[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2279-S2307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution.
Pending:
Daschle motion to commit the resolution, with instructions
to report back forthwith, with Daschle amendment No. 231, to
require a budget plan before the amendment takes effect.
Dole amendment No. 232 (to instructions to commit), to
establish that if Congress has not passed a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution by May 1, 1995, within 60 days
thereafter, the President shall transmit to Congress a
detailed plan to balance the budget by the year 2002.
Dole amendment No. 233 (to amendment No. 232), in the
nature of a substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between 9:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.
shall be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will manage the time on this side until
the minority leader appears. I yield to myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. President, this is not an insignificant or an unimportant issue.
The Senate is debating the issue of whether to change the U.S.
Constitution and, if so, how to change it.
The reason we are at this point today is because the country has had
fiscal policy problems of a very significant nature. We have had very
significant yearly budget deficits, and we are now bearing a very large
Federal debt.
And the question is: What can or should be done about that? I guess
most people here would not mind very much if we had a very large
Federal deficit if it resulted from our having to fight a war to
protect our liberty and freedom. I do not think anyone would complain
much about floating bonds and going into debt to protect this country
and to protect freedom and liberty. We would understand that.
I do not suppose anybody would complain very much about a Federal
deficit if we spent several hundred billion dollars that we did not
have and we cured cancer just like that. It would be well worth the
price. I do not imagine anyone would complain very much of having
borrowed to do that.
But that is not what we are doing today. We have operating budget
deficits year after year after year that represent a very significant
imbalance between the amount of money we take in and the amount of
money needed to routinely run the Government and do the things that
this Government does, including all of the transfer payments and all of
the programs. And that is the problem. It is not a new problem.
I understand that in this Chamber when you look at the division of
the Chamber, some will stand up and decide to boast, ``Gee, we're the
conservatives, we're the ones who want to help the taxpayer and save
the money and save the country, and you all, you're the liberals,
you're the ones who want to tax and spend.''
Total baloney, total nonsense. There is not a plugged nickel's worth
of difference between the appetite for spending the taxpayers' money on
that side of the aisle as opposed to this side of the aisle. That side
of the aisle wants to spend it on military; we want to spend it on milk
for hungry kids. The fact is, you look at the record in 15 years and I
guarantee you will discover not any significant difference at all in
terms of the appetite about how much money the two sides want to spend.
Oh, they have different priorities, no question about that. They want
to spend it on different things. But they all have the appetite for
spending.
But we do not have an appetite to raise the money for that which we
spend. So the question is, what do we do about that? The answer is, we
cannot spend that which we do not have. We have to cut back. We have to
deal with that honestly. We have to make tough choices, and that is why
we come to this juncture.
Tough choices are choices that often persuade Members of this body
and the other body in our legislative branch to gnash their teeth and
sweat profusely and wring their hands and worry and not sleep because
they are tough votes, they are awful choices. People think that
somebody is going to be angry, maybe I will lose my job. If that is the
attitude, one ought not serve here. These are not tough choices. These
are issues you look at and decide what is right for this country, what
makes sense, what must we do to fix what is wrong.
Every day that I serve in this Senate, I am proud of that service,
and some days I rue the fact that there are many who decide that public
service is unworthy and Government somehow is corrupt and evil and bad
and cast those kinds of aspersions. I am proud of my service here. I
think public service is a wonderful undertaking.
Mine comes, I suppose, from a family history and background. I was
reading last evening something my brother, who is a journalist, had
written about my ancestors. One of them was a great-grandmother named
Carolyn and a great-grandfather named Otto. They got married in Oslo,
Norway, and moved to Minnesota. They had eight children. Then Otto
died, and Carolyn,
[[Page S2280]] living in Minnesota with eight children and a husband
who just died, apparently contemplated what to do in life.
What Carolyn did was respond to something that the Federal Government
did. The Federal Government said to the people, ``If you are willing to
move into a homestead out on the Great Plains, we will give you a
quarter section of land. If you want to go out and claim it, go farm
it, go live on it, we will give you a quarter section of land.''
So Carolyn with all these children, a husband just died, moved to
North Dakota, Cherry Butte Township, ND, and pitched a tent on the
prairie with her kids. This strong Norwegian woman homesteaded a
quarter section of land and built herself a house and built herself a
farm, raised a family and had a son who had a son who had me. And here
I am.
I think of the strength of someone like Carolyn, and all of us have
these folks in our background. Tough choices? I suppose that is a tough
choice, losing your husband and deciding to move to pitch a tent on the
winter prairies of North Dakota with your children to try to start and
build a farm and make a go of it. That is a tough choice. These are not
tough choices.
When we decide that we do not have the strength and we do not have
the will to do the fundamental things that are necessary to protect and
preserve and nurture this country's future, then something is wrong
with all of us.
So I come to the floor today to say on this question there ought not
be a serious question about whether we do something about this
crippling budget deficit. That question ought not be asked anymore.
Anybody who is still asking that question deserves to go out the other
side of that door.
The question is what and how, and that is what the amendment is about
today. The amendment we are going to vote on in a couple of hours does
not say we do not want to balance the budget. It does not say we should
not have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I have voted
for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget in the past. I did
not come here thinking we ought to do that, but I was persuaded over
the years by Republicans and Democrats, yes, conservatives and
liberals, who ratcheted up year after year deficit after deficit. I
have been persuaded that any additional discipline, any additional
incentive that requires balance is something I would support.
But we come today to vote on a constitutional amendment to balance
the budget, and the question many of us ask is, is this just one more
empty promise? Because, if it is, the pail is full of those, and the
American people can hardly lift it anymore. Or does this have some
strength and some meat? Is this honest? Is this going to lead to a plan
that actually balances the budget?
Why do we ask? We ask because those who propose this, those who say
let us change the Constitution, let us improve on the work of
Washington and Madison and Franklin and Jefferson and others who
contributed to the Constitution, they say: ``We want to do a couple
things. We recognize there is a big deficit in this country, but we
want to do a couple things. One, we want to cut the income by cutting
taxes and, two, we want to increase defense spending.''
It is logical for those who took simple arithmetic that if you are
going to increase the biggest area of public spending and decrease your
revenue, one might be willing, and probably required, to ask then how
are you going to get to a balanced budget? What is your plan? Or is
this another empty vessel, one more broken promise? Is this just
politics?
We have offered an amendment that is called the right-to-know
amendment, and we are just saying that in this country, if this is not
an empty promise, if this is not an empty vessel, then somebody must
have a plan that says we can cut taxes and increase defense spending
and by the year 2002 find a balanced budget out there.
I hope we can find a balanced budget by the year 2002, and I plan to
be part of the solution to do that. I may vote for this constitutional
amendment to balance the budget, but I do not understand why anyone in
this Chamber would vote against this amendment called the right-to-know
amendment.
One prominent Member of Congress says, ``Well, if the American people
understood what this means, it would make their knees buckle.'' Does he
know something that I do not know? Does he know what the plan is? Is
there a mystery plan there someplace that he is aware of that is going
to make people's knees buckle? If so, I wonder if he shared it with the
Presiding Officer. He has not shared it with me. I suspect he has not
shared it with you.
The question is, I guess, is there a plan out there someplace? Is
there a mystery plan floating around that is going to make people's
knees buckle? If so, let us hear it, let us have it, let us debate it,
let us discuss it.
I remember a television commercial--one of my favorites--about
chicken. The television commercial was a customer that came up to the
counter and wanted to know what was in these chicken nuggets. The
person at the counter said, ``Well, its chicken.''
``Well, what kind of chicken?''
``Chicken parts,'' they said.
``Well, what kinds of chicken parts?''
And the person behind the counter said, ``Different parts.''
I wonder what is in a plan in the minds of those who propose to
balance the budget, mystery meat of some type?
Could they share it with us, maybe? How do you get from here to
there? Does anybody who took arithmetic understand you cannot increase
your biggest area of spending, cut your revenue, and get from here to
there?
I do not understand what they are telling us. So we are saying if
this is more than an empty promise, let us fill it up a bit. Let us say
to the American people here is what we are going to do, and here is how
we are going to do it.
If we are not willing to do that, what we are saying is this is
business as usual. This is not about policy. This is not about
substance. This is about politics. And if this is about politics, then
this is not about balancing the budget. This is not about doing what we
ought to do for this country's future.
So when we discuss the document that begins with ``We the People,''
and we decide we want to change a few words here and there, we are
going to try and sort of monkey around a little bit because we have had
a lot of people over a long period of years who have not had the
courage to say you can only spend what you take in, when we discuss
that and decide that, I wonder if we cannot begin to discuss what that
would mean in practical terms for the American people.
We are going to have a task here that is pretty ominous, actually.
But I for one think it is a task we must undertake.
Last evening, I was looking through this sheet, which does not mean
much to anybody. It is a sheet by the Congressional Budget Office that
plots out for 10 years what our spending and taxing and deficits will
be. What this sheet says, to the extent that you can forecast out 10
years--it is kind of like forecasting the weather in North Dakota, a
little uncertain. But what this says is at the current rate, with the
current plan, we are talking about the potential of adding $4.3
trillion to the Federal debt--$4.3 trillion. If anybody thinks that we
do not have a problem, just look at all the projections and understand
we do not have any alternative. We have to deal with this. However, we
cannot deal with it just as a political issue. We have to deal with it
in a real way.
Now, we are going to have an amendment following this one on Social
Security. I do not want five reasons that someone would vote against
either the right-to-know amendment or the Social Security amendment. I
would just like one decent reason, just one. There is only one reason
someone would vote against a right-to-know amendment, I suppose, and
that is because they have no plan and you cannot get there from here.
You cannot be saying I wish to increase spending, and I want to cut
revenue, and I wish to balance the budget.
So we have a right to know. The American people have a right to know.
How can you know something that cannot be accomplished? I guess that is
why we do not have a plan. But if this is honest, if it is real, if it
is not just an empty promise, then why would someone vote against this
right-to-know amendment? Why? And the next
[[Page S2281]] amendment, the Social Security amendment, saying we
take Social Security out of paychecks in a dedicated tax and put it in
a trust fund. We say we promise, in a promise between the people who
work and the people who retire in a binding contract, we promise to
maintain a trust fund as a solemn obligation. We promise that it will
be used for Social Security.
Why--just one reason, not five--would anyone vote against an
amendment that says you cannot use Social Security trust funds, you
cannot raid Social Security trust funds to balance the budget? It has
not added 1 cent to the budget deficit. In fact, it is running a
surplus. To the extent that we now have national savings extracted from
that system, we need them when the baby boomers retire. So I am not
asking for five reasons, just one decent reason someone would vote
against either of these amendments.
Now, we will in the coming hours this morning continue to discuss
what all of this means in terms of balancing the budget and plans and
the ultimate vote on the constitutional amendment. And I would like, if
I can--I know that we are in a situation where we do not have very
thoughtful or very interesting debates, unfortunately. I think it would
be more fun if we all talked to each other on the floor and figured out
what we are doing. Is it political for you and me? Is it policy?
The Senator from Utah is here, and I have listened to him at great
length, and I would like to engage in a dialog with him if we could for
a couple of minutes.
We propose that if we say as a body, maybe with my vote, that we
should change the Constitution, it is a big step. If we say that and we
should therefore balance the budget by the year 2002, we say we have an
obligation to the American people, to the State legislatures, to
everyone out there to decide to give them some skeleton of a plan. Here
is the way it is going to happen in 7 years.
Now, some say, well, it cannot be done in 7 years. We have a 5-year
budget. Well, why not give us five-sevenths of the plan? Just give us a
part of it. We will take a fraction.
I would ask the Senator, if I could, without losing my right to the
floor, what prevents some in this Chamber from believing the American
people have a right to know?
Mr. HATCH. That is a good question. I do not think anybody knows
except for one thing. We have had over 10 plans offered by colleagues
on both sides of the aisle, some together as bipartisan plans that
would lead us to a balanced budget by the year 2002.
The problem is not 1 of those 10 plans has 51 votes. And we have
worked on trying to come up with some way of satisfying everybody from
a balanced budget standpoint for the whole 19 years I have been here,
and we have not been able to do that.
Our contention is that we will never do that unless we pass the
balanced budget amendment and put a fiscal mechanism in place so that
literally we can balance the budget.
I just cite to the distinguished Senator a very interesting article
that appeared in the Washington Times just this morning. It is entitled
``Social Security and the balanced budget.''
Now, the thrust of it is to criticize those who believe that you
should exclude Social Security out of the balanced budget amendment; in
other words, write a statute into the balanced budget amendment. But it
does make a very interesting point here. This is by David Keating.
During the Vietnam war, an American officer was quoted
saying we had to destroy the village in order to save it. Now
the U.S. Senate may apply similar logic when it votes on a
proposal to add a huge loophole to the Balanced Budget
Amendment, supposedly to save Social Security.
Mr. DORGAN. All right, I get the drift.
Mr. HATCH. But the point I wanted to make--let me just take a second
here. There was a point on this----
Mr. DORGAN. But I understand the point the Senator has made, and I do
not want to----
Mr. HATCH. Let me conclude with just one more sentence to answer the
Senator's question.
The fact is we have never been able to do it up to now, and there is
no way that we should hold the amendment hostage, assuming we pass it
by a two-thirds vote and send it to the States, there is no reason why
we should hold it hostage until we take another 18 years to try to get
together on a balanced budget without the balanced budget amendment
being in place.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand the point the Senator from
Utah makes. It is an interesting point. The reason I ask the question
is this. The Senator's party controls the Senate. We understand that. I
mean I was up election night and saw the results. I did not smile as
broadly as the Senator did perhaps, but the fact is that is the way the
system works.
Mr. HATCH. It is all relative.
Mr. DORGAN. Republicans control the Senate. Now, when we controlled
the Senate, we passed a deficit reduction bill in 1993. It was a hard
bill, in many respects, to get votes for. But we rounded up votes for
it and, with 51 votes, passed a bill that, the statistics now
demonstrate, cut the budget deficit by somewhere around $600 billion.
We did not even get one accidental vote on the other side of the
aisle. You think somebody would just make a mistake over there. But I
tell you, it took every single vote that we could muster on this side
of the aisle to do what was necessary. This is heavy lifting. The
political vote, the easy vote is to vote ``no'' and walk away. But we
did not. We did it. We voted to cut the deficit in a significant way,
and I went home and took a lot of heat, and I was proud to stand up and
say I am not part of the problem, I am part of the solution. Even if it
is controversial, even if some of you do not like it, I am going to
cast my vote to try to fix what is wrong in this country.
The reason I make that point is this. You say that, well, you know,
the reason we are not able to give you a plan is we do not think there
is a plan out there that can get 51 votes.
Look, part of the responsibility of leadership when you run this
Chamber is to come up with those votes--and I may join you on those
votes. But at the very least, especially because of recent experience
we have had where we could not even get one vote on that side of the
aisle to do the heavy lifting, I think in this circumstance when you
say let us change the Constitution, then you have a special obligation
to provide the leadership to get the votes for a plan to say to the
American people, here is what we stand for. It is not just words to
change what Ben Franklin and Madison and others did. It is not just
words. Here is what we stand for. Here is our plan. And here is what we
are willing to vote for.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that?
Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. HATCH. I respect the Senator and his Democratic colleagues for
standing up and doing what they thought was right. We did not think it
was right because we did not want to increase the taxes the way they
did--or you did, the highest tax increase in history.
Mr. FORD. No, no.
Mr. HATCH. I know there are those who want to say the dollar is worth
less and, therefore, Reagan's was the highest--therefore, they are both
high. Both occurred because of people who felt the same way as people
who voted last time.
But under the Daschle amendment, what it would do is it would hold
things up. This is the one time in history where we have a chance of
passing a balanced budget amendment, sending it to the States, letting
the States make the determination whether they are going to ratify it,
three-quarters of them, or 38 States, and make it part of the
Constitution.
The Daschle amendment would basically hold that up until we come up
with a balanced budget approach that passes 535 Members of Congress.
Mr. FORD. No.
Mr. HATCH. We think that is not the way to go. We believe we have to
pass the balanced budget amendment, get it out to the States, and I
assure my colleague, Republicans and Democrats will get together and we
will have to come up with that glidepath in the year 2002. I think we
will have to get a majority of both Houses to do it. That is the only
way we are going to get there.
And my point about the last 19 years is that we have never been able
to do it
[[Page S2282]] in that time. I want to have the mechanism, the
procedural route by which we can get there.
Mr. DORGAN. I understand that and I appreciate the point the Senator
is making. I understand that is why they are likely to defeat this
right-to-know amendment--which is a terrible mistake, incidentally,
because the question of whether this is a real promise or a broken
promise is really a judgment by the American people about: Is this
simply more words and more posturing, more politics, or is there
something here that is real?
The interesting point of all this is the American people, I think,
are pretty resilient and pretty strong. You go through 200 years of
history in this country, and they move right to left but they always
come back to the strong center. And they have a good sense of what is
right or wrong and a good sense of what ought to be done.
Mr. HATCH. I agree.
Mr. DORGAN. The fact is the American people are a lot more able to
tolerate the kinds of medicine that need to be administered these days
than most people here give them credit for. But I think they do want to
know. They want to know if someone says: ``Look, we have the votes. We
want to go off and build star wars. We know that is out of fashion, but
it is not out of fashion with us. We want a star wars program. It is
$30 billion, $40 billion. We want to build it because we have the
muscle.''
Somebody back home will want to know, if you are going to build star
wars, does that mean you are going to cut school hot lunch programs?
They want to know what all this means, and those are simple issues.
What are the priorities?
You can look back 100 years from now in this country and look at this
country's budget and you can tell something about what our people were,
what we felt was important, what we invested in, what we considered
important for the future. You could tell that by what we decided to
spend money on.
The American people, I think, given 18 or 20 years of promises--most
of them empty--by both parties, given complicity in arranging this
deficit by creating a situation where we spend more each year than we
take in because we ratchet up all the entitlement programs to inflation
and we ratchet down taxes on the other side so you create an
imbalance--I think the people would want to say if this is not business
as usual, if it is not really business as usual, why, then, are there
not, this time, honest answers? Why are there not honest answers to the
questions of what will this mean to us?
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. What is this medicine about? I would say to the Senator
from Utah, we have limited time. I probably consumed a few more minutes
than I should have on my side. I would love to continue this. I hope we
can have it when we do not have a time agreement, at some other time,
because I would like to talk through some of these things. With that, I
would like to----
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield on my time?
Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield on the Senator's time, sure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. I think the Senator is making a terrific case for the
balanced budget amendment. I know he is a supporter of it. So I commend
him for that as well.
He makes the case that we are going to spend billions on star wars,
will that take away from school lunches? Right now we just fund both of
them because we do not have to live within any procedural or any
disciplined constraints.
The balanced budget, if we pass it, then becomes the discipline
through which we are going to have to look at defense as well as
everything else and we are going to have to somehow or other come to a
conclusion among competing programs and make priorities. I think it
would force us to do that. Of course, that is the whole argument for a
balanced budget amendment, and I think the Senator is making a good
case for it.
I guarantee I will work with the distinguished Senator and others to
try to get to that consensus, but until we get the discipline in place,
we will never get there and we know it and everyone knows it.
Mr. DORGAN. My intention was to make a strong case for the right-to-
know amendment, and I hope we will get some votes on the other side of
the aisle to pass that. That will make this constitutional amendment an
honest amendment, give people some hope that instead of talking about
it, we will finally get something done.
Mr. President, I have consumed some time on our side of the aisle. We
have a number of other people who want to speak. I know we have been
going back and forth.
I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The minority has 36 minutes.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, have up to 10
minutes and the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington,
Senator Murray, have up to 5 minutes of our 36 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also rise to support this amendment. I
offered a similar version of the right-to-know amendment, the glidepath
amendment, in the proceedings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I
thought it was the best discussion we had in the committee after a
couple of days of discussion. I thought the discussion on the right-to-
know amendment was really the most thoughtful and the one that really
crystallized the issue.
In at least two important ways, this is the truth amendment. First,
in one sense the amendment is a truth test. If the supporters of this
constitutional amendment are serious about balancing the budget, this
amendment is the one that really provides that opportunity. The central
concern I have had with the proposed balanced budget amendment is that
it will actually undercut our efforts to reduce the deficit and balance
the budget by just providing political cover for those who are
unwilling to make these really tough decisions. Having voted for the
balanced budget amendment, I fear Members will feel free to duck the
real work of actually identifying and voting for real spending cuts and
they will be able to continue to do this ducking of the issue as the
States go through the rather laborious process of trying to see if they
are going to ratify this thing in the next year or 2 or 7 years.
Of course, supporters of the constitutional amendment deny this
assertion. They proclaim loudly they will seek specific cuts and we
just have to wait and see what they might be. This amendment to the
balanced budget amendment, this right-to-know amendment, provides those
who are genuinely interested in ensuring the Congress does its job with
the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to real deficit
reduction. It does what the proponents of a balanced budget amendment
contend they want to do. This amendment forces Congress to get the job
done. It forces Congress to lay out over the next 5 or 6 or 7 years,
exactly how we are going to accomplish this.
Except, Mr. President, the good thing about this amendment that
cannot be said about the balanced budget amendment is that the right-
to-know amendment does not allow delay and evasion. It does not let the
104th Congress off the hook by simply passing an amendment, a balanced
budget amendment, that does not lay out a single spending cut. The last
Congress made substantial progress in reducing the budget deficits that
have been generated by the budget policies of the 1980's. That progress
was made because the 103d Congress was willing to lay out and have a
very difficult process of discussing specific items to reduce the
deficit. It was not easy. It was not always popular. But it was
specific and it worked and the economy is sound and ultimately the
efforts of the President and the majority at that time have been
accepted by the American people.
Now there is a new majority, a new leadership in Congress. As is so
often the case when there is a change in the ruling party, that new
majority promises great change. On the first bill we considered in this
Congress we were told very bluntly there would be no
[[Page S2283]] amendments no matter how reasonable, no matter how
necessary, because, in the words of the new majority and in the words
of one Senator, it was because this is about who runs this place.
But when is the majority going to show us how they plan to reduce the
deficit? In other words, when are they going to show us how they are
going to run the place when it comes to balancing the budget? That is
part of running the place.
Why is it the new Congress, from which all things are supposedly
possible, is apparently incapable of providing us with a plan to reduce
the deficit? Mr. President, a majority of those supporters of this
proposed amendment who were here in 1993--and I am referring to the
balanced budget amendment--refused to support the deficit reduction
package that was passed and that has resulted in progress.
