must ensure the essential discipline
through this amendment.
Let me quote from yesterday's edition of Roll Call, where 250
economists endorsed the balanced budget amendment. I repeat, 250
economists--professionals who closely study economic trends, who know
budgets up and down--endorsed the balanced budget amendment.
I want to quote from their brief remarks:
Why do we need the Balanced Budget Amendment now, when no
such constitutional provision existed for two centuries? The
answer is clear. Up until recent decades, the principle that
government should balance its budget in peacetime was,
indeed, a part of our effective constitution, even if not
formally written down. Before the Keynesian-inspired shift in
thinking about fiscal matters, it was universally considered
immoral to incur debts, except in periods of emergency (wars
or major depressions). We have lost the moral sense of fiscal
responsibility that served to make formal constitutional
constraints unnecessary. We cannot legislate a change in
political morality; we can put formal constitutional
constraints into place.
Mr. President, there should be no doubt that we must structure the
amendment so that national defense will not be disproportionally hit
and that all elements of the Federal budget, including entitlements, be
subject to fiscal discipline and responsibility.
Our long-term security is based upon the overall strength of this
Nation--moral, economic, and military. In order to sustain our
greatness and continue global leadership, these elements must be
balanced.
I wish there were another way, but it appears that only with the
balanced budget amendment can we sustain the greatness of this Nation.
We have not balanced the Federal budget in 31 years--I repeat, in 31
years, 31 long years. This is proof of the necessity to mandate a
balanced budget. The only way to effectively accomplish this is through
a constitutional amendment.
Mr. President, the big spending has to stop. How are you going to
stop it? We can mandate it. That is the way to stop it. We can compel
it. That is the way to stop it. We can require it. That is the way to
stop it.
I remember years ago Senator Harry Byrd successfully shepherded a
bill through the Congress to achieve a balanced budget, and before the
year was out, it was nullified by subsequent legislation which pushed
appropriations above the budget.
You just heard the remarks by the distinguished Senator from Alaska,
Senator Murkowski, about the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment. One thing
has been tried after another. Nothing has worked. You cannot stop it.
You have to compel the Congress to do it. They have been spending,
spending, spending for years and years.
How are you going to stop it? There is no way to stop it unless you
compel them to do it. That is what this amendment does. This
constitutional amendment makes the Congress stop spending more than
they take in.
I say now is the time, now is the year to adopt a balanced budget
amendment. Do it now and not put it off. And do not give excuses. Other
proposal have too many loopholes which would swallow up the requirement
of a balanced budget. That is hogwash. It will not do it. Our
underlying proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 41, is the effective way
to balance the budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, will my colleague from South Carolina yield
for one question?
Mr. THURMOND. I am glad to yield.
Mr. SIMON. The Senator from South Carolina made the point about our
defenses in his opening remarks. As the ranking member on the Armed
Services Committee, is it not true that it is impossible to be strong
militarily if you are weak economically?
Mr. THURMOND. Absolutely. If we are going to keep a strong defense,
we have to provide for it through the economy. We have to stop spending
more than we take in or we cannot continue to provide for defense. If
we want to protect this country, we have to stop spending more than we
take in so we can provide for defense.
Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague and I appreciate his leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from South
Carolina for a truly outstanding statement from his years of experience
here. It was spoken very clearly that this Congress cannot demonstrate
its fiscal will unless it is compelled to do so.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to speak now. How much time do I
have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 53 minutes.
Mr. REID. Thank you very much. I would ask my two colleagues to agree
that Senator Byrd can speak at 4:10 and use his time.
Mr. SIMON. No objection.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Reid amendment, the amendment that was
offered yesterday on my behalf, Senator Ford's behalf, and that of
Senator Feinstein, is a balanced budget amendment, but it is one that
is not balanced on the shoulders and backs of senior citizens around
the United States. It is a balanced budget amendment that is realistic.
If a State were asked to live by the Simon amendment, they would all be
bankrupt. They could not live the way that the Simon amendment
proponents are asking this Government to live.
I mentioned and I mention again that the States have, as Governors
have long acknowledged, capital operating budgets. It is a system that
works well.
My amendment wants to treat the Federal Government like States are
treated. That is not unrealistic. And that includes Social Security
being off budget. States have their pension liabilities generally off
budget. The State of Illinois, if they were asked to live by the Simon
amendment, would be bankrupt before anybody else because they have the
largest unfunded pension liability of any State in the Union, I have
been so advised.
If we asked an individual family to live by the Simon amendment, only
the very wealthy in this country could have a home, unless they wanted
to rent it, or could have a car, because you would have to pay cash for
it.
Mr. President, the Federal Government over the years has not done a
good job of matching expenditures with income. And that is too bad.
This is no better illustrated than by what happened during the years
of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Now, they tried an
experiment--and they were supported most of the time by the Congress--
and it was a dismal failure.
We have done pretty well this past year, not great; we have a long
way to go. But we have the lowest percentage of deficit to gross
national product since 1979; the best in 15 years. Not great, but OK.
There are other good things happening, too. The President has
appointed the Kerrey-Danforth Commission. This is a bipartisan
commission. Senator Kerrey is a Democrat from Nebraska; Senator
Danforth a Republican from Missouri. They have a significant number of
people on this panel that the President has selected, people who are
from the private sector.
This is not going to be a quick Government fix that is being
contemplated but, quite the contrary, this Kerrey-Danforth Commission
is going to review entitlement programs and other mandatory programs
and look at alternative approaches to the current tax system. I think
that is a laudatory goal.
Some of the people on the commission from the private sector are Bob
Denham, chairman and CEO of Salomon Brothers; Ms. Karen Horn, chairman
and CEO of Bank One out of Cleveland; Mr. Pete Peterson, chairman of
the Blackstone Group; Mr. Richard Trumka, president of the United Mine
Workers. There are people from State and local government, like the
mayor of Tampa, FL, Sandra Freedman, and the Governor of the State of
Colorado, Ray Romer.
I think what is being done is great. We are trying to do something
about having this Government meet its financial responsibilities.
Health care: We all know we have to do something about health care.
Health care is bankrupting our country. This year, health care costs in
America will go up over $100 billion; not $100 million--over $100
billion. We will not get health care that is one bit better, but it
will cost us $100 billion. Total health care costs in our country will
exceed $1 trillion this year. Now, if we did something about health
care costs, we would do a great deal about bringing spending under
control.
So, we are doing some good things. But we are not doing enough, and I
acknowledge that. That is why I have offered my amendment--an amendment
that is realistic; one that, if passed, we could charge down this slope
and do a good job. It is not something that is so unrealistic that it
is only to give people cover. Many people who are supporting the
balanced budget amendment know that it will never happen, know that it
will not help. They have drafted something so difficult, so
unrealistic, that they can just say, ``Well, it did not pass, but I am
for a balanced budget amendment.''
I cannot believe that the sponsors of the Simon amendment would not
have a Social Security exclusion. Sometimes you lose the ability to
understand why things happen.
In 1990, there was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution here that said
that Social Security should be off budget. Ninety-eight Senators voted
to take it off budget. It is off budget. But yet, we know that now the
Simon people are thinking, ``Well, we will do it by legislation.''
Unrealistic again.
So we need to proceed with a realistic budget amendment. As so
clearly stated by my friend from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, we need
to do more than have budget by sound bites. Little, quick, catchy tunes
that the TV stations love and the newspapers pick up. We need to have a
realistic amendment, and that is what we have, a balanced budget
amendment.
I am very disappointed. I frankly thought that my friends on the
other side of the aisle would like my amendment. But I was disappointed
to read an AP wire story by David Espo that quotes my friend from
Idaho, the senior Senator from Idaho, that he and other Republicans
would vote against Reid's amendment.
Let us have my amendment. It is realistic. If it passed, we could do
something to balance the budget. It would happen quickly. But we do not
need to balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens.
I had here a chart yesterday talking about my amendment and Senator
Simon's amendment. I will talk about it again today.
First, my amendment excludes Social Security. We have heard a lot
here that the Senators who were sponsoring the Simon amendment say they
are going to take care of Social Security; if you do not believe it, we
will give you a quote from a man by the name of Myers.
Well, let me give you a quote by a man by the name of Ball. There is
nobody in the country--and I say no one without any reservation--that
knows more about Social Security than Mr. Robert Ball. He served as
Commissioner of the Social Security System under three Presidents,
under President Kennedy, President Johnson, and President Nixon. Here
is what Mr. Ball said about Mr. Myers and of the promises of those that
are seeking the Simon balanced budget amendment that they will somehow
save the senior citizens through legislation. During hearings last week
he said:
In fact, I do not think any of us has a reasonable way of
knowing what future Congresses would do. And we are talking
about a constitutional amendment which will stand perhaps
forever, at least a long, long time. And to judge that they
will not take actions that are permitted and quite with great
pleasure to take them because of what Mr. Myers characterizes
as reasons for not moving, I think he is really quite naive.
He says, this will not happen, that they will not touch
Social Security after a budget balancing amendment is passed,
because it would be against integrity, logic, and fair play.
It would, but the pressures would be extraordinary. I believe
it would put at great risk the monthly benefits of 42 million
people who are currently receiving benefits and the benefits
of millions more who are working and building credits for
future benefits.
In 1993 alone, 134 million earners worked under Social
Security. Practically every American family has a major stake
in the program.
You see, Mr. President, this is not just a program for people with
white hair. This is a program for every American family. It is hardly a
special interest group to be defending Social Security.
Mr. Ball continues:
The program today keeps 15 million people out of poverty
and millions more from falling into near poverty. But what is
frequently overlooked is it is much more than a poverty
program. It is the only retirement program for 6 out of 10
workers--
60 percent--
in private industry and the base on which private pensions
are built for the other 4 out of 10.
The other 40 percent.
Social Security is family insurance as well as a retirement
plan, life insurance protection under Social Security.
It pays nearly 3 million children each month. And, of
course, there is also protection against loss of income
because of disability.
The protection of young families is very significant. All
this protection; retirement, survivors, and disability
insurance, would be put at risk, if this constitutional
amendment were passed, in my judgment.
The amendment provides a great opportunity for those who
favor cutting Social Security and radically restructuring it.
Social Security is self-financed and responsibly financed. It
has had no part in creating the deficit and the staggering
debt. It has always paid its own way.
Now, anybody come here and tell me this amendment is a stalking-horse
for the leadership. I am offended that people would say that. This is
an amendment that protects the Social Security system of our country,
and my friends on the other side of the aisle, rather than spitting it
to the New York Times, should be spitting it to the senior citizens of
this country and work to pass this amendment.
Second, this amendment that I am sponsoring with Senators Ford and
Feinstein has a separate capital budget, as I mentioned. It would treat
our budget like the very successful programs we hear the Governors brag
about all the time. Should we have less? Our implementing legislation
says if we do not do it, we will assign an officer of this branch of
Government to make across-the-board cuts.
Third, we have a recession exemption that is also reasonable. If
there are two quarters of less than 1 percent growth, then we can spend
and/or reduce taxes and keep us out of the depressions that faced this
country all last century and the first part of this century. Since
1929, we have avoided depressions because of the ability of the
Government to help in times of crisis. Where we went wrong is we did
not save our money during the eighties when we had economic times so
good and there was not a war.
