[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 19 (Monday, February 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will now resume
consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 41, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 41) proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced
budget.
The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution.
Pending:
Reid Amendment No. 1471, in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum equally
divided three ways.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the time will be
divided four ways.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to be
equally charged to three Members, excluding Senator Byrd.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. In my capacity as a Senator from
the State of Nevada, I object.
Who yields time?
(Mr. DODD assumed the chair.)
Mr. HATCH. I yield such time as I may need.
Mr. President, I am here not to find personal fault with anybody, but
I do want to talk about the Reid amendment because it is merely a
figleaf. The Reid amendment is simply a sham, a cover vote to allow
Members to say to their constituents, the vast majority of whom want a
balanced budget amendment and to whom they have been saying they will
get a balanced budget amendment, that they supported something by that
name.
Proponents of the Simon-Hatch amendment are not alone in this
assessment. The New York Times reported last Friday that ``the
substitute 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 have supported a balanced budget amendment.'' That is
an article entitled ``Option May Doom Budget Amendment (for Now).''
That is in the New York Times of this last Friday, February 25.
Indeed, although the Reid amendment was unveiled just last Thursday,
the possibility of such an alternative was signaled a week earlier by a
key administration official. On February 18, Leon Panetta, President
Clinton's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and a long-
time foe of the balanced budget amendment, had this to say:
If you allow people to say, ``Are you for or against a
balanced budget,'' you'll lose it.
Mr. Panetta explained:
There are going to be some Members who are going to have to
have an alternative proposal that they can vote for in order
to give them cover to come out against the Simon proposal.
Describing the process of developing sufficient cover for Senators,
Mr. Panetta further explained that ``you're basically counting votes
and you're basically saying to Members, `What do you need?' To the
extent that a Member says, `I need a constitutional amendment' * * *
you probably have to design an alternative amendment to the
Constitution that would in some way protect them.''
So there is nothing that we have not understood here. Leon Panetta
made it very clear they were going to come up with a sham amendment
that would get some people off the hook so they could say they voted
for a balanced budget amendment when, in fact, it is nothing but a
sham.
Mr. President, I do not believe the Reid amendment has any chance of
passing in the Senate with the requisite 67 votes, and neither does the
leadership. Even if it did, a substantial change of this nature to the
balanced budget amendment will kill its chance of passage in the House
of Representatives. In 1992, the Gephardt amendment which had similar
exemptions lost handily. It got only 104 votes for it and over 300
votes against it.
Make no mistake, this is a killer amendment, and its purpose is to
undermine a true balanced budget amendment called the Simon-Hatch-
Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig amendment.
The ironies of offering the Reid amendment are very interesting to
me. The real case against the Reid amendment, however, is not based on
motive, it is based on merit.
On its merits, Mr. President, this alternative is simply not
acceptable. In fact, it is quite ironic that Senate Joint Resolution
41, the product of years of hearings and public and congressional
debate, has been criticized as trivializing the Constitution. Talk
about trivializing the Constitution. The Senate will vote tomorrow on
the Reid balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a proposal
unveiled just 4 days ago. Not 1 day of hearings, not one constitutional
expert, not any backing from anybody. It is merely a facade so some
people can cover their back sides and then vote against the real
amendment, the Simon-Hatch-Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig amendment.
It is quite ironic as well that Senate Joint Resolution 41 has been
criticized as being undemocratic. Talk about undemocratic. The Reid
alternative, No. 1, cedes authority to suspend the operation of a
constitutional requirement to balance the budget to the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, an unelected official whose appointment is
not even subject to congressional confirmation and, No. 2, says the
Congress may delegate the power to order uniform cuts in the budget to
some unnamed ``officer of Congress.'' We have all heard the expression
``a player to be named later.'' If this alternative passes, we will
have a similar provision in the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. President, it is ironic as well that opponents of the Simon-Hatch
amendment have incorrectly criticized it as a gimmick which can be
easily circumvented. It is the Reid alternative, however, that has
mammoth loopholes, such as exemptions for everything outside of
undefined ``operating funds'' of the United States, or what it refers
to as ``capital investments.'' Talk about loopholes, that could include
anything in the budget.
