[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1486-S1488]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I recognize that the Senator from 
Minnesota would like to offer an amendment that I think is actually 
related to the discussion just held on the floor of the Senate, as soon 
as the floor managers are here.
  The Senator from Idaho, a friend of mine, has, along with his 
colleagues, been discussing an issue for the past hour that is very 
important for this country, the issue of a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget. He knows and understands that there is not 
necessarily a partisan difference on that subject in the Senate. Many 
of us, myself included, have voted in the past for a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget and are prepared to do so again.
  I think most people believe that it would be desirable to move this 
country toward a point when we are spending only the resources we have. 
There may need to be some exceptions to that. If you run into a 
depression, you might want to have a stimulative kind of fiscal policy. 
But generally speaking, we ought to balance what we spend with what we 
raise. We are nearing $5 trillion in debt. I have a couple of children 
who will inherit that debt, as will all of America's children. We have 
a responsibility, it seems to me, to address this question and address 
it in the right way.
  I do want to talk a little about the nuance of the discussion. Some 
have been suggesting that Federal spending is out of control because 
there are folks who swagger over to the Chambers of the House and the 
Senate and propose wildly irresponsible spending schemes and programs 
for which they have no idea where the resources will come. The Senator 
from Idaho and others know, of course, that this is not the case. And I 
am not saying that the Senator suggested that. I am saying that people 
who understand the system know that what is causing these substantial 
run-ups in the deficit are----
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. DORGAN. Retirement programs and health care programs, Medicare 
and Medicaid. Each year more people become eligible for Medicare 
because they have reached the age of 65. Each year, Medicare becomes 
more expensive and so does Medicaid. So each year these programs grow 
in cost without anyone having done anything to increase their costs. I 
am happy to yield at this point.
  Mr. CRAIG. Very briefly. I thank my colleague for engaging in this 
issue this morning. I will say that clearly the balanced budget 
amendment is a bipartisan issue. I have always appreciated the support 
of my colleague in this issue. It must be bipartisan. This is a 
national debate that involves all partisan interests. I thank my 
colleague for coming to the floor this morning and making that very 
important point.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator's comments. I want to make this 
point again and again. It is not a basket full of new and irresponsible 
Federal programs, being offered by Members of either side of the 
political aisle, that are causing this problem. The cause is 
entitlement programs, whose costs increase very substantially year 
after year and therefore claim an increasing amount of money out of the 
Federal budget and run-up the Federal deficit.
  The question for those who want to address this, whether in the 
Constitution or through a statute, is: Exactly how do you do it? What 
do you choose to cut? What do you keep and what do you get rid of? We 
could change the Constitution 2 minutes from now, if procedures would 
allow it, and it would not make a one-penny change in the Federal 
deficit. Two minutes from now, we could change the Constitution to read 
that, from this moment forward, there would not be a one-cent increase 
in the Federal deficit, and yet this would not reduce the deficit by 
one penny. Why? Because changing the Constitution does not solve the 
problem. Changing the Federal budget is what solves the problem.
  I have seen the sunny side of this little thing called the budget 
fracas. It came to us from Art Laffer and a bunch of folks in the early 
eighties. These folks believe that you can double defense spending and 
cut the revenue base and there would be nirvana around the corner, and 
the budget would be balanced. We have heard that. That was about $3.5 
trillion ago. Of course, it was preposterous when it was proposed and 
when it was implemented. They saddled this country with an enormous 
debt. Supply side economics they called it. Some have said that is 
where the other side gets all the supplies. But it is a little more 
complicated than that. Now we have some who are saying again let us 
increase defense spending, cut taxes again, and let us change the U.S. 
Constitution to require a balanced budget.
  Well, I happen to support a constitutional provision requiring a 
balanced budget. I did not come to Congress thinking I would support 
this, but that was about $3.5 trillion ago. I would support virtually 
anything requiring that there be a sober and serious solution to this 
problem because, frankly, I think this fiscal policy very much limits 
our country's opportunities in the future.
  Two years ago, we had a vote here in Congress on a budget bill. It 
was a terrible vote. People talk about politicians not caring and not 
being connected, not having any courage. The vote was ``shall we 
increase some taxes?'' That was unpopular. And the vote was ``Shall we 
cut some spending?'' That was unpopular. ``Shall we do that in a 
significant combination to reduce the Federal deficit?'' Enough people 
in this Chamber--by one--voted yes to pass the deficit reduction bill. 