Also, I want to talk about another very important difference between
my amendment and that of Senator Simon. I have not called their
amendment a phony, I have not called it a sham and the other words that
they have tried to spin on the people who have offered this amendment
and the people who support this amendment. But I will just tell you the
facts without any illustration of what term of art could describe it.
The amendment offered by my friend from Illinois and others, everyone
should understand, has in it the words ``fiscal year'' without any
definition. What does that mean? Can you change it legislatively 1 day
each year, 1 month each year? This amendment is worthless because the
legislative body could change it, as has been done around here with
paying people their retirement benefits, you can stall it off for a
quarter, a month, a year, a couple days. My amendment does not allow
that. We define the starting date. We say the first Monday in February.
You cannot change that by legislation. It is a defined time. It is not
broad and generalized like fiscal year.
Mr. President, I talked a little bit yesterday about newspapers. I
want to do a little more today. I want to do it because I ran out of
time and did not have time to cover all of the articles regarding the
Simon amendment. It is best illustrated I guess by the cartoonist Walt
Kelly who does Pogo. They quote him in the Las Vegas Sunday newspaper
on the 20th of February of this year by saying: ``We have met the enemy
and he is us''--talking about the fact that the amendment is not what
it is supposed to be.
Dr. Albert Johns, a former professor at UNLV and other institutions
around the country, who writes a column called ``Action Seniors,''
wrote a column on the 13th day of February that said this:
Many Members of Congress today nurture the idea that by
supporting a balanced budget they can change Social Security
from an entitlement program to a welfare benefit program.
Everyone listening, everyone who is so dead set to vote for Simon in
spite of the damage to the seniors, should listen to what Dr. Johns
says. Not only is he a newspaperman, but he is a scholar.
This would enable them to use Social Security funds to
balance the budget by taking benefits away.
U.S. News & World Report on the 28th day of this month says, among
other things, talking about the Simon amendment:
The appreciation of Keynesian fiscal flexibility is
commendable, but it hardly disguises the amendment's enormous
shortcomings. Advocates point to the States, 49 of which
require balanced budgets.
We have talked about that. U.S. News understands a State's balanced
budget is not the Simon amendment balanced budget.
Legal challenges would inevitably follow every House and
Senate vote, turning the judicial branch of Government into
an adjunct of the legislative branch. Many scholars on the
left (Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School) and right
(former Appeals Court Judge Robert H. Bork) seem to think a
balanced budget amendment is positively wacky.
Talking about the Simon balanced budget amendment:
* * * however, [the amendment] lets those boys and girls in
Washington off the hook. Its principal Senate sponsor, Paul
Simon of Illinois, admits as much. ``In politics,'' Simon
says, ``it is easier to duck a difficult decision than to
face it.''
The article goes on:
Did you elect your Congressman and your Senators to make
the easy calls? If you did not vote, vote against anyone who
supports this larcenous abdication of congressional
responsibility?
These are not my words, these are from Michael Ruby of the U.S. News
& World Report.
The Nevada Appeal in its July 15 edition says:
In a scant half page, an impressive collection of the
Nation's top legal scholars from universities like Harvard,
Yale, Stanford and Chicago sum up the case against the
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. From Laurence
Tribe and Archibald Cox on the left to Robert Bork and
Charles Fried on the right, the 17 jurists blast the
amendment * * * as a serious mistake.
It goes on to say:
Yet another form of false compliance, the jurists' letter
cites the amendment would create ``a permanent incentive to
accomplish national objectives through mandates and
regulatory burdens on State and local governments and the
private sector * * * Despite the superficial appeal, the
balanced budget amendment would exacerbate distortions
already present in the political system without curing the
Federal Government of overcommitment. For that, the only
antidote is political will.
That is what the Reid amendment is about.
The Washington Post, on February 22 of this year says the people that
are sponsoring this amendment, the Simon amendment:
* * * resisted even the most modest proposal by the
President last year to cut Social Security costs by
subjecting the larger share of benefits to the income tax.
They claim to be shocked by the proposal the President and others
have now made to curb health care costs, what the indignant critics say
would be tantamount to rationing.
It goes on to say that this is just a bad idea.
We have, from the San Francisco Chronicle, dated February 13:
The balanced budget vote in the Senate will probably be
another squeaker. Senators Feinstein and Boxer can vote for
democratic government and economic responsibility by helping
to put a stake through the heart of this brain-dead proposal.
The Salt Lake Tribune, February 18, 1994:
Conservatives could beat their gums for it without having
to vote against a single appropriation dear to the special
interests of their State. A liberal could protect his seat
from attack by the usual forces calling him a tax-and-spend
liberal.
And in any event, the amendment and its true meaning would be
litigated to the outer limits of the Supreme Court's competence and
desire to set fiscal policy.
Now, we know the nightmare that this amendment which Senator Simon
has offered would create in the courts. They have attempted to
alleviate it by the amendment they offered. They claim one of the
merits of this amendment is that it has been around so long. It is
interesting they would wait until the last minute to amend it.
Of course, they had to amend it because of the way it is written,
litigation would be the byword of the day. I would also suggest that
the amendment they have offered does not solve those problems.
The Baltimore Sun has also editorialized on the 6th of February,
saying a number of things about the Simon amendment.
The proposed amendment is a phony.
That is a quote from the Baltimore Sun.
It presents to legislators a chance to propose procedures
for cutting the deficit while offering them ample opportunity
to slip-slide away when it comes to actually raising taxes or
cutting spending.
It is somewhat ironic that the latest effort to pass this
unsavory amendment comes just after the release of a Clinton
budget that shows some progress in holding down the size of
the deficit. More, much more, needs to be done about the
deficit, especially in the entitlement area. But one would
think this is not the moment to change the Constitution.
The Seattle Post Intelligencer, in its edition of the 9th of February
of this year, said about the Simon amendment:
Two thousand years ago, as Senate Appropriations Committee
Chairman Robert Byrd tells it, the Roman Empire fell because
the Senate transferred its control of the purse strings to
Rome's imperial rulers, and thus lost its power to prevent
dictatorial errors and excesses.
But Byrd has made a crusade of protecting the American
political system against what he sees as a similar fatal
Senatorial mistake, in the modern form of a constitutional
amendment to mandate a balanced budget.
Byrd stands alone, like Horatius defending the bridge over
the River Tiber against the Etruscan army, holding back an
enemy that marches inexorably onward.
Perhaps we can draw hope from the fact that Horatius was
victorious against great odds. He held the invaders at bay
long enough for the Romans to destroy the piling holding up
the bridge into the city. When the bridge collapsed, he dived
into the river and swam to safety. Or so legend has it.
Mr. President, I hope we defeat the Simon amendment and support the
Reid amendment, an amendment that is reasonable, an amendment that is
logical, an amendment that they have lived by. An amendment that would
allow our citizens, if it were given to them, to live by. That is what
this is all about.
The Reading Eagle, Reading, PA, last year, in November said:
Bright-eyed liberals and bushy-tailed conservatives may
like the sound----
Talking about the Simon amendment--
of their well-meaning oratory on the matter. But theirs is
not the way America is going to choose.
The balanced budget amendment looks to us like an
unnecessary, undesirable impossibility--a tiger by the tail
dressed up to look like a wise old owl.
Now, we have heard comments, facetious in nature, that our amendment
relies on estimates. Of course; so does theirs. The difference between
theirs and ours is that ours has a mechanism for enforcement; theirs
does not. Capital budget? Yes, we have a capital budget. They do not.
And I am proud of the fact that the sponsors of this amendment have a
provision for an operating and a capital expenditure budget. States do
it. They do it well. We can do it well.
I guess they want more--maybe I have put not enough in my amendment.
Maybe it needs more. Well, I think we have to be very careful what we
put in the Constitution, and I have been very, very careful what I have
proposed to put in the Constitution. I followed the admonition and
advice given by Justice John Marshall in the famous McCulloch versus
Maryland case, where he said:
A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the
subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all
the means by which they may be carried into execution, would
partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely
be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be
understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires
that only its great outlines should be marked, its important
objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose
those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects
themselves * * * [W]e must never forget that it is a
constitution we are expounding.
Justice John Marshall, the most famous Supreme Court Justice ever in
the history of the United States.
There have also been comments that this amendment is political cover.
Political cover was invented by the proponents of the Simon amendment,
according to a few of the newspapers I have presented from around the
country. My amendment, offered by the Senator from Nevada, the Senator
from Kentucky, and the Senator from California, is a fair amendment. It
allows us to carry on with the affairs of this country and to balance
the budget the way the States balance their budgets, and not on the
backs of senior citizens and others who depend on Social Security. So
that is where the political cover is. They are in the wrong bedroom,
Mr. President.
There has been some criticism, especially with the press, as to why
we would have CBO make the estimates. Who is going to make their
estimates? The same CBO worked pretty good when they came out critical
in certain areas of the President's health care package. My friends
from the other side of the aisle jumped for joy.
Well, we know CBO. Reischauer and all the directors we have had,
whether there has been a Democratic President or a Republican
President, have been fair and honest. That is why they are in my
amendment.
My amendment retains the integrity of the Constitution of the United
States but, as the Framers of our Constitution intended, reserves
fiscal policy to those who are elected by the people to carry out
fiscal policy. It retains a requirement that three-fifths of the
Congress must approve deficit spending.
But we have an additional burden in the Simon amendment that I think
is quite interesting. On the debts we have incurred, even debts that
this Government already owes, they want a three-fifths vote. That is
wrong.
My friends on the other side of the aisle said, well, that is easy.
It is not easy to get 60 votes to do something in the Senate. For
example, last year alone there were 30 attempts to waive the budget
act. Waiving the budget act requires 60 votes. Of those 30 waivers, two
succeeded. Of course, you now not only have three-fifths here, you have
three-fifths in the other body. A 60-percent requirement is a serious
enforcement. That is why my amendment does the possible. It requires
three-fifths to deficit spend, but not three-fifths to extend debt this
country has already incurred.
I ask unanimous consent that those budget act waivers be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
1993 BUDGET WAIVERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional
No. and date of action Object of waiver Section of 1974 Budget Result (and vote) Record Page Nos.
Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Mar. 3, 1993...... S. 382 (H.R. 920), Section 306........... Rejected (44-55)...... S2294-S2295
``Emergency
Unemployment
Compensation
Amendments of 1993''
Domenici et al.
Amendment No. 67.
(2) Mar. 10, 1993..... S. 460 (H.R. 2) .....do............... Rejected (45-52)...... S2601-S2602
``National Voter
Registration Act of
1993,'' McCain et al.
Amendment No. 73.
(3) Mar. 31, 1993..... H.R. 1335 ``Emergency .....do............... Rejected (52-48)...... S4083
Supplemental
Appropriations Act of
1993,'' Kohl/Shelby
Amendment No. 287.
(4) May 14, 1993...... S. 714 ``Thrift .....do............... Rejected (43-53)...... S5908
Depositor Protection
Act of 1993'' (Gramm/
Mack/Brown),
Amendment No. 365.
(5) June 22, 1993..... H.R. 2118 Section 311........... Rejected (39-59)...... S7568
``Supplemental
Appropriations Act of
1993'' (Roth et al.)
Amendment No. 487.
(6) June 23, 1993..... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 305(b)(2)..... Rejected (54-44)...... S7702-S7720
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993''
(Mitchell/Bumpers),
Amendment No. 502.