No. 3, The Reid amendment is unacceptable as a balanced budget
amendment. It is a pure and simple sham. The Reid amendment is simply
not an acceptable alternative to the Simon-Hatch balanced budget
amendment for four reasons:
First, the Reid amendment has no functional enforcement provision.
What good is a balanced budget amendment if there is no incentive to
enforce it?
Second, it allows deficit spending through so many loopholes that
under it we would never get the debt under control.
Third, the Reid amendment constitutionalizes questionable economic
policies.
And, fourth, the Reid amendment conflicts with the philosophy
underlying the Constitution in two ways: It explicitly cedes broad
constitutional authority to unelected officials in a way wholly
inconsistent with traditional constitutional law and principles, and it
denies fundamental norms of due process by denying access to any court
to vindicate any private rights.
Each of these flaws opens the amendment to abuse and creates a vent
through which the pressure to make the hard choices escapes, along with
the possibility of a balanced budget. The Reid amendment allows
numerous avenues for deficit spending through which Congress can
continue its current profligacy. It contains numerous abdications of
congressional responsibility and accountability for taxing and spending
decisions. And finally, it supports continued congressional
irresponsibility.
In contrast, the Simon-Hatch amendment requires Congress to take
responsibility for all Federal spending and taxing decisions. It forces
Congress to set priorities and make spending decisions within the
limits of the available revenues. It requires Congress to spend for the
things the American taxpayers are willing to pay for and no more. It
stops the further abdication of congressional responsibility encouraged
in the Reid amendment and requires Congress to once again take its
constitutional duty seriously and in the way the framers intended.
Let me discuss the reasons I have referred to one at a time.
Mr. President, the Reid amendment has no effective enforcement
provision to help assure that a budget actually be balanced. Sections 1
and 2 of the Reid amendment require that the ``estimated outlays of the
operating funds of the United States do not exceed the estimated
receipts of those funds.'' However, what is noticeably absent from the
amendment is a backup enforcement provision to ensure a balanced budget
if those estimates are wrong.
Furthermore, section 5 of the Reid amendment allows enforcement only
in accordance with some possible future legislation, ensuring that
Congress can control how much or how little enforcement is available.
As a consequence, the Reid amendment really is an unenforceable gimmick
because there is no absolute institutional enforcement mechanism to
limit the amount of debt if the estimates are wrong.
By contrast, the Simon-Hatch amendment requires that actual outlays
and receipts be in balance, not just the estimates. Most importantly,
to ensure this, the Simon-Hatch-Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig amendment has
a critical backup provision. It requires that there be no increase in
the national debt limit unless there is a three-fifths vote to waive
the debt ceiling. Thus, while the Simon-Hatch amendment allows for
pragmatic reliance on estimates, it does not allow the uncertainty of
estimates to increase the national debt as a matter, of course. If the
estimates are wrong, under the Simon-Hatch-Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig
amendment, Congress must fix it. Congress must balance the actual
receipts and outlays or it bumps into the debt ceiling.
The Simon-Hatch amendment's debt ceiling provision cannot be changed
by later legislation. And it is this provision in the amendment, a
provision noticeably absent from the Reid alternative, that provides a
significant and permanent enforcement mechanism to ensure that mistakes
in estimates--and they will occur--do not mean increases in debt.
Mr. President, the Reid amendment does not require that the whole
budget be balanced, and it contains a number of loopholes through which
large deficits could be run.
Sections 1 and 2 of the Reid amendment only require the balancing of
the estimated receipts and outlays of Federal ``operating funds.''
Operating funds is not defined in the amendment and could be defined by
legislation in any way to avoid operation of the balanced budget
requirement. The Reid amendment allows everything other than operating
funds to be paid for by deficit spending.