I remember the discussion in the Judiciary Committee of the Senator
from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, who referred to past votes when the
Republicans were in the majority, which he called times when the rubber
hit the road. He said the Democrats were not there to help.
In 1993, the rubber hit the road here; $500 billion in deficit
reduction was proposed and passed, and not one single Republican in
either House chose to vote for those specific spending cuts.
That is, unfortunately, the only way this can be accomplished,
identifying what has to be cut and actually doing it.
So I understand that nobody necessarily has to assign any particular
plan. But if you are going to propose a balanced budget amendment I
think you have a special burden to at least show us some plan with
regard to how it is going to be accomplished.
Mr. President, I said there were two ways this was a truth amendment.
The other is that this is the truth-in-packaging measure. The voters,
local government, and the State legislatures that are asked to ratify
this amendment are all entitled to know what supporters of the
constitutional amendment mean to do before they modify the Constitution
of the United States.
Looking at the Presiding Officer, one of leaders in this body of
concern with State and local governments, this is exactly the kind of
thing that this Senator has talked about--the fact that these folks
have a right to know what we are up to out here, and that we do not lay
an unreasonable burden on them in the form of the balanced budget
amendment.
Unfortunately, though, the supporters of the balanced budget
amendment have been very reluctant to provide that kind of information.
They maintain that to reveal the whole horrible truth to the Congress
and the public would make it impossible to pass the balanced budget
amendment.
Mr. President, I find that kind of reasoning to be a gross
underestimate of the American people. And it is amazing. It even
reveals a little bit of an antidemocratic philosophy, and is a little
bit insulting to the American people. This is a critical point. I
think, in contrast, supporters of this proposal, instead of giving the
information, want to alter one of the greatest testaments to democracy
in history, our Constitution, and they want to do it in a way, they
freely admit, they say would be opposed by the people if they knew what
was proposed. The obvious irony of this is also a form of hypocrisy.
Mr. President, though I oppose the proposed constitutional amendment,
I am convinced that the failure of the supporters to provide a specific
proposal and glidepath will actually undermine the efforts to have the
amendment ratified. Even worse, it may jeopardize the real world, the
real effort that is required to reduce the deficit. Without a broad-
based consensus, no significant deficit reduction plan would stand. Any
plan which would generate the opposition that the proponents so
obviously fear would be overturned, and rightly so, in a democracy.
So, Mr. President, we will not achieve the broad-based consensus that
we need by dealing dishonestly with the American people. We have made
progress on the deficit. I for one believe the American people are
ready to sacrifice and do more, if they are treated with respect, with
honesty, and with open Government. I have seen this consistently over
the last 2 years and when I was running for the Senate. I see it in
each of the 72 counties of our State, where I hold a listening session
in each county every year. Most recently, I have seen it in the
willingness of so many of my constituents. The vast majority of my
constituents say to me, ``Don't take a tax cut and give it to the
American people.'' They say, ``Just reduce spending to reduce the
deficit.'' This is the way the people are talking. They are ready to
handle this problem, if we are open about it.
Mr. President, the people of this country are willing to make
sacrifices to help clean up the mess that was not of their making. The
very least we can do is to deal honestly with them. That is what this
amendment does. It provides an honest approach.
To conclude, Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States is
still our great national contract. Before we ask people to accept a
change in that contract, they are entitled to read the fine print.
So I urge my colleagues on this important vote later today to support
the Senator from South Dakota and provide the American people the
information they need so they can go forward with some confidence on
this issue.
I thank the Chair.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for
up to 5 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, there is no more important aspect to this debate than
the amendment put forward by my good friend from South Dakota, the
minority leader.
Yesterday, the Budget Committee heard very important testimony from
Dr. Laura Tyson, the Chair of the President's Council of Economic
Advisers. Dr. Tyson explained how risky passing this resolution can be
if we do not know exactly what is going to be cut, how much, and when.
She outlined for us how dangerous these drastic, irrational cuts can
be to the current economic expansion. She described how our fiscal
policy will be ``handcuffed,'' that is her word, not mine, if this
resolution becomes part of the Constitution.
I refer our colleagues, Mr. President, to her testimony before the
Budget Committee yesterday. And, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of an article by Dr. Tyson in yesterday's Washington Post be made a
part of the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
It's a Recipe for Economic Chaos
(By Laura D. Tyson)
Continued progress on reducing the deficit is sound
economic policy, but a constitutional amendment requiring
annual balance of the federal budget is not. The fallacy in
the logic behind the balanced budget amendment begins with
the premise that the size of the federal deficit is the
result of conscious policy decisions. This is only partly the
case. The pace of economic activity also plays an important
role in determining the deficit. An economic slowdown
automatically depresses tax revenues and increases government
spending on such programs as unemployment compensation, food
stamps and welfare.
Such temporary increases in the deficit act as ``automatic
stabilizers,'' offsetting some of the reduction in the
purchasing power of the private sector and cushioning the
economy's slide, not be able to moderate the ups and downs of
the business cycle on its own as well as it can with the help
of the automatic fiscal stabilizers.
First, monetary policy affects the economy indirectly and
with notoriously long lags, making it difficult to time the
desired effects with precision. By contrast, the automatic
stabilizers of fiscal policy swings into action as soon as
the economy begins to slow, often well before the Federal
Reserve even recognizes the need for compensating action.
Second, the Fed could become handcuffed in the event of a
major recession--its scope for action limited by the fact
that it can push short-term interest rates no lower than
zero, and probably not even that low. By historical
standards, the spread between today's short rates of 6
percent and zero leaves uncomfortably little room for
maneuver. Between the middle of 1990 and the end of 1992, the
Fed reduced the short-term interest rate it controls by a
cumulative total of 5\1/4\ percentage points. Even so, the
economy sank into a recession from which it has only recently
fully recovered--a recession whose severity was moderated by
the very automatic stabilizers of fiscal policy the balanced
budget amendment would destroy.
[[Page S2284]] Third, the more aggressive actions required
of the Fed to limit the increase in the variability of output
and employment could actually increase the volatility of
financial markets--an ironic possibility, given that many of
the amendment's proponents may well believe they are
promoting financial stability.
Moreover, they do so quickly and automatically, without the
need for lengthy debates about the state of the economy and
the appropriate policy response.
By the same token, when the economy strengthens again, the
automatic stabilizers work in the other direction: tax
revenues rise, spending for unemployment benefits and other
social safety net programs fall, and the deficit narrows.
A balanced budget amendment would throw the automatic
stabilizers into reverse. Congress would be required to raise
tax rates or cut spending programs in the face of a recession
to counteract temporary increases in the deficit. Rather than
moderating the normal ups and downs of the business cycle,
fiscal policy would be required to aggravate them.
A simple example from recent economic history should serve
as cautionary tale. In fiscal year 1991, the economy's
unanticipated slowdown caused actual government spending for
unemployment insurance and related items to exceed the
budgeted amount by $6 billion, and actual revenues to fall
short of the budgeted amount by some $67 billion. In a
balanced-budget world, Congress would have been required to
offset the resulting shift of more than $70 billion in the
deficit by a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts that
by themselves would have sharply worsened the economic
downturn--resulting in an additional loss of 1\1/4\ percent
of GDP and 750,000 jobs.
The version of the amendment passed by the House has no
special ``escape clause'' for recessions--only the general
provision that the budget could be in deficit if three-fifths
of both the House and Senate agree. This is a far cry from an
automatic stabilizer. It is easy to imagine a well-organized
minority in either House of Congress holding this provision
hostage to its particular political agenda.
In a balanced budget world--with fiscal policy enjoined to
destabilize rather than stabilize the economy--all
responsibility for counteracting the economic effects of the
business cycle would be placed at the doorstep of the Federal
Reserve. The Fed could attempt to meet this increased
responsibility by pushing interest rates down more
aggressively when the economy softens and raising them more
vigorously when it strengthens.
Finally, a balanced budget amendment would create an
automatic and undesirable link between interest rates and
fiscal policy. An unanticipated increase in interest rates
would boost federal interest expense and thus the deficit.
The balanced budget amendments under consideration would
require that such an unanticipated increase in the deficit be
offset within the fiscal year!
In other words, independent monetary policy decisions by
the Federal Reserve would require immediate and painful
budgetary adjustments. Where would they come from? Not from
interest payments and not, with such short notice, from
entitlement programs. Rather they would have to come from
either a tax increase or from cuts or possible shutdowns in
discretionary programs whose funds had not yet been
obligated. This is not a sensible way to establish budgetary
priorities or maintain the health interaction and
independence of monetary and fiscal policy.
One of the great discoveries of modern economics is the
role that fiscal policy can play in moderating the business
cycle. Few if any members of the Senate about to vote on a
balanced budget amendment experienced the tragic human costs
of the Great Depression, costs made more severe by President
Herbert Hoover's well-intentioned but misguided efforts to
balance the budget. Unfortunately, the huge deficits
inherited from the last decade of fiscal profligacy have
rendered discretionary changes in fiscal policy in response
to the business cycle all but impossible. Now, many of those
responsible for the massive run-up in debt during the 1980s
are leading the charge to eliminate the automatic stabilizers
as well by voting for a balanced budget amendment.
Instead of undermining the government's ability to moderate
the economy's cyclical fluctuations by passing such an
amendment, why not simply make the hard choices and cast the
courageous votes required to reduce the deficit--the kind of
hard choices and courageous votes delivered by members of the
103rd Congress when they passed the administration's $505
billion deficit reduction package?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Dr. Tyson, probably more clearly than
anyone I have heard in the past few days, explains how dangerous this
resolution is and why the American people have a right to know what our
budget will look like before we act on this measure.
Mr. President, the staff of the Budget Committee prepared an analysis
of the balanced budget amendment which puts the abstract words of this
resolution into perspective.
Now, as you know, Mr. President, the proponents of this resolution
tell us we must have a balanced budget in the year 2002. But, they
refuse to tell us how they will achieve that balance. They will not
level with the American people about what they will cut and what they
will eliminate. And, Mr. President, the American people have a right to
know.
They have a right to know before we pass this amendment how this will
affect them.
If we pass this resolution with an exemption for Social Security,
defense, and some other sensitive programs and if we still enact all
the tax cuts in the Contract With America, and all of that is possible,
we will see a 50-percent across-the-board cut in all other programs.
Is this responsible budgeting, Mr. President? Is this rational? Is
this common sense? If we put this resolution into action, Mr.
President, agricultural programs could take a 50-percent cut. So could
highway funds. We could lose half of our education and job training
money, and we could lose half of our student loans.
If the Constitution is amended in this way, and Congress actually
acts on it, the cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is in
jeopardy. This is not the way we return security to our Nation, Mr.
President. And, it is not how we restore the glimmer of hope to our
children's eyes.
The radical cuts this amendment will demand will likely fall squarely
on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society--our children, our
elderly, our disabled most in need of help.
And, Mr. President, at a time of uncertainty for all of our working
families we find this resolution will hurt our workers. The economists
at Wharton predict Washington State could lose 209,000 jobs the year
after this amendment takes effect. They predict my State will
experience a 15-percent drop in total personal income. And, they tell
me hardest hit will be the manufacturing sector--especially the
aerospace industry--which is already experiencing massive job losses.
Mr. President, it is time to level with the American people. If we
are gong to engage in a discussion of balancing the budget, let's get
beyond the 10-second sound bites. Let us tell the American people how
this budget will affect our lives, and their children's lives. Because,
Mr. President, if we are going to change the Constitution of the United
States the American people have a right to know exactly how this will
affect their lives, their security, and their future.
I retain the balance of my time.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from Utah for yielding the time.
Mr. President, as I indicated in previous remarks on the floor in
this debate on another day, this really is the defining moment. This is
the opportunity for us to move on balancing the Federal budget. If we
do not do it during this time when we have the opportunity to pass this
amendment, it will be the last time. The House has passed it 300 to
132. It is very close here in the Senate. Some would say that we do not
have the 67 votes that are required as of now.
Here we are, out here talking about a right to know, so-called.
Everyone knows that is a smokescreen. It is dilatory. It is a delay
tactic to try to stop us from voting on this amendment or to try to
obfuscate the issue so much that no one will understand what the real
problems are.
Here is the real problem, Mr. President. This is the President's
budget.
It is interesting that the color is green, and it should be because
in this budget the President spends one heck of a lot of money. In this
budget, the President adds, over 5 years, well over $1 trillion more to
the national debt. The annual deficits run over $200 billion a year, on
an average, for the next 5 years, adding over $1 trillion to the
national debt. That is what it says.
The other side says we need a right to know. Well, what about the
President of the United States? Why does he not submit to us at least
something that leads toward a balanced budget?
[[Page S2285]] He basically has taken a walk and has presented this
budget. It is green. You know, Mr. President, here is the color it
should be--red--because it is red ink, more red ink, more red ink, more
red ink, business as usual, politics as usual. We stand down here on
the floor and we talk and talk and talk, and the debt goes up and up
and up, and our children's future is at stake.
That is what this is all about, Mr. President. Let us face it, that
is what it is all about. How can the President of the United States,
with his party on the floor trying to delay this amendment by using
this phony argument of the right to know, keep a straight face in
presenting this budget? He ought to replace Jay Leno, for crying out
loud. It is hysterical. It is so funny that no one could possibly take
the man seriously. How can you say that?
If you want further evidence of what this thing is all about on this
amendment--and I say to my colleague, the floor leader from Utah--I
remind him because he was very much a participant in this debate a year
ago, in February 1994, when we had the amendment up here and we lost it
by three or four votes, as the Senator well remembers. The sponsor of
this right-to-know amendment by the minority leader of the U.S. Senate
was on the floor, and it is interesting to hear what he said because he
supported the amendment in that debate and voted for the balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution. Here is what he said:
To remedy our fiscal situation, we must stop spending
beyond our means. This will not require the emasculation of
important domestic priorities, as some suggest.
He also said:
We are building a legacy of debt for our children and our
grandchildren and hamstringing our ability to address
pressing national priorities.
And then he said:
In this debate on a balanced budget amendment, we are being
forced to face the consequences of our inaction. Quite
simply, we are building a legacy of debt for our children and
our grandchildren and hamstringing our ability to address
pressing national priorities.
Here, Mr. President, ironically is what Senator Daschle, the minority
leader, said on February 28 on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the
right to know:
Congress and the President will have 7 years to address the
current deficit and reach a consensus on our Nation's budget
priorities. We will have time to find ways to live within our
means and still meet existing obligations to our citizens,
particularly the elderly.
So you have the sponsor of this amendment on the floor of the Senate
1 year ago in support of the balanced budget amendment and saying pass
the amendment and we will lay out the plan and we will work together to
lay out a plan to balance the budget. That is 180 degrees in reverse of
where we are today with the Senator from South Dakota with his so-
called right-to-know amendment.
When are we going to do this? The reason why we need the amendment
could never be more obvious than it was when the President submitted
that budget, because we will not do it without the amendment. I want to
comment for a few moments on this issue of the right to know, because
it is kind of fascinating. I hear about the public's right to know as
if we have to know every single item, everything we are going to do
before we pass the amendment. If Congress wanted to get a balanced
budget, they would have done it, Mr. President, and we would not need
the amendment. The reason we need the amendment is because they will
not do it. That is the reason--because they will not do it.
Do you know what I think? I think the public has a right to know why
every child born in America today, even as I speak, is born
approximately $18,000 in debt. I think that child has a right to know
why that is happening in this country and what we are going to do about
it. That is a right to know that I think we ought to have.
Also, I hear on the floor that we are going to make the tough
decisions. Give me a break. That is why we need the amendment. We are
not making the tough decisions, and the President did not make the
tough decisions in this budget. He did not make the tough decisions. He
took a walk. That is going to continue to happen until the national
debt goes right through the roof. It is already fast approaching, or
will be by the turn of the century, over $6 trillion. Where does it
stop, at $12, $13, $15, $16, $20, $100 trillion? That is where it is
going to go if we do not stop. We just have to do it.
Why would anybody think the American people are going to trust us to
make those decisions? Why should they? We have never done it. That is
why 80 percent of them have said over and over again that they support
an amendment. That is why they said it. That is why they want this
amendment. And that is why those who do not want it are using these
delay tactics and phony arguments, because they do not want to make the
tough decisions.
In order to force us to do what we have been unwilling to do for the
past 15 years or longer, we need this amendment.
Do you know what has been really lost in this debate, beyond the
right to know? We are forgetting about the American people. They are
the losers in this debate. Many of my colleagues say, oh, the Governors
are against it, State legislators will not support it; there will be a
lot of polls cited next week saying that. The only poll that the
Framers of the Constitution ever thought about or knew about, as far as
I am concerned, is whether or not 38 States deem this amendment
essential and a majority of the House and Senate deem it essential. If
they do, we will be bound by the Constitution that all of us swore to
uphold to put our fiscal house in order and, by doing so, we will bring
some dignity to this body and restore fiscal sanity to this country.
That is what it is all about, fiscal sanity and dignity.
How in the world can we call it dignified to roll up trillions of
dollars more of debt on our children, basically saying I am not going
to worry about it today, I am going to live the good life and do what I
have to do, and I am going to pass my debts on to my kids. That is what
we are doing with trillions of dollars.
My friends who oppose the amendment speak only of their ability to
make the tough choices. ``We will make the tough choices,'' they say. I
heard one of my colleagues say how they made the tough choices. In
fact, it was said this morning that they made the tough choices in 1993
in the President's budget. He said, ``No Republican voted for this
agreement.''
I remind my colleagues that Republicans were not a party to the
agreement. We did not have anything to do with negotiating the
agreement. We were not invited to participate in it. I do not know what
the discussion was like behind closed doors, nor do any of my
Republican colleagues know. Do you know what they talked about in those
meetings and discussions? They did not talk about cutting spending or
balancing the budget. They talked about, should we raise the top tax
rate 5, 8, 9 percent? What are we going to raise it to? They talked
about raising taxes. They talked about, should we make tax increases
retroactive for 6 months, 1 year, year and a half? How long can we go
with a millionaires' surtax? Should it be $500,000 or $250,000. That is
what was going on. There were no talks in those meetings about spending
cuts or about tough decisions.
So that is one of the reasons why I believe my friends fear the
constitutional amendment, those who are opposing it, because they know
exactly what is going to happen. You will have to cut spending and cut
the bloated bureaucracy and eliminate outdated programs, and you will
have to make the tough decisions. That is the truth. They are not ready
to do it. That is the bottom line.
I will close on this point. I was very much interested in the story
in the Washington Post this week regarding Washington, DC. They
announced they are $722 million in debt. And Mayor Barry is telling us
in the papers that home rule does not work. He is one of the most noted
figures in the history of home rule in the District. He is now saying:
I have to have the Federal Government take over some of the services,
the prison system, and other programs that he says he cannot maintain.
He is in debt.
Now, why has the Mayor changed his mind? Why has he changed his tune
from the big government mayor that he was for all those years?
It is quite simple. He does not have the tax base any longer to
maintain
[[Page S2286]] the bureaucracy that had been created by him and his
predecessors. The well is dry. They cannot raise any more taxes.
Indeed, we have the representative from Washington, DC, in the House
saying we may want to eliminate income taxes altogether for people who
live in the District. They cannot pay any more taxes. They are up to
here. That is the problem.
That is not the answer. The answer is not raising more taxes. The
answer is cutting spending. That is the issue. So he has given up. So
the Mayor says, ``Come in. Take these things from me. I can't deal with
it any more. I do not have the tax base.''
That, my friends, is exactly the predicament that we are going to be
in in the very, very near future. We are going to go to the well once
too often. There is not going to be any more money there. You cannot
squeeze any more blood out of this turnip, out of the American people.
They do not have it any more. They are fed up. They have had enough.
You cannot get any more. And, therefore, the end is in sight. That is
what is going to happen. That is where we are going to get to.
And when that point comes, what do we do? Are we are going to turn
and say, ``Take these programs''? The answer is no. We all know, when
that comes, it is going to be too late and we will have bankruptcy, the
equivalent of chapter 1, where we spend a whole bunch more dollars.
That is not what the American people want. The American people want
us to be fiscally responsible, to make the tough decisions and pass
this amendment so that the Congress and the President, both political
parties, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, sit down in a
room and make the decision to balance the budget. Yes, we will differ
on where the priorities are, but we have to do it. Now we do not have
to do it. That is why we need the amendment.
So I urge my colleagues to move off this phony debate of right to
know and exempting programs and get on to the business of passing this
amendment sooner rather than later and stop the dilatory tactics.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I thank the Senator from Utah for yielding to me.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New
Hampshire for his excellent statement. It was terrific.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to our courageous colleague from
Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President and my colleagues in the Senate, I am for
the basic aim of this amendment, but I am going to vote against the
amendment for two reasons.
One is, while I think we do need to spell out in broad outlines where
we are going and how we are going to achieve a balanced budget before
it goes to the States, I do not believe this should be in the
Constitution. We are talking about a procedural thing that should not
be in the Constitution.
Second, to spell out down to $100 million where we are going I think
is just totally unrealistic in terms of where we are going to be 7
years from now. So I think it is an unwise amendment.
I would add, if we pass the balanced budget amendment--and my hope is
that we will have the wisdom and the courage to do so--I will request--
and I hope to be joined by Senator Hatch and others on this--I will
request the leaders of both parties to either ask the Budget Committee
or a special task force to put together in broad outlines how we can
get to a balanced budget in the year 2002.
Now, CBO has outlined some things; the Concord Coalition has outlined
some things. There have been other suggestions. But I think a task
force that can be appointed immediately after passage and report back
to the Senate is the way we should go. I do not believe we should put
this kind of an amendment in the Constitution. I think it is just not
constitutional in nature.
Second, I think to say where we are going to be 7 years from now in
terms of $100 million--and at that point it will be about a $1.8
trillion budget--is just unrealistic. So I will be voting for the
motion to table.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from
Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah for yielding.
Mr. President, I have been listening to the speeches and debate on
this amendment and especially on this issue. I just want to go to the
bottom line real quick.
We have to get away from these scare tactics that everything is going
to be cut. I have had people come into my office and say, ``We are
going to lose our programs. Everything is going to be out because you
will not tell us how you are going to do it.''
Let me tell you, this is going to make us all set up a criteria to
select those things to be funded that should be funded. How many
programs have we got right now that are being funded that have not been
authorized by this body or the other body or ever signed into law by
the President of the United States? If that is one of those criteria,
then we are going to see those folks who want to fund programs that
have not been authorized or cannot pass the scrutiny of the Senate or
the House and we get them out. We just go ahead and fund them.
A case in point is the National Biological Survey. We appropriate all
kinds of money for a program that has never passed this Congress. And
if we do not have the criteria on which we fund and what we do not
fund, we will never do it, we will never get it under control.