There was a one-vote margin here and a one-vote margin in the other 
body. I regret to say that not one Member of the Republican side voted 
with us on that bill. It was not an easy vote. It was an awful vote. If 
one were just going to be a politician, one would say, ``Count me out, 
I am not going to cast a tough vote. This increases taxes and cuts 
spending. Count me out. I am not involved in this.'' But enough people 
voted yes to say we are willing to do 
[[Page S1487]] this. It might not be popular or the political thing, 
but we are willing to do it for the benefit of this country.
  When we pass--and I think we will--a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget, the question becomes even more intense. How do you, 
with a specific series of changes in taxes and in spending, reach a 
balanced budget by the year 2002? I voted for, and intend to vote for 
again, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. But I would 
say this: When we have people who propose a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget and at the same time say increase defense spending 
and cut the revenue base, I say they need to spell it out. We 
understand that this is the point on the map you want to get to. I want 
to find out the route, especially if you are going to stop near the 
bridge of ``increased defense spending'' and go down the hollow called 
``a cut in taxes.'' How do you reach that destination in the year 2002? 
I think the American people want to know that, as well.
  Are you going to cut Social Security? Not with my support. Why? 
Social Security is paid for by every single person in this country who 
works and by everyone who employs the people who work. This money is 
taken from paychecks and put into a very specific account, a trust 
fund. We have said that we are going to take this amount from your 
paycheck and put it into a trust fund so that it will be safe for the 
future. This problem is a solemn one, a compact among those who work 
and those who retire and the system that funds it.
  Are we going to raid the trust funds to balance this budget? Not with 
my vote. Not one cent of this deficit is caused by Social Security. 
This year, a $70 billion surplus will occur in the Social Security 
trust fund. We will have collected, in other words, $70 billion more in 
the Social Security System than we will have paid out. Can anybody 
reasonably claim that Social Security has caused this problem? So when 
the constitutional amendment to balance the budget comes up, we will 
have an amendment that says you will not balance the budget by raiding 
the Social Security trust funds. This program has not caused one cent 
of the deficit, and we will not allow a raid of the trust funds to 
accomplish the goal of this amendment.
  Second, we say we have a right to know what route you will take to 
reach a balanced budget. There is a special right to know, and it seems 
to me an obligation on the part of those saying we want to increase one 
of the largest areas of public spending and cut the revenue base to 
tell us how they plan to get there. Show us a 7-year budget and tell us 
the result. Then we and the American people and the States and local 
governments know what the plan is.
 Share with us the plan. That is the issue.

  I have mentioned Social Security. Does one get to a balanced budget 
by cutting Social Security? Not with my support. It does not cause this 
problem.
  Does one get there by cutting defense? No. A large number in this 
Chamber now say they want to increase defense spending. That is one of 
the largest areas of spending in the Federal Government.
  Well, if not defense, then what? Interest on the debt? No, we pay 
interest on the debt. There is no way of avoiding it. And the folks on 
the Federal Reserve Board, meeting in secret, have increased the 
interest rate six times and are set to do so again. There is not much 
we can do about that. Interest on the debt is another of the largest 
areas of public spending.
  How about Medicaid and Medicare? There is considerable support for 
Medicaid and Medicare.
  And for health care, are the requirements for these programs any less 
this year than last year? Hardly. Health care costs are going up, not 
down. So are we going to cut health care spending? If so, how? How do 
you do that when health care costs are rising, more people are becoming 
eligible for Federal health programs, more people are growing older, 
America is graying?
  Or, I guess, if that is the plan, then tell us who is not going to 
get the health care that was promised? If that is part of the plan, let 
us hear it.
  Medicaid. Forty million people live in poverty in this country. Which 
poor people are going to be denied access to health care?
  Interestingly enough, health care costs are increasing. Yet we do not 
address the causes for the increases in health care costs. If we do not 
do this, in my judgment we do not have a chance to deal with this 
budget deficit problem.
  What about veterans issues. Do you propose that we cut veterans' 
compensation, veterans' hospitals? I do not think so. I do not think 
somebody is going to say that those soldiers who put their lives on the 
line for this country will now have to discover that the promises this 
country made to them will not be kept. I do not think that is going to 
be the case.
  So I guess the question is not with respect to intent; the intent 
around here is wonderful. And I am going to join those who intend to do 
this, and I will vote for a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget, but with two caveats.
  One, I am not gong to let anybody under any circumstance raid the 
Social Security trust fund to do it because the Social Security trust 
fund is a solemn compact between generations and has not caused one 
penny of this deficit. If that is the fight we have to have, that is 
the fight we are going to have.
