[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2277-S2278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is certainly 
an appealing idea. I can understand why many believe that it is a 
necessary procedural reform to ensure fiscal responsibility. I voted 
for the concept in 1986 when there seemed to be a lack of shared 
political will, between Congress and the Executive, to impose 
discipline.
  Last year, it seemed to me that the atmosphere had improved 
dramatically, and I opposed the balanced budget amendment because of 
the substantial and significant strides which the Clinton 
administration was then making, and continued to make, to curb 
expenditures and reduce the deficit.
  Now, things appear even more promising for the imposition of fiscal 
restraint. The new congressional majority has made it a primary 
objective, and the President remains committed to the idea of smaller 
and leaner government, although I might add parenthetically that I wish 
his 1996 budget would have gone a bit further than it does in this 
direction.
  But I am not yet convinced that this apparent convergence of 
political will power should result in a constitutional amendment that 
dictates procedure for all time to come.
  For one thing, I, like many of my colleagues want to see where it 
will lead in the immediate future. I want to know the full consequences 
of a 7-year plan to bring revenues and expenditures into balance.
  In particular, I want to know the impact on programs in which I have 
a deep and abiding interest as a legislator--education programs, 
foreign aid, support for the United Nations, and support for the arts 
and humanities.
  And I especially need to know if the cumulative loss of Federal aid 
to the State of Rhode Island over the 7-year period ending in 2002 
could indeed be nearly $1.8 billion as has been predicated, and, if so, 
how will my small State adjust to such a massive change.
  For all of these reasons I joined in cosponsoring the right-to-know 
amendment offered by our distinguished minority leader, Senator 
Daschle. We not only have a right to know, we have a responsibility to 
ask.
  But even if we succeed in getting all the right answers I still am 
not sure 
[[Page S2278]]  the case will be made for amending the Constitution.
  I am troubled by the reservations which have been expressed--
economic, fiscal, and constitutional--as we look more closely beneath 
the attractive surface of the proposed amendment.
  I wonder about the economic impact of rapid withdrawal of some $1.6 
trillion in Federal spending in the arbitrary timeframe of the next 7 
years. Some have warned that the resulting fiscal drag could virtually 
wreck the economy, especially if it should coincide with high interest 
rates or a recession.
  I wonder too about the rigid annual requirement for balance in each 
fiscal year. Some have called it ritualistic in its disregard for the 
more random vagaries of economic cycles, precluding the timely 
operation of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance 
during downswings when tax receipts may be on the decline.
  And on the other side of the ledger, I wonder if the ritual 
requirement to balance might deter the accumulation of budget surpluses 
in good years, since the pending amendment might tend to promote 
unreasoning tax slashes when such opportunities arise.
  I wonder if this constitutional amendment will be any more immune to 
evasion and accounting chicanery than other attempts to put the 
political process in a straightjacket. I think of the experience of my 
own State of Rhode Island where, in order to comply with a 
constitutional mandate and to take advantage of independent financing 
authority, various categories of expenditures simply have been moved 
off budget to a number of commissions and authorities.
  And finally, Mr. President, I wonder about the wisdom of using our 
Constitution for the purpose of imposing accounting rules. Will this 
amendment still be relevant a century from now in the light of now-
unforeseen developments in technology, medical science, space 
exploration, demographic changes, and all intervening natural disasters 
and climatic variations?
  From the perspective of 2095, it may appear rather anomalous that the 
U.S. Senate spent much of the month of February 1995 trying to mandate 
for all time that our books should be balanced, down to the last dollar 
and cent, at the end of each 12-month period.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I would only add that if this 
amendment is not approved, there will be a great burden on us all to 
get to work with a minimum of recrimination to produce the general 
result which would have been mandated; namely, a progressive reduction 
in Government spending and a corresponding alleviation of debt, 
hopefully at a more measured pace and without resort to troublesome 
arbitrary time constraints. I pledge my support to the effort.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Rhode Island withhold 
his request?
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I withhold my request.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, are we still in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is conducting morning business 
until 9:30.

                          ____________________