So the scare tactics are all baloney.
I thank my friend from Utah for yielding me the minute. You usually
hear a lot of flowery speeches, but that is the bottom line when you go
to taking up this issue.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Montana for his cogent remarks.
I now yield 15 minutes to our distinguished chairman of the Policy
Committee, the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleague from Montana for his
remarks. They were brief, but they were right on target.
I also wish to compliment Senator Hatch, Senator Craig, and Senator
Simon. I very much appreciate the bipartisanship which we have
exhibited in trying to pass this constitutional amendment.
We have all been working for a long, long time to pass a
constitutional amendment saying, ``Congress, you cannot spend any more
than you take in.'' It is long overdue.
Consider the remarks Thomas Jefferson made in 1798. He said, ``I wish
it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution.'' He
further says, ``I mean an additional article, taking from the Federal
Government the power of borrowing.'' These are Thomas Jefferson's words
and he was correct.
Mr. President, we have a heck of a problem. We are spending a lot
more money than we take in and we have been doing it for a long time.
We did it for many years under Republican administrations, under
Democratic administrations, and under primarily Democrat Congresses. We
had a Republican Senate in the interlude. But we have seen Federal
spending escalate year after year.
Mr. President, I am going to put a lot of tables into the Record
which represent the facts, the fact that Federal spending has been
exploding.
In 1960, Mr. President, the Federal Government spent less than $100
billion. In 1970, we spent less than $200 billion. In 1980, we spent
$591 billion. So, we went from less than $100 billion in 1960, less
than $200 billion in 1970, and less than $600 billion in 1980. By 1990,
Mr. President, we spent $1.25 trillion.
I am bothered, Mr. President, when the President of the United States
claims in his State of the Union Message that he cut spending by $250
billion. The fact is that Federal spending has not been reduced; it has
climbed every year. The only way that the President can say we have cut
spending is by using the inflated baselines that only the Federal
Government would
[[Page S2287]] use. He is not accurate. Federal spending has gone up
every single year.
In 1992, Federal spending was $1.382 trillion; in 1994 it was $1.461
trillion; in 1995 it will be $1.531 trillion. The President's budget
for next year is over $1.6 trillion--And the spending continues to
escalate. By the year 2000, spending exceeds $1.9 trillion. Federal
spending continues to climb every year, and it has under every
President and every administration.
Revenues have been climbing as well, but not quite as fast. I really
think we need some kind of restraint. I happen to think a
constitutional amendment is the restraint we need. I wish we did not.
Some of my constituents asked me recently, was it really necessary? I
said it would not be necessary if we had a strong majority in both the
House and the Senate that was willing to make the tough fiscal
decisions that would have to be made to balance the budget.
We have not seen that kind of majority. Maybe with the new Congress
we will have that kind of opportunity, but history has shown that we
have not had it in decades. Most States have a balanced budget
requirement. Some may allow exceptions, but most States have something
in their constitution that limits the amounts of money that they can
spend and/or the amount of money they can borrow.
So, Mr. President, I think it is vitally important we pass a balanced
budget amendment. It has to be a bipartisan effort, and I hope we will
have bipartisan support to make it happen.
Mr. President, some people have said, ``How do you do it?'' This is
the intent of Senator Daschle's amendment on the right to know.
Unfortunately, Senator Daschle's amendment amends the Constitution.
This is not the proper way to do what he wants to do. I happen to agree
that we should put out as much information on how we will get there as
possible. I would also say that 7 year estimates are just guessing. No
one knows what will happen in the economy between now and then, and
certainly the economy makes a lot of difference on what the outlays
will be and what the revenues will be. But to put something like his
amendment in the Constitution is wrong. I just hope my colleagues
before they vote on this amendment will read the amendment that is
pending and read section 9. It includes about 11 or 12 paragraphs.
The rest of the balanced budget amendment is quite simple. The rest
of the amendment, which is similar to an amendment we passed in the
Senate in 1982, one which Senator Daschle himself has supported in the
past, makes sense. It is logical. It would fit in the Constitution.
Section 9 does not belong in the Constitution.
I hope that my colleagues will not support the right to know
amendment. Does that mean that Congress should abdicate its
responsibility and wait until the seventh year to do anything to
balance the budget? No, we should take concrete steps each year to
reduce our deficit down to zero.
I regret to say that President Clinton, in his latest budget
submission, has not done that. I think he has raised the white flag on
deficit reduction. His deficit stays at about $200 billion in the
foreseeable future, and beyond the year 2000 increases rather
dramatically. The President's budget touches a little bit on
discretionary spending, it increases it dramatically in some areas,
cuts it in defense and some other areas, and does not touch
entitlements.
Entitlements have been exploding. I think that is irresponsible. I
think, basically, the President punted and said, ``Congress, you take
over. We will wait and see how you do and we will throw rocks at it.''
I think that is irresponsible.
Regardless of what the President does, we need to move toward a
balanced budget. Regardless of whether or not we pass this amendment,
we need to move to balance the budget. I hope we will. I hope we take
concrete steps this year and each and every year to reduce the deficit,
reduce the enormous debt load we have on the American people.
Mr. President, we do have enormous debt load. Federal debt in 1994 is
$4.6 trillion. Mr. President, per capita that is $17,848 for every man,
woman, and child in the United States. That is the amount of public
debt we have today. Next year, 1995, that figure is $18,800. So that
figure has risen by over $1,700 for every man, woman, and child in the
United States, the amount of debt load increase they have all
inherited.
I do not think that is acceptable. I think we have to manage
something. Maybe this is not the perfect solution, but it happens to be
one of the few that I think will work. We are sworn to uphold the
Constitution, and we all take an oath that we will uphold the
Constitution, I think we will show the courage to do so.
Unless and until we have that constraint, I am afraid we will fall
back to business as usual, and business as usual is passing the Daschle
amendment or passing another amendment that says we will exclude Social
Security or gut this amendment some way or another and not pass it, and
we will continue spending more money than we take in.
Why do we do that? Senators are a lot more popular if we spend money
than if we take it. People do not like taxes. They like spending.
Therefore, we spend more, tax less, and have big deficits. I do not
think that is responsible, Mr. President. I do not think we can
continue doing that.
How can we balance the budget? Can we do it? CBO says we will have to
cut spending by $1.2 trillion. The President's budget would cut
spending by $144 billion in the next 5 years. Mr. President, we will
spend over $10 trillion in the next 6 years. The President is talking
about a marginal reduction of about 1 percent. Again, Federal spending
under the President's program goes from $1.5 to $1.9 trillion. That is
not a spending reduction. If spending goes up by a dollar, we should
say spending went up, not that we reduced the rate of both and
therefore it is a spending cut.
Mr. President, we can balance the budget if we allow spending to
increase, but spending cannot increase as fast. According to the
baseline that CBO uses, spending is increasing right now about 5.26
percent. We can balance the budget keeping spending growth to 3.21
percent for the next 7 years. Then we can balance the budget. Let me
repeat that: Spending can increase each and every year, by 3.26
percent.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will not yield. I have a few more
points to make, and I will be happy to yield in a moment.
So, Mr. President, how do we do that? We have some programs growing
astronomically. I will mention a few: Defense has actually gone down,
but there are a lot of other programs that are growing very
dramatically. Medicaid, for example, in the last 4 years has grown at
28, 29, 12, and 8 percent. We cannot continue that rate of growth.
Earned income tax credit, a program that this President is very proud
of, the last 4 years has grown at 11, 55, 18 percent, 1994 at 22
percent, 1995 at 55 percent. That is an exploding entitlement program
that this President expanded. I could go on. Food stamps in the last 4
years has grown 17, 25, 21, and 11 percent. Last year, zero percent. We
can see it has exploded in growth. In 1990 we spent $15 billion in food
stamps; in 1994, $25 billion in food stamps.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these tables be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
FEDERAL SPENDING CATEGORIES
[In billions of nominal dollars--Source: CBO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Percent Percent
Year Outlays Growth Growth of GDP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory
1980............................ $292 ........ ........ 11
1981............................ 341 $49 17 11
1982............................ 373 32 9 12
1983............................ 412 39 10 12
1984............................ 406 (5) -1 11
1985............................ 450 44 11 11
1986............................ 460 10 2 11
1987............................ 470 11 2 10
1988............................ 494 24 5 10
1989............................ 526 32 6 10
1990............................ 567 41 8 10
1991............................ 634 67 12 11
1992............................ 712 78 12 12
1993............................ 762 50 7 12
1994............................ 789 27 4 12
1995............................ 845 56 7 12
1996............................ 899 54 6 12
1997............................ 962 63 7 12
1998............................ 1,026 64 7 12
1999............................ 1,097 71 7 13
2000............................ 1,173 76 7 13
Domestic
1980............................ 129 ........ ........ 5
1981............................ 137 7 6 5
1982............................ 127 (9) -7 4
1983............................ 130 3 2 4
1984............................ 135 5 4 4
1985............................ 146 10 8 4
1986............................ 148 2 1 3
1987............................ 147 (0) -0 3
1988............................ 158 11 8 3
[[Page S2288]]
FEDERAL SPENDING CATEGORIES--Continued
[In billions of nominal dollars--Source: CBO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Percent Percent
Year Outlays Growth Growth of GDP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989............................ 169 11 7 3
1990............................ 183 14 8 3
1991............................ 195 13 7 3
1992............................ 214 19 10 4
1993............................ 229 15 7 4
1994............................ 242 13 5 4
1995............................ 253 11 5 4
1996............................ 262 9 4 4
1997............................ 274 12 5 3
1998............................ 284 10 4 3
1999............................ 295 11 4 3
2000............................ 304 9 3 3
International
1980............................ 13 ........ ........ 0
1981............................ 14 1 6 0
1982............................ 13 (1) -5 0
1983............................ 14 1 5 0
1984............................ 16 3 20 0
1985............................ 17 1 7 0
1986............................ 18 0 2 0
1987............................ 15 (3) -14 0
1988............................ 16 1 3 0
1989............................ 17 1 6 0
1990............................ 19 3 15 0
1991............................ 20 1 3 0
1992............................ 19 (1) -3 0
1993............................ 22 2 12 0
1994............................ 20 (2) -7 0
1995............................ 21 1 5 0
1996............................ 22 1 5 0
1997............................ 22 0 0 0
1998............................ 22 0 0 0
1999............................ 23 1 3 0
2000............................ 24 1 6 0
Defense
1980............................ 135 ........ ........ 5
1981............................ 158 23 17 5
1982............................ 186 28 18 6
1983............................ 210 24 13 6
1984............................ 228 18 9 6
1985............................ 253 25 11 6
1986............................ 274 21 8 6
1987............................ 283 9 3 6
1988............................ 291 8 3 6
1989............................ 304 13 5 6
1990............................ 300 (4) -1 5
1991............................ 320 20 7 6
1992............................ 303 (17) -5 5
1993............................ 293 (10) -3 5
1994............................ 282 (11) -4 4
1995............................ 270 (12) -4 4
1996............................ 270 0 0 4
1997............................ 278 8 3 4
1998............................ 285 7 3 3
1999............................ 295 10 4 3
2000............................ 304 9 3 3
Social Security
1980............................ 117 ........ ........ 4
1981............................ 138 21 18 5
1982............................ 154 16 12 5
1983............................ 169 15 9 5
1984............................ 176 8 5 5
1985............................ 186 10 6 5
1986............................ 197 10 5 5
1987............................ 205 9 4 5
1988............................ 217 12 6 4
1989............................ 230 14 6 4
1990............................ 247 16 7 4
1991............................ 267 20 8 5
1992............................ 285 18 7 5
1993............................ 302 17 6 5
1994............................ 317 15 5 5
1995............................ 334 17 5 5
1996............................ 352 18 5 5
1997............................ 371 19 5 5
1998............................ 390 19 5 5
1999............................ 411 21 5 5
2000............................ 433 22 5 5
Net Interest
1980............................ 53 ........ ........ 2
1981............................ 69 16 31 2
1982............................ 85 16 24 3
1983............................ 90 5 6 3
1984............................ 111 21 24 3
1985............................ 130 18 17 3
1986............................ 136 7 5 3
1987............................ 139 3 2 3
1988............................ 152 13 9 3
1989............................ 169 18 12 3
1990............................ 184 15 9 3
1991............................ 195 10 6 3
1992............................ 199 5 3 3
1993............................ 199 (1) -0 3
1994............................ 203 4 2 3
1995............................ 235 32 16 3
1996............................ 260 25 11 3
1997............................ 270 10 4 3
1998............................ 279 9 3 3
1999............................ 294 15 5 3
2000............................ 310 16 5 3
Earned Income Tax Credit
1980............................ 1 ........ ........ 0
1981............................ 1 0 0 0
1982............................ 1 (0) -8 0
1983............................ 1 0 0 0
1984............................ 1 0 0 0
1985............................ 1 (0) -8 0
1986............................ 1 0 27 0
1987............................ 1 0 0 0
1988............................ 3 1 93 0
1989............................ 4 1 48 0
1990............................ 4 0 10 0
1991............................ 5 1 11 0
1992............................ 8 3 55 0
1993............................ 9 1 18 0
1994............................ 11 2 22 0
1995............................ 17 6 55 0
1996............................ 20 3 18 0
1997............................ 23 3 15 0
1998............................ 24 1 4 0
1999............................ 25 1 4 0
2000............................ 26 1 4 0
Medicaid
1980............................ 14 ........ ........ 1
1981............................ 17 3 20 1
1982............................ 17 1 4 1
1983............................ 19 2 9 1
1984............................ 20 1 6 1
1985............................ 23 3 13 1
1986............................ 25 2 10 1
1987............................ 27 2 10 1
1988............................ 31 3 11 1
1989............................ 35 4 13 1
1990............................ 41 7 19 1
1991............................ 53 11 28 1
1992............................ 68 15 29 1
1993............................ 76 8 12 1
1994............................ 82 6 8 1
1995............................ 90 8 10 1
1996............................ 100 10 11 1
1997............................ 111 11 11 1
1998............................ 123 12 11 1
1999............................ 136 13 11 2
2000............................ 149 13 10 2
Unemployment
1980............................ 17 ........ ........ 1
1981............................ 18 1 8 1
1982............................ 22 4 21 1
1983............................ 30 8 34 1
1984............................ 17 (13) -43 0
1985............................ 16 (1) -7 0
1986............................ 16 0 2 0
1987............................ 16 (1) -4 0
1988............................ 14 (2) -12 0
1989............................ 14 0 2 0
1990............................ 18 4 26 0
1991............................ 25 8 43 0
1992............................ 37 12 47 1
1993............................ 35 (2) -4 1
1994............................ 26 (9) -27 0
1995............................ 22 (4) -15 0
1996............................ 23 1 5 0
1997............................ 24 1 4 0
1998............................ 26 2 8 0
1999............................ 27 1 4 0
2000............................ 28 1 4 0
Food Stamps
1980............................ 9 ........ ........ 0
1981............................ 11 2 24 0
1982............................ 11 (0) -3 0
1983............................ 12 1 7 0
1984............................ 12 (0) -2 0
1985............................ 12 0 1 0
1986............................ 12 (0) -1 0
1987............................ 12 0 0 0
1988............................ 12 1 6 0
1989............................ 13 1 4 0
1990............................ 15 2 17 0
1991............................ 19 4 25 0
1992............................ 23 4 21 0
1993............................ 25 2 11 0
1994............................ 25 0 0 0
1995............................ 26 1 4 0
1996............................ 27 1 4 0
1997............................ 29 2 7 0
1998............................ 30 1 3 0
1999............................ 32 2 7 0
2000............................ 32 0 0 0
Medicare
1980............................ 34 ........ ........ 1
1981............................ 41 7 21 1
1982............................ 49 8 19 2
1983............................ 56 6 13 2
1984............................ 61 6 10 2
1985............................ 70 9 14 2
1986............................ 74 5 6 2
1987............................ 80 6 8 2
1988............................ 86 6 7 2
1989............................ 94 9 10 2
1990............................ 107 13 14 2
1991............................ 114 7 6 2
1992............................ 129 15 13 2
1993............................ 143 14 11 2
1994............................ 160 17 12 2
1995............................ 176 16 10 2
1996............................ 196 20 11 3
1997............................ 217 21 11 3
1998............................ 238 21 10 3
1999............................ 262 24 10 3
2000............................ 286 24 9 3
AFDC
1980............................ 7 ........ ........ 0
1981............................ 8 1 12 0
1982............................ 8 (0) -2 0
1983............................ 8 0 5 0
1984............................ 9 1 6 0
1985............................ 9 0 3 0
1986............................ 10 1 8 0
1987............................ 11 1 6 0
1988............................ 11 0 3 0
1989............................ 11 0 4 0
1990............................ 12 1 9 0
1991............................ 14 1 11 0
1992............................ 16 2 16 0
1993............................ 16 0 3 0
1994............................ 17 1 6 0
1995............................ 18 1 6 0
1996............................ 18 0 0 0
1997............................ 19 1 6 0
1998............................ 19 0 0 0
1999............................ 20 1 5 0
2000............................ 20 0 0 0
Farm Price Supports
1980............................ 3 ........ ........ 0
1981............................ 4 1 43 0
1982............................ 12 8 193 0
1983............................ 19 7 62 1
1984............................ 7 (12) -61 0
1985............................ 18 10 142 0
1986............................ 26 8 46 1
1987............................ 22 (3) -13 0
1988............................ 12 (10) -46 0
1989............................ 11 (2) -13 0
1990............................ 7 (4) -39 0
1991............................ 10 4 55 0
1992............................ 9 (1) -8 0
1993............................ 16 6 68 0
1994............................ 10 (6) -36 0
1995............................ 10 0 0 0
1996............................ 9 (1) -10 0
1997............................ 9 0 0 0
1998............................ 8 (1) -11 0
1999............................ 8 0 0 0
2000............................ 8 0 0 0
Veterans Benefits and Services
1980............................ 14 ........ ........ 1
1981............................ 15 1 10 1
1982............................ 16 0 3 1
1983............................ 16 0 1 0
1984............................ 16 0 1 0
1985............................ 16 (0) -1 0
1986............................ 16 (0) -1 0
1987............................ 16 0 0 0
1988............................ 18 2 12 0
1989............................ 18 0 1 0
1990............................ 16 (2) -10 0
1991............................ 17 1 9 0
1992............................ 20 2 13 0
1993............................ 21 1 7 0
1994............................ 18 (3) -14 0
1995............................ 17 (1) -6 0
1996............................ 17 0 0 0
1997............................ 18 1 6 0
1998............................ 19 1 6 0
1999............................ 20 1 5 0
2000............................ 21 1 5 0
Federal Retirement and
Disability
1980............................ 32 ........ ........ 1
1981............................ 37 5 17 1
1982............................ 41 3 9 1
1983............................ 43 3 6 1
1984............................ 45 2 3 1
1985............................ 46 1 2 1
1986............................ 48 2 4 1
1987............................ 51 3 7 1
1988............................ 54 3 7 1
1989............................ 57 3 6 1
1990............................ 60 3 5 1
1991............................ 64 5 8 1
1992............................ 67 2 3 1
1993............................ 69 2 3 1
1994............................ 72 3 5 1
1995............................ 75 3 4 1
1996............................ 77 2 3 1
1997............................ 81 4 5 1
1998............................ 85 4 5 1
1999............................ 90 5 6 1
2000............................ 96 6 7 1
Other Mandatory
1980............................ 160 ........ ........ 6
1981............................ 187 27 17 6
1982............................ 196 9 5 6
1983............................ 208 13 6 6
1984............................ 219 10 5 6
1985............................ 241 22 10 6
1986............................ 233 (8) -3 5
1987............................ 235 2 1 5
1988............................ 255 20 8 5
1989............................ 270 15 6 5
1990............................ 288 18 7 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page S2289]]
FEDERAL SPENDING CATEGORIES--Continued
[In billions of nominal dollars--Source: CBO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Percent Percent
Year Outlays Growth Growth of GDP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991............................ 314 26 9 5
1992............................ 336 23 7 6
1993............................ 352 16 5 6
1994............................ 368 16 4 5
1995............................ 394 26 7 6
1996............................ 412 18 5 6
1997............................ 431 19 5 5
1998............................ 454 23 5 5
1999............................ 477 23 5 5
2000............................ 507 30 6 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HISTORICAL BUDGET ESTIMATES
[In billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Deposit Off.
