Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2231-S2233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RECESS UNTIL 2:15 P.M.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will stand in recess until the hour of
2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:38 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m.;
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding
Officer (Mr. Cohen).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Indiana.
(Mr. THOMPSON assumed the chair.)
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, for decades Congress has enjoyed the
unlimited luxury of unlimited debt. Our practices, which are pleasing
for the moment to constituencies that profit from the practice of
unlimited debt, have seriously undermined the credibility of this
institution with the American people.
Skepticism and cynicism abound. That skepticism and cynicism--
directed toward those who have made hollow promises, unfulfilled year
after year, perceived to have been made for political purposes--brought
about, in my opinion, the results that we saw in the November election.
The American people want Congress to be honest and to be
straightforward with them, even if it brings some unpleasant truths.
Now, with the passage in the House of Representatives of the balanced
budget amendment by a historic 301 to 132 vote, the spotlight has
turned on the Senate. As such, we, in a sense, are on trial. Our
credibility is at stake. We are debating something of which the
American people have become very well aware--the impact, year after
year, for 25 straight years, of expenditures that exceed our revenues.
It has become apparent to the American people that we are forfeiting
not only our own future but, more importantly, that of future
generations and their opportunity to participate in the American dream.
I do not think there should be any argument about the urgency of our
circumstances. Every child born in America inherits about $18,000 in
public debt. This unfair burden placed on the future is the result of a
failure of political will and it is a betrayal of moral commitments.
It was Thomas Jefferson who noted long ago:

The question of whether one generation has the right to
bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such
consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles
of Government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to
saddle posterity with our debts, and be morally bound to pay
them ourselves.

``The fundamental principles of Government,'' Jefferson noted. What
is perhaps the most fundamental of those fundamental principles?
It is the same principle that applies to each person in our
individual lives, to our family life, to corporate America, to business
America, to virtually every institution. That fundamental principle
involves being responsible and accountable to the people we serve, to
our employees, to our family members, to ourselves. It means not
spending more than we receive and running up a debt to the extent where
we have become unable to pay that debt. Or, in paying that debt, we
must squander resources that should go for essential purposes and
essential services.
That is exactly what has happened here in the United States. We now
face a national debt of $4.8 trillion. Applied across the board per
capita that is
[[Page S2232]] $18,000 for each individual child born in America.
The debt robs people of the opportunity for economic progress. It
steals their opportunity to set essential priorities of how they will
spend their money. This failure of fundamental principle has led some
of the most distinguished Members of this body to leave out of
frustration, perhaps, or disgust. These respected Senators lost faith
in our ability to act.
As I said earlier, the public generally shares that skepticism. With
the House of Representatives now having passed the balanced budget
amendment--and I hope the Senate will soon follow--we can begin to
recover the trust of the American people. Despite the pleas of
constituencies that walk in each of our offices and say, ``Yes, it is a
problem, but not my program,'' I believe the American people
instinctively know that we have got to get our hands on this monster
that has just grown beyond anybody's ability to control.
Now, I understand that amending the Constitution is serious business.
Perhaps it is the most serious act of which this Congress is capable.
It alters the most basic social contract between government and its
citizens. The continued accumulation of debt threatens the endurance,
the very endurance of that very contract, because it is an agreement
not only with ourselves but an agreement with our children.
The constitutional amendment is, admittedly, a strong measure, a
strong remedy. Sometimes it is needed, as we have demonstrated in the
past. It is needed when the crisis is truly here. And it is truly here.
A General Accounting Office report says that interest payments will
exceed $1 trillion by the year 2020 if we simply remain on our present
course. That fact has to be unacceptable to every Member of this body.
That continued load of interest on the debt means that we hinder our
economy from growth it can provide in jobs and opportunities for
Americans. It means that we divert money from essential expenditures
that this Congress needs to make while continually taking more money
from hard-working taxpayers who need those funds to meet basic
individual and family needs.
We borrow at the rate of $1 billion a day--$1 billion a day. What
could we do in this country with $1 billion a day to meet essential
needs, to return funds, or allow taxpayers to retain more hard-earned
dollars, to make decisions for themselves and their family. What can we
do with those funds.
So it does come down to a test of will. It does come down to
political courage. But this Congress and previous Congresses have
demonstrated, to date, that we do not have the political courage or the
will because it is simply too easy to take the expedient route, to say
``yes'' to the constituent groups that might help ensure our
reelection, rather than say, ``I am sorry. We simply do not have the
funds.'' We can say what legislators of 48 States have to say to their
constituents. That is, ``Yes, I recognize your concerns. I understand
the need. But you must understand we have to decide how we will spend
our scarce revenue dollars on the basis of priorities. That's what we
are elected to do.''
This body has not had to do that. It has become an all too convenient
method of ensuring political longevity and reelection to be able to say
``yes'' while we ask future generations to pay for that ``yes.''
Spending habits of Congress are simply too entrenched. There is an
ideology of many Members that has nothing to do with left or right,
liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. It has to do with
power. Power to use the Federal Treasury to please special interests,
to make powerful constituencies happy, to ensure our longevity and our
reelection.