According to section 3 of the Reid amendment, even this weak
requirement of balancing Federal operating funds, however defined, can
be avoided for a full 2 years if there is ever an economic slowdown for
two quarters as estimated by, guess what, the Congressional Budget
Office. Thus, if the economy slows down for two quarters, or the
Congressional Budget Office determines that it has or will in its own
estimation, Congress has free rein to run up deficits for 2 full years
under this amendment.
Mr. President, it is unbelievable that anybody would argue this is a
balanced budget amendment.
Furthermore, the Reid amendment also exempts a number of potentially
mammoth accounts from the balanced budget requirement under section 4
including--get this--``capital investments.'' Capital investments is
not defined and its meaning is not agreed upon at the Federal level.
Who knows how broadly that is going to be construed? It could cover
everything from education to transportation expenditures. Would welfare
payments be considered investment in human capital? Virtually
everything could be excluded by this loophole.
In stark contrast, the Simon-Hatch amendment requires that all
Federal outlays and receipts be balanced. This means that there will
not be a false requirement to balance a small part of the budget while
numerous other accounts are still stacking up mountains of debt. And
there is no automatic copout that allows deficit spending in the Simon-
Hatch amendment. If there is going to be deficit spending under Simon-
Hatch, it will require a broad consensus in Congress to go on record as
approving it.
Mr. President, the Reid amendment constitutionalizes questionable
economic policies. Section 3 of the Reid amendment allows deficit
spending in times of recession or economic slowdown. More precisely, it
allows 2 years of deficit spending if the director of the Congressional
Budget Office estimates that economic growth has been or will be 1
percent or less for 2 consecutive quarters.
Now, this is a distorted version of Keynesianism, and it is not clear
that it would work to stimulate our current economy. In fact, our
recent history seems to refute such an expectation. We had record
deficits and zero or low growth over the last 3 years. This sort of
stimulus mechanism obviously is not working.
Moreover, we have been running deficits for three decades. Have we
been in a recession requiring this stimulus for three decades? Because
of deficit stimulus has the economy avoided the business cycle for
three decades? No. The correlation between deficits and prosperity is
far from clear, based on our history.
Furthermore, I have not heard any evidence suggesting that the
definition of recession embodied in the Reid amendment is the right
one. Why is it 1 percent growth or less for two quarters as provided by
the Reid amendment? Why should that then enable Congress to run up
deficits for 2 succeeding years? Come on. This is not even a serious
effort if you really look at it.
I have other questions about this provision. At the level we are now
spending, that is, about $1.5 trillion each year, just how big of a
deficit will we have to run to stimulate the economy? We already have
our foot to the floor on the debt accelerator. We cannot seriously
argue that pushing our debts further will be helpful.
With all these questions about the economic assumptions underlying
the amendment, I think this is precisely the wrong kind of narrow
economic policy to staple into the timeless Constitution.
The Simon-Hatch amendment avoids this morass by simply requiring
balanced budgets as a rule unless a supermajority of Congress agrees
otherwise.
A balanced budget norm is an unassailable principle. Under the Reid
alternative, however, it is a rule swallowed by exceptions.
d. the reid amendment is at odds with constitutional principles in that
it cedes broad power to unelected officials and conflicts with due
process norms
Mr. President, the Reid amendment, if passed, would radically alter
fundamental principles of our Constitution. It does not simply amend
Senate Joint Resolution 41. It works a revolution in the constitutional
balance of power between the President and the Congress, tilting the
equilibrium in favor of the legislature. It violates fundamental norms
of due process by altogether denying a potential litigant even the
possibility of seeking redress for harms committed by those violating
the amendment. And it overturns specific precedents of the Supreme
Court of the United States upholding the doctrine of separation of
powers and protecting rights under the fifth amendment.
Once again, section 3 provides, in part, that the amendment ``shall
be suspended'' for 2 consecutive fiscal years ``if the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, or any successor, estimates that real
economic growth has been or will be less than 1 percent for two
consecutive quarters during the period of those 2 fiscal years.''