Year Revenues Discretionary Mandatory interest ins. receipts Outlays Deficit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970.......................................... 193 125 69 14 (1) (12) 196 (3)
1971.......................................... 187 127 83 15 (0) (14) 210 (23)
1972.......................................... 207 133 97 16 (1) (14) 231 (23)
1973.......................................... 231 135 112 17 (1) (18) 246 (15)
1974.......................................... 263 143 127 21 (1) (21) 269 (6)
1975.......................................... 279 163 164 23 1 (18) 332 (53)
1976.......................................... 298 176 190 27 (1) (20) 372 (74)
1977.......................................... 356 197 207 30 (3) (22) 409 (54)
1978.......................................... 400 219 228 36 (1) (23) 459 (59)
1979.......................................... 463 240 248 43 (2) (26) 504 (40)
1980.......................................... 517 277 292 53 (0) (29) 591 (74)
1981.......................................... 599 308 341 69 (1) (38) 678 (79)
1982.......................................... 618 326 373 85 (2) (36) 746 (128)
1983.......................................... 601 354 412 90 (1) (45) 808 (208)
1984.......................................... 667 380 406 111 (1) (44) 852 (185)
1985.......................................... 734 416 450 130 (2) (47) 946 (212)
1986.......................................... 769 439 460 136 2 (46) 990 (221)
1987.......................................... 854 445 470 139 3 (53) 1,004 (150)
1988.......................................... 909 465 494 152 10 (57) 1,064 (155)
1989.......................................... 991 490 526 169 22 (64) 1,144 (154)
1990.......................................... 1,031 502 567 184 58 (58) 1,252 (221)
1991.......................................... 1,054 535 634 195 66 (106) 1,323 (269)
1992.......................................... 1,092 537 711 199 3 (69) 1,382 (290)
1993.......................................... 1,153 543 761 199 (28) (67) 1,408 (255)
1994.......................................... 1,257 545 789 203 (7) (69) 1,461 (203)
1995.......................................... 1,355 544 845 235 (16) (77) 1,531 (176)
1996.......................................... 1,418 549 899 260 (9) (73) 1,625 (207)
1997.......................................... 1,475 548 962 270 (5) (76) 1,699 (224)
1998.......................................... 1,546 547 1,026 279 (5) (79) 1,769 (222)
1999.......................................... 1,618 566 1,097 294 (3) (82) 1,872 (253)
2000.......................................... 1,697 585 1,173 310 (3) (84) 1,981 (284)
2001.......................................... 1,787 605 1,245 325 (3) (88) 2,084 (297)
2002.......................................... 1,880 626 1,328 344 (3) (93) 2,202 (322)
2003.......................................... 1,978 647 1,417 365 (3) (97) 2,329 (351)
2004.......................................... 2,082 669 1,513 387 (3) (102) 2,465 (383)
2005.......................................... 2,191 692 1,617 412 (4) (106) 2,611 (421)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL DEBT
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Gross Held by Held by subject to
Year Federal the the public the debt
debt Government limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1940.................... 50,696 7,924 42,772 43,219
1945.................... 260,123 24,941 235,182 268,671
1950.................... 256,853 37,830 219,023 255,382
1955.................... 274,366 47,750 226,616 272,348
1960.................... 290,525 53,685 236,840 283,827
1965.................... 322,318 61,540 260,778 314,126
1970.................... 380,921 97,723 283,198 372,600
1971.................... 408,176 105,139 303,037 398,650
1972.................... 435,936 113,559 322,377 427,751
1973.................... 466,291 125,381 340,910 458,264
1974.................... 483,893 140,194 343,699 475,181
1975.................... 541,925 147,225 394,700 534,207
1976.................... 628,970 151,566 477,404 621,556
1977.................... 706,398 157,295 549,103 699,963
1978.................... 776,602 169,477 607,125 772,691
1979.................... 828,923 189,207 639,716 827,615
1980.................... 908,503 199,212 709,291 908,723
1981.................... 994,298 209,507 784,791 998,818
1982.................... 1,136,798 217,560 919,238 1,142,913
1983.................... 1,371,164 240,115 1,131,049 1,377,953
1984.................... 1,564,110 264,159 1,299,951 1,572,975
1985.................... 1,816,974 317,612 1,499,362 1,823,775
1986.................... 2,120,082 383,919 1,736,163 2,110,975
1987.................... 2,345,578 457,444 1,888,134 2,336,014
1988.................... 2,600,760 550,508 2,050,252 2,586,869
1989.................... 2,867,537 678,210 2,189,327 2,829,770
1990.................... 3,206,347 795,990 2,410,357 3,161,223
1991.................... 3,598,993 911,060 2,687,933 3,569,300
1992.................... 4,002,669 1,004,039 2,998,630 3,972,578
1993.................... 4,411,489 1,100,758 3,309,717 4,378,039
1994.................... 4,644,000 1,212,000 3,432,000 4,605,000
1995.................... 4,942,000 1,325,000 3,617,000 4,902,000
1996.................... 5,280,000 1,443,000 3,838,000 5,240,000
1997.................... 5,641,000 1,563,000 4,077,000 5,599,000
1998.................... 6,001,000 1,684,000 4,317,000 5,959,000
1999.................... 6,392,000 1,803,000 4,589,000 6,349,000
2000.................... 6,814,000 1,923,000 4,891,000 6,771,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL DEBT PER CAPITA
[In dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Gross Held by Held by subject to
Year Federal the the public the debt-
debt Government limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1940.................... 384 60 324 328
1945.................... 1,963 188 1,775 2,028
1950.................... 1,691 249 1,442 1,682
1955.................... 1,662 289 1,373 1,650
1960.................... 1,614 298 1,316 1,577
1965.................... 1,666 318 1,348 1,624
1970.................... 1,869 479 1,390 1,828
1971.................... 1,979 510 1,469 1,933
1972.................... 2,093 545 1,548 2,054
1973.................... 2,222 597 1,624 2,184
1974.................... 2,289 663 1,626 2,248
1975.................... 2,544 691 1,853 2,507
1976.................... 2,930 706 2,224 2,895
1977.................... 3,264 727 2,537 3,235
1978.................... 3,559 777 2,782 3,541
1979.................... 3,766 860 2,906 3,760
1980.................... 3,998 877 3,122 3,999
1981.................... 4,333 913 3,420 4,353
1982.................... 4,907 939 3,968 4,933
1983.................... 5,865 1,027 4,838 5,894
1984.................... 6,633 1,120 5,512 6,670
1985.................... 7,637 1,335 6,302 7,665
1986.................... 8,829 1,599 7,230 8,791
1987.................... 9,681 1,888 7,793 9,641
1988.................... 10,637 2,252 8,386 10,580
1989.................... 11,618 2,748 8,870 11,465
1990.................... 12,857 3,192 9,665 12,676
1991.................... 14,243 3,605 10,637 14,125
1992.................... 15,697 3,938 11,760 15,579
1993.................... 17,126 4,273 12,849 16,996
1994.................... 17,848 4,658 13,190 17,698
1995.................... 18,808 5,043 13,766 18,656
1996.................... 19,906 5,440 14,469 19,755
1997.................... 21,072 5,839 15,230 20,915
1998.................... 22,217 6,235 15,983 22,062
1999.................... 23,459 6,617 16,842 23,301
2000.................... 24,795 6,997 17,797 24,638
------------------------------------------------------------------------
miMr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I could go on. Medicare, in the last 4
years is compounded at 13, 11, 12 percent. This year it is expected to
compound at 10 percent. Those are rates greater than 3.2 percent.
I admit, we will have to slow the rate of growth in a lot of programs
if we will balance the budgets. Will it be easy? Not necessarily. The
point is that Federal spending will continue to grow and we can still
balance the budget. It will not be able to grow as much or as fast.
Again, I have heard people say, wait a minute, to balance the budget
we will have to reduce spending $1.2 trillion. Over the next 7 years we
will spend about $15 trillion. Can we afford $1.2 trillion? I think we
can reduce the rate of growth and not spend $15 trillion.
I think we have to do it, Mr. President. I think passing a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget will make us do it. If
we do not pass it, I am afraid we will be back to business as usual. I
hope that is not the case. I really do hope we will be serious. I hope
that we will be serious and make a concerted effort to balance the
budget, make the tough decisions, cut spending, cut entitlement
programs, reduce those programs that are growing to astronomical
levels, and try to live within our means. We have to do it.
I just have a couple of comments concerning the pending Daschle
amendment. It says:
In order to carry out the purpose of this article, Congress
shall adopt a concurrent resolution setting forth a budget
plan to achieve a balanced budget (that complies with this
article) * * *.
And so on. And it says in section C:
New budget authority and outlays, on an account-by-account
basis, for each account with actual outlays or offsetting
receipts of at least $100,000,000 in fiscal year 1994.
[[Page S2290]] This does not belong, Mr. President, in the
Constitution. This does not fit. It does not work. And it will not
work.
I will read from Senator Daschle's comments that he made last year on
February 28. He said:
To remedy our fiscal situation, we must stop spending
beyond our means. This will not require emasculation of
important domestic priorities, as some suggest.
And then he says:
Congress and the President will have 7 years to address the
current deficit and reach a consensus on our Nation's budget
priorities. We will have time to find ways to live within our
means and still meet existing obligations to our citizens,
particularly the elderly.
I happen to concur with that. However, his amendment does not concur
with the statements last year. His amendment does not belong in the
U.S. Constitution, with all respect to its supporters. I may concur
with their desire for Congress to set out a glidepath. The glidepath is
this: Let us limit Federal spending to 3.2 percent, and if we want
spending in some areas, like Social Security, to grow at 5 percent,
that is fine; we have to find some other spending areas to be reduced
to offset that amount. We can do that, if we will just show the courage
to do it. Unfortunately, Congress has not shown the courage in the
past.
Mr. President, I will conclude with, again, complimenting the
sponsors of the balanced budget amendment, Senators Simon, Hatch, and
Craig, and many others who worked tirelessly to make it happen. We
passed a similar amendment in 1982--I wish it would have been adopted
by the House--in 1982, we were spending about $746 billion. We are
spending more than twice as much today, in 1995, as we did in 1982.
So I think we need this balanced budget amendment. It is regretful we
did not pass it a decade ago, or maybe in Jefferson's time. We would
not be in the plight we are in, with our children inheriting a debt of
over $18,000 per person. So I hope that the Daschle amendment will be
either defeated or tabled, and I hope that we will pass a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget identical to that of the
House and then allow the States to go forward with the ratification
process.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to yield time to the Senator from
Illinois. Let me for 30 seconds on my time indicate that which sounds
deceptively simple is just plain wrong. As someone said, as happens
often, you can simply limit to 3 percent growth and you solve the
problem. If you limit Social Security to 3 percent growth, you
effectively--Social Security recipients would not have the cost-of-
living adjustments--but you tell the 6 million new people who become
eligible, ``There is no money for you; you don't get your Social
Security benefits.'' It sounds simple.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I do not have the time, as the Senator did not, either.
Let me yield 10 minutes, if I might, to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for up
to 10 minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Illinois yield for 30 seconds?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I cannot yield because there is
precious little time left in the debate. I would like to take this
opportunity to state my support for the right-to-know amendment.
Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the balanced budget
constitutional amendment, and I am an equally strong supporter of the
American people's right to know what balancing the budget will mean for
them, for their future, and for their children's future.
Frankly, I do not understand why the right-to-know amendment should
be the least bit controversial. I cannot believe that any Member of
this Senate would argue that the American people should not know how
the Government spends their money. I cannot believe that any Member of
this Senate would argue that the American people should not know--in
advance--what programs will need to be cut, or consolidated, or
terminated, in order to balance the budget. I cannot believe that any
Member of this Senate would argue that the American people should not
have the right to make their views known on the options for balancing
the budget before we are committed to any particular set of options,
and that includes options for changes in tax laws, as well as spending
cuts. Most of all, I cannot believe that any Member of this Senate
would seriously argue that the American people should be asked to make
a decision on an issue as important as the balanced budget
constitutional amendment without knowing in detail--before they
decide--what balancing the budget will mean, both for the United States
in general, and for themselves.
It seems to me that we have an obligation to give the American people
the absolute truth about the Federal budget, and about the choices we
have to make to bring it back to balance--and to keep it there. If we
think balancing the budget is important--and I, for one, believe that
it is critically important to meeting our responsibility to future
generations--then we have an obligation to present the facts to our
constituents, to let them know what the options are, and the
consequences they entail. In a democracy, the only way to build broad,
sustainable support for the hard decisions that adopting a balanced
budget constitutional amendment will force is to talk sense to the
American people and to tell them the truth.
The people know the truth when they hear it--and they want to hear
it. They know that, all too often in the past, budgetary issues have
been presented to them as if they were the marks in a three-card monte
con game.
Americans don't want to put up with that any more. They want the
truth--now. They know they haven't been getting that truth, but they
also know that in our democratic system, they deserve that truth, and
they are entitled to it.
What the right-to-know amendment is all about is seeing that they get
the truth. It calls for nothing more than treating the American public
with the respect they deserve. It does nothing more than ask the
Congress to do what common sense requires--to simply tell the truth
about what it means to balance the budget, and about the changes that
balancing the budget will bring. Most importantly, it means putting an
end to the kind of budgetary gamesmanship that has contributed so
greatly to the rise in public cynicism about Government, and its
ability to tell the truth.
Just yesterday I was talking to an auto worker from Decatur, IL. He
recounted a joke that goes something like this: ``How can you tell the
government official is lying?'' The answer is: ``Because his lips are
moving.'' That response is a telling indictment of the Government's
stewardship of the budget and the kind of cynicism that is out there
about what we do. In 1981, the American people were asked to believe in
supply side economics, a plan that told the American people that
cutting taxes would lead to faster economic growth, generating
additional Federal revenues that would painlessly balance the budget.
Of course, the only thing that it actually generated was staggering
deficits that led to a quadrupling of the national debt from $1
trillion to over $4 trillion in just 12 years.
And the American people were told that Gramm-Rudman budget discipline
would lead to a balanced budget. That effort also failed, because, like
supply-side economics, it was more a cosmetic fix. It made the Congress
look good and look like it had the discipline to make hard choices
concerning the budget. But it was not based on telling the American
people the truth about the Federal budget, or about what it would
really take to balance it.
That is why the right-to-know amendment is so important now. If the
balanced budget constitutional amendment is not to be seen as another
budgetary gimmick, as another way to avoid the decision, or as another
attempt to concentrate on process in order to again postpone the real
decisions that must be made, the American people need to know that
Congress is prepared to act, realistically and forcefully, based on
budgetary realities rather than political illusions. And the only way
they will be convinced of that
[[Page S2291]] is if they are made a full partner in the
decisionmaking process.
There are those who fear that telling the American people the truth
will undermine support for the balanced budget amendment, and there are
others who hope it will. But there is no reason to fear the truth. The
only thing we should fear is the consequences for our country and our
democracy if we do not tell the truth.
Yet, there are those who continue to twist and turn in order to avoid
meeting their obligation to the American people--to avoid telling the
truth about the budget--and thereby put the balanced budget
constitutional amendment unnecessarily at risk. These continued
attempts at evasion make the right-to-know amendment, and the facts it
will provide, even more necessary.
After all, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it will take
over 1.2 trillion dollars' worth of budget changes to reach a balanced
budget by the year 2002. And that is just the beginning, because
balancing the budget that year will not ensure that it is balanced from
then on, and that is what the balanced budget amendment requires.
The fact is that, as difficult as it will be to balance the budget by
2002, that task looks almost insignificant when compared to the
challenge of keeping it balanced. I served on the Bipartisan Commission
on Entitlement and Tax Reform. That Commission's interim report,
adopted by an overwhelming 30 to 1 vote, found that, without major
reform in entitlements, the Federal Government will almost double in
size by 2030 as a percentage of the economy, and the Federal deficit
that year would exceed 18 percent of the economy.
Think of that. Not only would the Federal deficit in 2030 equal
virtually one-fifth of our GDP that year, but interest expense alone
would consume over $1 of every $10 our economy generates.
The Commission report also made it very clear that growth in spending
on discretionary programs subject to annual appropriations is not what
is driving the growth of Federal spending. As a percentage of overall
Federal spending, discretionary spending has dropped from over 70
percent of the budget in 1963 to only 28 percent of the budget now.
What is growing is entitlement spending, spending for activities like
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and the like. Entitlements
consumed only 22 percent of the Federal budget in 1963, but by 2003,
together with interest on the national debt, they will account for 72
percent of overall Government spending.
The report of the Congressional Budget Office entitled ``The Economic
and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1996-2000,'' confirms the findings of
the Entitlement Commission. It found that nondefense discretionary
spending has basically not grown at all, as a percentage of GDP, since
1960. Over that same period, however, the CBO report found that
entitlement spending has more than doubled.
Some might say, however, that looking only at percentages of the
economy masks very large spending increases. The actual numbers tell
much the same story. For example, based on CBO's latest estimates,
Federal spending increased by a total of $70 billion between fiscal
1994 and fiscal 1995. Ninety-five percent of that increase was
due to growth in entitlement programs and interest expense. In fact,
those two budget areas actually increased by a total of $88 billion,
well over the $70 billion net overall increase in Federal spending this
year.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that every American has a right to
know these budget facts, and that every American has a right to know
what Congress plans to do about them. Yet, it is also very clear that
the American people have not been told these facts, either by the media
or by the Congress or the administration. Instead, the American people
have been led to believe, as a recent poll by the Wirthlin Group found,
that ``cutting welfare, foreign aid, and `congressional perks''' would
``do a lot towards balancing the budget.''
Most Americans, however, harbor substantial doubts about what they
know about the budget. According to a recent memo done for the
Republican Conference by the Luntz Research Cos., entitled
``Communications Strategy for the Upcoming Budget Battle'':
Again and again, focus group participants complain that
they don't have anywhere close to the information on the
budget that [Members of Congress] do. Survey respondents
always overestimate their knowledge on nearly any subject,
and only 22% believe they know either ``a lot'' or ``a good
amount'' about the budget process.
What that means is most Americans know that they are missing a lot of
important information about the budget. Most Americans do not know, for
example, that AFDC spending--and I have heard a lot of talk about
programs for the poor--in real dollars per beneficiary, is down by
roughly 40 percent since 1970. Most Americans do not know that foreign
aid is only about 1 percent of the Federal budget, and that the value
of congressional perks much, much smaller than that. But every American
has a right to know these and the myriad other important facts about
the budget, and every American has a right to know how Congress plans
to change the budget if the balanced budget constitutional amendment
becomes the law of the land. Americans have a right to know in advance
so that they can determine whether those plans make sense, whether they
will work, who will be affected, and why.
There are those who argue against providing details at this point, on
the ground that it is somehow premature. Timing, however, did not
prevent the new House majority from laying out its tax proposals in
great specificity, proposals that the Treasury Department estimates
will cost $375 billion over the next 7 years, and increase the size of
the budget gap over that period by almost 40 percent.
Why is it, Mr. President, that now is the time to be specific about
tax cuts, but now is not the time to be specific about the changes on
the spending side of the equation that will be required to pay for
those tax cuts and still balance the budget by the year 2002?
Americans have the right to know the specifics. It is time to put
aside talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, and pork barrel spending
as if the budget could be balanced by eliminating those sins. It is,
instead, time to come clean with the American people and tell them what
balancing the budget will really mean. I do not say that to suggest
that we abandon our efforts to deal with waste, an inefficiency. Far
from it. Tackling those issues must continue to be a priority. But it
is time to acknowledge reality, and the reality is that dealing with
waste, fraud, and abuse is not, and cannot be, in and of itself, a
complete strategy for
dealing with the budget deficit. It is only a component of a strategy,
and not even the biggest one.
It is time to stop diverting the American people's attention from the
major policy options that absolutely must be examined if the budget is
to be balanced. If we are serious about balancing the budget, if we
want to meet our obligation to future generations--and if we want the
American people to support the tough decisions that will be required--
then we have to stop the budget gamesmanship now, and enter a real
partnership with the American people.
The American people need to know the dimensions of the budget
problems we face, and what the realistic options are to address those
problems. They need to know that it would take a 13-percent across-the-
board cut in every Federal program, including Social Security and
Medicare, to balance the budget by 2002--and that more cuts would be
needed thereafter to keep it balanced unless the rate of growth of
entitlement spending can be cut.
They need to know that it would take an 18-percent cut in every other
program but Social Security to balance the budget by 2002, if that
program is taken off the table, and that further cuts would be needed
in those other programs to keep the budget balanced after 2002. And
they need to know that even taking Social Security off the table will
not keep Social Security viable in the long run, because that does
nothing to restore the actuarial balance in that program that the
Social Security trustees say is now out of balance. They need to know
that we must act to keep Social Security available for future
generations--and that the sooner we act, the easier it is to
accomplish. And they need to know that maintaining Social Security's
viability
[[Page S2292]] can be accomplished without cutting the benefits of any
current beneficiary by even a nickel.
They need to know that it would take a 32-percent cut in all other
Federal programs, including defense, to balance the budget by the year
2002, if both Social Security and Medicare are taken off the table--and
more cuts in those programs thereafter to keep it balanced, because
both Social Security, and particularly Medicare, are growing faster
than our economy or Federal revenues. And they need to know that it
will take a cut of 36 percent in all other Federal programs if defense
is also taken off the table.
They need to know that it is not the programs benefiting the poorest
Americans that are driving the growth of the Federal budget. They need
to know that the real engines of growth are rapidly rising health care
costs, and the fact that the baby boom generation is moving toward
retirement.
Perhaps most of all, they need to know what some of the options for
balancing the budget might mean for them. Would the proposed path
toward the balanced budget mean rougher roads, or higher subway fares?
What would it mean to their children, to their opportunity to get a
good grammar school and high school education, and to their chances to
go to college. What will it mean to their ability to buy a home and to
obtain a mortgage? And what would
it mean to older Americans who need access to affordable health care?
Would they face additional gaps in coverage, higher premiums, higher
deductibles, or some combination of all of these? Would older Americans
be able to choose to pay somewhat more in taxes to keep Medicare
solvent, or would the only choice they are offered be private
insurance--even if that option were to be more costly. Will COLA's--
cost of living adjustments--be set based on the facts and the best
measurement of inflation we can make, or will COLA's be determined on a
more political basis?
Americans also want to know whether the result of Federal actions to
balance the budget means higher State and local taxes for them. After
all, the Federal Government currently provides more than 21 percent of
the State of Illinois' budget, and provides major support for the
budget of towns and cities across my State. An analysis done by the
Treasury Department at the request of the chairman of the National
Governors Association found that across-the-board cuts in Federal
spending to balance the budget could lead to tax increases in my State
of over 10 percent--and in some States, the tax hikes necessary to make
good the loss of Federal funds could be as much as 25 percent.
In the 1970's and the 1980's, both the Presidents and the Congress
failed in their obligation to face our long-term budget problems. They
flinched from making the necessary decisions because those decisions
were politically difficult and because it was easier to talk about
fiscal responsibility, than to act to achieve it. However, if we had
balanced the budget in 1980, there would be no need for even a single
dollar of program cuts this year. The budget would actually be in
surplus. Dealing with the rapid cost increases in Medicare and Medicaid
would be much easier than it will be now. The Government would have a
far greater ability to act to address problems that need our attention,
because it would not be spending over $200 billion a year just on debt
service.
The failures of the 1980's brought us to where we are now, and those
failures make the job of restoring fiscal discipline more difficult
now. The lesson of that failure is that we cannot afford further delay.
That is why I was critical of the President's budget that was released
yesterday It avoids facing our budget problems. It avoids telling the
American people the truth about those budget problems, and what it will
take to solve them. It does not meet the responsibilities that
leadership entails.
But the fact that the President did not act aggressively does not
lessen the responsibility of the Congress to act, particularly when
Congress is attempting to add a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution. We must begin to act--now--whether there is a balanced
budget constitutional amendment or not.
And that is the real importance of the right-to-know amendment. It
properly focuses attention where it absolutely must be focused--on the
decisions involved in implementing a constitutional amendment--on what
is
involved in turning the promise of a balanced budget into a reality.
The work is not done if and when the balanced budget amendment becomes
a part of the Constitution, and the truth is that the real work cannot
wait until a constitutional amendment is ratified.
The ongoing Mexican financial situation gives us a glimpse of the
future if we do not tell the truth to the American people about or
budget problems and get their help in beginning to solve them now.
Mexico was financing economic growth with foreign capital, and was
therefore vulnerable to a loss of confidence. The result of that loss
of confidence is creating economic recession in Mexico, and real
hardship for millions of Mexicans.