(7) June 23, 1993..... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 410........... Rejected (43-55)...... S7721-S7736
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993'' (Dole
et al.) Amendment No.
506.
(8) June 24, 1993..... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Title III............. Rejected (54-43)...... S7830
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993'' (Sasser/
Mitchell/Dodd)
Amendment No. 510.
(9) June 24, 1993..... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 310(d)(2)..... Rejected (56-42)...... S7874
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993'' (Roth
et al.) Amendment No.
525.
(10) June 24, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 310(G)........ Rejected (48-50)...... S7892
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993'' (Dole
et al.) Amendment No.
536.
(11) June 24, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 305(b)(2)..... Rejected (52-45)...... S7913-S7919
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993'' (Bryan
et al.) Amendment No.
543.
(12) June 24, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 313(b)(1)(A).. Rejected (53-45)...... S7920
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993''
(Domenici/Nunn)
Amendment No. 544.
(13) June 24, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 313(b)(1)(A).. Rejected (53-45)...... S7920
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993''
Amendment No. 542.
(14) June 24, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 310(d)(2)..... Rejected (15-83)...... S7921
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993'' (Graham/
Moseley-Braun/Harkin)
Amendment No. 548.
(15) June 24, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 313(b)(1)(A).. Rejected (38-60)...... S7922
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993''
(Agriculture
Committee).
(16) June 24, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 936........... Rejected (20-78)...... S7922
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993'' (Bryan
Amendment No. 551).
(17) June 25, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 305(B)........ Agreed (69-29)........ S7923
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993''
(Bumpers Amendment
No. 545).
(18) June 25, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 305(b)(2)..... Rejected (55-43)...... S7923
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993''
(DeConcini/Sasser/Fei
ngold) Amendment No.
555.
(19) June 25, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 313(b)(1)(A).. Rejected (55-43)...... S7924
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993'' (Gramm
Amendment No. 557).
(20) June 25, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 310(d)(2)..... Rejected (46-52)...... S7925-S7927
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993'' (Burns
et al.) Amendment No.
558.
(21) June 25, 1993.... S. 1134 ``Omnibus Section 305(b)........ Rejected (58-40)...... S7930
Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993''
(Hutchison Amendment
No. 513).
(22) Aug. 4, 1993..... H.R. 2267 ``Emergency Section 306........... Rejected (35-64)...... S10327-S10341
Supplemental
Appropriations for
Relief from the Major
Widespread Flooding
in the Midwest
(Durenberger
Amendment No. 764).
(23) Aug. 6, 1993..... H.R. 2264 (S. 1134) Section............... Rejected (44-56)...... S10655-S10681
Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of
1993'' (McCain
constitutional pt. of
order).
(24) Oct. 5, 1993..... H.R. 2750 ``Department Section 602(b)........ Rejected (35-63)...... S12917-S13044
of Transportation and
Related Agencies
Appropriations Act,
1994'' (Warner
Amendment No. 1015).
(25) Oct. 26, 1993.... H.R. 3167 Section 311(a)........ Rejected (50-44)...... S14319
``Unemployment
Compensation
Amendments of 1993''
(Hutchison/Shelby et
al.), Amendment No.
1081.
(26) Oct. 26, 1993.... H.R. 3167 Section 12............ Rejected (59-38)...... S14326
``Unemployment
Compensation
Amendments of 1993''
(Moynihan).
(27) Oct. 27, 1993.... H.R. 3167 Section 311........... Agreed (61-39)........ S14487
``Unemployment
Compensation
Amendments of 1993''.
(28) Oct. 27, 1993.... H.R. 3167 Section 311........... Rejected (36-61)...... S14496
``Unemployment
Compensation
Amendments of 1993''
(Bumpers Amendment
No. 1084).
(29) Oct. 27, 1993.... H.R. 3167 Section............... Rejected (58-39)...... S14515
``Unemployment
Compensation
Amendments of 1993''
(Gramm Amendment No.
1087).
(30) Oct. 27, 1993.... H.R. 3167 Section 302(f)........ Rejected (46-51)...... S14515
``Unemployment
Compensation
Amendments of 1993''
(McCain Amendment No.
1088).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also want to talk for a little bit about
statements that have been made: Well, the Reid amendment, I cannot
believe anybody would ever carry it out. I do not think we are serious
about it. I do not think they would really go through on what they say
they would do if the amendment passes. And it is only wishful thinking.
We can go back to one of the sponsors of the Simon amendment, Senator
Hatch, who yesterday made the following statement:
I do not think there is a person in this body who would
not be interested in living up to his oath of office, which
requires fealty to the Constitution of the United States, who
would not take it seriously and who would not realize that
the game is up around here, and that we have only 7 years on
a glidepath to reach a balanced budget.
It is interesting. I am sure Senator Hatch does not mean that his
glidepath is more moral than our glidepath or that his glidepath is
somehow more genuine than our glidepath. I think, if you submitted this
to the American public, they would overwhelmingly support the Reid-
Ford-Feinstein balanced budget amendment. Why? Because it is not a
game. We are exempting, as the Senate said we should in a 98-to-2 vote,
Social Security. It treats us like their own States are treated.
Senator Hatch went on to say:
I have to tell you, I cannot imagine a Member of this body,
if this resolution passes both Houses of Congress, who would
not take their responsibilities very, very seriously to start
that day and do what is right.
He is talking about his amendment. Does he think any less of ours if
it passed? I hope not.
He said:
Furthermore, to say that by putting our declaratory
judgment language in the amendment we are preventing
enforcement also could be construed as an insult to every
Member of Congress * * *.
So I will not belabor the point other than to say we believe that the
amendment that we have offered is realistic, it is doable, and my
friends on the other side of the aisle, rather than carping about this
amendment, should be glad that it is offered and should join the
supporters.
As Senator Conrad has indicated, the Simon amendment is not going to
pass. The amendment is doomed. Why not join in this amendment? With
their support, this amendment would pass. It would march us down the
road to economic recovery more quickly.
There has also been a statement made: How could the unanimous-consent
agreement ever have been reached that would require 67 votes to pass my
amendment? Well, Mr. President, this particular amendment, if adopted
by a majority vote, would ultimately require 67 votes to pass. So as
the advertisement says, you can pay me now or you can pay me later. I
have to get 67 votes to pass my amendment. The Senator from Illinois,
who is so well respected in this body, wanted a vote on his amendment.
I believe he is entitled to a vote on his amendment. I did not feel
that, through parliamentary maneuvers, I should somehow think to take
away an up-or-down vote on the Simon amendment. Perhaps that could have
been done. I do not think that would have been fair, for lack of a
better term. So what we have here is an up-or-down vote on the Reid
amendment and an up-or-down vote on the Simon amendment.
The point I am making, Mr. President, is that, as Senator Simon's
staff said to my staff yesterday, may the best amendment win. I believe
the best amendment should win. If the Simon amendment is not going to
pass, that leaves the possibility of only one amendment to prevail. I
think they should join and support this amendment.
Like the Simon amendment, this amendment requires the Federal
Government annually to balance operating expenses with its revenues. It
allows flexibility during time of war or threat to the national
security. It must take effect by the year 2001.
Where my amendment differs is in areas that I believe are truly
justified.
It allows the creation of a separate capital budget. It allows
flexibility during times of economic recession. It preserves Social
Security as a separate trust fund.
And, this amendment specifically protects the fundamental
constitutional policy of the balance of powers.
In short, Mr. President, this amendment is pragmatic while being
proactive, enforceable but not unworkable, and it is responsible
without being reckless.
Mr. President, I, like everyone in this Chamber, have watched and
listened to the senior Senator from Illinois. He was a Lieutenant
Governor of his State. I was a Lieutenant Governor of mine. He was
elected first. I came later. He was then elected to the House. He came
first. I came later. He was elected to the Senate. He came first. I
came later. I have followed Senator Simon on many, many things. I have
the greatest respect and admiration for him and his family, his
integrity, and however we decide on this amendment, it is not going to
change that. His record is already written in the history books of this
country.
But in spite of the great integrity that he has and the reputation he
has, and as much as I would like to support him on this issue. I
cannot. I have tried. I have searched my conscience. I have searched my
mind separate and apart from my conscience. I have delved as much as I
can into my heart.
I cannot support the Simon amendment because it is flawed. I think
that over this weekend the supporters of the Simon amendment should, in
unison, join in the Reid-Ford-Feinstein amendment and make a balanced
budget a reality. This would go to the House and pass like corn flakes
early in the morning.
Mr. President, I am hopeful that we can pass this amendment. I
believe that it is the right thing to do for the Senate of the United
States and the right thing to do for this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, as I said yesterday on the floor of the Senate--and I
do not think the Senator was here when I mentioned it--I have great
respect for my colleague from Nevada. He is one of the best Members of
this body. But I think he is offering, in the words of USA Today, his
amendment as a weak substitute.
I think that is in fact what it is. It has so many loopholes that it
is not going to get us where we have to go.
Let me deal specifically with the criticisms that he makes of my
amendment. No. 1, on the courts. It is interesting that we get
criticized no matter what we do on this one. If you have the
possibility of the courts intervening, people say the courts are going
to get enmeshed. If we adopt the Danforth amendment, as we have done,
to severely limit court involvement, they say it is meaningless. The
reality is that even without the Danforth amendment, court involvement
would be minimal, because the courts have made clear that they do not
get involved in what are called ``political questions.''
The concern has arisen because of the Jenkins case in Missouri, where
the courts said to a school district: In order to comply with an
integration order, we are going to impose a tax here. That arose under
the 14th amendment. There is no such likelihood here, even without the
Danforth amendment. And the best illustration was when our former
colleague, Senator Barry Goldwater, and several Members of this body,
went to the U.S. Supreme Court on the agreement that President Carter
made with the People's Republic of China and in effect abrogated a
treaty that we had with the Republic of China, with Taiwan. Senator
Barry Goldwater said that you cannot do this, this is illegal.
Candidly, I think Barry Goldwater had a very good legal point. But the
Supreme Court said that we are not going to get involved in a case that
is between the executive and the legislative; that is a political
question. And that is, of course, what we have here. If there was any
question, that has been clarified by the Danforth amendment.
My friend from Nevada says we have the lowest deficit to GDP we have
had since 1979. That is true, but you look at those projections, and
they go up and up and up and up from here on out. And that spells
trouble with a capital ``T''. As you look at other countries, countries
that have had high deficits relative to GDP have ended up monetizing
their debt--just printing money. You can take a gamble that we will be
the first country in history not to do that, but it is a huge gamble
with the future of our country.
On Social Security. In the Budget Committee, I have been the champion
of Medicare, which is the part of Social Security that comes before the
Budget Committee. Retirement does not come before the Budget Committee
because it is automatic. I have been the champion of that. I do not
believe we should be attacking Social Security retirement. That is not
the cause of our deficit. But to pretend that the Reid amendment will
protect Social Security is simply not a reality.