Talk about loopholes. Talk about a ridiculous provision. Talk about
control of the budget by unelected officials. Talk about something that
should never be written into the Constitution.
Section 5 states that the amendment ``shall be enforced only in
accordance with appropriate legislation enacted by Congress. The
Congress may, by appropriate legislation, delegate to an officer of
Congress the power to order uniform cuts.''
You talk about violations of separation of powers. Talk about
unconstitutional thinking. Talk about lack of due process. Talk about
turning over our destiny to somebody who is not elected for anything.
That is what this amendment does.
The naming of these two officials in a constitutional amendment is
strange indeed, and, I believe, unprecedented. It is unequivocally
clear that the delegation to the Director of the CBO to suspend the
operation of the amendment upon the estimation that a ``recession''
exists or will exist violates the principle of separation of powers--so
too does the delegation to some yet unnamed ``officer of Congress'' to
order uniform budget cuts.
The proponents can argue, well, this is a constitutional amendment.
Therefore, it will be constitutional if it passes. We all know it is
not going to pass. Let me just say this: If it did, it would fly in the
face of more than 200 years of constitutional law and theory and
practice. It would undermine the very Constitution that we have all
believed in all these years.
In Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986), the Supreme Court, declared
unconstitutional a section of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. Section
251 of the act mandated that the Directors of the OMB and the CBO
submit deficit estimates and program-by-program budget reduction
calculations to the Comptroller General.
The Supreme Court was right in making that decision. We warned the
budgeteers at that time. They came to me as chairman of the
constitutional subcommittee, and said, ``What should we do?'' I said,
``That will be unconstitutional.'' It was. But they had to satisfy the
House. So they went ahead and put the Comptroller General in anyway,
and they were knocked down in the Bowsher case.
The Comptroller General had to review the Directors' joint report and
report his conclusions to the President. The President, in turn, was
required by the act to issue a sequestration order mandating the
spending reductions specified by the Comptroller General--unless
Congress through legislation obviated the need for the sequestration
order.
In holding section 251 of the act unconstitutional, the Court noted
that the Comptroller General--a congressional officer subject to
removal by Congress--in determining exactly what the President had to
sequester, was performing an act ``executive in nature.''
That is very important, Mr. President. This amendment is just going
to ignore all our constitutional history and allow appointed people in
Congress to make these fundamental decisions--nonelected people.
Congress may determine by law the existence and scope of executive
duty. However, once Congress makes its choice through the enactment of
legislation, ``its participation ends'' as the Court stated in Bowsher:
Congress can thereafter control the execution of its
enactment only indirectly--by passing new legislation. By
placing the responsibility for execution of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act in the hands of an
officer who is subject to removal only by itself, Congress in
effect has retained control over the execution of the Act and
has intruded into the executive functions.
And it will be violating standard constitutional norms involving the
separation of powers. The Constitution simply does not permit such
intrusion. If this passes, it would be a constitutional amendment and
it would be part of the Constitution. But it would be very unwise, very
unwarranted, and would fly in the face of 200 years of constitutional
history.
Mr. President, the Reid amendment does permit such intrusion. It
allows two congressional officers to retain control over the
administration of the amendment: The Director of the CBO, who is only
removable by Congress, is delegated authority to determine the
existence of a recession and suspend the operation of the amendment;
and an unnamed congressional figure is delegated the authority to make
budget cuts--the very act the Bowsher Court found to violate separation
of powers. Not only would the Reid amendment overturn Bowsher, it would
eviscerate the constitutional cornerstone doctrine of separation of
powers. We must heed, Mr. President, the warning of James Madison,
called by many the ``Father of the Constitution,'' not to do what the
Reid amendment does--commingle legislative and executive powers. As
Madison admonished in the Federalist No. 47: ``There can be no liberty
where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same
person, or body. * * * '' The Federalist No. 47, page 325 (J. Cooke ed.