Deficit spending has always made political sense because it allows
Congress to please people in the present by placing burdens on the
future. The future, significantly, has no vote in the next election. We
have built that power on the ability to buy constituent support for
cash funded from debt. That power, it is obvious here, will not be
easily surrendered even when we face a crisis of our own creation. Even
when the views of most Americans are clear, that power will not be
easily surrendered.
Make no mistake, what we are talking about with the balanced budget
amendment is surrendering power, power which I contend we have handled
irresponsibly. The record is clear. I came to this body, the body of
Congress, in 1981. I remember the recoiling of new Members over the
prospect of having to vote early on in 1981 to raise the debt limit to
over $1 trillion. I stand here today, a few short years later, and we
are looking at the prospect of a $5 trillion debt.
It is a failure of political will. We all bear responsibility. The
question now is, how do we address the problem, given the fact that the
crisis is here and we must not continue the past practice of increasing
debt and placing the responsibility on the shoulders of future
generations--how do we address that? That is the fundamental question.
We have had proposal after proposal, scheme after scheme, promise
after promise that holds out the hope that we finally will have
summoned the political will and the courage to address the crisis in a
legislative manner. Yet the record is clear. Year after year, proposal
after proposal, we have failed in that responsibility.
So now comes the moment of truth. Now comes the opportunity for
Members to enshrine in the Constitution of the United States--perhaps
the one promise none of us dares violate--a mandate to which we will
pledge fealty upon our swearing in, a mandate that says, ``Thou shalt
not spend more than you bring in.'' Such an oath will make honest
politicians out of all, honest legislators out of all. Having placed
our left hand on the Bible and raised our right hand, swearing to
uphold the Constitution of the United States, including the injunction
that ``We will not spend more than we take in,'' we will have to face
the music at every legislative session. We will have to look our
constituents in the eye and say, ``We are sworn to uphold this
Constitution, and this Constitution forbids us from going into debt. So
your program, your proposal, the additional spending that you seek may
be worthy, but it has to be placed among the categories and lists of
priorities that we will have to decide each time we meet.''
We will be forced to establish those priorities. We will be able to
summon the wherewithal to finally live up to the responsibility that
each of us has failed in, and that is to be careful guardians of the
dollars that the public entrusts to Members. It will force us to avoid
a system which allows Members to transfer that responsibility from the
present to the future, and ensure that we do not place on future
generations the debts which we are obligated to pay.
The constitutional amendment to balance the budget would transform
the nature of our commitment to a responsible budget. It is one thing
to vote for a deficit, it is something entirely else to violate the
Constitution.
That, Mr. President, I contend is what is at issue here. The
constitutional amendment to balance the budget is an opportunity, a
chance to leave some legacy other than monumental debt.
I ask my colleagues, many of whom have provided many, many years of
meritorious service, what legacy do you want to leave when your time is
finished? What legacy, what heritage do you want to pass on, given the
service that you have been privileged to provide as a Member of the
U.S. Congress? Do we want to leave a legacy of debt which places a
burden on the opportunities for this Nation. Do we want to leave a
legacy for our children and grandchildren and future generations that
denies them the very opportunities of which we have taken advantage? Is
that the legacy we want to leave?
I suggest that it is not the legacy we want to leave. I suggest that
every other attempt that we have made, every other proposal that we
have addressed has not solved the problem or even come close to solving
the problem. There has been too much temptation to please the present
by shifting the responsibility to the future. We have demonstrated that
we are not capable of dealing with it.
So we are almost asking to approve the balanced budget amendment as a
way of saving ourselves, saving ourselves from the continued moral
failure of being responsible to the very people that we are privileged
to represent. Let
[[Page S2233]] us leave a legacy of which we can be proud, a legacy
that will ensure for future generations the rights and privileges that
we have been so fortunate to enjoy.
The balanced budget amendment is also a chance to restore some needed
trust, to prove that the Congress can stand for something other than
defense of its own power and its own privilege.
Mr. President, I will have, obviously, many opportunities to speak
further on this issue. It is a critical one. We will spend a
considerable amount of time dealing with it. There are obviously
divisions of opinion as to how we should get from here to there. I look
forward to speaking and participating on this issue in the days ahead.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have listened to the closing words of my
distinguished friend from Indiana, Mr. Coats. Speaking for myself, I do
not want to leave my children and my grandchildren the legacy of a
crippled Constitution. I believe that the balanced budget amendment, if
adopted, would be an irresponsible act that would cripple this Nation's
capacity to cope with the economic problems of the 21st century and
beyond.
Does the Senator wish me to yield?
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished ranking
member of the Appropriations Committee will yield to me for the purpose
of making a statement on another issue for approximately 7 or 8
minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as for myself, I have no problem with
yielding to the Senator. I do know that Senator Bumpers has been
waiting patiently to speak, and there are others who wish to speak.
I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to yield to the
distinguished Senator from Montana for not to exceed 8 minutes without
losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very deeply thank the Senator from West
Virginia and the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, who I know
wishes to speak.
I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________