If, under the Reid amendment, you were to come in and say, OK, let us
reduce Social Security taxes 1 percent and increase income tax 1
percent, that would be perfectly possible. You know, there are all
kinds of ways of evading that, or increasing the income tax paid on
Social Security. There are all kinds of things that could be done. The
reality is that the protection for Social Security rests in this body,
with the Members here, who will do what we can --and I think we will--
to protect Social Security. I have made clear that I prefer not using
that surplus in determining the balance. I am willing to say that in a
sense-of-the-Senate or in a statute, but not in the Constitution, for
one reason, this provision recognizes a surplus right now. But that
surplus is not a permanent thing. Starting in the year 2024, the Social
Security trust fund goes into deficit, and that means anyone under the
age of 35 would not be protected.
At the invitation of my friend from Nevada, I met with the University
of Virginia soccer team, and one of the stellar members of that team is
his son. I was pleased to meet his son, as well as the coach. And,
obviously, next to his son, the most outstanding member of the team, I
discovered, was from the State of Illinois. But every one of those
members----
Mr. REID. His name is Mike Fisher.
Mr. SIMON. From Batavia, IL.
Mr. REID. He started every game this year.
Mr. SIMON. Before we know it, we are going to have a discussion on
the University of Virginia soccer team.
Mr. REID. It would be a lot more fun than this, would it not?
Mr. SIMON. Every one of those bright young men on that team will not
be protected by this Reid amendment, because of the deficit situation.
We cannot adopt a constitutional amendment that anticipates we are
going to have a surplus into the indefinite future. Clearly, we ought
to do what we can to protect Social Security.
Finally--and I saw Senator Byrd on the floor a moment ago, and I know
he wants to take the floor--I point out that we simply have to stop
borrowing from our children and our grandchildren. When Senator Paul
Tsongas testified last week before my subcommittee, he said, ``This is
a moral issue. What right do we have to borrow from our children in
order to satisfy our present desires?''
In terms of the media that he quoted, it is interesting there is a
gradual movement--slow, I admit--but a gradual movement of economists
and media over to the side that we have to do something here. Senator
Tsongas testified last week that if someone is against this, they are
either part of the media or in academia. Well, that is not quite true,
but it has kind of been historically true. But there is gradual
movement in what I think is the right direction.
Finally, my friend from Nevada says that his resolution has a
mechanism for enforcement.
I will read this:
The Congress may by appropriate legislation delegate to an
officer of Congress the power to order uniform cuts.
We can do that now.
We do not need a constitutional amendment to do that. The mechanism
of enforcement that we have in our amendment, which the Presiding
Officer, Senator Mathews, is a cosponsor of, the mechanism that we have
in our amendment says if you want to raise the debt ceiling of the
Federal Government you need a three-fifths vote. That has muscle. That
has teeth. What we need is something that is meaningful.
There is no question that if my amendment passes we are going to have
a little pain. Senator Tsongas described our situation as a debt
addiction. I think that is correct. And just like a drug addiction or
alcohol addiction, to get rid of the addiction is going to take a
little bit of pain. It is going to pinch us a little bit. But not
getting rid of the addiction is going to cause us infinitely more pain,
and to suggest that we ought to do something that looks like we are
doing something but really is not substantial, I do not think we ought
to play those kinds of games with the public or with ourselves.
I hope we can pass my amendment. I hope the Reid amendment is
defeated and that we can do what we ought to do for future generations
of this country.
Mr. President, I do not know if Senator Byrd is going to address the
Senate.
Mr. REID. Perhaps we should suggest the absence of a quorum. He said
he would return shortly. I do not think he decided for sure if he is
going to speak.
Mr. SIMON. If it is all right with Senator Reid we will divide the
quorum call three ways.
Mr. REID. Excluding Senator Byrd.
Mr. SIMON. Senator Reid and myself, but not on Senator Byrd's time,
and I so ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know that some of my colleagues are very
troubled about this constitutional amendment--and I am directing my
comments toward the amendment that is authored by Senator Simon and
several other Senators.
As I talk with some of my colleagues, I know they are wrestling with
the decision, and some say to me that they are very concerned about the
debt and the deficit and the interest on the debt. And, of course, I
understand that. I think we can handle that problem. It will take some
time.
We did not get into this mess exactly overnight. A little less than
one-fourth of the total debt accumulated over a period of 192 years,
dating from the beginning of the Republic in 1789 and continuing
through 39 administrations, up until Ronald Reagan, the beginning of
his Presidency in 1981.
And, of course, that was a period of time in which we paid off the
debts of the Revolutionary War--remember, we had to go into debt in
fighting that war--paid off the debts of the Revolutionary War; fought
the War of 1812 against the British; the war with Mexico, 1846 to 1848;
the Civil War, 1861 to 1865; the Spanish-American War, 1898; World War
I, during which I was born; World War II, the Korean war; the Vietnam
war; all of these wars, the panics and recessions throughout the 19th
century, and the Great Depression in the early thirties, throughout all
of these events, costly as they were, we had accumulated a debt
amounting to a little under $1 trillion when Mr. Reagan became
President and was sworn into office in January 1981.
During those next 12 years, under the Reagan and Bush
administrations, the debt increased three times; in other words, it had
quadrupled from, let us say, $1 trillion to $4 trillion.
How much is $1 trillion? Counting at the rate of $1 per second, it
would take me--I say me, because I learned under the old math, not the
new math--so it would take me 32,000 years to count $1 trillion. A lot
of money.
And so, it took a long, long time to accumulate this debt of now
roughly $4.5 trillion. It is not going to be easy. We cannot wipe out
the deficits in one single year without imposing upon our country a
terrible trauma, which would be counterproductive, which would turn the
economy on its head and put millions of people out of work. It would
also create reverberations throughout the world.
So we have to go about it in an orderly, careful, thoughtful way. I
think that President Clinton and the Congress started down that road,
took up where the 1990 summit left off, the 1990 summit, which was held
during the Bush administration. And we injected into the budget, into
budget policy, some real discipline--real discipline. At the 1990
summit we said we have to have pay-as-you-go, pay-as-you-go. If the
committees of the Congress create new entitlement programs, they are
going to have to find some way to pay for them. If they are going to
increase this program they are going to have to decrease something
else. That is what we meant by pay-as-you-go. If they are going to cut
taxes on the one hand, they are going to have to increase taxes on
something else, or they are going to have to pay for that in one way or
another. So that was discipline. I insisted on that at the budget
summit.
I also insisted on 60-vote points of order in this Senate on certain
budgetary, fiscal, appropriations matters, and that has been an
excellent disciplinary tool which has forced us to avoid breaching the
allocations, breaching the caps, and I perceive this as the right way
to go. We will have to take similar actions in the future. We will have
to do more.
Therefore, I say, let us continue down that road and we will
eventually get control of the deficits. That is what we are seeking to
do. And at the same time we will do it in a way that will not throw our
economy into a tailspin.
There is not a Senator, not one Senator who opposes the Simon
amendment, who does not believe as fervently as any other Senator
believes that we should get our deficits under control and bring down
that interest on the debt and ultimately bring down the debt itself. We
are told by our friends here that the way to do this is by
constitutional amendment. No such amendment has ever been adopted by
Congress and ratified by the States.
The Simon constitutional amendment--and when I say Simon amendment,
he is the chief sponsor but, of course, I include the other Senators as
well who are cosponsoring that amendment and who will support it. My
friends who are troubled, who are wrestling with this matter, speak
about how concerned they are about the deficits and say we have to do
something. We have to do something. We have to force ourselves to do
something. We have to have something that will discipline us. We have
to force ourselves. So, they say, they do not want to continue down the
road we are going, in which we are trying to methodically and
systematically and in an orderly way deal with these deficits. I have
confidence that we will deal with them.
So they do not want to pass that legacy on to their children. I am
concerned about our children and our grandchildren as well. I also do
not want to pass on to our grandchildren the legacy of a Constitution
that is not what it was, a Constitution that is torn and rent. And I
say to them, think about the Constitution you are passing on to your
children. You will not be passing on the same Constitution to them that
has come down to us after more than 200 years. It will not be the same
Constitution and it will not be, in time, a representative democracy.
Why? Because this constitutional amendment takes away that
majoritarian principle that undergirds our democracy and which
undergirds any other democracy, that principle being: The majority
rules.
This is a prescription for minority rule. A small minority in one
House can thwart the efforts of the entire other body and the great
majority in the body in which that particular minority may exercise its
powers under this constitutional amendment. That small minority can
exact from the majority and exact from the President of the United
States whatever it wants to extract. It can get its pound of flesh.
And, unless the majority, the overwhelming majority in both Houses
knuckles under, yields, in order to placate that minority, then we will
be unable to get the three-fifths majority to waive the Constitution in
circumstances that may be exceedingly serious; unable to get the three-
fifths necessary to raise the debt limit.
There are only five instances in the--I refer to the Constitution as
the original Constitution that our Framers gave us--there are only five
instances in which there is a supermajority requirement. I have named
those already before: Overriding the President's veto, the expulsion of
a Member in either body, approving the ratification of treaties,
convicting a President or other Federal officer who has been impeached,
and amending the Constitution.
There are three other instances, somewhat curious if you study them,
in the amendments. I believe it is the 12th amendment, and the 14th
amendment, and possibly the 25th amendment. Some of these have to do
with quorums, and on another day I will deal with them in particular.
But the point here is we only have amended our Constitution 27 times;
10 of those times being referred to as the Bill of Rights, the first 10
amendments, and the remaining 17. Among the remaining 17, two have
wiped each other out, the 18th amendment, the prohibition amendment,
and the 21st amendment, which wiped it out, so there are two that wash
each other. Or at least the second amendment washed out the first one.
So actually we have only amended that Constitution 15 times, what
amounts in essence to 15 times, following the first 10 amendments, the
Bill of Rights.
Here we are about to amend it again and this time it is going to deal
with fiscal policy. None of the others did it. No other constitutional
amendment has dealt with fiscal policy.
So this is an extremely serious matter, and I will not go into the
amendment in any further depth than I have today, which has not been
very much. But I will say this: This amendment has great appeal out
there in the country, a great appeal. Ask the American people if they
favor a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Yes, they favor
it by a whopping majority--by a whopping majority.
Ask them if they want to cut Social Security payments? Oh, no, they
do not want to do that in the main, or if they were to be asked whether
or not they want to pay higher taxes, you will get a mixed answer on
that one.
Or do they want to cut defense? There, again, it would be divided,
and we will not see the great majority that we see who support a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
Of course, people just are not aware as to what is really in this
amendment. They do not have the time to study the Federalist Papers.
The average American has to be concerned about the bread and butter on
his table, sending his children to college, putting a new roof on the
house, paying a mortgage off on the farm. They do not have time to go
back and read the Constitution and the history of England and
Montesquieu's history of the Romans, the Federalist Papers or Madison's
notes at the convention. They do not have the time to do those things.
And so it is understandable as to how they would feel.
Many of our Senators during campaigns promise to vote for a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, in the heat of the
campaign. Senators do that thoughtlessly, undoubtedly. Many of them
have come to me and have stated to me that they do not like this
amendment. They do not think it is a good amendment. They think it is
terrible, but they say that they committed themselves during the
campaign to vote for a constitutional amendment on the balanced budget,
therefore, they do not feel they can vote against this.
It seems to me that one needs to ask himself: Am I being truthful to
my own conscience? Am I being faithful to the trust that is reposed in
me? This is not to say that all Senators who support this amendment are
not sincere. Some of them sincerely believe this is the only way to do
it. I can understand their frustration. I am frustrated also. The
American people are frustrated.
