[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 17 (Friday, January 27, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E201-E202]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

                                 ______


                               speech of

                        HON. JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI

                                of maine

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 25, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.J. Res. 1) 
     proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, we have heard much discussion over the 
past days and weeks and even months about the need for an amendment to 
our Nation's Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget. Many 
would have us believe that this amendment is the only solution to our 
Nation's rising deficit and debt.
  I disagree. The only true solution to this problem is the resolve of 
the President and Members of Congress to make the difficult and painful 
choices necessary to pay down our Nation's debt and to pass budgets 
that balance. Passing a constitutional amendment is not going to change 
that reality. It will not make the painful decisions go away.
  As a former city councilor, State legislator and, most importantly, 
as a small business person, I know the importance of balancing budgets. 
As an American, I recognize the urgency in reducing our Nation's 
debilitating Federal deficit and debt. I strongly support the principle 
of a balanced budget, and I again pledge to take the inevitably painful 
steps required to meet this goal. However, I do not believe that the 
balanced budget amendment proposed in the Contract With America is the 
right course.
  The proponents claim that passage of a constitutional amendment will 
give Members of Congress a strong incentive to make these unpalatable 
decisions. Perhaps that is true. At the same time, the American people 
demand--and rightly so--that the Federal Government put its fiscal 
house in order. I think that should be incentive enough for us to act.
  With that said, I recognize that I am in the minority. It seems clear 
that an amendment to the Constitution will pass the House. It will then 
go to the Senate and, perhaps, to the States for ratification. Before 
that happens, however, I want to spell out exactly why I am opposed to 
the balanced budget amendment proposed in the Contract With America.
  As proposed by the majority leadership, the balanced budget amendment 
is nothing more than a hoax. It is not an accurate reflection of how 
States and families balance their budgets. It writes into the 
Constitution requirements for supermajority votes that put small States 
at a disadvantage. It doesn't exclude Social Security. And it doesn't 
address the critical issue of judicial review.
  I want to outline these concerns in more detail.
  The contract's balanced budget amendment is disingenuous. It would 
not, as the proponents have claimed, make the Federal Government 
balance its books just as any State or family balances its books. I 
know. I served on the Maine State Senate for 12 years. I am a member of 
an average American family. In both cases, I've worked hard to achieve 
annual balanced budgets year after year, but not in the sense that the 
proponents of this amendment would require.
  The contract's balanced budget amendment makes no distinction between 
capital and operating expenses. This is, in my opinion, a fatal flaw. 
States and American families do. Distinguishing between capital and 
operating expenses recognizes that these two types of expenses are very 
different. Operating expenses are the day-to-day expenses that each of 
us pays. Families pay their light bill, their phone bill, their oil 
bill.
 The Government also pays for its heat and its lights, and for its 
employees' salaries. Capital expenses, however, are long-term 
investments. These are purchases whose value is expected to last, and 
so we make payments on them over time. Families make monthly payments 
on their homes, their cars, their children's educations. The Government 
pays over time for our roads, our bridges, our sewage treatment plants.

  In our homes and in our States, we balance our operating budgets and 
we finance over a longer time our capital expenses. Very few people are 
able to purchase their homes in full, paying cash up front. Very few 
States are able to purchase their bridges in full, paying cash up 
front. It is unrealistic to expect States or families to make capital 
purchases all at once. It is also unrealistic to ask the Federal 
Government to do so.
  I cannot stress enough the crippling effect this amendment would have 
on our country if it does not separate capital and operating expenses. 
Investments in our national infrastructure either will have to be made 
up front in one lump sum and offset by substantial reductions, or they 
will have to be postponed. Do we really want to create a situation 
which forces us to watch our infrastructure crumble before our eyes? 
Where are the considerations of how this will affect our national 
economy, when our Nation's roads deteriorate so that our factories 
can't get their products to market? The costs are astronomical.
  This amendment also writes into the Constitution a requirement that 
Congress not enact measures which would increase tax revenues or raise 
the public debt ceiling without a supermajority vote. I don't believe 
that this Congress should tie the hands of future Congresses in terms 
of responding to changing economic situations which cannot be 
predicted.
 Supermajority requirements have dangers associated with them. I come 
from a small State. We have only two Representatives in the Congress. A 
State like California, on the other hand, has 54 Representatives. I 
don't want to see the rights of my State steamrolled because a few 
large States join forces to thwart the will of the majority. Some have 
called it the tyranny of the minority. It's not a good way to run a 
democracy, and it doesn't result in good public policy.