1961).
Yet that is not the only problem the Reid amendment has with the
fundamental principles of the Constitution; it also violates
fundamental norms of due process of law. Section 5 of the amendment
provides for enforcement only by Congress through implementing
legislation. Thus, if Congress does not provide for judicial review, a
potential litigant is denied his day in court. Compare that with the
Simon-Hatch amendment, which is silent as to judicial review but limits
the relief that courts may grant to declaratory relief to prevent the
undue intrusion of the judiciary into the budget process. If standing
and justiciability can be demonstrated by a litigant, and if the claim
does not amount to a noncognizable political question--a possibility
which I suggest is remote--Simon-Hatch would allow for a vindication of
a private right. Not so with the Reid proposal. Even the opportunity to
demonstrate the legitimacy of a claim is denied.
Article III of the Constitution grants to Congress broad powers to
limit the jurisdiction of lower Federal courts and even the appellate
jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court. This proposition was settled by
the post-Civil War case of Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506
(1869). However, Mr. President, it has also been settled that in
limiting the jurisdiction of courts, Congress may not deprive a party
of a right vested in the Constitution. United States v. Bitty, 298 U.S.
393, 399-400 (1908). This the Reid amendment would accomplish. By
denying access to any court--State or Federal--the amendment could in
effect read out of the Constitution the fifth amendment's guarantee of
due process of law.
How can anybody who wants a balanced budget amendment do that to the
Constitution? That right is a fundamental right deriving from, as Mr.
Jefferson so elegantly stated, ``Nature and nature's God''--and not
from any political process.
Mr. President, there are other issues arising from these provisions
that suggest they are inconsistent with our constitutional system of
Government. Section 5 of the Reid amendment allows a delegation to ``an
officer of Congress the power to order uniform cuts.'' There is no
indication that the officer of Congress must be an elected official.
Who will it be? It is simply unprecedented to have a constitutional
delegation of power to impose across the board cuts in the budget of
the United States to a single Member of Congress or, potentially, any
minor unelected congressional employee.
Mr. President, what does the term ``uniform cuts' mean? The Reid
proponents have been implying they are across-the-board cuts, but that
is not clear. If this new budget czar only makes across-the-board cuts,
Congress again avoids making hard decisions about budget priorities. If
the cuts are not across the board, we potentially have impoundment
authority under the Constitution of the United States given to
unelected officials.
It does not take any brains to figure this out from reading that
amendment.
Most amazing is the fact that this alternative amendment provides
that the constitutional requirement of a balanced budget can be
suspended by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Can you
imagine? What we have is a proposed amendment to the Constitution of
the United States referring to the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office and authorizing this unelected official, whose appointment is
not even subject to Senate confirmation, to suspend the operation of
the Constitution. And they call our amendment undemocratic.
Give me a break.
Mr. President, for all these reasons and more the Reid amendment,
this political figleaf, this caricature of a constitutional amendment,
must be rejected.
The American people must not--and will not--be fooled.
Mr. President, the only serious balanced budget amendment is the one
that has been going through the process and has endured for the last 12
years, the Simon-Hatch-Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig amendment. It is the
only one that will move this Nation to a balanced budget and the only
one that will restore congressional responsibility and accountability
to the Federal budget process. The Congress knows it, and the American
people deserve, and will not accept anything less than their Senators'
support for the Simon-Hatch balanced budget amendment.
Mr. President, I happen to revere the Constitution of the United
States. I know that it is subject to conflicting evaluations from time
to time. I understand we can differ on some constitutional
interpretations, but there are some basic things you cannot differ on,
and I have tried to enumerate them here today.
If this type of amendment passes--it will not--but if it does pass,
we are jeopardizing our constitutional way of life and the fundamental
values that have made this country the greatest country in the world.