  Two, it seems to me--and I think the Senator from Minnesota has an 
amendment on this issue coming up next on this floor--that there is an 
obligation--especially given the circumstances these days of saying we 
want to increase spending on one hand and cut the revenue base on the 
other, while saying we want a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget--to tell us how that is achieved. The American people and State 
and local governments should be able to make judgments: Does this make 
sense? What will this do to us? What does it mean to our revenue base 
out in the States? What programs will we have to assume? What programs 
will people do without?
  Having said all that, a lot of strange things go on. All of us know 
that. This is reform time, and when you deal with reform, there are a 
lot of nutty ideas bouncing all over the walls. There are also some 
timeless truths in this country. One of the timeless truths for me as a 
public servant is that we want to help people who need help in this 
country, to provide opportunity and hope. In this country, a lot of 
people who do well and who will do better next year have opportunities, 
wonderful opportunities. But we have a lot of people who, through no 
fault of their own, find themselves in circumstances where we need to 
reach out a hand and help them up.
  There ought not to be a board of values in this country as we discuss 
what we do about all these issues. We ought to understand that one 
reason for our country's success has been the largess in helping all of 
our people achieve the opportunities they can achieve with their God-
given talents.
  I mentioned some of the ideas floating around here. You know, several 
people say, ``Well, we do not want to ever talk about taxes when we 
talk about fiscal policy, so let us talk about charging admission fees 
to the U.S. Capitol.'' That was a nutty idea from last week. 
Conservative think tanks up here say, ``Let's charge the people of 
America,'' who own the U.S. Capitol, ``an admission price to see the 
U.S. Capitol.''
  I might be old fashioned, I suppose, coming from a town of 400 
people, to think you ought not to charge citizens an admission fee to 
enter a building they own.
  We need to separate the nutty ideas from the decent ideas. And there 
are some good reform ideas, some good ideas, but there are a lot of 
strange ones bouncing around here as well.
  It seems to me that, as we try to separate the good ideas from the 
bad, we ought to try to figure out where we are and follow it down the 
line. Let us try to understand what it is that is necessary for our 
future, what we need to invest in order to achieve the kind of growth 
and opportunity we want.
  But it seems to me that we should not, as we begin talking about the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, leave an impression 
that the Federal budget deficit has been caused by a bunch of folks 
trooping in that door and concocting a new program last March. That is 
not what has caused this. That is not what has caused this at all.
   [[Page S1488]] We have massive entitlement programs whose costs are 
linked to the Consumer Price Index and whose costs go up every year. We 
have a revenue base linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index so 
that revenues are kept down by that same indexation. So you have one 
indexing approach that moves costs up and another indexing approach 
that keeps revenues down. And the result is a mismatch that anybody 
taking arithmetic can understand very quickly.
  The Senator from Idaho and others are absolutely correct that we 
share a goal. That goal is that this country ought to put its budget in 
order and it ought to do it soon.
  I suppose one area of disagreement occurs when some say let us 
increase spending in one of the biggest budget items and then cut our 
revenue, but they do not believe they have an obligation to tell people 
how they will then get to a balanced budget 7 years from now. We 
disagree on that. There is, in my judgment, an obligation to tell the 
American people how they are going to achieve that.
  So, Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words 
about this subject. I know some have spoken about it for an hour or so. 
We will have hour after hour after hour of debates, probably weeks of 
debate on this subject. It is very important. The American people want 
us to control our fiscal policy in a reasonable and responsible way. I 
intend to join in that effort. But I intend also to see that we do it 
in the right way.
  Some say, ``Well, you know, let us keep building Star Wars and let us 
cut out some critically needed investments'' like education and 
training that I think are vital for achieving the full human potential 
in this country. I say, ``I'm sorry. I don't share your goals. I do not 
share your priorities.''
  So those are the kinds of debates I think we will be having in the 
coming weeks. This will allow the American people to not only 
understand that we share a common goal of where we want to go, but also 
to recognize that we have some disagreements about how to get there. 
And that is politics. Someone once said, ``When everyone in the room is 
thinking the same thing, no one is thinking very much.''
  There is going to be a lot of diversity of thought about how we reach 
the destination of a better fiscal policy so that we unsaddle the 
American children of the heavy burden of deficits they now have to 
assume.
  I know that, as I said before, the Senator from Minnesota is now 
waiting and has an amendment that I think will follow this discussion 
in an appropriate way. So, with that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

                          ____________________