The United States economy is much larger and stronger, and much more
resilient than Mexico's. We do not face the same kind of sudden
collapse. But the U.S. national savings rate has been declining for
many years now. We are financing an increasing portion of our
Government debt, and private economic investment with foreign capital.
And the result will likely be every-higher interest rates in the United
States, and increasing pressure on the incomes of most Americans, if we
do not begin to act now. On the other hand, if we do begin to move
toward a balanced budget, OMB Director Alice Rivlin, in her ``Big
Choices'' memo, tells us that we can turn the anemic 3.7-percent
national savings rate into a 6.1-percent savings rate by the year 2000.
And that higher national savings rate would mean more opportunity and a
brighter future for our children--and their children.
As important as it is to our futures, and our country's future, to
restore discipline to the Federal budget--to balance the budget--how we
get to that balance makes a difference. Some options work better for
the American people than others. How we choose to get to a balanced
budget makes a big difference.
The right-to-know amendment ensures that every American has the
opportunity to get a good, hard look at the plans for balancing the
budget, and, indeed, at all of the available options. It takes the
abstractions involved in the balanced budget amendment, and makes them
concrete and real.
The right-to-know amendment calls on Congress to meet its obligation
to American democracy. It is nothing less than a recognition of our
fundamental moral responsibility to our country, because it seeks to
ensure that the American people have the information they need to be
able to meet their own responsibilities as Americans.
No one can make good decisions without good information. In a
democracy, that means not only must Congress and the President have
good information, but so must the American people. For that reason
alone, it should have universal support in this Senate. It is the only
way to demonstrate that Congress is serious about wanting to balance
the budget, that Congress wants the American people to be real partners
in the decisions required to make that happen, and that Congress is
committed to doing what is right--telling the whole budget truth to the
American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I ask if the Senator will yield for 5 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. I have 12 minutes and two additional statements.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I conclude by saying, Mr. President, the balanced
budget amendment is going to require some real hard decisions by all of
us, decisions that will affect our States, decisions that will affect
our constituencies, and it seems to me that we have an obligation to
tell the truth beforehand so people get a sense of exactly how this
will work.
Taking Social Security off the table, taking Medicaid off the table,
taking defense off the table, doing the kinds of changes that will come
up in amendments after we get past this one, will, I think, require
some hard decisions. It seems to me that with the right-to-know-
amendment the people will have
[[Page S2293]] the truth. They can evaluate our actions more accurately
and more effectively. They can hold us accountable for what we do.
With that, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. President, at the outset of this debate, I observed that Members
of the Senate divided into three distinct groups in connection with the
proposal now before us.
The first was those who believe that the present budget and financial
system of the Government of the United States is broken, broken
seriously and requires major surgery in order to fix it. The evidence
which we, a majority, in this body have cited is the fact that in 30
years we have had but one balanced budget. In the last 20 years, the
total debt has multiplied by more than 10 times to almost $5 trillion,
a tremendous burden on the people of the United States of America; that
even at the present time, at a time of relative prosperity, we are
running deficits of $200 billion a year, adding that amount to our
total debt. The cure, it is the belief of the substantial majority of
the Members of this body, is the balanced budget amendment in the form
in which it passed the House of Representatives.
The second group in this debate are those who claim allegiance to the
concept of a balanced budget but not in this fashion, not through the
provision for such a budget in the Constitution of the United States.
Now, I believe that the overwhelming challenge to that second group
is if not this way, what way? What indicates to them in the history of
the last 30 or 40 years that either a President of the United States or
a Congress of the United States without any external discipline
whatsoever will change the course of action of several decades and work
toward a balanced budget without external discipline?
So far, this second group has been quite silent about what there is
that has so profoundly changed in America that we will now get what we
have lacked over the course of the last 30 years. In fact, it seems to
me that it is more the duty of that group to show us how they would
reach the goal than it is of those who believe that a constitutional
amendment is necessary and who are the subject of the demands in this
motion by the distinguished Democratic leader.
Third, of course, is the group that does not believe in a balanced
budget at all, who feel that the present, the status quo is perfectly
appropriate. There are relatively few in number in this body who
candidly advocate that position but one certainly can credit their
candidness. Probably a number of those in the second group really fall
into the third group with the balanced budget as a low priority or no
priority at all.
That third group, however, got a wonderful new recruit on Monday. On
Monday, the President of the United States, William Clinton, joined
them by presenting to us a budget with a $200 billion deficit and
projections that are very optimistic from the perspective of inflation
and economic growth, projections that never bring the budget deficit to
significantly less than $200 billion a year, with a deficit that
increases after the turn of the century, so that another $1.5 trillion
will be added to the debt. That budget, that Presidential budget is the
best single advertisement for the passage of this constitutional
amendment in its original form.
The Daschle motion, the motion of the distinguished Democratic
leader, is designed to justify doing nothing, to retain the status quo.
I cannot imagine that any of its proponents really believe we ought to
include in the Constitution of the United States two pages of detailed
instructions which will become irrelevant if the constitutional
amendment is actually passed. They cannot believe it.
But beyond the inappropriateness of putting such language in the
Constitution of the United States is the unconstitutionality of the
motion itself because our Constitution tells us that this Congress
passes proposed constitutional amendments which are then submitted to
the States for their ratification. Under the Daschle motion, no such
thing will happen. The submission to the States is conditioned upon
Congress passing a series of laws before that submission takes place.
The Daschle motion is, therefore, not only bad policy, not only bad
aesthetics by putting terrible language in the Constitution of the
United States, it is itself blatantly unconstitutional.
Both for reasons of policy and for reasons of constitutionality, the
Daschle motion should be decisively and swiftly tabled so we can move
on to a debate over the merits of the constitutional proposal itself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending resolution
to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget.
I have not always supported the balanced budget amendment. When this
measure was considered by the Senate in 1982 and again in 1986, I felt
that Congress could and would address deficits without the aid of a
constitutional amendment. Several years ago, however, I realized that I
had overestimated Congress' ability to deal responsibly with the
budget. We have not balanced the budget in 25 years.
When it came time for the tough spending cuts ordered by the Gramm-
Rudman deficit reduction law, Congress did not have the will to follow
through. So in 1992, for the first time I supported a balanced budget
amendment in the Senate.
Public debt is not inherently bad. It was both necessary and wise for
the Federal Government to borrow heavily during World War II. In the
three decades following the war, the United States gradually paid down
this debt. Beginning in the 1970's and worsening in the 1980's,
however, the Federal Government reversed this trend by borrowing more
and more to pay for current expenses. The huge deficits we have been
running for the past 15 years have not been to finance public
investments that will yield benefits in the future. We have been
borrowing primarily to pay for current consumption. We're not borrowing
to build roads; we're borrowing to put gas in the car.
Contrary to popular belief, Congress is never faced with the option
of raising taxes or borrowing money to finance Government. Spending can
only be paid for through taxes--it is simply a question of whether we
raise taxes today or tomorrow. Borrowing invariably means that future
generations will face a heavier tax burden. In fact, the Office of
Management and Budget last year published an analysis of the growing
tax burden. The report forecast that, without changes in Federal law,
the average net tax rate for future generations would eventually reach
82 percent of their lifetime earnings. Clearly, such a tax burden would
be unacceptable.
The real harm caused by Government borrowing is that it draws down
the pool of savings available for investment. Rising standards of
living are possible only through investments in infrastructure, in
plants and equipment, and in education. Savings by American families
and businesses provide the capital for these investments. But deficits
draw down, or crowd out, the national pool of savings. This year, for
instance, the first $200 billion in savings will not go to investments
in new plants and equipment but to feed the deficit.
As more and more of our savings are devoured by the deficit,
investments for the future decline--and with them, the rate of economic
growth in the country.
So the deficit is a double hit on future generations. We are not only
asking them to finance our current spending; we are handicapping their
ability to meet this obligation--by crowding out investments for the
future. We are not only eating their seed corn, we are asking them to
pick up the dinner check.
This travesty simply must end. As nearly every economist in the
country
[[Page S2294]] agrees, the surest way to increase investment in the
future is to cut the deficit. And, the surest way to cut the deficit is
to pass the balanced budget amendment. All other remedies have failed.
Repeated deficits have done serious damage not only to the economy
but to Congress' standing with the public. The low esteem in which
Congress is held is directly related to our fiscal irresponsibility.
For the sake of the integrity of this institution, we cannot continue
to promise the American people long-term deficit reduction and do
little about it. Actions do speak louder than words.
We have tried every conceivable legislative option to force a more
responsible budget policy. With few exceptions, these efforts have
failed. A constitutional amendment appears to be the only solution
left. As others have said, it may be a bad idea but one whose time has
come.
Amending the Constitution should not be proposed lightly. It is a
very serious matter. However, the balanced budget amendment is
consistent with the historic role of the Federal constitution in
safeguarding the rights of those who may be under-represented in the
political process. In this case the under-represented individuals are
future generations who are being asked to pay for our profligacy.
Numerous arguments have been made in opposition to the balanced
budget amendment. Some have argued that the balanced budget amendment
is a gimmick that will not work, while at the same time arguing that it
will wreak havoc by imposing draconian cuts. The balanced budget
amendment is neither a gimmick nor a merciless ax hanging over all
Federal programs--and it is certainly not both.
The balanced budget amendment is not an easy political vote. The easy
votes have been the routine ones to spend beyond our means. The
proposed amendment will not--with certainty--end deficit spending, but
it will undoubtedly make it more difficult.
When the 1990 budget agreement required a supermajority to exceed
annual caps in discretionary spending, no one argued that the
supermajority requirement was a gimmick. It was recognized as an
essential step toward fiscal responsibility. When all the smoke is
cleared on the balanced budget debate, it is undeniable that deficits
will be harder to continue under a constitutional amendment. If you
want to make it more difficult for Congress and the President to pass
the tax bill on to future generations, you should support the balance
budget amendment.
The amendment does not tie Congress' hand to the point that it could
not respond to a national crisis. With the approval of three-fifths of
the Congress, deficits would be permitted. In times of war or dire
economic circumstances, three-fifths of the Members of the Congress can
be expected to recognize the need for deficit spending.
Unfortunately, Congress has too often viewed deficits not as a
necessary tool in dire circumstances but as a
convenient way to spend beyond our means. We have turned the exception
into the rule and have become hooked on deficit spending. It has been
easier to reach for the deficit brew than to abstrain and act
responsibility. The practical effect of the balanced budget amendment
will be to put this elixir a little higher on the shelf and further out
of Congress' reach.
In closing, I would like to make three points that I think put this
debate into context.
First, 37 States have balanced budget amendments. Complying with
these requirements is not always convenient. But over the long term,
forcing governments to balance their budgets promotes good and
disciplined government.
Second, the fact that taxpayers are willing to finance only $1.4
trillion of the $1.6 trillion worth of current Government services,
begs the question of whether the public really wants as much Government
as currently exists.
Last, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is no free
lunch here. Every dollar the Government borrows is a dollar unavailable
for job-creating investment in the private sector. Also, every dollar
the Government borrows today is a dollar tomorrow's taxpayers will have
to repay. At its most basic level the balanced budget amendment stands
for the simple principle that we should pay today for the Government we
use today. If we are unwilling to put the money on the barrel
ourselves, by what right can we ask future generations to put their
money on the barrel?
The balanced budget amendment offers the best hope of ending the
fiscal child abuse in which we have been engaged. The bruises may not
show right now, but the pain is going to last a lifetime. We owe it to
our children and their children to balance the budget. I have no
illusions that this will be an easy task, but if we do not in earnest
set this as our goal and accept it as our responsibility, it will never
happen. The debate today is not about how do we get there, it is about
where are we going.
Thomas Jefferson once said that whenever one generation spends money
and taxes another to pay for it, it is squandering futurity on a
massive scale. Let us end this squandering and pass the balanced budget
amendment now before our task becomes even more difficult.
Mr. President, now let me speak briefly about the pending amendment,
the so-called right-to-know amendment.
The word ``gimmick'' has been thrown around here quite a bit in this
debate, with the opponents of the balanced budget amendment arguing it
is simply a gimmick rather than a serious effort to balance the budget.
I respectfully suggest if there is a gimmick stalking the Chambers
these days, it is the so-called right-to-know amendment. It is designed
to kill the balanced budget amendment and nothing else. Some of its
principal sponsors supported the balanced budget amendment last year,
and there was no mention on their part of a right to know at that time.
Curiously, suddenly it has emerged.
Any one of us can produce a balanced budget plan by the year 2002.
Indeed, some of us have. I joined last year with Senators Danforth,
Boren and Johnston, to offer the only bipartisan alternative to the
President's budget. Our plan called for cutting spending on the basis
of $2 for every $1 in taxes. It was a serious and detailed plan.
Unfortunately, it gathered more critical acclaim from the Concord
Coalition and others than it did from Members of the Chamber.
But the issue pending before the Senate is not how we are going to
get somewhere. It is about where we are going. Are we truly committed
to balancing the budget? If so, let us take the first step by passing
this amendment. The process of figuring out how we achieve the goal is
going to be difficult. Everyone in the Chamber understands just how it
is that no serious debate can take place in an atmosphere of partisan
sniping, where one side is trying to score points through fear
mongering, by saying the other side is trying to attack Social Security
or veterans or some other group.
Three years ago, Senators Nunn and Domenici offered a plan to cap
entitlement spending the way we already cap discretionary spending. I
supported it. Unfortunately, there were only 28 votes in favor of that
approach.
A second-degree amendment was offered by the Democratic leader to
exempt veterans' programs. It was effective. Very few Senators wanted
to vote against that amendment. It was effective in terms of short-term
politics, but it served to underscore what is wrong with Congress and
why the American people are basically fed up with Washington. Every
thinking person who has looked at the Federal Government knows
entitlement reform is the key to any serious deficit reduction, yet the
political fires are stoked to the point where no one dares to discuss
openly what we know privately to be essential--entitlement reform.
During the debate on the Nunn-Domenici plan, we were told, do not
undertake broad entitlement reform, that is really not where the
problem is. The problem is with health care spending. We need health
care reform.
After a year of debate in this Chamber, after the President submitted
his 1,435-page proposal for health care reform, the best that could be
said was that it was deficit neutral. Yet before we were told, ``Wait
until we get to health care reform, that is where the savings are,
forget about entitlement reform,'' and when the plan finally came up it
was at best deficit neutral. It certainly did not reduce the deficit.
[[Page S2295]] It is a mistake both in terms of politics and policy.
The atmosphere around here has become so poisoned that honest debate
has become nearly prohibited, and that is neither in the country's nor
the Senate's best interest.
The President's budget calls for $200 billion in deficits as far as
the eye can see. We all understand why it does not call for a long list
of specific cuts, because he would be attacked, just as Republicans are
when we produce lists of spending cuts. We need an environment like the
one Chief Justice Earl Warren sought when the Supreme Court took up the
case of Brown v. Board of Education, dealing with racial segregation in
public schools. The Chief Justice, knowing this would be a landmark and
controversial case in the country's race relations, first sought an
agreement among the Justices for unanimity in their decision. He did
not want such an important decision to be decided by a split Court.
I have no illusion that the Members of Congress could unanimously
agree on a difficult deficit reduction package, but I do think we ought
to learn from Chief Justice Warren's approach in terms of securing an
atmosphere where debate can be undertaken without fear of being
punished for candor. The budget deficit is rivaled only by the candor
deficit. Until we can openly discuss these issues without fear of
charges of heresy, is any serious progress ever going to be made? The
balanced budget amendment is necessary to create that atmosphere, and I
urge my colleagues to reject the attempt to subvert and derail this
effort by the so-called right-to-know amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield the remaining 11 minutes to the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Do I understand the Senator from Connecticut desires
time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts. I will ask for just 2 minutes, if that is
appropriate, if the Chair will notify me so I do not eat into the time
of the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I rise to support the right-to-know amendment offered
by the distinguished Senate minority leader, Senator Daschle.
The first headline to greet me yesterday morning was ``Republicans
Vow Leadership They Say Clinton's Budget Lacks.''
Mr. President, I look forward to their leadership on this vitally
important matter. We have not seen any yet, but I am sure it is right
around the corner.
I look forward to providing as much scrutiny of Republican deficit
reduction efforts as has been accorded to the President's efforts. To
my Republican friends, I say it is time to see your cuts. The 104th
Congress has now been in session for 36 days, and we have yet to see
any specific cuts.
the Clinton record
Twenty-seven days after President Clinton assumed office he submitted
a detailed budget plan that contained more than $500 billion in deficit
reduction. He did not say ``I want to see the Republicans plan first.''
Instead he did what he was elected to do--he led.
He made difficult and painful choices. The choices were so hard, in
fact, that not a single Republican Member supported his deficit
reduction initiative. The House Budget Committee chairman,
Representative John Kasich, proposed an alternative plan that cut the
deficit by $15 billion less than the President's plan.
Despite the doom and gloom predictions of our Republican colleagues,
the President's plan has substantially reduced the deficit and helped
the economy. President Clinton has reversed the trend of the Reagan/
Bush era. Then the national debt was growing faster than the economy.
Now the economy is growing faster than the debt. And the combined rates
of unemployment and inflation have reached a 25-year low.
Health care
Last year, the President exercised considerable leadership again by
tackling the principle cause of rising deficits, skyrocketing health
care costs. The President offered a comprehensive plan to reform our
health care system and contain rising health care costs that are
fueling deficit growth. Forty percent of the increase in spending is
due to increasing medical costs.
Last February, CBO reported that:
Once the administration's proposal was fully implemented,
it would significantly reduce the projected growth of
national health expenditures * * * from 2000 on national
health expenditures would fall below the baseline by
increasing amounts. By 2004, CBO projects that total spending
for health would be $150 billion--or 7 percent--below where
it would be if current policies and trends continued.
Unfortunately, the President's efforts were thwarted.
The President remains committed to reining in rising health care
costs and reforming our system in a comprehensive manner. Health care,
however, is not even mentioned in the Contract With America.
fiscal year 1996 budget
On Monday, the President submitted his 1996 budget and recommended an
additional $81 billion in deficit reduction. That savings, and the
President's tax cuts, are fully funded with specific spending cuts.
republican leadership
Mr. President, we have heard much from our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle about their desire to achieve significant
accomplishments in the first 100 days of this session. We are now 36
days into that benchmark and we have yet to see the Republicans
spending cut plans.
We have heard much talk, and seen very little action. The GOP has
reversed the advice of a great Republican leader, Theodore Roosevelt.
Instead of speaking softly, and carrying a big stick, they are shouting
loudly and carrying a fig leaf. A constitutional amendment provides
their cover.
Congressman Kasich said recently, ``You can't have people who are
afraid to break china when you've got to go at this with a
sledgehammer.''
Let us see what the sledgehammer will produce.
right-to-know amendment
Mr. President, that is the purpose of this amendment. It is no more
and no less than a truth in budget advertising amendment. It says
simply that we must be honest with the American people.
Before we pass a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
we should tell the American people how we intend to accomplish this
task. I cannot imagine this effort being at all controversial anywhere
but Washington, DC. It simply says if you are going to talk the talk of
balanced budgets, you have to walk the walk of how you get there. So
far, that is exactly what is not happening.
Reneging on promises
Several weeks ago, in response to President Clinton's demand that any
tax cuts be deficit neutral, our Republican colleagues promised that
spending cuts would precede tax cuts. The message was clear: Before we
pass broad new benefits, we must assure the American public that they
will be paid for. This promise has since been abandoned to concerns of
kneebuckling constituents.
More promises--no details
The Contract With America promises to balance the budget by 2002. CBO
estimates that this will cost $1.2 trillion over 7 years.
The contract also promises $200 billion in tax cuts over 5 years, and
$700 billion in cuts over 10 years. Fifty percent of the tax cuts, I
might add, would benefit Americans with incomes in excess of $100,000 a
year.
Before attempting to pay for these promises, the GOP proposes to take
more than half the budget off the table. Republicans want to increase
defense spending and remove Social Security, while at the same time
continuing to pay interest on the debt. Less than half the budget would
then remain on the chopping block.
Removing these items would require a 30-percent across-the-board
reduction in everything else.
That means a 30-percent across-the-board cut in: Violent crime
programs, veterans pensions, Medicare benefits, child nutrition,
headstart, health programs, low-income energy assistance,
[[Page S2296]] student loans, research and development, and
so forth.
Let us analyze further for a moment what these cuts may well mean in
human terms:
A 30-percent across-the-board could mean:
A $5,175 increase in Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket costs for
seniors.
An elimination of nursing home coverage or optional services like
home care and prescription drugs.
Some 6.6 million less children with health care coverage through the
Medicaid Program.
A drop of a third in NIH biomedical research grants severely impeding
research on cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and other illnesses.
Veterans disabled in their service to our country could expect their
average monthly benefit check to decline from $819 to $574.
A middle-class family relying on Government loans to send a child to
college could owe over $3,000 in additional interest.
As many as 3,000 teachers could lose their jobs, dramatically
increasing class sizes.
Over 200,000 American families could lose the child care subsidies
that enable parents to work or attend school.
Approximately 1.8 million households could lose the Federal
assistance that enables them to pay their heating bills during the
winter.
Over 150,000 jobs could be lost through cuts in highway funds.
Almost 2 million pregnant women and young children could lose infant
formula and other nutrition supplements.
Over 30 million meals on wheels for homebound seniors might not be
delivered.
Over 38 million means might not be served at seniors centers.
The average interval between inspections of food manufacturing
facilities could increase from 6 to 11 years.
Over 200,000 dislocated workers could be denied retraining and job
replacement services; 40,000 violations of workplace safety regulations
uncovered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration could
remain uncorrected.
Mr. President, it is clearly impossible to achieve significant
deficit reduction without pain.
That is the whole point of this amendment. Before we promise to
balance the budget, and enact new tax cuts, the American public
deserves to know exactly what kind of pain to expect.
The President has revealed his cuts. Democratic members have made
painful choices and tough votes. It is time for the Republicans to
reveal how they intend to fulfill their own promises.
No details
On spending cuts, the Republicans are essentially saying to each
other, like Connie Chung, ``Whisper it, just between you and me.'' They
do not want a serious debate by an informed public of all the
implications of this constitutional amendment.
It is true that 80 percent of the American public supports a balanced
budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as long as it remains a
slogan or a simple statement of principle. But what happens to that 80
percent figure when people are presented with various spending cut
options?
A Washington Post-ABC news poll is telling:
Only 59 percent still support the balanced budget amendment if it
would mean cuts in welfare or public assistance to the poor.
Only 56 percent still support it if it would mean cuts in defense.
Only 37 percent still support it if it would means cuts in education.
Only 34 percent still support it if it would mean cuts in Social
Security.