We are causing the Constitution to lose its value with this type of
an amendment. We are causing the Constitution to be treated as though
it is not the most fundamentally good political document in the history
of the world. And frankly we are in danger of losing our freedom if we
enact something like this. But nobody believes it is going to be
enacted. We all know it is a fig leaf to provide cover for those who
have promised the folks back home they are going to vote for a balanced
budget amendment so they can go home and say they voted for a balanced
budget amendment, and we better put that in quotes a ``balanced budget
amendment.'' They will not put it that way, but that is the way it
should be put so they can then slide by and not have to face the wrath
of the voters. Let it be known right here and now that the wrath of the
voters is going to be there. It may not be in the next few weeks or the
next month, but it is going to be there when people start to look and
understand what is being done here today and tomorrow in that vote at 3
o'clock in the afternoon.
I hope nobody is going to be deceived by this amendment, and I hope
that we will have those who are truly undecided look at these facts and
these problems and help us on this Simon-Hatch-Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig
amendment and help us get it passed to see if we can get
this country under control.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
distinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] and his amendment that is
being debated now and will be voted on, I believe, tomorrow around 3
o'clock.
I have worked with the Senator from Nevada, and he knows my deep
respect for him and friendship for him. He has been a strong supporter
of the balanced budget amendment.
So I understand the Senator's concern with the present Simon-Hatch
amendment that is before us and now this substitute.
But the provisions in the Reid amendment, in my judgment, would turn
the balanced budget amendment into the very gimmick that some opponents
of the Simon-Hatch amendment say it is. They argue that it is not well
thought out, that it has loopholes, and that it is not going to work.
The Reid amendment would create two large loopholes in the balanced
budget amendment by eliminating Social Security trust funds and outlays
for capital investments from the balanced budget requirements. The
Federal budget would be divided into capital expenses and operating
expenses similar to many State budgets. I can just imagine all types of
expenditures being classified as ``capital expenses'' in order to avoid
the requirements for a balanced budget.
Congress could--and would--as we have, in the past, unfortunately
engage in all sorts of budgeting gimmickry. The balanced budget
amendment would truly be meaningless. The amendment of the Senator from
Nevada does not require a vote to raise the debt ceiling. Those of us
who have debated raising the debt ceiling realize how significant it is
that this country and this Congress continuously raises the debt
ceiling without regard to the consequences of our actions. We do not
truly address the problem because we are afraid that a check will not
go out, that the Federal Government will come to a close. The American
public needs to know that this Nation is broke and we are living on
future generations' money. We cannot continue to do this. This
provision in the Reid amendment gives Congress the power to add to our
$4.7 trillion debt with the same ease we can currently. The requirement
for a supermajority vote to raise the debt ceiling under the Simon-
Hatch amendment was the subject of much discussion. The consensus was
that it was necessary if we were ever going to stop the endless
borrowing and actually get to a position where we could reduce the
Federal debt itself, not just the growth of the Federal debt but the
actual Federal debt.
Clearly, if the Reid amendment passes Congress will have a back door
to continue down the path of fiscal irresponsibility.
Our Constitution has survived for over 200 years because it embodies
broad principles that are timeless in their application. The Reid
amendment, I think, violates the spirit of the Constitution
by including details of a process better left to implementing
legislation, for example, the Reid amendment provides that Congress can
suspend the balanced budget requirement if the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, a nonelected person, not even appointed by
the President, estimates that the economy is in a recess. It is totally
unprecedented for a Government official, one that is not
constitutionally created and subject to change by the will of the
Congress, to be named in the Constitution. This is really a flaw that
should be addressed even if we should, and I do not think we will, pass
the Reid amendment.
Furthermore this ``recession exemption'' will allow Congress to
suspend a constitutional requirement at the first sign of economic
downturn. All you have to do is convince the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office to say ``I estimate that the economy is in
recession'' and the requirement for a balanced budget can be waived.
That does not make sense.
If we continue to deficit spend and add to the debt at the first sign
of a rocky economy we are never going to have a balanced budget.
