[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 26 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2345-S2346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the American people elected the 
Republican Congress with the expectation that we show leadership and a 
willingness to make difficult decisions. In my view, the public shares 
the point of view that Government has grown too expensive. It has 
become bloated and ponderous. I believe that the programs of the New 
Deal and the Great Society put safety nets in place for those who are 
in greatest need, but those nets now strangle the Federal Government by 
tying up precious funding in a knot of regulations and poor management.
  As I explain my thoughts on the balanced budget amendment, I want to 
make it very clear that I believe the deficit must be reduced and that 
a balanced budget is worth achieving. It is possible that I will be the 
lone Republican to vote against the balanced budget amendment, but I 
say now to my colleagues that I share my party's goals, but happen to 
disagree on the means.
  The debate on the balanced budget amendment is not about reducing the 
budget deficit, it is about amending the Constitution of the United 
States with a procedural gimmick. This amendment that is before Members 
now puts new Senate and House rules regarding voting procedures into 
the Constitution. It does not balance the budget and gives no 
indication of how this might be done. Furthermore, it will not force 
Congress to budget responsibly. If indeed this is an amendment 
requiring a balanced budget, then how can we allow Congress to 
essentially suspend the Constitution with a three-fifths vote? This was 
a dangerous idea last year, and it is a dangerous idea this year as 
well. What other constitutional requirements would we like to waive 
with a three-fifths vote? Freedom of religion? Free speech? What other 
civil liberties shall we waive? A balanced budget amendment would allow 
the Congress to ignore the requirement for a balanced budget and to 
ignore the Constitution. This idea of Congress suspending a 
constitutional requirement cuts against the separation of powers 
principle so crucial to the foundation of the Constitution.
  Given the make-up of the 104th Congress, passage of the balanced 
budget amendment may seem inevitable to some. Many people attribute 
this increased likelihood to the elections which occurred in November 
of last year. The election has been interpreted by some as proving that 
the American people are demanding that Congress balance our Federal 
budget. Or it may be interpreted by some who say that the Congress now 
has the political will to make the hard choices to make Federal 
revenues match Federal outlays. This is an important point, because 
     [[Page S2346]]  Congress does not have the political will to 
     tackle the budget deficit, a balanced budget amendment to the 
     Constitution is nothing more than an empty promise.
  As optimistic as I am about the opportunities this Republican 
Congress has before it, I am sobered by a recent event. I want to 
underscore this because I believe many have lost sight of it; that is, 
the demise of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlements and Tax Reform. 
The Commission set out to tackle an enormous task. That task was to 
address the Federal Government's long-term spending commitments and to 
determine what the fiscal impact would be if this spending were left 
unchecked.
  According to the Commission's report, the Commission was created,

       * * * to frame the long-term issue, educate the American 
     people and policy leaders about the problem and potential 
     choices, and to make specific recommendations on how to bring 
     our future entitlement commitments and revenues into balance.

  Now, Mr. President, the Commission, despite the dedication of all of 
its participants, was unable to agree on a specific set of 
recommendations on how to address these issues. In explaining the 
inability of the Commission to come to a consensus on this issue, a 
letter signed by the chairman, Senator Kerrey, and the vice-chairman, 
Senator Danforth, states,

       * * * this result should not be surprising in an 
     environment where political leaders in both parties are 
     focusing more on short-term initiatives than on long-term, 
     politically sensitive economic and social issues that sit on 
     the horizon.

  I submit that the inability of the Commission to reach a consensus on 
these very important issues is proof that the Congress still does not 
yet have the political will to tackle the tough issues which it will 
need to balance the budget.
  Mr. President, that statement attributed to the Commission was made 
after the November elections.
  It is also important to note some statistics which are contained in 
the budget just submitted by the President which relate to the proposal 
to exempt certain Federal programs from being covered by this 
amendment. According to the President's budget, interest on the debt, 
defense, and mandatory spending combined make up 82 percent of the 
Federal budget in 1995, and this percentage will grow to 85 percent of 
the budget by the year 2000. Unless reform of all aspects of Federal 
expenditures occurs, projected outlays for entitlements and interest on 
the debt will consume all
 revenues of the Federal Government by the year 2012. That is only 17 
years away. With those facts looming before us, how can the Congress 
decide today what should and should not be taken off the table during 
the debate on balancing the budget. The Congress must look at every 
aspect of the budget, politically sensitive items included.

  A balanced budget can come only through leadership and compromise. 
This compromise must come from each one of us. But, more importantly, 
it must come from those we represent--those who do not want their taxes 
raised any more than we want to raise them--those who do not want their 
benefits cut any more than we want to cut them. In the end there is no 
easy answer, and there never will be. Regardless of the procedural 
restraint in place, where there is political will to create a balanced 
budget we will create one, where there is will to avoid one, we will 
avoid it. The finding of the Bipartisan Commission I mentioned earlier 
indicates that the Congress still does not have the will to address the 
tough issues. As I stated during the debate on a balanced budget 
amendment last year, a vote for this balanced budget constitutional 
amendment is not a vote for a balanced budget, it is a vote for a fig 
leaf.
  If I am skeptical about the ability of a gimmick to fix our budget, I 
am not skeptical about the ability of the people to demand and keep 
demanding that we respond to the budget challenge with real action. 
Real action is not a vote for an amendment to the Constitution which 
calls for a balanced budget by the year 2002. Real action is rolling up 
our sleeves and getting our fiscal house in order. Real action is 
working together, in a bipartisan fashion, to create a balanced budget, 
not to simply promise one. Real action means ending some programs--
programs with popular appeal and vocal constituencies. Balancing the 
budget will result in an impact on each and every one of us--do we have 
the will to do that?
  Bipartisan negotiation, leadership, and compromise have been the 
cornerstones upon which we have built all effective decisions on tough 
issues since the formation of our Government. Compromises are difficult 
to reach, but they are not impossible to reach. We have all just 
received the President's budget. The ensuing debate on the budget will 
provide the chance for the Congress to work together to balance the 
Federal programs of this budget. I hope the Congress does not miss this 
opportunity to debate the real issue of balancing the budget. Voting 
for a balanced budget amendment is easy, working to balance the budget 
will not be.
  Although I will not support the legislation put before the Senate 
promoting a balanced budget amendment, I stand ready to get to the 
necessary work of crafting a long-term, sound fiscal policy which 
addresses the need to balance the budget. As chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee I am committed to a thorough review of Federal 
programs to determine if they are wisely spending the taxpayers' money 
and whether or not programs have outlived their usefulness. Some 
programs are undoubtedly in need of reduction, and a few should be 
abolished.
  But successful, long-term fiscal responsibility will not only depend 
upon program cuts. It demands a radical transformation in the way we do 
business as a government. My home State of Oregon has embarked upon a 
truly exciting effort to end the obsession with program compliance--and 
all the paperwork and bureaucracy which comes with that obsession--and 
instead making success government's goal. Success in training workers 
for new jobs. Success in getting families off public assistance. 
Success in reducing teen pregnancies. Government can and should do more 
with less. It is my hope that Congress will lead the way in making this 
a reality.
  The Congress should not promise to the people that it will balance 
the Federal budget through a procedural gimmick. If the Congress has 
the political will to balance the budget, it should simply use the 
power that it already has and do so. There is no substitute for 
political will and there never will be. I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________