Mr. President, before we amend the fundamental charter of our Nation,
the U.S. Constitution, we must be open and frank with the American
people about our plans.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to inform the
electorate of the important budgetary choices this body intends to make
in the years ahead.
Let me briefly say it is no secret to my colleagues here that I am
opposed to this amendment to the Constitution. My intention would be to
vote against all amendments that are offered to it. This amendment,
however, I think, deserves support. It simply asks us to know what I
think most persons would like to know: Before their Congressmen or
Senators vote on something as significant and profound as to change the
organic law of the country into which we will incorporate economic
theory--and it is always open to speculation and guesswork in such an
organic law--to have some idea as to how this is all going to be
achieved.
It is, as one would enter into contract negotiations--since that is a
subject of some heated debate now in this city, between baseball owners
and players--as if someone would suggest: Look, sign the contract. We
will talk about the details afterwards.
You would be ridiculed if you made such a proposal.
Here, what we are merely suggesting is that as we go down this road,
which will incorporate for the first time a real straitjacket into the
Constitution of the United States, what are the implications of this?
What does it mean to people out there who pay the taxes and fund all
these programs? They, it seems to me, are really the ones who have a
right to know how their tax dollars will be used or not used in the
future.
The suggestion, somehow, their knees would buckle if they knew
because it is painful is no reason to reject the desire to find out
exactly how this is going to work. And for that reason I strongly
support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the proposed balanced budget
constitutional amendment, because it is unnecessary and unwise to write
a balanced budget requirement into the Constitution.
It is obvious why the Republican majority has scheduled consideration
of the balanced budget amendment now, so early in this new Congress.
The Republican majority wants to pass the constitutional amendment
before more pressure builds for them to explain how they would achieve
the balance. The more the American people understand this leap-before-
you-look strategy, the less the people like it.
The House Republican majority leader has already admitted to this
strategy. Congressman Armey, a strong supporter of the proposed
constitutional amendment, said that if Members of Congress know what it
takes to comply with the requirement, ``their knees will buckle.'' He
also is reported to have said that ``putting together a detailed list
beforehand would make passing the balanced budget amendment virtually
impossible.''
Instead of devoting the time and effort to craft a responsible
budget, the Republican majority asks us to amend the Constitution now,
ask questions later. But the Constitution has served this Nation
through wars, economic depressions, and other crises far worse than the
current budget deficit. Amending the Constitution should be the
considered option of last resort, not the expedient course of first
resort.
For that reason, I commend Senator Daschle's amendment to insure that
the constitutional amendment will not take effect unless Congress first
passes a resolution specifying in detail how the budget would be
balanced by 2002. The American people and their elected representatives
in the State legislatures have a fundamental right to know how this
constitutional amendment would affect their lives.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a total of $1.2
trillion in deficit reduction will be required to balance the budget by
the year 2002. And that total does not include the tax cuts called for
by the Republican Contact With America, which would raise the total of
cuts required to $1.5 trillion.
If Social Security, defense, and interest on the national debt are
excluded from the deficit-cutting calculations, all other Federal
programs will have to be cut by 22 percent to achieve a balanced budget
in 2002. And if the tax cuts in the Contract With America are included,
all other Federal programs will have to be cut by 30 percent. That's a
30-percent cut in spending on Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits,
student loans, farm benefits, and all other Federal programs.
The American people have a right to know if that is how the
Republican majority will balance the budget.
[[Page S2297]] Across-the-board 30-percent cuts would have a
disastrous impact on children, the elderly, and hard-working familes
throughout the United States. Here are just a few examples:
Over 220,000 children would be unable to enroll in Head Start early
childhood programs.
Over 200,000 families would lose the child care subsidies that enable
parents to work or attend school.
And 1.9 million students would lose the opportunity for remedial
education through title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act.
Also, 3,000 teachers would lose their jobs, dramatically incresing
class sizes in many school districts.
To achieve the necessary cuts, the House Budget Committee has already
proposed that the Federal Government should stop paying the interest on
student loans while students are in college or professional school.
Middle-class students on the full available amount of such loans would
owe over $3,000 in additional interest at the end of 4 years of
college. Instead of $17,000 in loans to pay back, they would have to
pay back over $20,000.
The challenge that we are facing in higher education is not how we
are going to raise the burden on middle-income families to send their
children to school, but how we are going to dampen that burden, lessen
that burden, so that their young members of their family are going to
be able to go to school. The fact, even as we are here this morning, is
that efforts are being made within the Republican Budget Committee and
by the Republican chair of the Appropriations Committee to raise the
cost of those loans significantly for future years.
If those same needy students were to attend medical school and
continue to borrow the full amount available, they would owe over
$16,000 in additional interest at the end of medical school. A debt
that would be $51,000 under current law would climb to a debt of
$67,000.
If Pell grants are slashed by 30 percent, eligible students would
receive a maximum of $1,560, a fraction of the $8,000 it now costs to
attend many State universities. Many students could not even afford
community college at this reduced level of support.
What we have seen in the 1980's to 1992 is a dramatic shift from the
grant programs for the children of working families to go to schools
and colleges which they were qualified to go to and to which they
wanted to go--three-quarters for the grants and one-quarter for the
loan. Now it is three-quarters for the loan and one-quarter for the
grant.
Now the Republicans are talking about increasing the costs of those
particular loans and indenturing young sons and daughters of working
families for years to come. That will only be increased dramatically
with a balanced budget amendment.
If the cut is achieved by reducing the number of students receiving
Pell grants rather than the amount of the grant, 1.1 million students
would fail to receive the Federal aid they need to attend college.
Senior citizens would face drastically higher medical bills. Medicare
beneficiaries would pay an additional $1,320 more in premiums and out
of pocket costs.
Monthly benefits for disabled veterans would drop from $819 to $574 a
month.
A 30-percent cut in Federal support for biomedical research would
reduce the number of annual research project grants awarded by the
National Institutes of Health from 6,000 to 4,200. This cut would
severely damage research on cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and other
illnesses affecting millions of Americans. The promising current effort
to identify a genetic basis for diabetes would be set back.
The greatest opportunity for breakthroughs that we have had in the
history of this country is out at the NIH. There is a difficulty, even
with the administration getting an additional $500 million for
additional grants. More than 90 Nobel laureates won because of NIH
support over the history of the NIH with extraordinary opportunities
for breakthroughs in cancer and many other diseases that affect
families all across this country.
The effect of a balanced budget amendment, in cutting back what is
called discretionary funds--we are not talking about exempting NIH. No;
no. We are talking about cutting discretionary funds, whatever that
means. Make no mistake about it. You are talking about cutting NIH; you
are cutting cancer research; you are cutting heart disease research;
and you are cutting AIDS research. That is going to be a direct result
with a balanced budget amendment.
Why not give us the opportunity to find out from those that support a
balanced budget amendment whether they are going to include the NIH?
Let us have a debate on it. What is wrong with that? Why not say: Are
you going to include NIH, or are you going to be willing to cut back on
other kinds of spending? Or, do you want to enhance some fees in terms
of other parts of the country, mining fees or grazing fees? But we are
denied that opportunity, and the Daschle amendment would require that
kind of a factor.
Approximately 1.8 million households would lose the Federal
assistance that enables them to pay their heating bills during the
winter. Alternatively, the assistance available to all eligible
households would be cut to only $120 each year, barely enough to pay a
single month's bill.
Nearly a quarter million senior citizens who rely on the Meals on
Wheels Program for their nutrition would be denied that assistance.
There are some 32,000 seniors every single day who get Meals on Wheels
in my State of Massachusetts. You are talking about cutting thousands
off of that particular list. Over 700,000 senior citizens who benefit
from the congregate meals program would lose that assistance. Large
numbers of these senior citizens, unable to feed themselves, would no
longer be able to live at home and would be placed into institutions.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration would be able to
carry out 12,000 fewer inspections each year. Some 40,000 violations of
workplace safety regulations that OSHA uncovered last year might remain
uncorrected. A similar number of violations uncovered by the Mine
Safety and Health Administration might remain uncorrected.
Over 200,000 dislocated workers would be denied retraining and job
placement services. An additional 200,000 teenagers seeking summer jobs
would be refused that opportunity.
The average number of food inspections by the Food and Drug
Administration would fall from 10,000 to 7,000.
The average interval between inspections of food manufacturing
facilities would go from 6 years to 11 years. The average frequency of
blood bank inspections would decrease from once every 2 years to once
every 3 years.
The process for reviewing new pharmaceutical products would lengthen
from approximately 20 months to 30 months initially, and get longer as
the backlog carries over from year to year.
Those are but a few of the examples of the impact of the 30-percent
across-the-board cut in Federal spending that would be required under
the Republican proposal for a balanced Federal budget by 2002.
If that is what the Republican majority have in mind to comply with
the proposed constitutional amendment, the American people have a right
to know it.
The Treasury Department has also estimated the impact of the proposed
constitutional amendment on the States.
An across-the-board deficit reduction package that excluded Social
Security and defense would require cuts in Federal grants to States of
$97.8 billion and cuts of an additional $242.1 billion in other Federal
spending that directly benefits State residents.
We can ask whether the States have a full understanding and awareness
of this as they begin this debate.
According to the Treasury Department, State taxes would have to
increase an average of 17.3 percent, just to offset the loss of Federal
grants.
If that will be the impact of the proposed constitutional amendment,
then the States have a right to know it.
Asking the States and the American people to support this proposed
constitutional amendment without telling them what it means is bumper
sticker politics at its worst. The American people deserve facts, not
slogans.
I urge my colleagues to support the right-to-know amendment. Sunshine
is
[[Page S2298]] the best disinfectant. It is understandable that the
Republican majority prefers to keep Congress and the country in the
dark about this proposal. But if it cannot stand the light of day, it
does not deserve to pass.
We have the election of Republicans, and they have leadership
positions in the House and Senate of the United States. I hope that at
least they would feel honor bound to be able to describe to the
institutions and the American people what their vision is in terms of a
balanced budget.
That is all this amendment does. If we are going to have a balanced
budget, why not let the American people understand exactly what is
going to be involved, both at the Federal level and at the State level?
This particular amendment would give that kind of information to the
American people. I think the amendment is flawed without this
amendment.
I hope that the amendment will be agreed to.
I yield back whatever time remains.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to my dear colleague
from Massachusetts, and almost everyone, I think, knows of my affection
for him. But we know what is going to happen if we do not do this
balanced budget amendment. He and his friends are going to continue to
spend us blind, which is what they have been doing for most of the last
60 years.
The fact of the matter is everyone knows that this country is in real
trouble and they know who has basically put the Great Society programs
into effect, many of which, if not all of which, were well-
intentioned--they know who has caused the entitlements to grow to now.
If you put interest in the entitlements, which it should be, 72 percent
of the total Federal budget, it is running out of control. And if you
add in the factor that most of them do not support any type of fiscal
discipline to bring the Federal Government into some sort of a balance,
and now they come to us and say: Well, now that you have the balanced
budget amendment on the floor, you ought to tell us how you are going
to do it, knowing that we have all kinds of plans already on the
boards, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not, but
nevertheless budgets that would get us to balance without the draconian
30-percent cut that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is
talking about, this 30-percent cut across the board that my friend from
Massachusetts has been presenting is highly exaggerated.
Congress could adopt many types of these plans or parts of these
plans into a consolidated whole, if they want to, and we can reach a
balanced budget without cutting 30 percent across the board. In fact, I
do not think anybody would argue against that provision.
But while we have been talking here in the Congress--we are now in
our 10th day since we started this--our balanced budget debt track we
reach each day, $4.8 trillion is the baseline; that is our debt which
we started with before we started this debate. We are now in our 10th
day, and we are now up to $8,294,400,000 in additional debt just in the
9 days since we started here.
All I hear from my friends is you should not be able to enact a
balanced budget amendment until you tell us how you are going to reach
a balanced budget, and you cannot submit it to the States until you do.
They know once we put this fiscal discipline into place, the game is
over. And they know that they are going to have to start to live within
their means. No longer can they spend themselves into the Senate or
keep themselves in the Senate by spending and telling the people how
much we are doing for them while we are spending them into bankruptcy.
I cannot sit here and simply ignore the fact that the liberals, who
have spent us into bankruptcy, are the ones who are fighting against
this amendment. We have irresponsible debt in this country. We have
runaway spending. We have a destructive welfare system that not only is
too expensive but it is destroying families. We have an antisavings Tax
Code that is eating us alive. We have a huge Washington bureaucracy. We
are killing the American dream, and we are killing our children's
future.
We have to cut the waste. We have to cut the fat. We have to do it
through a discipline that only the balanced budget amendment will bring
to us.
And if we do not do that, I just worry about the country, and so does
everybody else. This is not a game around here. For those who are
against the amendment to come and say, now, after they have been in
control for most of the last 60 years, and never having reached a
balanced budget for the last 26 years, to come to us and say, you have
to explain how you can do it and satisfy 535 Members of Congress before
you can put the discipline into place that will get us there, it seems
to me is pure sophistry.
We need the discipline. That is what is missing. Remember Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings? We all thought that statute was going to do the job.
It did do a little bit until we amended it and set the goals farther
out there, and amended it again, and now we have done away with it
altogether because it was a simple statute. It was well-intentioned,
and a lot of people thought it might work, and it did to some to
degree, but it was tossed out when they decided to spend more around
here.
The Democrats against this balanced budget amendment were in charge
last year, and they have been in charge since 1986. They have never
presented a balanced budget, nor have they presented a plan. Certainly
the President's program is not a plan either to get us to a balanced
budget. His budget, very clearly, is not a plan to get us there.
Now we come down to the Daschle amendment, this right-to-know
amendment. I have seldom seen a more frivolous trivialization of the
Constitution than what this amendment would do, because it would write
a section 9 into the balanced budget amendment that would put new
language into the constitutional amendment--new language for the first
time, all kinds of budgetary terms, all kinds of language that really
would allow loopholes galore, which would institutionalize even
committees in the Senate and the Congressional Budget Office.
Look at this language and you have to say, constitutional language?
That is with a big question mark. I do not see how anybody can argue
this is what we ought to do for the Constitution, even though they talk
about the right to know. Aggregate levels of new budget authority. In
the Constitution? Major functional category, account-by-account basis,
allocation of Federal revenues, reconciliation directives, section
310(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. That can be changed by a simple
majority vote? Talk about trivialization. Omnibus reconciliation bill.
What in the world does that mean? That is going to be written into the
Constitution so they can continue doing business as usual?
Congressional Budget Office. They are going to go write that into the
Constitution, the Congressional Budget Office? For all of its good
intentions, it has been wrong more than it has been right on budgetary
matters. Economic and technical assumptions. And then they are going to
write the Committee on the Budget into this Constitution?
Let me just end. This is a trivialization of the Constitution. It
does not make constitutional sense. It would destroy the balanced
budget amendment. It would destroy the one time in history since the
House, for the first time, has passed the balanced budget amendment,
the one time in history when we really have a chance to restore
discipline to this process. It would put language into the Constitution
that is totally unworkable, unless you want to keep spending.
I thought it was appropriate for some of those who did come out here
and speak right before this important vote. The opponents are
apologists for the status quo. They are the people that have been here
30, 40 years. They are the people that have been around here and have
seen it go the same way every time, and they say we ought to have the
guts to do it. Yet, when they had control, they could not do it because
there was not a fiscal discipline in the Constitution that required
them to do it, or at least gave incentives, which is what this
amendment does, to get to a balanced budget.
Are we going to stick with the old order around here, the old way of
doing things, the status quo, that now has us $4.8 trillion in debt,
plus another $8.294
[[Page S2299]] billion in the 10 days we have been debating this? Are
we going to stick with the people who brought us to this and let them
come in here with this phony trivialization of the constitutional
amendment and say all of a sudden, in just a short period of time, you
Republicans, before you pass a balanced budget amendment and submit it
to the States, you have to show us how you are going to cut the budget?
The fact of the matter is that we will show them once the discipline is
in place, because we will all have to show them. The Democrats who
support this amendment will be right there with us helping us to show
how this can be done. But you cannot do that in less than a year or so,
and we have to get the balanced budget amendment in place before we do.
The Daschle proposal raises a lot more questions than it will answer.
For example, it would require a statement of new budget authority and
outlays only on accounts which were over $100 million in 1994. What
about accounts which were under $100 million in 1994 but have grown
over that? What about new accounts? This proposal would also require an
allocation of Federal revenues among major resources of such revenues.
But what qualifies as major? This proposal would further require a
detailed list and description of changes in Federal law required to
carry out the plan. Such information is currently in a document
separate from the budget resolution. That document for President
Clinton's 1993 budget plan was over 1,000 pages long. His budget plan
will keep deficits at around $200 billion well into the future, for 12
years into the future, and then we do not know what will happen. That
is assuming if the rosy economic circumstances continue that they are
claiming will be the case.
Do we really want to increase the already mammoth budget resolution?
In addition, the provision is vague and incoherent. The Daschle
proposal literally requires that we predict over the next 7 years not
just the changes in law Congress may ultimately pass, but the date that
Congress will pass them.
The Daschle proposal creates additional problems by making
constitutional reference to statutory law, as I have just shown on this
chart. It is ridiculous. Incorporate 310(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 by reference. What happens if Congress amends that section?
Does that qualify as a constitutional amendment by a simple majority
vote? Similarly, as we have said, the CBO is explicitly referred to in
this proposal. That means that the Constitution will now have to refer
to four branches of Government: judiciary, executive, legislative and,
of course, the Congressional Budget Office.
Here we are in the new Congress trying to reduce the Federal
bureaucracy, and the Daschle proposal attempts to enshrine a part of it
in the Constitution. Those of us on both sides of the aisle who have
worked for years to pass this constitutional amendment have
consistently heard from our opponents that we are trivializing the
Constitution with this budget matter. Talk about trivializing the
Constitution.
The Daschle proposal would have us add a new section to the
Constitution that is longer and extraordinarily more detailed and
technical than the proposal that has been the subject of hearings,
committee debate, vote, and a committee report. It adds new terms to
the Constitution like ``concurrent resolution.'' I have gone through
those terms. They will no longer have just lawyers pouring over the
document; we are going to need a slew of accountants to tell us what
the Constitution means as well.
I think we ought to vote this amendment down. It does not deserve to
be in the Constitution.
Mr. President, I have stated many times during this debate that the
balanced budget amendment represents the kind of change the American
people voted for in November. The American people know that the mammoth
Federal Government must be put on a fiscal diet. In contrast, the
proposal offered by the distinguished minority leader, with all due
respect, is offered in the defense of the status quo and business as
usual.
the right to stall amendment
The Daschle motion to recommit has been termed by the opponents of
the balanced budget amendment the right-to-know motion. But it has
rightly also been called the right-to-stall proposal. It purports to
put off the requirement of a balanced budget until Congress actually
agrees to a balanced budget, by adopting such a budget plan.
Mr. President, this proposal actually will give to Congress a
constitutional right to stall the requirement of a balanced budget by
mere failure to balance the budget. Mr. President, the very reason we
need a balanced budget amendment is because Congress has failed to
balance the budget for decades. The Daschle right-to-stall amendment
would make that abject failure of responsibility the explicit condition
of avoiding the acceptance of that responsibility. If there is a better
manner to lock in business as usual, a better way to constitutionalize
our borrow and spend status quo--our ever-steeper slide into the debt
abyss--I admit I cannot think of it.
Consider, Mr. President, that the proponents of the right-to-stall
amendment want to use Congress' historical inability to balance the
budget as a reason--a constitutional reason--to deny the American
people, to deny future generations, the requirement they want to force
Congress to act responsibly, get its fiscal house in order, and live
within its means. Talk about a recipe for inaction. The right-to-stall
proponents say ``if Congress cannot balance the budget, they should not
have to.'' They say, ``if Congress has been and is unable to balance
the budget in the absence of a balanced budget requirement, we should
not impose a balanced budget requirement on it.'' Is this what the
American people want? Do they want Congress' failure to fulfill its
responsibility to be a reason to drop the requirement? Does this even
make any sense?
If my colleagues supporting the Daschle proposal had been in the
First Congress, we would never have adopted the first amendment in the
Bill of Rights. Just imagine James Madison defending the free speech
clause of the first amendment from some of my colleagues: Does this
mean you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre? they would ask. Does it
protect obscenity? If not, what is the line between obscenity and
protected free speech? We cannot accept the free speech clause without
these details spelled out, they would say. Does the free speech clause
protect the American flag from desecration? If so, we cannot accept the
first amendment. Some of my colleagues made that clear when they turned
down the flag-burning amendment twice a few years ago.
What about the religion clauses, the free exercise clause and the
establishment clause, of the first amendment? Would supporters of the
Daschle proposal, had they been in the First Congress, demanded an
accounting of just when and how the Government can aid religious
schools? Would they have insisted on knowing all of the circumstances
under which citizens or local governments can put a Menorah or a creche
on public property? Would they have turned down the first amendment
because the First Congress could not fulfill the ludicrous task of
answering these questions? Or would they have accepted the principles
contained in the first amendment and allowed those principles to
develop, as they have over the years?
Just imagine when the following clause in article I, section 9 came
before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia: ``No
money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in Consequence of
appropriations made by law * * *'' Oh no, my colleagues would have
said, tell us how much the appropriations will be over the next 7 years
or we cannot adopt this provision and this Constitution.
What about the clause in article I, section 8, giving Congress the
power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce? Oh no, some of our
colleagues would have said in Philadelphia in 1787. We cannot give
Congress the power to regulate commerce until we know the tariffs and
interstate regulations Congress will enact over the next 7 years.
Here and now, let us adopt the principle of a balanced budget with
the careful exceptions of war time or when a supermajority consensus is
reached for a pressing national purpose, on a rollcall vote. Then,
after we adopt the principle, we can implement it over the next 7
years, adjusting the budget to
[[Page S2300]] take into account changing circumstances during that
time.
After all, this is a constitution we are amending, not budget
legislation. In fact, as I read the Daschle proposal, it requires that
we pass a resolution laying out the details of a plan starting in
fiscal year 1996 even though that requirement is contained in an
amendment that does not become effective until 2002.
To require that a constitutional provision be fully implemented
before it is adopted puts the cart a long way before the horse. After
all, the whole problem is that Congress has not been able to balance
the budget in the absence of a constitutional requirement to do so.