I understand the concern that many have about including Social
Security funds in a balanced budget amendment. This Senator has stood
on this floor for many years and voted to preserve the Social Security
Program and keep the Social Security funds safe. I know that many of my
colleagues are worried about this issue but this is another red
herring. Although Social Security is running a surplus today, that may
not always be the case. In 1978, when I first came here, it was
projected it was going to be broke and run a deficit, and we corrected
that. We are all aware of the probability that sometime in the future
Social Security trust funds could be in trouble. Congress has been at
the forefront of providing the funds necessary thus, that has not
happened.
But, what would happen if Social Security ran out of money? Including
them within the parameters of the balanced budget amendment will
guarantee that funds will be available to meet the obligations to
future retirees.
Entitlement spending constitutes 47 percent of the Federal budget. If
we are going to balance the budget we need to look at all spending,
including Social Security. Those individuals who depend on Social
Security, Medicaid, and other Government programs should not fear being
cut off. These programs are an important priority of our Government and
there is no way they will be dismantled. I think that has been proven
time and time again. We saw an effort to wipe out cost of living
increases in the early eighties under the Reagan administration. That
is this Congress, this Senate, and the House of Representatives, that
said, ``No, Mr. President, we are not going to do that.''
The most serious threat to Social Security is our $4.7 trillion
national debt. Net interest on the debt now consumes 16 percent of the
Federal budget. If the debt remains unchecked by the year 2015 interest
on the debt will devour more than 10 percent of the gross domestic
product. This is equal to about 40 percent of anticipated Federal
spending. This interest obligation will begin to crowd out Social
Security while the continued buildup of debt will impair the ability of
future taxpayers to refund moneys borrowed from the trust fund. This
will endanger the welfare of Social Security far more than a balanced
budget amendment. Quite frankly, a balanced budget amendment will
protect Social Security.
The Simon amendment has been the subject of numerous hearings and
countless hours of debate. it reflects a broad consensus within
Congress and outside groups. The proposed Reid amendment has had the
benefit of none of this debate or hearings.
Voting for the Reid alternative is not a vote for fiscal
responsibility. It is a vote for business as usual.
We do it all the time, and we are likely to do it again, although I
do not believe it is going to pass, because I think enough of us
understand that the Reid amendment truly will not work. It has not been
well thought out and will not result in a balanced Federal budget that
the Simon-Hatch amendment will do.
If some of my colleagues feel they must vote for the Reid amendment--
and I respect that--then go ahead and do so. But, please, do not leave
it there and then walk away and think that you have taken care of the
balanced budget issue. Go on and vote for the Simon-Hatch amendment.
Have the courage to vote for a true constitutional amendment. There is
no reason that you need to vote just for one, to so-call cover
yourself. Vote for both.
Take a chance that a balanced budget amendment will change the course
of this country's fiscal deficit and put it on the right road for a
change. Otherwise, all will be for naught in this effort to pass a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget and this great country
will suffer.
Once again, we will be sending a message that we cannot rise above
special interest politics and act in the national interest. This, in
turn, will feed the very doubts that have spawned distrust not only of
congressional incumbents but of the political parties that are
represented in this body.
I encourage every Member to think seriously about their vote and to
think seriously about the nature of what we are debating here and the
importance of passing a constitutional amendment that would do the job.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from
Maine wishes to take 3 minutes on something not related to this debate.
I have a few minutes under the time I have reserved to me, and then
Senator Byrd, the President pro tempore of the Senate, wishes to take
his 2 hours and 14 minutes, or whatever time he wishes.
I am wondering if we could have a unanimous-consent agreement that
the Senator from Maine be recognized for 3 minutes as if in morning
business; that his time not be charged against any of the proponents of
the various amendments before the Senate; then I be recognized; and
then Senator Byrd be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator make that request?
Mr. REID. I do make that unanimous-consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. COHEN. I thank my colleague from Nevada and also my colleague
from West Virginia for their agreeing to allow me to proceed very
briefly.
____________________