So I do not say this with disrespect for any Senator, but I do know
in talking with a good many Senators around here, several times I have
encountered Senators who have said, ``I promised in a campaign I would
vote for a constitutional amendment.''
We go up to that desk, hold up our hand before God and man and swear
to support and defend that Constitution. Montesquieu said that when it
comes to an oath, the Romans are the most religious people in the
world. The Romans believed in keeping an oath and, during my several
speeches last year on the history of the Romans, I talked about the
keeping of the oath and how serious the Romans were about it, how
Regulus, who was captured by the Carthaginians--I told the story of
Regulus, the consul, who, even though he knew he was going to his doom
upon his return to Carthage, told the Roman Senate that he would keep
his oath with the Carthaginians they exacted from him when they sent
him to Rome with other Carthaginians in the interest of having a
peaceful cessation to the hostilities. And it seems Regulus took the
position, he told the Roman Senate, when he gave his oath whether it
was to a friend or to an enemy, he was going to keep his oath. So he
knew he was going to be tortured to death and that is what happened.
So the Romans kept their oath. Therefore, it occurs to me that
although I may make a commitment in the heat of a campaign, not having
studied the matter sufficiently and later having the opportunity to
study, to read history, to ponder over that Constitution and the oath
that we take to support and defend it, then I should be able to look in
that mirror and say: ``I'm keeping my oath to the Constitution.''
I have found that people--if one has to break a promise, if he will
explain why he broke it, how the facts had changed or the facts were
different from what he knew when he made the promise and the facts are
these--I have found that the people are fair, they are reasonable, they
are understanding, and I would say nine times out of 10, they will have
more respect for that person for having done what he thought was best
for his country rather than merely keep a promise that was an ill-
spoken promise and one that was made without all of the facts at one's
disposal.
I was opposed to the Panama Canal Treaty and so stated it in West
Virginia. I wrote columns that appeared in my papers in which I said I
was opposed to the Panama Canal Treaty. But when I studied the 1903
treaty and the subsequent treaties, when I studied the history and when
I read every possible thing that I could get my hands on to read--I
read ``The Path Between the Seas'' by McCullough. What a book--I came
to the conclusion that it was in the best interest of the United States
to ratify those treaties.
Consequently, as leader of my party in the Senate, and at that time
majority leader in the Senate, I led the effort to approve the
ratification of the treaties. Howard Baker was the minority leader.
Without Howard Baker, without the support of the minority leader--on
that occasion it was the minority leader and several Republican
Senators--without their support, we could never have mustered the two-
thirds vote that was required to approve the ratification of the
treaties. We could not have done it. That was an act of sheer
statesmanship.
If ever there comes a time when another one of those panels out in
the reception room in the direction towards which I am pointing my
finger--there are five great Senators who have their pictures out there
on the panels--if ever there comes a time when another Senator's face
is painted on those panels, I hope it will be Howard Baker's portrait,
because he demonstrated real statesmanship--statesmanship. He went
against the grain of his own party, I think, but he stood for what was
best for America.
So there came times when I had to break what I had made as a promise,
but I did it because I concluded after much study that it was the right
thing to do, that it was in the best interest of my country, and today
my conscience is clear. There are a good many people in my State of
West Virginia who have never forgiven me for that, and they remind me
of it every now and then. But that is the price we have to pay. We have
to pay a price to be a Senator, to take the right stand.
And so, on the great issues that come before this country, truly
great issues, it seems to me that we have an obligation to be
intellectually honest with ourselves and with others and that we should
think not so much of what is best for my political career or my being
reelected but what is best for my country.
In 1982, I voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the
budget--in 1982. In 1986, I voted against a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget, because I had studied it more. I came to the
conclusion that it was the wrong thing to do. And that constitutional
amendment to balance the budget in 1986 was defeated by one vote, and
my vote changed. I have never regretted it.
We have to live with ourselves, and mainly we have to think of this
country. This is--as I say, it is kind of an alluring, an attractive
amendment. It is easy to vote for. It does not cost anybody anything.
It does not create one dime in revenue. It does not raise anyone's
taxes one thin dime. It does not cost any program.
We do not have to balance the budget until 2001. And as a matter of
fact, in 2001 we do not have to balance the budget. We do not have to
ever balance the budget under this amendment because it says we do not
in section 6:
Congress shall enforce this amendment by appropriate
legislation which may take into consideration estimates of
outlays and estimates of receipts.
We will never balance the budget on that basis. The sixth section
says do not believe what you see in the first section because you
really do not have to balance it.
So it is a very attractive approach, and I can understand the appeal
that it has out there in the country. But if we adopt that amendment,
we are going to be sorry.
I say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, I am sure that he has
read about the Pied Piper of Hamelin, who on July 22, 1376, according
to Robert Browning, appeared at a meeting of the town council, in the
town of Hamelin on the Weser River, and the mayor and the town council
were very much troubled about the rats in the town. The rats are
killing the cats and chewing on the babies in cradles and getting into
the cheese vats.
And so the mayor and the town council were about to be run out of
town by the populace, and they were beside themselves as to how they
might deal with this situation. And as they sat there, they heard a
knock on the door, and who walked in but this tall, thin man dressed in
a red and yellow coat with a scarf around his neck, red with yellow
stripes. He had small blue eyes and a sharp nose and sharp face. He had
a pipe tied onto his scarf. And all the time he was talking with the
town council his fingers were, as it were, playing on that pipe. And he
told them that he could get rid of these rats.
They said, ``How much would it cost?'' ``1,000 gilders.'' ``1,000
gilders? We will give you 50, 50,000 gilders if you can rid this town
of these rats.'' And he told how he had rid other kingdoms of lice and
various other vermin. ``Oh, we will give you 50,000.''
Out into the street he went. He started playing on that magic pipe,
and the rats poured out of the buildings into the street--great rats,
small rats, lean rats, brawny rats, brown rats, black rats, gray rats,
tawny rats. They poured out into the street, and the Pied Piper just
went right on down the street to the River Weser, and into the river
all the rats plunged, except one old rat who was strong as Julius
Caesar, and he lived to tell the tale.
So the Pied Piper came back to the meeting of the mayor and the town
council. He said, ``I want my money, 1,000 gilders.'' ``A thousand? Oh,
come on. Take 50''--I mean not 50,000 but 50--``gilders.'' He said,
``I'm a busy man. I've got another job to do.''
So out he walked. This time he played a different tune on that pipe,
and all the little feet came pattering, pouring into the streets--the
children of the city. So down the road he went playing his tune, and he
headed in the direction of Koppelberg Hill. And the mayor and the city
council said, ``Oh, he'll never get those children over that hill. That
will stop them.''
Well, Robert Browning tells us in his poem:
When, lo, as they reached the mountain-side,
A wondrous portal opened wide.
And when all were in, to the very last,
The door in the mountain-side shut fast.
Did I say, all? No. One was lame,
And could not dance the whole of the way.
And in after years, if you would blame
His sadness, he was used to say, -
``It's dull in our town since my playmates left.
I can't forget that I'm bereft.
Of all the pleasant sights they see,
Which the Pied Piper also promised me.
The moral of the story was if you have promised ought, keep your
promise.
We are promising a great deal, more than we can keep in this
amendment. It is going to be very disappointing if this amendment ever
becomes a part of our Constitution. We, most of us here at least, will
live to see that it was a terrible, terrible blunder. And what a legacy
we will pass on to our children and grandchildren.
Mr. President, there is not a man or woman in this body who is not a
politician. And everybody in here had to be a politician unless they
were appointed. But politicians are naughty. We all play politics in
here. There are times when we will vote one way or another on a matter
that we think will help politically. I think I will vote this way about
50-50, or I am going to vote this way. Or I will vote with Mr. Clinton
on this one or I will vote against Mr. Clinton on this one.
But when it comes to matters of this kind, a matter that goes to the
very heart of the Constitution, to the heart of this Republic, then we
wrestle and we are tormented at times in reaching a decision. This is
not an ordinary vote. We cast this kind of vote very seldom.
As I said to a Senator yesterday, you are going to pass on a legacy
to your children and grandchildren. And it will not be the same
Constitution that the Framers wrote. And it is going to undermine that
principle of majority rule. That is the underlying principle that tells
us whether it is a democracy or not. Also, if you vote for this, you
will be voting for something that is very destructive to the
constitutional system of checks and balances and separation of powers.
I cannot speak for any other Senator. I can be no judge of any other
Senator. I cannot get inside any other Senator's mind or heart. I can
only deal with myself. And I am very concerned about this amendment.
``Oh, he is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and so and
so is on his committee.'' Now, that is kind of tawdry to ascribe to
another Senator who is on my committee the lack of willpower on his
own. Milton speaks of Gods giving man the freedom of the will to
exercise his will.
It is rather amazing. They used to tell ghost stories when I was a
boy. And I was fascinated with those ghost stories. I speak about some
of the ghost stories in connection with this Capitol in my books in the
history of the Senate.
So I am hearing ghost stories when I hear these stories about,
``Well, Senator Byrd is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and
Senators have to go to him to get things they want for their States,''
as though I would approach a Senator or even think of approaching a
Senator in that way. It is demeaning to other Senators to ascribe to
them a weakness such as that, that they would cast their vote on this
amendment simply because they are on my committee and I am chairman of
the committee, and therefore that they might be expected to suffer some
retaliation. That is a joke. Those people are seeing ghosts. They are
looking for something. They are seeing ghosts.
I am concerned because I love this Senate. I love the Constitution. I
might support a particular amendment to the Constitution if it dealt
with a prayer in schools. I believe in prayer. I believe in having
prayer in schools. I believe in having prayer certainly at
commencement, voluntary prayer by a student, and the majority of the
students want to have a prayer. I see nothing wrong with that. As a
matter of fact, I see a lot of good in it. I see a lot that has
happened to our country that is bad since the Supreme Court decision
dealing with prayer in schools. Whatever we take out of our schools
today in another generation will be out of the country.
So I would amend the Constitution in one particular or another, but
never, never would I again. As I say, I voted for a constitutional
amendment in 1982 and against one in 1986. And I would never vote for
it again, never because I believe in the constitutional system of
checks and balances. I know too much about the history of the English
people, about the history of the Romans, and about the history of our
own country, about the Framers, about the Constitution. I know a lot
more than I knew in 1982.
I believe, I am convinced, that if this amendment were to become a
part of the Constitution, the power of the purse that has been vested
by the Framers in the legislative branch would be gone. No longer would
we have a tripartite government in which the three branches are
coordinate and equal. The power would flow to the executive, or would
flow to the judiciary, and as a consequence, in the final analysis, all
three departments of power would be severely damaged.
I am reminded, may I say to my friend from Idaho, he is a fine
debater, and he is a very dedicated Senator, dedicated to his
convictions. He and I differ on this particular matter.
But I expect he read years ago Chaucer's ``Canterbury Tales.''
He nods his head in the affirmative.
Senator Reid will remember that Chaucer was born around 1340 and died
in 1400. He lived, therefore, during the remains of Edward III, who
reigned from 1327 to 1377. He was followed by Richard II, who reigned
from 1377 to 1399, and who was deposed by Parliament. Well, Chaucer, in
the ``Canterbury Tales,'' demonstrates a keen knowledge of England in
the Middle Ages.
His story was a theme in which several persons who had gathered at
the Tabard Inn, South Wark, would, on their way to the shrine of St.