It seems to me that the people who really have the burden of showing
us how they will balance the budget are the ones who claim we do not
need the balanced budget amendment. We say the budget cannot be
balanced without a constitutional requirement. To those who think we
can balance the budget without the balanced budget amendment, I say
show us how. If you cannot show us the way to a balanced budget without
the amendment, this suggests one of two things. Either you agree with
us that it cannot be done without the constitutional requirement, or
you are simple arguing against balancing the budget at all.
confusing process with substantive choices
Mr. President, the right-to-stall amendment confuses the difference
between choosing rules and making choices within the rules. Yesterday,
I mentioned a letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal by Prof.
James M. Buchanan, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, who explained that
important distinction. I would like to quote it again because I believe
it points up a basic fallacy in the reasoning of the objection of the
right-to-stall proponents. Professor Buchanan states:
The essential argument [of the Daschle amendment
proponents] against the balanced budget amendment reflects a
basic misunderstanding of the difference between
a choice of rules and choices made with rules. The Clinton-
Democratic argument suggests that proponents of the
amendment should specify what combination of spending cuts
and revenue increases are to be implemented over the 7-
year transition period. This argument reflects a failure
to understand what a choice of constitutional constraint
is all about and conflates within-rules choices and
choices of rules themselves.
Consider an analogy with an ordinary game, say poker. We
choose the basic rules before we commence to play within
whatever rules are chosen. Clearly, if we could foresee all
of the contingencies beforehand (for example, how the cards
are to fall), those of us who know in advance that we shall
get bad hands would not agree to the rules in the first
place. Choices of rules must be made in a setting in which we
do not yet know the particulars of the within-rule choices.
Applied to the politics of taxing and spending, the
constitutional amendment imposes a new rule of the game,
under which the ordinary interplay of interest groups--
majoritarian politics will generate certain patterns of
taxing-spending results. By the very nature of what rules-
choices are, outcome patterns cannot be specified in advance.
The opponents of the proposed balanced budget amendment
should not be allowed to generate intellectual confusion
about the difference between choices among verus within
rules. There are, of course, legitimate arguments that may be
made against the amendment, but these involve concerns about
the efficacy of alternative rules, including those that now
exist, rather than a specific prediction of choices to be
made under any rule or choices made during the transition
between rules. [Wall St. Journal, 2/6/95, p. A13.]
Mr. President, Professor Buchanan is obviously correct. Proponents of
the balanced budget amendment recommend a rule change. Opponents argue
against the amendment on the basis of either possible choices under the
new rule which could hurt well-organized special interest groups or the
failure to specify which well-organized special interest groups will be
hurt under the new rule. Either objection is, as Professor Buchanan
points out, intellectually confused as an objection to the new rule.
The proponents do not advocate any particular outcomes, just a new way
of making those choices. The right-to-stall motion offered by the
Democrat leader does not move the debate forward.
In fact, Mr. President, the Daschle right-to-stall amendment is
nothing more than a way to stop Congress from adopting the resolve to
force itself to act responsibly and balance the budget and live within
its means in the future.
president clinton's deficit reduction record
This brings me to the President. If President Clinton gets his way
and defeats the balanced budget amendment this year as he did last
year, what is his purpose? Does he not want a balanced budget? Does he
stand for the status quo of ever higher taxes and even higher deficits?
Let us look at his record.
The President's 1993 deficit reduction tax plan has failed to control
even the growth of annual budget deficits, which continue to rise
during the later years of the plan, surpassing $200 billion as early as
1996, reaching the record level of $297 in 2001, and topping $421 in
2005.
The President's so-called deficit reduction plan, which included
massive tax increases on working people, retirees, and other Americans,
neither stopped the growth of the national debt nor balances the
budget.
Now, the opponents point to President Clinton's tax plan of 1993 as
the great epitome of budgetary courage we should follow. But, Mr.
President, that was no plan to balance the budget. I would ask my
colleagues, did the 1993 tax bill balance the budget? Does the
President propose a path to a balanced budget?
Now look at the President's budget released this week. It projects
$200 billion yearly budgets as far as the eye can see--and that is the
best case scenario with the most optimistic assumptions. There is no
budget balancing leadership here.
Mr. President, those who say we can balance the budget without the
balanced budget amendment are the ones who should show us how they
propose to do it. They are the ones who say, regardless of history, we
can balance the budget now, without a rules change. But I continue to
ask in vain, how do they propose to do it, Mr. President? Why should we
trust they will do better under the status quo than they have for the
last 26 years? Mr. President, I ask again, where is their plan?
Mr. President, this will not do. We should adopt the binding resolve
to accept our responsibility, and then fulfill it. We should not avoid
responsibility on the ground that we have so far failed to act
responsibly. We should not be able to deny the American people and
future generations the responsible rule of fiscal discipline on the
grounds of our historical lack of discipline.
Mr. President, let us take the first step first, and let us get our
house in order by adopting the balanced budget amendment.
The fact is that if House Joint Resolution 1 passes in its current
form, we can and will balance the budget. It is not the lack of plans
that has prevented us from balancing the budget; it is the lack of
will.
We don't claim to have the perfect, painless way to balance the
budget, but there are quite a number of options for us to examine and
draw from, at least in part. In fact, as I stated previously in this
debate, over the last few years we have seen a number of plans released
from both sides of the aisle, from both bodies, and from outside
organizations. [I will just hold up a few of them]: The Concord
Coalition zero deficit plan; the Republican alternative to the fiscal
year 1994 budget, and the Congressioinal Budget Office's illustration
of one path to balance the budget in their Economic and Budget Outlook
1996-2000, just to name a few.
Even the current White House Chief of Staff submitted a balanced
budget proposal during his tenure in the House.
Other ideas include limiting the growth of spending to 2 percent
without touching Social Security, or cutting 4 cents a year off of
every dollar of planned spending except Social Security.
Furthermore, there are many proposals out there to reduce spending
significantly and reduce the deficit: The Dole 50-point plan; the
Penny-Kasich deficit reduction plan; the Brown-Kerrey bipartisan
cutting plan; the prime cuts list prepared by Citizens Against
Government Waste; the Kasich budget alternatives for fiscal year 1994
and fiscal year 1995; and the Brown deficit reduction plan.
I do not think that any one of these proposals is necessarily the
ultimate solution. Yet, they all have some ideas worth considering. I
certainly believe that we could evaluate and analyze
[[Page S2301]] proposals in these plans as well as other ideas that I
guarantee will be forthcoming from both sides of the aisle if we pass
this amendment.
Let me say it one more time: The problem is not the lack of ideas, it
is the lack of will. House Joint Resolution 1, in its current form,
will provide that will.
the unworkability of the daschle proposal and the trivialization of the
constitution
Furthermore, the Daschle proposal raises more questions than it would
answer. For example, it would require a statement of new budget
authority and outlays only on accounts which were over $100 million in
1994. What about accounts which were under $100 million in 1994 but
have grown? What about new accounts? This proposal would also require
an allocation of Federal revenues among major resources of such
revenues. But what qualifies as major?
This proposal would further require a detailed list and description
of changes in Federal law required to carry out the plan. Such
information is currently in a document separate from the budget
resolution. That document, for President Clinton's 1993 budget plan,
was over 1,000 pages long. Do we really want to increase the already
mammoth budget resolution?
In addition, this provision is vague and incoherent. The Daschle
proposal literally requires that we predict, over the next 7 years, not
just the changes in law Congress may ultimately pass, but the date that
Congress will pass them.
The Daschle proposal creates additional problems by making
constitutional reference to statutory law. It incorporates section
310(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by reference. What
happens if Congress amends that section? Does that qualify as a
constitutional amendment?
Similarly, the Congressional Budget Office is explicitly referred to
in this proposal. That means that the Constitution would now refer to
the four branches of Government: Congress, the Supreme Court, the
President, and the Congressional Budget Office.
Here we are in the new Congress, trying to reduce the Federal the
bureaucracy, and the Daschle proposal attempts to enshrine a part of it
in the Constitution.
Those of us on both sides of the aisle who have worked for years to
pass this constitutional amendment have consistently heard from our
opponents that we are trivializing the Constitution with budget matter.
Talk about trivializing the Constitution. The Daschle proposal would
have us add a new section to the Constitution longer and
extraordinarily more detailed and technical than the proposal that has
been the subject of hearings, a committee debate and vote, and a
committee report. It adds new terms to the Constitution like concurrent
resolution, aggregate levels of new budget authority, account-by-
account basis, allocation of Federal revenue, reconciliation
directives, section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act, omnibus
reconciliation bill, Congressional Budget Office, and economic and
technical assumptions. We will no longer have just lawyers pouring over
this document, we'll need a slew of accountants.
the daschle proposal is unconstitutional
Perhaps the most significant reason for opposing this proposal is
that it is unconstitutional. Article V of the Constitution provides for
two--and just two--ways to amend the Constitution: By a proposal passed
by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, or by a proposal of a
constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the States. In either
case, three-fourths of the State legislatures must ratify the proposal
before it becomes part of the Constitution.
The Daschle proposal is infirm because it places a condition
subsequent to the explicit methodology for amending the Constitution
contained in article V. Article V mandates that whenever two-thirds of
both Houses concur, a proposed amendment must be promulgated to the
States for ratification. The Daschle proposal, on the other hand,
delays sending the proposed amendment to the States after passage by
Congress until Congress acts again, this time by a simple majority on a
budget resolution. It is black letter law that Congress may not alter,
expand, or restrict, procedures established and explicitly mandated by
the Constitution. See Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha,
462 U.S. 919 (1983) (the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the one-
House congressional veto as violative of the bicameralism and
presentment to the President requirements of the Constitution).
Now Senator Daschle defended his proposal by referring to the 7-year
time requirement in House Joint Resolution 1 itself as an example of a
condition that Congress has historically set to the amendment process.
Indeed, the Supreme Court in Dillon v. Gloss, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), did
hold that the 7-year limit that appears in the text of an amendment is
a constitutional condition placed on the ratification process.
Senator Daschle, however, misstates my argument. Article V sets forth
the exclusive conditions for promulgation of a constitutional
amendment. The 7-year time limit is a condition on ratification.
Promulgation and ratification are, of course, distinct acts, and the
two should not be confused.
Under article V, once Congress has passed an amendment by the
necessary two-thirds margin in both Houses, the amendment must be
promulgated to the States for ratification. There is nothing in either
the text of article V nor in our constitutional history that suggests
that Congress can play slick games with the States by passing an
amendment but keeping it from going to the States. The act of
promulgation is a ministerial act that must be performed once the two-
thirds vote has been obtained.
By contrast, there is ample reason why Congress should be permitted
to include additional conditions on ratification, such as the 7-year
time limit. Article V itself makes clear that it is up to Congress to
specify the mode of ratification. There is also substantial precedent
in our constitutional history for Congress to specify time limits on
ratification.
In conclusion, the promulgation of a constitutional amendment is
distinct from its ratification. The Daschle substitute is
unconstitutional in that it would place an additional condition on, and
thereby delay, Congress' promulgation of the balanced budget amendment.
Under article V, once Congress passes an amendment, it shall be
promulgated to the States. The Daschle substitute violates this
provision.
Mr. President, for the forgoing reasons, I urge my colleagues to
support the Dole amendment and vote to table the Daschle proposal.
I would like to point out that, look, we would like to resolve these
problems. We hope there are enough Senators here who are willing to
stand up for this one time in history, Democrat-Republican, bipartisan
amendment that would put us on the fiscal path we should be on. We
would not have to worry about all those moneys being laundered through
the Federal Government and getting back to the people Senator Kennedy
said they are meant for. I think it is time to get real about budgeting
and spending and real about balancing this budget and real about what
is best for this country. The only way we are going to do that is by
passing the balanced budget amendment intact, without statutory
language added to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11:30
having arrived, the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the
distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the minority leader for yielding.
I would just say this, as we come down to the critical point of the
vote: You would think that when someone proposes a balanced budget
amendment, they must have a plan to get to it after the balanced budget
amendment passes. The only thing I am suggesting is that they should
share that information with the American public. They should share it
with the States.
If there is a secret plan that they have to balance the budget, does
it include massive cuts in Social Security? Or does it include massive
reductions in veterans' pension plans? Or does it include the
dismantling of the highway assistance programs for the States? I am not
sure what it includes.
But if there is a secret plan to reach this balanced budget, I would
suggest that it should be secret no longer. If it
[[Page S2302]] is good enough to balance the budget in the year 2002,
let the States see it. Let them have an opportunity to vote knowing how
we are going to balance that budget.
How can we send this amendment to the States and not let them know
what the plan is as to how we are going to achieve it?
Oh, perhaps, maybe there is a golden secret plan they have that does
nothing with regard to cutting Social Security and does not increase
taxes and increases defense spending and yet still balances the budget.
Maybe they have that type of a plan. But let us see it.
I mean, somebody over there who is proposing this must have a plan on
how to get to the end result. How are you we doing to ask the States to
be able to pass this amendment unless they know what that plan is?
And that is what the right-to-know amendment is all about. I think
the people of America have a right to know how they are going to do
this. How are we all going to do it, because it is a collective effort.
It is going to be a partnership between the Federal Government and the
States. And the States are not going to be able to vote unless they see
what plan they are going to be voting on. I think we need a right-to-
know amendment. I think America needs it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Louisiana
for his comments this morning.
Like this Senator, the Senator from Louisiana was in the House of
Representatives in 1981. I am sure he, like I, remembers the ease with
which we passed the tax package of 1981. The President and the
Republican leadership at that time convinced the Congress and the
American people to cut taxes, to increase defense spending, to protect
Social Security, and to balance the budget by 1984. There were no
details, very few specifics, just a promise and the words ``trust us.''
The vote was overwhelming.
I will never forget that morning on the floor and the overwhelming
vote. Everyone applauded. We all went home.
But 10 years later, the American people saw an increase in the
national debt to $4 trillion, four times what it was when we had cast
that vote in 1981.
I also remember the difficulty we encountered in 1993, as we passed
the President's economic package. That did not pass overwhelmingly.
That passed by a margin of 50 to 49, amid doom and gloom predictions of
recession and mass unemployment and negative market reaction. We heard
it all. It was a very, very tough vote. I vividly remember that
morning, as well.
But the difference between 1981 and 1993 was more than the difficulty
in passage. Rather than vague predictions with rosy scenarios of 1981,
the 1993 proposal put details into black and white--details involving
cuts, details involving revenue, details requiring major changes in the
way we do business; hundreds and hundreds of pages of black and white
details. It was controversial. And we fought over many of the details
in this document for days. No one can forget that.
But, do you know what? It was effective. And in the end, the 103d
Congress passed a 5-year deficit-reduction plan that reduced the
deficit by $500 billion. Instead of asking the American people to trust
us, we showed them, up front, line-by-line, what our intentions were.
And the results--well, the results speak for themselves.
Mr. President, those are the two models from which we can choose
today. The only difference is that today the issue is far more
serious--more serious because the debt has now risen to $4.5 trillion;
more serious because this is the first time in history that we may be
adding an amendment to the Constitution affecting the fiscal policy of
this Nation.
The question for the American people is really very simple: After
those two experiences, will the Senate roll the dice, will it roll the
dice and say, ``trust us again,'' or will we do what we know we must
do? Will we show in 1995, as we showed the American people in 1993,
exactly what must be done? That is the issue.
The Senator from New Hampshire, my good friend, this morning
mentioned my willingness to support a balanced budget amendment last
year and took issue with us for not arguing the right-to-know amendment
then.
Well, the reasons are easy for anyone to understand. First, we had
just passed our own version of the right to know. It was right here.
The print was hardly dry. Second, we were not faced then, as we are
today, with the exact situation with which we were faced in 1981--
promises of tax cuts, promises of increases in defense, promises to
protect Social Security, and promises to balance the budget in a
designated period of time, but no promise to explain how it is going to
be done.
If the Senate is unwilling to promise the American people a
blueprint, I guess I would have to ask: What is it they are trying to
conceal? What is it we are trying to conceal from Social Security
recipients whose pensions are affected by the decision we are going to
make in the next couple of weeks? What is it we are trying to conceal
from the Pentagon and our allies about the true commitment to the
military strength of this Nation in the coming years? What is it we are
trying to conceal from veterans and military retirees about our true
intentions with respect to their future?
What about States? What are we trying to conceal about the real
impact this decision will have on them, on the Governors, and on their
fiscal health?
And, very honestly, what about us? What about us? What are we trying
to conceal from ourselves, and how is it possible that we can commit
ourselves to repeating the clear mistake of the past? How can we set a
goal and have no idea--none--how we are going to get there?
Tax cuts, defense spending increases, protection for Social
Security--all these are doable in the abstract. It is only in the
context of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget in 7 years
that the job becomes nearly impossible.
Assuming we pass the Contract With America, assuming that we protect
Social Security, our job is to cut $2.2 trillion in 7 years. That is
our goal--$2.2 trillion. That means we have got to cut $300 billion for
each of the next 7 years.
Pass the Contract With America, protect Social Security, balance the
budget by the year 2002. And we are going to ask our colleagues in the
next 7 years, each and every year, to cut $300 billion. And every year
we delay, the task becomes even more overwhelming the next year.
But that is only part of the story, because if we actually take
Social Security off the table, if we take defense off the table, and
because we must exclude interest payments, we are left with a mere 48
percent of the budget with which to work. That is really what we have
left--48 percent. If you take those three items off the table, that is
all we have left, 48 percent of the entire Federal budget from which we
now must cut $2.2 trillion in 7 years.
Well, do you know what the American people are saying? The American
people are saying: ``Right. Show me. Show us how you are going to cut
all that and how you are going to cut funding for the States. Show us
how you are going to cut my farm programs and other programs directly
affecting rural America. Show us how you are going to deal with
education, nutrition, health and housing, and as you do, do not even
think about saying any of this is going to be easy or painless.''
Mr. President, I bet there is one thing for which there is universal
agreement within this Chamber. That is, there is a lot of skepticism
out there, and, frankly, I think there is skepticism for a good reason.
Too many times, Washington has said one thing and done another. We
cannot afford, on something this important--this important--to let that
happen again. We cannot afford to add to the deep-seated skepticism
about this institution or its actions. Not now. Not on an issue this
important.
My Republican colleagues have lodged three basic objections to the
right-to-know-amendment. The House majority leader said recently,
``Once Members of Congress know exactly, chapter and verse, the pain
that the Government must live with in order to get a balanced budget,
their knees will buckle.'' The majority's apparent solution is to hide
the truth and sidestep the pain. But the right-to-know-amendment says
we have tried all that. We did it back in 1981, and $4 trillion
[[Page S2303]] later, we now must come to the realization that we have
to end business as usual. That will not work again.
The second objection is that they cannot be precise about a 7-year
budget process. Yet, the current law requires already that we offer 5-
year estimates. What is so much more mysterious or unknowable about
years 6 or 7 than years 4 and 5? All the health reform proposals last
year were evaluated over a 10-year budget projection. The Congressional
Budget Office already has the ability to give us 7-year budget
estimates. We should use them. I have not heard one credible economist
tell Members that this cannot be done, that we cannot lay out a
budgetary glidepath for 7 years.
The third objection is especially ironic. It asserts that the right-
to-know-amendment is somehow unconstitutional because the Constitution
does not specifically sanction Congress to set conditions on an
amendment before it goes to the States for ratification. But neither
does the Constitution specifically sanction the 7-year limit for
ratification that is found in the underlying amendment.
I have not heard any of my colleagues argue that their amendment is
unconstitutional because it includes the customary but not
constitutionally sanctioned time limit. As everyone here knows, the
Constitution has just two requirements: First, that we pass the
amendment by a two-thirds vote in both Houses; and second, that it be
ratified by three-fourths of the States. That is all it says. Period.
Mr. President, the issue is pretty simple. If we are going to build a
sturdy house of real deficit reduction, do we have a blueprint? Are we
going to ask this body to lay out the blueprint by which that will be
done? Or do we just start pounding away, hoping we have the materials
to build that house, hoping we know where the budget-cutting rooms
really are, hoping we can do it all in 7 years, hoping that somehow we
can build a house of real deficit reduction without the details.
The American people would never build their house without a
blueprint. They know we cannot, either. By a margin of 86 to 14
percent, they are saying, ``Show us. We have a right to know if you are
going to affect Social Security. We have a right to know if you are
going to cut defense. We have a right to know if you are going to cut
veterans programs. We have a right to know how you plan to cut $2.2
trillion from 48 percent of your budget in 7 years. We have a right to
know if you have learned from the mistakes of the past. We have a right
to know if you are really serious.''
So today, Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity. It is an
opportunity to end business as usual, an opportunity to be honest, an
opportunity to affirm that when it comes to an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, the American people have a right to know.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the majority leader is in a meeting and is
having a difficult time getting here, and has asked that I take a few
minutes before he gets here. He may have to use some of the leader's
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas was to be recognized
for 15 minutes.
The Senator from Utah will be recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I particularly enjoyed the comments of the
distinguished minority leader of the Senate. He is a very fine man. I
am sure he is very sincere in what he is talking about. And he is a
good friend. I do not have any desire to make this a partisan thing.
This is a bipartisan constitutional amendment. We are fighting to try
to get this country's fiscal house in order.
To have people come here now and say, ``Just show us a blueprint,''
and to use that tax vote a year ago, when they increased taxes on the
American people--and they did get the deficit down to a little below
$200 billion, but this was nothing, and they all know that that very
bill that they passed and they are taking such credit for, touting it
as their fiscal responsibility, that bill had the deficit jamming
upward in 1996 and thereafter to the point where we get to a $400
billion deficit after the turn of the century.
That is hardly something I would brag about, increasing taxes against
the American people, the largest in history, and then a jump in
spending, starting in 1996. Now, the President has come in and he has
tried to reduce that jump in spending, but even his budget admits,
until the year 2007, we will have at least a $190 billion deficit a
year.
Now, we have had 38 years since the balanced budget amendment has
been introduced. Since we passed it when I was Constitution chairman
back in 1982 in the Senate, we have had 13 years. And every time we
turn around, somebody is saying, ``Well, show us how you will get to a
balanced budget before we pass a balanced budget amendment,'' or, as in
this amendment's case, ``Show us how you will get there before you can
submit the balanced budget amendment, once passed, to the States,''
putting another requirement into the Constitution that really does not
deserve it to be there.
Now, look, this is a game. It is a game by those who personally do
not want a balanced budget amendment, although some who will vote for
this will do so out of loyalty to the leader on the other side. It is
not a game to us. The distinguished Senator from Illinois and I are not
playing games. We have worked to bring the whole Congress together on a
bipartisan consensus--Democrat and Republican--constitutional
amendment, and we intend to get it there. This type of an amendment to
the basic constitutional amendment would gut the whole amendment, and
everybody on this floor knows it.
