[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 23 (Monday, February 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2147-S2148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OPPOSING THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, we have all been
elected to the Senate to make the difficult policy decisions that
confront our Federal Government. Every day on the Senate floor, we
engage in decisionmaking that is the essence of the legislative
process.
Some decisions that come before the Senate are rather commonplace,
such as how much to spend on scientific research or whether we will
build and maintain new highways or ports. Other decisions are much more
profound, such as who will become the next Supreme Court Justice, or
whether or not our Nation will go to war.
No decision a Senator makes it more profound than our vote on an
amendment to the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is an
extraordinary legislative action that has occurred only a few times in
our Nation's history.
The first 10 amendments, which we know as the Bill of Rights, were
proposed and ratified almost immediately after the Constitution itself.
In the next 200 years, only 16 amendments were proposed by Congress and
ratified by the States.
This experience tells us that the balance and compromise crafted
during the Constitutional Convention has served us very well. We are
governed by a remarkably resilient document, and it is a tribute to our
Founding Fathers that the Constitution has been amended so
infrequently.
I am deeply concerned that the amendment we are now considering will
upset the delicate balance of power forged during the Constitutional
Convention of 1787. The balanced budget amendment would transfer
fundamental spending and taxing authority from Congress to the
executive branch. By this amendment, we would unravel mechanisms that
our Founding Fathers delicately weaved into the fabric of the
Constitution to keep the excesses of the executive, judicial, and
legislative branches in check. I genuinely fear that the balanced
budget
[[Page S2148]] amendment would give rise to an imperial Presidency.
And let us remember that domination by the Executive is what caused us
to abandon our relationship with England and establish a great
democracy.
During hearings convened by House and Senate committees, many
professors of law and learned constitutional scholars expressed well-
founded concerns that, if ratified, the balanced budget amendment would
permit the President to impose taxes or fees in order to enforce the
amendment. It would also implicitly or explicitly repeal the
impoundment control measures contained in the 1974 Budget Act.
The notion that the Executive should be allowed to impose taxes
without the concurrence of Congress is a radical proposition. It
violates the constitutional principle that Congress alone should have
the power to lay and collect taxes.
Our Constitution is a remarkable document. As ratified by the States,
its fundamental elements are now familiar to us all: A government
divided into three parts--each part separate and distinct--and each
armed with tools to defend against the excesses of the other.
Yes, our Constitution has been amended over the years. We have 10
amendments that set forth fundamental rights guaranteed to all. We have
a number of housekeeping amendments which establish the electoral
college, provide for the election of Senators by popular vote, and
establish an orderly process in the event of the death of the
President. We have amendments that secure freedom and promote universal
suffrage, such as the 13th, ending slavery; 14th, due process, equal
protection; 15th, end discrimination; and the 19th and 26th amendments,
vote for women and 18-year-olds.
But none of these amendments reorders the fundamental structure of
power and authority as would occur under the balanced budget amendment.
The balanced budget amendment would tilt the balance of power heavily
in favor of the Executive, and, as I said earlier, promote an imperial
Presidency.
There are those who argue that a balanced budget amendment is a good
idea. After all, if families can balance their budgets, why cannot the
Federal Government? Under the proposed amendment, the Federal
Government would be required to balance its budget every year. The only
time a deficit could occur would be during time of war, or when three-
fifths of the House and Senate agree. While it sounds easy, there
remains a glaring problem with such a simplistic approach to reducing
the Nation's debt. What programs would Congress cut to achieve a
balanced budget by the year 2002, the date on which the amendment would
go into effect? What Federal agencies would have their budgets
slashed in order to help the Federal Government meet the requirements
of the balanced budget amendment?
Estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office call for
spending cuts totaling $1.5 trillion by the year 2002. CBO also
predicts that if Social Security and defense are exempted from the
balanced budget numbers then all other Federal programs would be cut
across the board by 30 percent. That of course, is assuming that all
cuts are equal and that partisanship is left out of the mix.
Although I wholeheartedly support and endorse efforts to balance the
Federal budget, I am greatly concerned that the $1.5 trillion in
spending cuts needed to meet the goals of a balanced budget amendment
by the year 2002 would have a devastating impact on a wide segment of
our population. Supporters of the resolution fail to explain where
these tremendous budget cuts would fall. Without assurances that
Federal agencies and programs would be equitably affected, such a plan
is unworkable.
I strongly back Democratic leader Daschle's amendment that would
require Congress to pass an honest, detailed plan to balance the budget
before the balanced budget constitutional amendment goes to States for
ratification. It is irresponsible for us to vote on an amendment
requiring a balanced budget which would necessitate draconian budget
cuts without knowing what we would be cutting and how. We need to know.
The American people have the right to know.
Let me mention a few more aspects of this balanced budget amendment
that concern me. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal
budget could damage the economy more than strengthen it. Greater
amounts of deficit cutting would be required in periods of slow growth
than in times of rapid growth--an action which economists predict would
result in more frequent and deeper recessions.
Such an amendment could also limit public investments that are
critical to long-term growth because the amendment makes no distinction
between investments such as education and training and early
intervention programs for children, and other types of government
spending. These investments are necessary to ensure the Nation's
competitiveness and help the economy grow.
Because the amendment calls for a balanced budget every year,
regardless of whether economic growth is strong or weak, larger
spending cuts or tax increases would be needed in periods of slow
growth than in times of rapid growth, further exacerbating an already
crippled economy.
Mr. President, I know we will have ample time to debate this issue
further, and I look forward to the ensuing debate.
____________________