Thomas at Canterbury, each tell two stories. Chaucer died before he was
able to finish what he had set out upon. But his ``Canterbury Tales''
aptly described life in England and the kinds of people. It included a
cross-section of the people of England. There was the squire and the
friar and the monk and the cook and the sailor, the knight, the wife of
Bath, and the pardoner and the merchants and the physician.
I just want to refer to one tale this afternoon: The Pardoner's Tale.
The pardoner was one of those preachers who was assigned to raising
funds for a particular religious program or cause, and he would render
indulgences in exchange for a contribution or financial gift. So he was
a pardoner. Well, the pardoner told this tale, and it is apt here.
The pardoner told the story of three young men who were sitting in a
tavern, and they were drinking, feeling their oats, making a good deal
of noise, like some people do these days when they get too much in
their cups--some when they do not get their cups. They heard a carriage
go by with a bell, and it was bearing a corpse. So one of them said,
``Knave, who is this who has died?'' The knave responded, and so did
the innkeeper, and said, ``This is so and so. He was killed by an enemy
called `Debt,' and this enemy has been killing a good many people in
the countryside. A thousand people have died in the last little
while.''
These three roisterers got up and said, ``Let us go out into the
streets and find this enemy called ``Debt,'' who has been taking the
lives of our friends. They came upon an old man with a cane. They asked
the old man where they could find this enemy called ``Debt,'' and he
responded that if they go over there on the hill beneath that oak, they
would find the enemy called ``Debt.'' They went to the hill, and under
the big oak tree there they found a pile of gold. They sat down by the
pile of gold and they talked among themselves. They decided that they
ought to take this gold home, but they ought to wait until nightfall,
lest some thief fall upon them and take the gold and take their lives
at the same time.
One said to the other two, ``Let us draw straws.'' They called them
``cuts.'' They did not call them straws. I take it they were straws or
some such. So they drew straws. The idea was that the one who drew the
shortest straw would go into the nearby town and buy some bread and
wine and they would have lunch, until night came on when they would
take the gold away.
So the one who had drawn the particular straw went into town. After
he had gone, the other two got together and they said, ``Why should we
divide this gold among the three? Why should it not be ours? We will
just divide it two ways. When he comes back, I will embrace him as
though in jest, and I will rive him with my dagger, and you do the same
and we will just divide this gold between the two of us.''
Meanwhile, on his way into town, the one ruffian was thinking to
himself: ``Why should that gold have to be divided among three? Why
could I just not have it all?''
He, therefore, went to the nearest apothecary and said, ``Give me
your strongest poison, I have rats that are eating my capons, and there
is also a certain polecat, and I want to kill them.'' He was told that
there was a poison that just a grain of it would kill instantly. He
bought some of the poison and went out into the street, and from a wine
seller bought three bottles of wine. He opened the wine, and in two of
the bottles he put the poison.
He made his way back to the tree. As they had said they would do, one
embraced him and rived him with his dagger. The other did the same, and
he fell dead on the pile of gold. The other two sat down to have the
bread and wine. They opened the wine. They drank the wine, and they
died with excruciating pain. They fell on the pile of gold. So all
three died. They killed themselves.
I see in this amendment the poison which in the end will be
destructive of all three branches of the Government. Courts will enter
into the situation and the people will resent being taxed by the
courts. They will resent the order of the courts, that the legislative
branch raise the taxes, or they will resent the President of the United
States using impoundment powers, using the line-item veto, using
rescission powers to cut their Social Security, veterans compensation,
military pay, military retirement, whatever; and the legislative
branch, of course, will have its powers swept to the other two
branches. So we end up with all three branches damaged.
Mr. President:
I saw them tearing a building down,
A group of men in a busy town;
With a ``Ho, heave, ho'' and a lusty yell,
They swung a beam and the sidewall fell.
I said to the foreman, ``Are these men skilled
The type you'd hire if you had to build?''
He laughed, and then he said, ``No, indeed,
Just common labor is all I need;
I can easily wreck in a day or two,
That which takes builders years to do.''
I said to myself as I walked away,
``Which of these roles am I trying to play?
Am I a builder who works with care,
Building my life by the rule and square?
Am I shaping my deeds by a well-laid plan,
Patiently building the best I can?
Or am I a fellow who walks the town,
Content with the labor of tearing down?''
We are going to tear down something that is sacred to the memories of
Americans, sacred to the memories of our forefathers. We are going to
destroy it. It has taken years to build. Those Framers underwent
sufferance, threats to their lives. They paid dearly--Washington at
Valley Forge. It was not easy, and it took years for this Republic to
grow, to become strong, to become the light of the world, the beacon to
every heart who cherishes liberty.
But with one stroke, I can easily wreck in a day or two that which
took builders years to do. We better think about what we are doing. We
will be tearing down something that it took years to build.
Mr. President, on Monday, we will resume our discussions. On Monday,
I hope that I will have an opportunity to trace in a somewhat cursory
way the power of the purse. I would like to talk about how the English
Parliament developed, and how over a period of centuries of struggle,
the power of the purse was lodged in the hands of the people's elected
representatives in Commons. That is important, in my view, to the
discussion here.
I want to lay in the Record a bit of history because, after all, that
is what influenced Montesquieu in great measure, the history of the
Romans, the history of the English. And these two histories, it is my
understanding, had the greatest influence on Montesquieu as he
developed his political philosophy and system, political system,
separation of powers, and checks and balances.
So I hope to do that on Monday. I do not know how this is going to
come out in the end. We may prevail against the amendment; we may not.
It is a decision that could well affect every man, woman, boy, and
girl in this country today, and the lives of millions who will come
after us.
I want that record to show the history that brought us where we are,
the history of this Republic, the history of the English struggle, the
colonial experience, and how the Framers who knew Plutarch, who knew
Polybius, who knew Tacitus, and who knew Cicero, who knew about
classical Rome and knew about the English, I want the history of this
debate to have that background because those who read that history a
hundred years from today, and if we prevail they will be thankful. If
we do not, they will know that we tried.
I thank my colleagues for being patient. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have no more requests for time on my side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have no further requests for time on my
side. But by unanimous consent, I would like to enter into the Record
an editorial by David Gergen, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter signed by
several Senators, an editorial by George Will of the Washington Post, a
statement in behalf of Senate Joint Resolution 41 by the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, and also a statement by the Balanced Budget Amendment
Coalition, a broad cross-section of American interest groups
representing our citizens, from the small farmer to the blue-collar
worker.
I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record at this time.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From U.S. News & World Report, June 1, 1992]
Balance the Budget--by Force
(By David Gergen)
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 our 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. The time has come to
recognize that the right thing to do is something we have
long resisted: Amend the Constitution so that Congress and
the president are required to balance the budget.
A balanced-budget amendment has always represented an
indictment of our democratic system. It openly confesses that
our elected representatives are incapable of making rational,
tough-minded decisions on their own and must be strapped into
a straitjacket by force of law. It says that as citizens, we
are so unwilling to curb our appetites for more services and
fewer taxes that we penalize any politician who demands self-
discipline. As Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas says, ``Everybody
wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to do what it takes
to get there.''
Yet for all inherent flaws and dangers of an amendment, an
honest look at our past behavior and the future burdens we
are imposing on our children makes a compelling case for its
adoption. Isn't it better to accept a forced diet than to
gorge ourselves to death? Consider: In the first 175 years of
our republic, we balanced the budget or recorded a surplus 60
percent of the time. But since then, as government has
exploded in size and scope, we have balanced the books less
than 4 percent of the time. In the first 20 decades of the
republic, we accumulated a total national debt of $1
trillion; in the past decade, we more than tripled that
amount. From 1950 to 1980, Washington's borrowing soaked up
less than 10 percent of our national savings pool; since
1980, federal deficits have sucked in roughly two thirds of
our private savings. As a result, our rate of gross
investment has been too low (in recent years, half of Japan's
as a percentage of gross domestic product), our interest
rates too high, and now our job creation is too slow. Total
interest payments on the national debt will climb in the next
fiscal year to $315 billion, the largest single item in
the budget; of that, Washington will send some $40 billion
to foreign creditors, more than it will spend on educating
our children.
Momentum is now building in Congress to pass Sen. Paul
Simon's budget amendment before the July recess and send it
forward to the states, where more than 30 have signaled an
eagerness to embrace it. Opponents rightly charge that many
in Congress are acting out of desperation, anxiously trying
to appease voters with something--anything--before the anti-
incumbent mood sweeps them from power. The true test to apply
to a candidate this fall is not whether he favors an
amendment but whether he also shows constituents what
services he will cut and what taxes he will raise.
To reach balance will require wrenching changes, especially
in federal services. Since 1979, contrary to popular myth,
federal spending has shot up from 20 percent to 25 percent of
GDP, a level we haven't seen since the aftermath of World War
II. Double-digit inflation has pushed the cost of Medicaid
and Medicare to $200 billion this year; these costs will
escalate to $600 billion in a decade. A balanced-budget
amendment will clearly bring a crunch in Medicare and
Medicaid, prompting the biggest overhaul of health care in
this century. As it decides where to cut, Washington must
also decide what priorities may demand more resources. How,
for example, will we become a more productive, cohesive
nation unless we fully fund Head Start? Inevitably, we must
face up to the prospect of higher taxes.
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--no more mananas--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.
____
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, February 24, 1994.
Dear Colleague: During floor consideration of the Balanced
Budget Amendment, Senators Simon and Hatch will modify S.J.
Res. 41 to incorporate language clarifying the role of the
judiciary of its enforcement. This modification will make
absolutely no substantive change in the operation of S.J.
Res. 41 but simply will provide an explicit assurance that
the role of the courts will go no further than permitted
under existing legal precedents.
We disagree with those who argue that passage of S.J. Res.
41 will result in the courts setting budget policy, but we
have agreed that it would be beneficial to clarify the issue.
The language that we plan to add to the amendment reflects
our longstanding understanding of the role of the courts in
enforcing the amendment. Courts would be limited to reviewing
the actions of Congress and the executive and determining
whether the amendment has been violated, leaving the policy
decisions regarding what actions should be taken to the
political branches.
This language responds to the concern expressed by Senators
Danforth, Cohen, Domenici and Nunn that the courts will
become too involved in budget policy, as well as the opposite
concern that S.J. Res. 41 will be entirely unenforceable.
S.J. Res. 41 preserves the ability of Congress through
implementing legislation, to further regulate the role of the
courts in enforcing the amendment. Under Article III of the
Constitution, Congress possesses authority to establish
federal court jurisdiction and remedies. Thus, Congress can
confer, deny, or limit court jurisdiction over cases arising
under this amendment through statue. Congress can also pass
legislation to provide for expedited adjudication.
The text of S.J. Res. 41 is reprinted on the back of this
letter. If you have any questions, you may contact any one of
us or Aaron Rappaport (Simon 4-5573), Larry Block (Hatch 4-
7703), Damon Tobias (Craig 4-2752), Janis Long (DeConcini 4-
8178), Thad Strom (Thurmond 4-9494) or Ed Lorenzen (Stenholm
5-6605).
Sincerely,
Paul Simon,
Dennis DeConcini,
Orrin Hatch,
Charles Stenholm,
Larry Craig,
Strom Thurmond.