  Our colleagues in the other body have a supermajority requirement in 
their rules. The Senate requires a three-fifths vote in order to end a 
filibuster. This has resulted in the ability of a minority of Members 
being able to endlessly tie up legislation that a large majority 
supports. I can't think of anybody who believes the Senate's filibuster 
procedure is so good that it ought to be enshrined in the Constitution. 
The contract's amendment would do just that.
  The amendment proposed in the contract also fails to recognize that 
Social Security is 
[[Page E202]] different from other Federal programs. The majority made 
a half-hearted effort to eliminate the legitimate fears of our Nation's 
older citizens by offering House Concurrent Resolution 17. But far from 
exempting Social Security from the cuts required to achieve a balanced 
budget, that resolution merely called on the appropriate committees of 
the House and the Senate to report implementing legislation that would 
achieve a balanced budget without increasing the receipts or reducing 
the disbursements of the Social Security trust funds.
  This was meaningless. Why not include in the amendment itself a 
prohibition on utilizing Social Security funds to achieve a balanced 
budget? We seem to agree on two things.
 First, nobody wants to cut Social Security. Second, everybody wants to 
balance the budget. Our majority colleagues think we need a 
constitutional amendment to do what we've said we want to do with the 
budget. But they don't think we need the same sort of constitutional 
protection to make sure that we stick to our pledge not to cut Social 
Security. This doesn't make any sense. Our country's senior citizens 
have worked hard and they deserve to have the integrity of the Social 
Security program protected. They deserve better than a nonbinding 
resolution.

  Finally, the contract's balanced budget amendment fails to address 
the critical issue of judicial review. Our Founding Fathers carefully 
set up our system of checks and balances. The three branches of 
Government have different powers and different responsibilities. The 
contract's amendment has the potential turn the duties of the executive 
and legislative branches over to the judiciary. There is nothing in 
this amendment to prevent lawsuits from tying up the Federal courts 
with issues that rightly belong in the legislative domain. I was 
elected by the people of Maine's Second District to come to Washington 
and make tough choices. I was not elected to come here and abdicate my 
responsibilities to nine unelected and largely unaccountable Supreme 
Court Justices.
  Enactment and ratification of the contract's balanced budget 
amendment will not reduce the Federal deficit by one penny. Only 
Congress can do that. If we lack the courage to make the difficult 
choices required, I am not convinced that an amendment to the 
Constitution is going to provide sufficient fortification.
  That said, I am placed in a difficult position. I want to demonstrate 
my strong support for balancing the Federal budget.
 I have lived and worked under a State balanced budget requirement for 
12 years. But the rule which was adopted governing this debate does not 
permit me to address my very serious concerns by offering amendments to 
improve any of the six substitutes which we are being allowed by the 
majority to consider.

  And so, as happens so often in the legislative branch, I am forced to 
choose between imperfect measures. For the reasons I have outlined 
above, I cannot support the contract's balanced budget amendment. It is 
simply too flawed and too contrary to the best interests of the 
American people.
  I will, however, support the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. 
Wise. His amendment, while far from perfect, addresses four of my major 
concerns. It provides for separate capital and operating budgets, a 
realistic way for the Federal Government to handle its finances. It 
doesn't include any supermajority requirements. It allows for deficit 
spending to combat an economic downturn. And it takes Social Security 
out of the equation.
  Mr. Wise's substitute comes the closest to working the way the State 
of Maine works. It is a method which has been successful there and one 
with which I feel comfortable. While I still have grave reservations 
about amending our Constitution in this manner, I am persuaded that Mr. 
Wise's amendment is sound enough that it should be sent forward to the 
States. The States and the people will make the final determination as 
to whether this amendment makes economic sense. I believe that upon 
closer inspection, the people will realize that the balanced budget 
amendment is not the easy solution that many have claimed.
  The Federal Government must put its fiscal house in order. We must do 
so starting today, not with a promise to do it 7 years from now. I am 
not convinced that an amendment to the Constitution is a necessary step 
on the path to achieving that goal, but I am convinced that the people 
deserve the chance to decide for themselves.
  No matter what the outcome of this debate, I am committed to making 
the difficult decisions required to balance the budget and pay down our 
Federal deficit. I hope that my colleagues will work with me, starting 
now, to take the necessary actions.


                          ____________________