I yield a couple of minutes to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Utah for
yielding. Let me express my thanks for the leadership that he and the
Senator from Illinois have taken on this issue, along with myself and
others, to bring to the floor and to build the consensus that is
clearly here in a strong majority to pass a balanced budget amendment.
Now, within a few moments, we will have a vote on the Daschle motion.
We have been debating this amendment and the Daschle motion in part for
a week and a half, without a vote. I think the American people expect
Members to move in an expeditious fashion through this issue, to a time
when we can vote up or down on it, and send it to them to make the
decision.
Article V of the Constitution is very clear. We have the right to
propose amendments, and when we do, they must go straight to the
States. In all fairness, the Daschle amendment has to be called not the
right to know, but the right to stall, and stall and stall, and deny
the American people the opportunity to express their will through their
State legislators as to whether they want a balanced budget amendment,
as to whether they want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution
to be the 28th amendment to our Federal Constitution.
So while Senator Exon or Senator Hollings may have offered similar
amendments to the unfunded mandates issue, they were entirely
different. That was a statute. That was an issue that can be changed
year to year, day to day, as the Congress meets. This is an amendment
to our Constitution. Nowhere has there ever been within the
Constitution such a prescriptive process as so designed by the Senator
from South Dakota. It is not the right to know, it is simply the right
to stall, in an effort to defeat this amendment or to deny the American
people the right to express their will.
The Senator from Utah has made that evident time and time again. I
have and our colleagues have joined Members on the floor to debate this
issue.
Certainly we are now at a point, within a few moments, of voting, the
very first vote in over a week and a half, while the other body has
already moved several other pieces of legislation.
I am not at all convinced that just stalling and stalling and
stalling, as has been proven here, is the way to solve this problem.
Thorough debate is, and I am all for adequate and thorough debate on
this issue. Now it is time to vote and move on to other portions of it
in a timely fashion, and then allow
[[Page S2304]] the American people to make the decision on how we
govern, not the elite few.
I yield back to the Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to give my strong support to the
right-to-know amendment.
The American people have a right to know what a balanced budget
means.
If a balanced budget amendment is added to the U.S. Constitution
without a plan for how to balance the budget, we will leave the
American people in the dark.
Mr. President, I will not defend every line item in the Federal
budget. I believe we must look at the mission of programs. If a program
achieves its mission and helps people, it should continue. If not, it
should be scrapped.
However, before we adopt a balanced budget amendment, we should know
exactly what it is that we are doing. We need to know just how these
programs are going to be affected. What cuts are going to be taken. How
deep. What programs. And most importantly what the consequences will be
to the health, safety, and security of the American people.
My first question is how a balanced budget amendment will affect
Medicare.
Achieving a balanced budget in 2002 will require cuts of between 20
and 30 percent in Medicare--between $75 and $100 billion in 2002. What
will this mean for seniors?
Medicare already pays less than half of older Americans' health
costs. In the year 2002, older Americans are expected to spend more
than $4,600 on health care premiums and other out of pocket health
costs. But a balanced budget amendment could make seniors pay $1,300
more. What will that $1,300 mean? It could mean forcing older Americans
to choose between health care and eating, or between health care and
heat.
Could a balanced budget amendment restrict access to health care
providers? We do not know. If the cuts are taken out of payments to
providers, those providers may decide not to see Medicare patients.
This could leave millions with no access to health care, especially in
rural areas. We have a right to know.
Could a balanced budget amendment mean raising the eligibility age
for Medicare up to age 70? We do not know. Unemployed individuals in
their fifties and sixties already find it difficult to obtain health
insurance. Many struggle with no insurance, hoping they will not get
sick before they reach age 65, when they will at least have access to
Medicare. If we raise the Medicare eligibility age, many more seniors
could be forced into poverty, unable to pay their medical bills. We
have a right to know.
Will the balanced budget amendment force elderly Americans into
managed care plans so they are no longer able to choose their
physicians? We do not know. We--and they--have a right to know.
There are many other agencies and many other programs that the
American people depend upon to protect their health, their safety,
their economic security. Law enforcement, traffic safety, education--
now will they be affected? What is the plan? Do we not owe it to the
people we represent to explain to them how they will be affected by the
balanced budget amendment?
I applaud this effort by my colleague Senator Daschle, the Democratic
leader. His amendment would satisfy the American people's right to
know. I am proud to cosponsor and vote for this amendment, and I urge
each of my colleagues to join me.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Senator Daschle has put before us a common
sense addition to the balanced budget amendment, that requires us to
tell the people of the States--the people who will decide on
ratification of the balanced budget amendment--what the effects of
their decision will be.
Should we and the people who will be asked to ratify this permanent
change to our Constitution not be given the facts we need to understand
its effects?
It seems to me that to oppose full disclosure is to say that we want
this decision--that is a fundamental change in our Nation's charter--to
be made in the dark, in ignorance.
Two years ago, we voted for a budget plan that laid out a course of
action that identified the specific changes that would be needed to cut
half a billion dollars from our deficits over 5 years.
That plan was clear and detailed; it was of course subject to both
honest disagreement, and, unfortunately, some partisan distortion. But
it has cut the deficit for 3 years running, for the first time since
the Truman administration.
We told the American people what we were going to do, and we did it.
We cut over $500 billion from our deficits over 5 years.
And a strong economy that followed passage of that plan has brought
our deficits even lower.
Like all of us here, I hope that the most recent action of the
Federal Reserve Board will not be the one-two punch that wipes out the
benefits of that plan--a blow that both flattens the economy and
increases our deficits with higher interest rates.
Our plans here in Congress, like the plans of private citizens and
businesses across the country, now hang on the hope that the Federal
Reserve has not gone too far.
But that is a topic for another day.
Some of my friends here who voted against cutting the deficit back
then, and some of my newer friends, who do not like the way we did it,
now act surprised to see that deficits will rise again in the future,
even though no one--certainly not the administration--ever claimed they
would not.
We all knew that fundamental health care reform and other actions
would be necessary to turn the deficit trend down permanently, and not
just over the life of the 1993 budget plan.
But the fact is that we passed that budget plan with the narrowest
possible margin in each House of Congress.
As for those who now complain, their own plan was less specific than
ours and still could not promise as much deficit reduction as we have
actually accomplished.
So let us not be distracted from our duty of being honest about the
future by arguments about the past.
With the release of President Clinton's budget plan, we hear again
from those who voted against deficit reduction in 1993 that they could
do better.
Well, Mr. President, I believe them. That is why I challenge them to
tell us how they would do better, as specifically as the plan they are
attacking.
If an amendment to the Constitution is needed to keep building on the
accomplishments of the last few years, to force us to confront the
continuing deficits that are predicted through the end of this decade,
then it only makes sense for us to prepare a document that sets forth
the choices that will be necessary to bring the budget into balance.
Right now, we are confronted with an interesting situation. A new
majority in Congress, that promised a new legislative agenda, now tells
us that they cannot commit themselves to bring the budget into balance
until after the Constitution is changed to force them to do it.
It is certainly within the competence of our budget committee and
Congressional Budget Office to provide us with the specifics of a
budget path that will bring us to balance by the year 2002.
Of course projections are only our best scientific estimates of
future economic activity. But virtually all of my friends who support
the balanced budget amendment have made good use of projections of
future deficits under current law.
Those estimates are the best view we have of the future, even if we
cannot be certain that all of our assumptions will hold true.
So let us drop that argument right now--we all accept that it is
possible to make useful estimates about our economic and budget future.
It is because we accept such projections that we are here today,
contemplating an amendment to our Constitution.
[[Page S2305]] The particular problem this year is that this
amendment is part of an economic plan--as announced in the so-called
contract--that, taken all together, raises serious problems.
If we cut taxes, increase defense spending, and promise not to push
any new costs off onto the Governors and mayors, the road to the
balanced budget looks rocky indeed.
It may be, Mr. President, that you cannot get to a balanced budget
from here, if the contract is your road map.
There is powerful evidence--the one-vote margins in both Houses for
the 1993 budget package--that votes for deficit reduction are difficult
to find.
How much more difficult will it be if we reduce our revenues, and
keep major segments of the budget safe from the requirements of the
balanced budget amendment?
Well, we know that it will be difficult, but we cannot know just how
difficult until we see some numbers about where the axe is going to
fall.
Mr. President, I would like to echo the astute observation of a new
member of the judiciary, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.
Feingold].
During the debate in the Judiciary Committee on a similar proposal,
Senator Feingfold responded to the suggestion that this was a
transparent ploy to kill the balanced budget amendment.
I want us all to reflect on that charge for a moment--that an attempt
to find out just how a permanent addition to our Constitution will work
is nothing but a ploy by those who oppose it.
Mr. President, when I took on the task as floor manager for this
important proposal, I did so because I am genuinely torn between my
concern for our fiscal future and my concerns about the effects of this
balanced budget amendment on our Constitution and on our economy.
I did not anticipate that honest questions about the effects of a
permanent change in our fundamental charter would be dismissed as
insincere or disingenuous.
But I ask my colleagues to consider Senator Feingold's response to
that charge. He said that the American people would be more likely to
ratify this amendment if they knew for sure what was in it, than if
they had to buy it sight unseen.
Those of us who have faith in the people who will make the final
decision on this amendment believe--whether we support or oppose it
ourselves--that it is our constitutional duty to establish a record of
debate and evidence before we send this amendment to the people.
Not often enough, I am afraid, does this chamber live up to its claim
to be the world's greatest deliberative body. Certainly, we should
aspire to fulfill that role as we debate a change in our Constitution.
And certainly, the American people deserve to know what the new
majority party has in mind when they say that they can comply with the
terms of the balanced budget amendment.
If we truly believe that amending the Constitution is the right thing
to do, then let us give the American people the facts they need to make
that choice themselves.
Certainly, that is not too much to ask.
In addition to the very real benefits of being honest with the
American people, and restoring some of their faith in our ability to
solve problems, there is another substantial benefit of accepting
Senator Daschle's amendment.
If we accept this amendment, we will have the assurance that we have
in place a plan to get us from where we are today to a balanced budget
by the year 2002.
By itself, that is no small accomplishment.
I cannot believe where we now find ourselves in this debate--where
the call for a specific set of goals that provide a path to a balanced
budget is denounced as a delaying tactic, a distraction.
And where those who call for an amendment to the Constitution that
will go into effect in the next century say that a promise to take
action in the future is more serious than a call for action now.
That does not make sense to me.
If we accept this amendment, we will still have to send the amendment
to the States. Let us assume for a moment that the American people lose
their enthusiasm for the balanced budget amendment. What happens if we
put all our eggs in that one basket?
Will we wait for the year or more that ratification is likely to take
before we decide what to do next?
Or would we be more prudent, more serious, more committed to real
deficit reduction if we were to also pass a binding budget resolution
that sets a course for a balanced budget regardless of the outcome of
the ratification process?
I believe that the answer to that question is clear. The more serious
approach is to pass the actual law that compliance with the balanced
budget amendment would require, not simply to pass an amendment with
the promise that at some future date we will get down to the real work
of balancing the budget.
And there is a further substantial advantage to what Senator
Daschle's amendment offers--a commitment to start now on the very
difficult journey ahead of us.
Without a plan that starts now to build on the real progress of the
past 3 years--without such a plan in place from the beginning, we will
have established a collision course between our Constitution and our
economy.
In a game of chicken, we will approach the year the balanced budget
amendment comes into effect, without the capacity to comply with its
mandate.
If we wait until the last minute, when huge budget cuts will be
required--over $300 billion for the deficit in 2002--we will swerve,
and avoid the economic crash that deficit reduction on that scale would
cause.
At that point, the balanced budget amendment will not keep us from
extending the year of reckoning yet further into the future. As we all
know, it will not make deficit spending--at any level--
unconstitutional.
Lest we forget, Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment makes
deficits difficult, not illegal.
And if we make use of the established procedure in the amendment to
permit continued deficits--probably rightly, if the cost would be a
disastrous recession--we will only add to the frustration and anger of
the American people.
The balanced budget amendment will be not just another empty promise
from Washington, but the most cynical one of all--one that we were
willing to put into the Constitution, but not into action.
And so Mr. President, to avoid making a mockery of our constitutional
duties, to avoid a collision between the Constitution and the economy,
to provide the American people the facts they need to make an informed
decision, we should adopt this right-to-know amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment to
require us to pass a detailed plan on how we will balance the budget
before we act to send this proposed balanced budget amendment to the
States for ratification. This amendment makes good sense because it
requires us to consider in the here and now--not at some undefined time
in the future--just what steps we will take to get our books in order.
I support getting us to a balanced budget. And I support tough cuts in
programs to get us there. But taken alone, I am not convinced that a
balanced budget amendment will get us to make those tough cuts. Taken
alone, I am not convinced that a balanced budget amendment will get us
in balance by the year 2002. In fact, taken alone, I am concerned that
the balanced budget amendment may have the unintended consequence of
taking us further, not closer to, the goal of a balanced budget.
That is why I support this right to know amendment. What I do not
support is an amendment which might make us all feel better but will
not make us behave better with taxpayer dollars. Taken alone, the
balanced budget amendment is long on the atmospherics and short on the
details--the amendment does not take Social Security off the table, it
does not provide for a continued strong national defense, it does not
require us to choose difficult cuts over increased taxes. And although
I know it is not intended to be I am fearful that this amendment is
potentially dangerous to our economic
[[Page S2306]] health. I say potentially dangerous because I am
fearful that this amendment may lull us into a false sense of
security--that we have balanced the budget just by saying we will do
so.
Mr. President, this Chamber has just spent long hours debating the
unfunded mandates bill. The idea behind that bill is that we should not
pass on costs to other levels of government, particularly if we have no
clear idea what those costs will be. In a certain sense if ever there
was an unfunded mandate it is asking the States to ratify the balanced
budget amendment without fessing up to what that amendment will cost.
By refusing to give the details on how we will achieve the goal of a
balanced budget, we are hiding the costs, and pushing the tough
decisions we must make into the future. We may also be pushing the
costs of getting our financial house in order onto our States and our
localities. At least one Treasury study shows that a balanced budget
amendment would reduce Federal grants to Connecticut by $1 billion a
year. Treasury estimates that if Social Security and defense are off
the table, Connecticut would be faced with truly draconian cuts in
education, job training and the environment.
If those are the decisions we intend to make, then let us debate
them. If they are decisions that we would prefer to avoid, let us
figure out what we can support in a rational and thoughtful way. What
we really need to do, is figure out how we intend to get to a balanced
budget and map out that strategy. If we are serious about balancing the
budget, the least we can do is provide those details and start working
toward our goal. Because I believe that it is both desirable and
possible to come up with a workable roadmap to a balanced budget, I
strongly support the right-to-know amendment which calls for a 7-year
approach to get us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. This approach
makes good sense and prods us toward action sooner rather than later.
The consequences of waiting are daunting and quite frankly, the
balanced budget amendment gives us the excuse to wait. If we wait until
the year 2002, when this amendment would go into effect, the
Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated that we would need to
cut $322 billion--that is billion with a ``b''--out of the Federal
budget in a single year. That would create national, local and personal
chaos. What we need to do is start acting now by making the kind of
tough spending cuts that will bring us closer to our goal of a balanced
budget and by implementing policies that will help our economy to grow
in a healthy way.
Standing in front of the mirror and announcing that you are going to
lose 10 pounds does not take the weight off, dieting and exercise does.
That is what this Chamber must pledge to do. As Hobart Rowen noted a
few weeks ago, ``By itself, such an amendment would cut neither a
dollar nor a program from the Federal budget.''
As anyone who has read the resolution mandating a balanced Federal
budget can tell you, it is sketched with a very broad brush. It
excludes nothing from the requirements of a balanced budget--not Social
Security, not defense, not veterans' benefits. Nor does it leave higher
taxes off the table. And it allows 40 rather than 50 percent of the
House and Senate to hold up the entire Federal budget in the event that
there is a Federal deficit. I have spent a tremendous amount of time
exploring ways to bring that deficit down. At the same time, I do not
support increasing the power of large States with lots of Members of
the House. By decreasing the number of House Members needed to hold up
the budget we would be doing just that. When you come from a small
State like mine, changing the rules in this way just does not sit well.
I want us to balance the budget in a responsible and thoughtful way.
For this reason, I support drawing up a 7-year plan toward that goal.
Regardless of what happens in this particular debate, I hope that all
of us in this Chamber will pledge to work together to make that happen.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of this commonsense
amendment to the balanced budget proposal. No matter what our beliefs
are on the wisdom of this amendment, we should at least ensure
America's right to know who will be hurt and what will be cut if we
pass a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It would seem to me, Mr. President, that notwithstanding any
Senator's position on this legislation, this amendment--which simply
requires that we be honest about the impact of our actions--is little
to ask in the face of such a monumental constitutional change.
Frankly, I cannot imagine that we would consider passing any piece of
legislation, regardless of the subject, without doing our best to
understand as much as possible about its potential impact on the
general public. Is that not, in fact, our fundamental responsibility as
legislators? Is that not what we were sent here to do?
Is that not what we just asked in the legislation this body passed
not more than a week ago that required the CBO to advise us of the
impact on State and local governments of the unfunded mandates bill?
I have to say, Mr. President, I am somewhat confused. The same
Senators who insisted on knowing the nature and the exact impact of
that legislation are now arguing that we do not need to know the
financial impact of our actions. Are we not supposed to know what we
are doing here?
I ask you, are we not obligated--as a body--``to protect the
people,'' as Madison said in his Journal of the Federal Convention
``against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be
led.''
And here we are, legislating by impressions. That is exactly what we
are doing if we do not show the people what this means.
We do not need to know the contents. We do not need to know how it
works or what it does, we just need to buy it, we are told.
Mr. President, is this the modern day equivalent of the ``traveling
salvation show'' complete with snake oil and magic elixirs that cure
all of our ills? We do not need to know what is in it. Trust us. It
works.
Have we lost our perspective here? Have we lost all touch with
reality? I wonder if anyone in this Chamber can go home to his or her
constituents and say, ``Ladies and gentlemen who elected me, I have
absolutely no idea what this legislation will do. However, I've been
assured that everything will be fine. Trust me, and thank you for your
continued support.''
And yet here we are suggesting that we pass this constitutional
amendment and worry about the details later. By God, let us be honest
with our constituents.
If achieving a balanced budget by 2002--with half of the budget
protected from cuts--will cost my State, annually, $1.9 billion in
Federal grants, then let us be honest about it.
If a balanced budget will cost Massachusetts $248 million in highway
trust fund grants, $459 million in lost funding for education, job
training, the environment, and housing, then let us be honest about it.
If--over 7 years--it will cost over $1 billion in Medicaid, and
almost $2\1/2\ billion in Medicare, then let us be honest.
Mr. President, what are we afraid of? If we support it, let us talk
about it. If we believe in it, let us defend it. But I implore you, let
us be honest about the impact of what we do here. It is our job. It is
our obligation. It is our only mandate from the people who sent us
here.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been informed that the majority
leader is in meetings which he cannot interrupt.
(At the request of Mr. Hatch, the following statement of Mr. Dole was
ordered to be printed in the Record):
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let us be clear about one thing. Whether or
not the Senate votes to approve the balanced budget amendment,
Republicans intend to offer a detailed 5-year budget plan that will put
us on a path toward a balanced budget by 2002--a test that President
Clinton's latest budget makes no attempt to meet.
The Daschle amendment is a poorly crafted, last-ditch effort to
thwart the will of the American people who overwhelmingly support a
balanced budget constitutional amendment. The distinguished chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and the distinguished chairman
of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and others have already made
that point.
[[Page S2307]] The Daschle amendment is an effort to change the
subject. Rather than debate the value of making a balanced Federal
budget a national priority, most opponents of the balanced budget
amendment would prefer talk about potential cuts that might affect
their pet programs.
This bait-and-switch effort will not work.
This Congress will put forward a plan to control Federal spending and
move us toward a balanced budget without touching Social Security and
without raising taxes. Everything else, every Federal program from
Amtrak to zebra mussel research will be on the table. For those who
want an idea of how we would try to achieve this goal, look at the
Republican alternative budgets that have been introduced in each of the
past 2 years.
Mr. President, it is ironic that on April 1, 1993, the vast majority
of those who now support the Daschle right-to-know amendment voted to
adopt a budget blueprint paving the way for President Clinton's massive
tax increase before President Clinton submitted the legally required
details of his plan to Congress. They voted to adopt a budget blueprint
that called for a massive tax increase without knowing the specifics.
This debate is different. It is a lot simpler. The central issue is
whether or not we should vote to make balancing the budget a national
priority. We are debating whether or not future generations of
Americans--our children and our grandchildren--deserve constitutional
protection. That is what this amendment is all about.
This year, we have a real chance to approve a balanced budget
amendment and send it to the States for ratification. It is the best
chance we have had in years. Every single vote matters.
Several Senators who voted for a balanced budget amendment in the
past are now under tremendous pressure from the special interests and
others who are addicted to Federal spending. The special interests are
trying to convince past supporters of the balanced budget amendment to
switch their votes. I hope that every Senator who supports the balanced
budget amendment will continue to stand firm, do what is right for our
children and our grandchildren, and vote for the balanced budget
amendment.
Let us get on with the real debate.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to just read a few of the
distinguished majority leader's remarks because I think they are very
appropriate.
I will read these for and on behalf of the majority leader:
* * * Mr. President, it is ironic that on April 1, 1993 the
vast majority of those who now support the Daschle right-to-
know amendment voted to adopt a budget blueprint paving the
way for President Clinton's massive tax increase before
President Clinton submitted the legally required details of
his plan to Congress. They voted to adopt a budget blueprint
that called for a massive tax increase without knowing the
specifics.
This debate is different. It is a lot simpler. The central
issue is whether or not we should vote to make balancing the
budget a national priority. we are debating whether or not
future generations of Americans--our children and our
grandchildren--deserve constitutional protection. That is
what this amendment is all about.
This year, we have a real chance to approve a balanced
budget amendment and send it to the States for ratification.
It is the best chance we have had in years. Every single vote
matters.
Several Senators who voted for a balanced budget amendment
in the past are now under tremendous pressure from the
special interests and others who are addicted to Federal
spending. The special interests are trying to convince past
supporters of the balanced budget amendment to switch their
votes. I hope that every Senator who supports the balanced
budget amendment will continue to stand firm, do what is
right for our children and our grandchildren, and vote for
the balanced budget amendment.
Let us get on with the real debate.
On behalf of the majority leader, I move to table the Daschle motion,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the Daschle motion to commit House Joint Resolution 1.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--44
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Wellstone
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to commit House Joint
Resolution 1 was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________