____
S.J. Res. 41 (as Modified)
(New language in italic)
article--
``Section 1. 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.
``Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United 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.
``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.
``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.
``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 is so declared by a
joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number
of each House, which becomes law.
``Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this
article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on
estimates of outlays and receipts. The power of any court to
order relief pursuant to any case or controversy arising
under this article shall not extend to ordering any remedies
other than a declaratory judgment or such remedies as are
specifically authorized in implementing legislation pursuant
to this section.
``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.
``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with
fiscal year [1999] 2001 or with the second fiscal year
beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.''.
____
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 24, 1994]
Arguments Out of Balance
(By George F. Will)
Opponents of the constitutional amendment that would
encourage--no more than that--balanced budgets rely on
arguments that devour one another. They say the amendment is
an inconsequential gimmick--and they say it would eviscerate
government. They say the amendment is unnecessary because
Congress can be trusted to act responsibly--and they say
Congress cannot be trusted to respect the amendment if it is
put into the Constitution.
The wizards in the White House, tightly in the grip of the
conceit that the future is to them an open book, say the
amendment would force grim choices costing the average Social
Security or perhaps Medicare recipient at least $1,000 a
year, and they have listed the annual cost of the amendment
to each state. Vermont? $418 million. How does the White
House know so much about choices the nation would make under
a constitutional requirement to align revenues and outlays?
Besides, another argument made against the amendment is
that instead of making grim choices, Congress would make a
mockery of the Constitution. This argument, coming from
members of Congress incapable of blushing, is: Trust us, not
the amendment, to achieve fiscal discipline, because we are
so untrustworthy we would treat the amendment as more
loophole than bridle. ``Emergencies'' would be declared
promiscuously, programs would be put ``off budget,'' receipts
and outlays would be redefined, cost and revenue projections
would be cooked--in short, there would be even more of the
trickery that now goes on.
Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat opposed to the
amendment, notes that it ``relies on statutory definitions
that can easily be changed,'' such as the definition of
``fiscal year.'' He warns that Congress might redefine
``fiscal year'' to mean ``eleven months or three years.'' Oh.
Congress is so cynical, don't bother trying to bind it with
constitutional fetters? Does Levin have such a low opinion of
his colleagues that he thinks it would be easier to fiddle
the meaning of ``fiscal year'' than to get 60 percent of both
houses of Congress honestly to authorize a deficit, as the
amendment allows?
The word ``crisis'' has become another classification used
so casually that it no longer classifies. Even so, it is
peculiar to say (as does Lloyd Cutler, who was counsel to
President Carter) that there would be a ``constitutional
crisis'' if an ``emergency''--say, many hurricanes and
earthquakes--necessitated spending that required a
constitutional super-majority to authorize a deficit. If the
``emergency'' could not catalyze 60 percent of Congress,
would it really be much of an emergency?
Opponents of the amendment warn that it deprives the
government of ``flexibility'' needed to adjust fiscal policy
to stages of business cycles. Of course this argument cannot
be used by opponents who say the amendment would be too
porous to inhibit the government. And this argument requires
faith in the government's aptitude for fine-tuning fiscal
policy to ``manage'' the economy. And the people making this
argument must explain this: Flexible government,
unconstrained by a balanced budget requirement, has run
deficits at every stage of every business cycle since the
last balanced budget, in 1969, and President Clinton, who
opposes the amendment, projects deficits far into the future.
When the deficit was around $300 billion, critics said the
balanced budget requirement was ruinously Draconian. Now that
the deficit has temporarily dipped below $200 billion,
opponents say the requirement is unnecessary. And opponents
say the projections of rising deficits by the end of the
decade mean that the requirement soon would be ruinously
Draconian.
Yes, if Congress passes the amendment, the states, which
get about 20 percent of their money from Washington, might
reject it. (Thirteen states can stop an amendment. That limit
on majoritarianism is more substantial than the mild
requirement of a 60 percent vote to run a deficit.) Yes,
Congress might respond to a balanced budget requirement by
stepping up its ``spending by indirection''--imposing
unfunded mandates on the states, regulating business, and so
on. (Last year the Clinton administration regulations filled
69,688 pages of the Federal Register, the third highest total
in history, behind only the last two Carter years.)
Which is to say, the balanced budget amendment can
inconvenience legislative careerists but cannot make them
virtuous. Which brings us to the source of the real passion
against the amendment: deficit spending is, in effect, public
financing for the campaigns of incumbents, enabling them to
charge only 75 to 85 cents for every dollar of government
they dispense. So the vote on the amendment is a referendum
on a political style: borrow and borrow, spend and spend,
elect and elect.
____
Balanced Budget Amendment: Constitutional Issues
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business
federation, has endorsed S.J. Res. 41, the Balanced Budget
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Chamber believes that
this measure, sponsored by Sens. Simon (D-IL), Hatch (R-UT)
and Craig (R-ID), will help move the federal government
toward fiscal responsibility. This paper discusses the most
significant constitutional and legal questions raised by this
landmark legislation, along with some of the conclusions
reached by the U.S. Chamber.
Is a Balanced Budget requirement appropriate subject matter for the
constitution?
Some commentators have argued that a balanced budget
requirement is a mere rule of accounting, incompatible with
the broad principles embodied in the Constitution. It is
worth noting that the Constitution already contains several
narrowly-focused economic and fiscal provisions, including
the requirement of ``a regular statement and account of the
receipts and expenditures of all public money'' (Article I,
Section 9), and the requirement that ``duties, imposts and
excises . . .[be] uniform throughout the United States
(Article I, Section 8).
Moreover, the Balanced Budget Amendment embodies two
principle themes of the constitution: limitation on federal
power, and protection of politically under-represented groups
against majoritarian abuse. Thomas Jefferson, who perceived
the inherent tendency of central government to expand,
supported a constitutional prohibition of federal borrowing
as a means of protecting individual liberty. For most of the
nation's history, the growth of the federal government was
held in check by an implicit policy against deficits, except
during war or recession. In recent times, the erosion of this
principle has created persistent structural deficits, removed
the need to limit and prioritize programs, and led to an
excessively large federal sector. The BBA requirement that
federal operations be funded from current revenues restores
an important principle of fiscal responsibility and limited
government.
Likewise, the protection of groups with limited access to
the political process has emerged as a major theme of
Constitutional law.\1\ Limitations have been placed on
governmental actions which unfairly impact racial minorities,
aliens and other ``discreet and insular'' groups.\2\ Because
future generations who will bear much of the burden of
current policy lack input into the electoral process, it may
be that their interests are undervalued in federal budget
decisions. The Balanced Budget Amendment seeks to ensure that
the vital interests of young and future Americans are
reflected in the decisions of Congress, embodying a principle
of fairness and political inclusion consistent with the best
provisions of the Constitution.
Footnotes at end of article.
can the deficit problem be solved short of amending the constitution?
Statutory attempts to impose fiscal discipline upon the
federal government have failed, largely because Congress was
able to change the rules in mid-game. The ambitious deficit
reduction targets of the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law were
repeatedly modified when they conflicted with Congress'
spending ambitions. Likewise, big-ticket items such as
unemployment compensation payments and disaster relief are
customarily designated as ``emergency'' spending, which
exempts them from spending caps. Between 1980 and 1990, each
year's actual spending exceeded the targets of that year's
budget resolution by an average of $30 billion (the excess
was $85 billion in 1990).\3\
Each statutory response to the deficit has shown the same
vulnerability: hard-won budget rules can be waived or
modified by a simple majority vote. Not surprisingly, a
majority can usually be assembled to support more spending.
The key advantage of a Constitutional amendment is that tough
budgetary rules can be placed beyond the reach of simple
Congressional majorities. The Simon/Hatch proposal requires
yearly enactment of a balanced budget, unless Congress
approves a specific deficit for that fiscal year by a three-
fifths vote of each house. (A simple majority of each house
can waive the balanced budget requirement during a time of
war.) The supermajority requirement reflects the view that
incurring a deficit should be an exceptional even that
requires clear consensus. The Simon/Hatch Amendment commits
future Congresses to avoid structural deficits, while
providing them the flexibility to respond to true
emergencies.
is there any place for statutory solutions?
While the Balanced Budget Amendment mandates a zero deficit
by FY 99 (or the second fiscal year after enactment), it does
not specify how to get there. The Chamber believes that
enactment of a BBA will force Congress to take a close look
at statutory mechanisms designed to reach that goal, and this
will probably begin well in advance of final ratification by
the states. In approving S.J. Res. 41, the Senate Judiciary
Committee contemplated enactment of ``legislation that will
better enable the Congress and the President to comply with
the language and intent of the amendment.''\4\ Additional
budget process reforms may include tax and spending
limitations, line-item veto authority, and the creation of an
independent commission to recommend spending cuts. The BBA
will thus lay the groundwork for further budget process
reforms at the statutory level.
will congress and the president still have the flexibility to respond
to national emergencies?
The Simon/Hatch Amendment does not prohibit Congress from
running a deficit in a given year; it merely requires that
this decision be approved by three fifths of each house. This
degree of consensus is required for many important decisions,
including the approval of a treaty, and override of a
Presidential veto. In the BBA, the three-fifths requirement
reflects the view that incurring a deficit should be an
exceptional event that is carefully scrutinized. At the same
time, this provision allows Congress and the President the
flexibility to respond to genuine emergencies. Should large-
scale domestic problems such as recessions or natural
disasters alter budget needs, it will be possible to assemble
a three-fifths consensus that recognizes this. In the case of
foreign aggression, the balanced budget requirement can be
suspended by a simple majority vote of each house.
will the amendment thrust the courts into an inappropriate role of
cutting programs and raising taxes?
Some commentators have raised questions about the
enforcement of a Balanced Budget Amendment. A primary concern
is that Congressional efforts to meet the balanced budget
requirement would be challenged in the courts, and the
judiciary would be thrust into the role of weighing policy
demands, slashing programs and increasing taxes. On the other
hand, there is a legitimate and necessary role for the courts
in ensuring technical compliance with the amendment. The
Chamber believes that these concerns can be reconciled in
implementing legislation, which draws upon existing legal
principles.
In general, the courts have shown an unwillingness to
interject themselves into the fray of budgetary politics. The
New Jersey Supreme Court observed that ``it is a rare case .
. . in which the judiciary has any proper constitutional role
in making budget allocation decisions.''\5\ The judiciary has
remained clear of most budget controversies through doctrines
of ``non-judiciability,'' including ``mootness,''
``standing,'' and the ``political question'' doctrine.
A case is considered moot, and can be rejected by the
court, if the matter in controversy is no longer current
(this will be a factor in many budgetary controversies, such
as those based on unplanned expenditures or flawed revenue
estimates which become apparent near the end of the fiscal
year). The doctrine of standing limits judicial access to
parties who can show a direct injury over and above that
incurred by the general public. The logic is that the
grievances of the public (or substantial segments thereof)
are the proper domain of the legislature.\6\ The U.S. Supreme
Court has held that status as a taxpayer does not
automatically confer standing to challenge federal
actions,\7\ and has barred taxpayer challenges of budget and
revenue policies in the absence of special injuries to the
plaintiffs.\8\ The political question doctrine is a related
principle that the courts should remain out of matters which
the Constitution has committed to another branch of
government. The Supreme Court has held that a ``political
question'' exists when a case would require ``nonjudicial
discretion.''\9\ This would be the case with many budgetary
controversies, such as the choice to cut particular programs,
which by their nature require ideological choices and the
balancing of competing needs.
