[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2534-S2535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise, as I have in the past, to support 
the balanced budget amendment. I believe strongly that it is the right 
thing to do. I believe strongly that it is the only way that we are 
going to be able to achieve some kind of financial balance in our 
Government, to achieve some kind of responsibility for not spending 
more than we take in.
  So I rise to share my impressions of what has gone on here for the 
past 2 weeks, and apparently at least for another week. I am new to the 
Senate. I am very pleased and proud, of course, to be here to represent 
the people of Wyoming. But I am, I must say, a little bit disappointed 
in the lack of progress that we have made.
  It seems to me that, in some instances, we have not really had an in-
depth debate of issues, but rather a sort of a slowing of the process, 
talking about what seems, at least to me, to be peripheral issues often 
as the method of establishing a rationale for voting ``no'' on an issue 
that those who argue against have no intention of voting for at all.
  It is fairly easy to examine the status of the record of performance 
that leads to this issue coming before the Senate which leads to a 
consideration of the balanced budget amendment. Certainly, history does 
that. You cannot change history. You can interpret it, I suppose, and 
spin it. But the fact is that we have not balanced the budget, this 
Congress has not balanced the budget for some 26 years. Only four or 
five times out of 50 years has the budget been balanced. That is not a 
good record, but it is indeed a record.
  Some talk a lot about the efforts that have been made over the last 3 
years to do something about the deficit. And, indeed, there has been 
something done and it has been good. Starting with the last budget of 
President Bush and on through the next 2 years, there have been some 
reductions. The fact is, however, that the reductions now are not 
there. They are not in this budget. They are not proposed for the next 
year's budget and, indeed, beyond the year 2000, there would not be a 
reduction in the deficit, but the national debt would continue to grow.
  It is also true that much of the reduction was a one-time 
readjustment in terms of spending on savings and loans, in terms of 
spending on Medicaid, and what the reduction was, a direct result of 
what this Congress did, was an increase in taxes. So I am certainly 
pleased that this deficit has been reduced, but I am not pleased with 
the fact that it is now scheduled to go up, unless we do something 
different.
  The cost of the imbalance, the cost of these years of not balancing 
the budget, are extremely high. We have now approximately a $260 
billion line item in this year's budget to pay interest on the debt. If 
it were not for the interest on the debt, this year's budget would be 
balanced. But there is an interest of $260 billion, probably the third 
largest line item in the budget and continuing to go up.
  Spending has gone up every year. When we read about the budget, we 
often read in our hometown paper that the President makes the cuts. Of 
course, there are some cuts, but the fact is the total spending 
continues to go up; this year, 5.5 percent over last year. So we 
continue to have larger Government, spending goes up.
  Fortunately, revenues go up as well. But we have not been able to 
bring the two together. We have not been able to be responsible, both 
morally and fiscally, with this budget. Clearly, we need to do 
something different.
  You cannot continue to do the same thing you have been doing over the 
years and expect there to be a different result.
  What is the opposition? Some say, ``Don't change the Constitution. 
The Founders did not draft it that way and we should not change it.''
  Of course, changing the Constitution is not something we take 
lightly. The process does not allow for it to be taken lightly. It 
requires a two-thirds majority of both Houses of this Congress. It 
requires that it be ratified by the State legislatures and in fact be 
ratified by the people. The Founders did not include it. However, 
Thomas Jefferson said that if he had had the opportunity to make one 
change, it would have been limiting the amount of debt that the Federal 
Government could undertake.
  The Founders also did not have a $20,000 per person debt to deal 
with, which we do now. Each of us in this country has a $20,000 debt, 
in terms of the national debt.
  The Founders did not have a huge Federal Government to deal with. The 
Founders, I believe it is fair to say, thought that this would be a 
federation of States in which the basic spending responsibility, the 
basic decisionmaking responsibility for most things in this Government, 
would be done by the States. They did not envision the kind of Federal 
Government that we have now.
  Some say judges will make the decisions on the budget. I do not think 
there is a basis for that. Forty-eight States have balanced budgets in 
their legislatures. My own State of Wyoming has a balanced budget in 
the constitution that says they shall not borrow more than 1 percent of 
the value of the revenues. Judges do not do our budget. The legislature 
knows that they have to bring spending within revenues. And they do it.
  Some say it will not work because the States have capital budgets. 
They do not all have capital budgets. Furthermore, even if you do have 
a capital budget, like you and I might have and have loans on our homes 
to pay, we still have to balance between our revenue, our budget, and 
our debt service. And we do not do that in the Federal Government.
  So these arguments really are to define, I think, a philosophy. And 
there is a basic difference. There is a basic difference in philosophy 
and it is a legitimate difference. There are those who believe that 
Government should be big, it should spend more, it should be involved 
in more activity.
  Some of us, including myself, believe that it should be smaller; that 
it should be limited. Those who seek larger Government would naturally 
oppose the balanced budget amendment. Those of us who think there 
should be some control, that Government is too big, that Government is 
too expensive, believe that a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution is the tool that we need to make it work.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we do move forward. It seems to me 
that we came here to undertake this task of resolving this question, 
regardless of the outcome. It seems to me that we do have a 
responsibility to vote. We have a responsibility to make the decisions. 
It is not an easy one. People see it differently. There is a legitimate 
difference of view.
  But the idea of just continuing to string it out, I think, is not 
beneficial for us and is not beneficial for the country. We have to 
bite the bullet and do it, and I think the time is now.
  [[Page S2535]] I rise in support of a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe we are still in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 
395 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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. The 
Senator from Montana is recognized.

                          ____________________