[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1019-S1020]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to comment this morning on an 
issue that I think is important to us and to this country, and that is 
the balanced budget amendment. Although we have been discussing over 
the past several days the unfunded mandates bill, the question of a 
balanced budget has come up. There is a relationship, and I understand 
the relationship.
  Certainly, if I were a local government official and we were talking 
about a balanced budget amendment I would want the protection of an 
unfunded mandate bill so that the Federal Government would not shift 
the responsibility of payment to local government.
  But the balanced budget amendment goes beyond that, it seems to me. 
It is one of the fundamental changes that needs to take place in the 
Federal Government so that decisions in the future will be different. 
If we are really talking about change, some of the procedural changes 
that are being discussed now need to happen and they need to happen 
soon.
  We have already done the accountability of the Congress. That is 
excellent. There is no reason why the people here should not live under 
the same rules that they apply to others. We need a balanced budget 
amendment to give us some discipline for fiscal responsibility. We need 
to do that. We need to have a line-item veto. I have had some 
experience in the House where you have an item that simply does not 
belong in a bill. It is in the highway bill and it is a museum for 
Lawrence Welk, but you cannot touch it because the rules do not allow 
for that to happen. So you need a line-item veto.
  We need term limitations. These are the kinds of fundamental changes, 
but I want to talk today about the balanced budget amendment.
  It has to do with shaping the form of the Federal Government over a 
period of time. It has to do with the question of whether we will have 
fiscal responsibility or whether we do not. There has been a good deal 
of dissent on an issue which most people say they are for, and now we 
find an increasing number of people who begin to find reasons why they 
are not for it.
  The local Hill paper says: ``Balanced Budget Amendment Is a 
Charade.''
  I do not believe that. I think that is wrong. Let me talk about some 
of the issues.
  First of all, it is a fundamental question and the question should be 
divided. The question is: Do you think it is fiscally or morally 
irresponsible to spend more than you take in? Do you think it is 
fiscally irresponsible to spend more than you take in? Is it morally 
irresponsible to shift the debt to our children, grandchildren and 
their children?
  The answer is, yes, of course it is fiscally irresponsible; of 
course, it is morally irresponsible. That is the basic question. The 
answer is not, ``Yes, it is irresponsible if it doesn't hurt too 
much,'' or, ``Yes, I would like to do it if it doesn't pinch us a 
little bit.''
  The answer is, ``Yes, it is irresponsible to continue to do what we 
have been doing for 40 years.'' That is the first question.
  The second question then is how do you do it? The second question is, 
over a period of time, how do you do it? It does not matter to me 
particularly whether it takes 5 years or 7 years or 10 years, if we are 
on a glide path that holds us toward a balanced budget.
  The second one we hear constantly is we do not need an amendment. We 
now have all the tools that are necessary to do it. The fact is, 
evidence does not support that. We have not had a balanced budget for 
25 years. I think we have had two in 50 years. There is not evidence 
that this Congress can balance the budget, is willing to balance the 
budget or does balance the budget and, indeed, we need some discipline 
to cause that to happen. Talking about it does not cause it to happen.
  The Director of OMB on the TV said, ``Well, we have all the tools we 
need.'' Maybe so, but tell me how well it has worked. It has not 
worked. So we do need some discipline. We need some discipline to cause 
the Members of Congress to balance the budget.
  Should it have more discussion? I heard the other day,
   someone said, ``Well, it needs to be discussed.'' It has been 
discussed for at least 10 years. We voted on it several times. We voted 
on it in the House; we voted on it in the Senate. It is not a puzzle. 
It is not a difficult one to decide on the basic issue of whether a 
Government should be responsible enough to not spend more than it takes 
in. We have had lots of discussion.

  Some say it is a gimmick. Some say it is bumper-sticker politics. Let 
me tell you something, it works in 48 States. I served in the Wyoming 
legislature. It works there. We have a constitutional provision that 
you cannot spend more than you take in. It works. There is no question 
about whether it works. It is not a gimmick. It provides the kind of 
discipline to force the 
[[Page S1020]] members of the legislature to set priorities, and that 
is what a legislature is all about. Without that kind of discipline, it 
does not happen.
  It is pretty simple. In the Wyoming legislature, and 48 others, when 
you get in the appropriations committee, of which I was a member, you 
say, ``Look, we are spending more than we have to spend.'' You have to 
make some changes and you do that. It is not mystic; it is not magic. 
It is just the discipline that causes that to happen.
  Some say, ``Well, judges will be setting it.'' Not so. It is not true 
in the States. The States do not have judges setting budgets. That will 
not happen.
  Some say, ``Well, we have to have an outline before we can be for it. 
We have to know what you are going to cut.'' There is no way that you 
know what you are going to cut in 7 years or 10 years.
  The first question is, Is it responsible to balance the budget? The 
second question is, How do you do it?
  And if you really believe that it needs to be done, you do it. Raise 
revenues? Of course. I am not for that, but that is possible. And if 
you are willing to pay for it, you put a cost-benefit ratio. You can do 
that. If you are committed to a balanced budget, however, you will find 
the way.
  Those who say, ``We do not need the tools, we already have them,'' 
they have to do the same thing if they are going to balance the budget. 
They say, ``We are going to balance the budget, we don't need a 
balanced budget amendment.'' You have to make the same cuts to do it 
either way. What is the problem with having discipline? What is the 
problem with going to the States and saying to the State legislatures, 
``We have a balanced budget to the Constitution. You have a chance to 
vote.'' People want to be involved in government.
  The administration says we are already cutting the deficit; we do not 
need it. The fact is that most of the deficit cut in the last 2 years 
has been the bookkeeping deficit, and the only real change in policy 
that has reduced the deficit has been an increase in taxes. The fact 
is, we spent more last year than we spent the year before. But we 
raised taxes and we did reduce the deficit, and I am pleased with that. 
But most of it was a bookkeeping change from the S&L's and Medicaid. 
Some of it was an increase in taxes. We have not balanced the budget. 
The projection is the deficit is going back up.
  We hear a lot about the cuts that are needed. The fact is, we will be 
spending substantially more at the end of 7 years than we spend now. It 
is not a question of cuts. It is a matter of reducing the growth, and 
that is where we are.
  So a balanced budget amendment, it seems to me, is the responsible 
thing to do. Balancing the budget is the responsible thing to do. If I 
heard something in this election in 1994 in Wyoming it is, ``We want 
responsible government; we have too much government; it costs too 
much,'' and the balanced budget amendment is the discipline that we 
need to set priorities.
  You have to spend within your budget in your family. You have to 
spend within your budget in your business and, over time, you have to 
spend within your budget in your Government, and this will provide the 
discipline to do it.
  We answer the question: Is it morally and fiscally responsible to 
balance the budget? The answer is yes, and we ought to get on about it.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________