In contrast, courts have asserted jurisdiction over
politically tinged controversies where they find
``discoverable and manageable standards'' for resolving them.
In Baker v. Carr,\10\ the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that
objective criteria guide judicial decisionmaking and limit
the opportunity for overreaching. In the balanced budget
context, the ``discoverable and manageable standards''
principle can help demarcate lines between impermissible
judicial policymaking, and the needed enforcement of
accounting rules and budget procedures.
In all likelihood, a strong framework of accounting
guidelines will emerge from implementing legislation. The
Senate Judiciary Committee has interpreted Section 6 of the
bill to impose ``a positive obligation on the part of
Congress to enact appropriate legislation'' regarding this
complex issue.\11\ Judiciary Committee staff on both the
House and Senate side have indicated their intention that
implementing legislation embrace stringent accounting
standards that will minimize the potential for litigation.
Should legitimate questions arise concerning the methods by
which Congress balances the budget, these standards will also
provide objective criteria which meet constitutional
standards for judicial intervention.
The implementing package is also likely to establish
guidelines for judicial involvement, defining what issues are
judiciable and which parties have standing to challenge
Congressional decisions. State budget officers, for example,
could be given standing to contest unfunded federal mandates.
These enforcement procedures, coupled with budget process and
accounting guidelines, will operate against a backdrop of
traditional legal principles to rationally limit judicial
action. The effect should be to prevent judicial overreaching
into legislative functions, while providing a check on
Congressional attempts to evade the requirements of the BBA
through procedural and numerical gimmickry.
footnotes
\1\See John Hart Ely, Toward A Representation-Reinforcing
Mode of Judicial Review, 37 Md. Law Review 451 (1978).
\2\United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144
(1938), footnote 4.
\3\Source: The Economic and Budget Outlook. Congressional
Budget Office (January 1993), p. 108.
\4\S. Rpt. 103-163, 103rd Congress, 1st Session (1993), p. 6.
\5\Board of Education v. Kean, 457 A.2d 59 (1982).
\6\Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) (Harlan, J.,
dissenting).
\7\Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923).
\8\United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974)
(plaintiffs challenged a statute allowing the CIA to avoid
public reporting of its budget); Simon v. Eastern Kentucky
Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26 (1976) (plaintiffs
challenged a Revenue Ruling granting favorable tax treatment
to certain hospitals as inconsistent with the Internal
Revenue Code).
\9\Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
\10\Id.
\11\S. Rpt. 103-163, 103rd Congress, 1st Session (1993).
____
[From the Balanced Budget Amendment Coalition]
An Open Letter to Members of the U.S. Senate
The undersigned organizations urge you to vote for and
support the Balanced Budget Amendment, S.J. Res. 41,
introduced by Senators Simon, Hatch, DeConcini, Thurmond,
Craig and Heflin. This bipartisan proposal (with 55 total
Senate cosponsors) has already passed the Senate Judiciary
Committee on a 15 to 3 vote, the strongest committee action
ever in support of this legislation. Senate floor
consideration of S.J. Res. 41 is expected shortly.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution assumed each
generation of Americans would pay its own bills--and that the
federal budget would, over time, remain roughly in balance.
According to Thomas Jefferson, ``we should consider ourselves
unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally
bound to pay them ourselves.''
In today's era of mass media, special interest politics,
and expensive and sophisticated election campaigns, the
checks and balances established 200 years ago are not up to
the job of controlling the federal deficit. Recent Congresses
and presidents have proven themselves incapable of acting in
the broader national interest on fiscal matters. Whenever
Congress considers spending cuts that could help balance the
budget, only a few Americans are aware of it, and fewer still
express their views about it. By contrast, those who stand to
lose from budget restraint--typically the beneficiaries and
administrators of spending programs--are well aware of what
they stand to lose. They mount intensive lobbying campaigns
to stop fiscal restraint.
This pro-spending and pro-debt bias has led to 24 straight
unbalanced budgets. It took our nation 205 years--from 1776
to 1981--to reach a $1 trillion debt. Now, just 12 years
later the debt is $4.4 trillion. Each year, interest payments
rise as the overall debt grows. These payments are one of the
fastest-rising items in the federal budget--they now account
for virtually the entire deficit, all by themselves. A
succession of statutory remedies has failed to stem this
historic and highly dangerous turn of events.
S.J. Res. 41 is a sound amendment that has evolved through
years of work by the principal sponsors. It provides the
Constitutional discipline needed to make balanced federal
budgets the norm, rather than the rare exception (once in the
past 31 years), and it offers the proper flexibility to deal
with national emergencies.
In addition to requiring a three-fifths majority vote to
deficit spend or increase the federal debt limit, S.J. Res.
41 is designed to make raising federal taxes more difficult.
It would require the approval of a majority of the whole
number of both House and Senate--by roll call votes--in order
to pass any tax increase. This adds accountability as well as
an appropriate focus on spending restraint.
Unless action is taken now, federal debt and deficits will
continue to cripple our economy and mortgage our children's
future. We urge you to support S.J. Res. 41, the Balanced
Budget Amendment.
Sincerely,
American Farm Bureau Federation.
National Association of Manufacturers.
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.
International Mass Retail Association.
National American Wholesale Grocers' Association.
The Seniors Coalition.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
National Taxpayers Union.
Citizens for a Sound Economy.
American Legislative Exchange Council.
National Association of Home Builders.
National Cattlemen's Association.
Associated Builders and Contractors.
U.S. Business and Industrial Council.
Precision Metalforming Association.
Concerned Women for America.
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
National Truck Equipment Association.
Dairy and Food Industries Supply.
Steel Service Center Institute.
Truck Renting and Leasing Association.
Door & Hardware Institute.
Independent Bakers Association.
American Machine Tool Distributors.
National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling
Contractors.
U.S. Federation of Small Businesses.
National Independent Dairy Foods Association.
National Roofing Contractors Association.
Southern Forest Products Association.
Nebraska Motor Carriers Association.
Iowans for Tax Relief.
National Taxpayers Union of Ohio.
Nebraska Taxpayers Association.
Arizona Federation of Taxpayers.
The Lincoln Caucus (AZ).
United Taxpayers of New Jersey.
Kansas Libertarian Party.
North Dakotans for Good Government.
The Christian Coalition.
Americans for a Balanced Budget.
The Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association.
Associated Equipment Distributors.
American Subcontractors Association.
American Association of Boomers.
American Tax Reduction Movement.
Motorcycle Industry Council.
National Association of Brick Distributors.
Automotive Service Association.
Lead or Leave.
American Supply Association.
American Bakers Association.
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
The Bankers Institute.
Tennessee Grocers Association.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (CA).
National Taxpayers United of Illinois.
North Valley Taxpayers Association (AZ).
It's Time (AZ).
Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters (CA).
Connecticut Taxpayers Committee.
Kansas Taxpayers Network.
Citizens Against Higher Taxes (PA).
Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, Inc. (FL).
Tax Accountability '93 (IL).
Landlords United for Tax Relief (IL).
New Jersey Citizens for a Sound Economy.
Virginia Citizens for a Sound Economy.
Citizens for Limited Taxation (MA).
Protect Oregon Property Society.
Sacramento County Taxpayers' League (CA).
Orleans County Taxpayers Association, Inc. (NY).
Warwick Taxpayers Association (NY).
South Carolina Policy Council.
Kendall County Taxpayers League (TX).
Federation of Wisconsin Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Macomb County Taxpayers Association (MI).
St. Clair County Taxpayers Association (MI).
Tax Cap Committee (FL).
Homeowner-Taxpayer Association, Bexeter County (TX).
Taxpayer's Action Network of Sarasota County (FL).
Taxpayer's Action Network of Cook County (IL).
Central Florida Taxpayer's Action Network.
Routte County Taxpayer's Action Network (CO).
Berkley County Taxpayers Association (WV).
Citizens for Political Reform (WV).
Free Market Committee (TX).
Taxpayers United, Inc. (MI).
Angry Taxpayers Action Committee (IL).
Committee for Good Government (FL).
New York Citizens for a Sound Economy.
Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility (ME).
Florida Tax Watch, Inc.
Minnesota Taxpayers United.
Tucson Business Coalition (AZ).
Westchester Taxpayers Alliance (NY).
Voice of South Dakota Taxpayers.
United Taxpayers of Monroe County and Greater New York
State.
Utah Taxpayers Association.
Citizens for Sensible Taxation (VA).
Committee to Eliminate Government Waste (MI).
Idaho State Property Owners Association.
Lampasas County Taxpayers Association (TX).
San Francisco Taxpayer's Action Network.
Waste Watchers, Inc. (CA).
Taxpayer's Action Group of Naples (FL).
Metairie Taxpayer's Action Network (LA).
Leasburg Taxpayer's Action Network (MO).
West Virginia Citizens Against Government Waste.
Concerned Citizens for West Virginia.
Tax Accountability Committee (NV).
Del Norte Taxpayers League (CA).
Napa City/County Taxpayers Association (CA).
Marin United Taxpayers Association (AL).
Taxpayers Education Association (CA).
Taxpayer's Action Network of Rochester (NY).
Association of Glenn County Taxpayers (CA).
Hands Across New Jersey.
United Taxpayers of San Diego (CA).
Florida Taxpayers Association (NY).
Greenwood Lake Taxpayers Association (NY).
Valley Central Taxpayers Association (NY).
Town Taxpayers Association (NY).
Pine Bush Taxpayers Association (NY).
Cornwall Citizens Alliance (NY).
Newburgh School District Taxpayers Association (NY).
Taxpayer's Action Network of Western New York (NY).
Taxpayers Association of Fort Worth and Parent County (TX)
Pennslvania Leadership Council.
Granite State Taxpayers, Inc. (NH).
Concerned Taxpayers of Manchester (NH).
Humboldt Taxpayers League (CA).
Taxpayer Association of El Dorado County (CA).
Shasta County Taxpayers Association (CA).
Union Beach Taxpayer's Action Network (NJ).
Taxpayer's Action Network of St. Louis (MO)
Canton Taxpayer's Action Network (OH).
Paul Gann's Citizens Committee (CA).
Taxpayers Watchdog Committee (IN).
Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters (Santa
Cruz).
Minisink Valley Taxpayers Association (NY).
Mt. Hope Taxpayers Association (NY).
Chester Taxpayers Association (NY).
Middletown Taxpayers Association (NY).
Taxpayers Action Group (NY).
Concerned Citizens of Greenville (NY).
Goshen Taxpayers Association (NY).
Council for Cincinnatians Against Government Waste (OH)
Cochella Valley Taxpayer's Action Network (CA).
Conservative Coalition (AR).
Nevada Taxpayers Association.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Charged to the Senator from Idaho?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the remainder of his
time.
Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. REID. I think it would be permissible that we yield back the
remainder of Senator Simon's time.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois had left me with
his time. I did not ask unanimous consent for it and do not think we
will need it. I think that would be appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time of the Senator
from Illinois is yielded back.
All time has been yielded back.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining to be charged,
except the time of the Senator from West Virginia. The Senator from
West Virginia has 7 minutes remaining. I would not want the time
charged against his time.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yield back.
The absence of a quorum has been suggested. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________