[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 20 (Wednesday, February 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1865-S1866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
subject that is before the Senate this week, and I suppose next week 
and possibly the week after, the balanced budget amendment. I think we 
will have extended debate, probably longer than we need, some of which 
will be to talk about options, some of which will be to talk in real 
debate about differences in view, but much of it will simply be 
designed, I think, to delay action on what I think to be a very 
important issue. So, it will be difficult to focus on new information.
  It seems to me there is a very basic question that has to be asked 
first, before all the detail is entered into and that is, is it morally 
and fiscally responsible to spend more than we take in? I think that is 
the question that most Americans ask of their Government: Can we 
continue to spend more than we take in? Is it morally wrong to spend 
more than we take in, to transfer that debt to someone in the future? I 
think Americans ask, is it fiscally responsible to continue to spend 
more than we take in? The answer, obviously, ``is no,'' it is not 
morally responsible, it is not fiscally responsible. So, that is the 
basic question. And most everyone would answer that the same.
  Then we get into a great debate about how we do it. I support a 
balanced budget amendment. I believe very strongly that it needs to be 
done. I believe very strongly that it has worked in the States. What 
are the arguments against it? We hear them time and time again. One of 
them is it is not needed. The evidence is it is needed. This Congress 
has not balanced the budget. It has not balanced the budget in 26 years 
and only balanced it five times in 50 years.
  So the evidence is that, sure, we can balance the budget. The fact is 
that Congress does not. The fact is, it is a little easier to say we 
like the programs; if we can put it on the credit card, we will do it. 
If we have to pay for it, it is a different matter. Then it is a matter 
of setting up priorities. Then it is a matter of a cost-benefit ratio, 
and we hear, ``Here is what it costs. Here is the value.'' The decision 
may be different than saying ``Here is the value. We do not have to pay 
for it now.''
  Some say it is not needed. I suggest that the evidence would indicate 
that it is. Some say we already have the tools; we can do it this year. 
Certainly, that is true. Again, the evidence shows that that has not 
happened. It is very difficult. I am persuaded that there needs to be a 
constitutional discipline to balance the budget on a continuing basis.
  Some say it is too strict, it is too confining. It does not need to 
be. There are arrangements that in case of emergencies--some say in 
case of war--it can be changed, of course. It can be changed by a vote 
or supermajority vote or written into the amendment that it is changed 
under certain circumstances.
  Again, I say to Members that almost all of the States in this country 
have balanced budget amendments. In my State of Wyoming it is in the 
constitution, and it is not troublesome for that reason. We heard an 
extended argument earlier this week on how courts and judges would be 
deciding. The evidence does not show that in the area where we have had 
a balanced budget amendment in the States. The courts do not do the 
budgeting. That is, I think, not a good reason for not moving forward.
  [[Page S1866]] Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is one of 
the several procedural changes that seem to me to be imperative. 
Several of the changes were clearly in the mind of voters in November, 
changes that will have a long-term impact, not just on this year's 
decisions in the Congress, but an impact on the way Congress behaves 
over time. That is the more important question.
  We keep expecting different results and continue to use the same 
process. There is really little reason to expect that results will be 
different if we continue to do the same thing. We need a forced 
discipline. We need an external constraint. I think that is true of 
most political bodies, frankly. Politicians love to be able to provide 
programs. Politicians love to be able to solve problems. Politicians 
sort of get to where they like to have problems to resolve for their 
constituents. A man with a hammer thinks every problem is a nail.
  We need some constraint, some constitutional discipline. The Federal 
debt is nearly $5 trillion, over $18,000 for every person in this 
country. We spend $800-plus million per day in the gross interest 
payments.
  So we have a moral imperative to balance the budget for people in 
Wyoming and people in every other State. Families have to balance, 
businesses have to balance, States, by and large, have to balance, and 
the Federal Government should have to balance as well and not pass off 
the debt on its children and grandchildren.
  Opponents say, ``We already have the tools.'' The evidence shows that 
we do not. The Federal Government has spent more than it has taken in 
for 55 of the last 63 years. Not a good record--not a good record--and 
not a good basis for saying we do not need to do anything.
  So, Mr. President, I am sure we will hear about draconian cuts. The 
fact is that what we have to do is slow the growth. We have been 
increasing spending at 5 percent. Say we increase it only at 2 percent.
  So I hope as we go forward, we can continue to make some points about 
the balanced budget, but the bottom line is, should we do it and, if 
so, what has to take place to require that the balanced budget be used 
in the Congress and be used for Federal spending.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the Senator from Utah 
[Mr. Bennett] is recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bumpers, and Mr. Johnston  
pertaining to the introduction of S. 309 are located in today's Record 
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I am to be 
recognized in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Under a previous order, the Senator from 
Alaska is recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes.

                          ____________________