[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2771-S2773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             COMMITMENT TO HONEST BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the first legislative action I took when 
I came to Congress in 1979 was to introduce a constitutional amendment 
to require a balanced budget.
  I believed 16 years ago, as I believe today, that Government must 
learn to live within its means. I believed then, as I believe now, that 
we must trim the fat, cut the waste, and make the tough choices 
necessary to control spending.
  I supported a balanced budget amendment then and I remain committed 
to an honest, fair, and forthright amendment now.
  However, I have concluded I cannot support the one which is now being 
pushed through the body, without amendment or compromise.
  The magnitude of the decision about how we propose to amend the 
Constitution should not be lost on anyone. A balanced budget amendment, 
if passed and ratified, will have a dramatic effect on the very nature 
of government and its relationship to the American people in all 
perpetuity. We cannot come back next year or next Congress and clean up 
our mistakes.
  When we embark on such a path--to amend the Constitution--we must 
know that it is the best amendment we can write, that it incorporates 
the best ideas and the most carefully written words we have to offer.
  It is critical now, as we contemplate amending the Constitution for 
only the 28th time, that we refuse to succumb to the notion that what 
we do is, as the old adage goes, ``good enough for Government work.''
  This effort had a noble beginning. It was the result of the tireless 
work of the Senator from Illinois, the Senator 
[[Page S2772]] from Utah, the Senator from Idaho, and many others to 
enforce fiscal discipline, something we all recognize is necessary.
  The refusal to consider legitimate amendments, amendments that would 
make this constitutional amendment even stronger, has reduced this 
effort to something far less than our best.
  When this debate began I expressed my concerns about the balanced 
budget amendment proposal before Members. I expressed a sincere hope 
that we could work together to address them and craft the best 
constitutional amendment this Senate could write on behalf of all the 
American people.
  First, as many argued last year, Social Security should be viewed as 
an indelible contract between the Government and the American people, 
funded by a dedicated trust fund that should be left out of budgetary 
calculations. As written, it is clear that the current proposal uses 
the Social Security trust fund to mask the true size of the deficit, 
something that is patently inconsistent with our goal to balance the 
budget.
  As a result it is estimated that $705 billion of Social Security 
trust fund revenue will be used to mask the real size of the national 
deficit between now and the year 2002. In fact, that very issue was 
confirmed again this morning in the Wall Street Journal.
  A speech that the majority leader gave yesterday to a group indicated 
that he saw the size of the deficit over the course of the next 7 years 
to be somewhere in the vicinity of $685 billion, which would require 
some form of health care reductions to reduce that deficit to below the 
$685 billion mark he suggests. Mr. President, $685 billion, if that is 
the size of the deficit as my Republican colleagues would see it, 
clearly implies that the $705 billion for Social Security is still on 
the table in spite of all of the best efforts made by many Members on 
the other side to indicate the contrary.
  Second, I believe that budgetary discipline, common sense, and our 
long-term investment goals warrant the establishment of a budget that 
distinguishes between investment and consumption. We ought to use this 
opportunity once and for all to establish the same budgetary principles 
used by businesses and by most State governments.
  Finally, as we have argued at some length during this debate, the 
American people have an absolute right to know how we plan to fulfill 
the promise of a balanced budget before they are called upon to ratify 
it. Working with my Democratic colleagues, we have proposed three 
balanced budget constitutional amendment approaches in a good-faith 
attempt to address those concerns and make the underlying amendment 
more sound.
  Unfortunately, each of those amendments has been rejected essentially 
along party lines. The only way I can interpret those votes is that the 
majority is saying, ``We want our balanced budget amendment or no 
amendment at all.'' They are telling the American people to put their 
trust in good intentions and to live with consequences that are yet 
unknown.
  We should support a balanced budget amendment. But we should never 
violate America's contract with its senior citizens merely because we 
are unwilling to make the tough choices now. Balancing the budget by 
cutting Social Security is no balanced budget at all.
  Making tough choices is also an important part of what every family 
and every business must do. When a family balances its budget, we 
separate investments in our future, our home, our savings for our 
children's education, from the day-to-day expenditures on things like 
food and clothing. We are willing to borrow money to buy a home or pay 
for college but we cannot afford to take on too much debt because the 
interest is part of our day-to-day expenses and cannot exceed our 
income.
  In short, we separate our capital budget from our operating budget. 
Nearly every State, nearly every business, small or large, does exactly 
the same thing. Everybody separates these two budgets except for the 
Federal Government. Just yesterday we proposed an amendment that said, 
let's be honest with the American people about the budget process. 
Separate investment from daily operating expenses. Do at the Federal 
level what has always been done in the States.
 But that proposal, too, was rejected.

  I support a balanced budget amendment, but I also share the belief 
that we owe it to the American people to tell them how we will do what 
the amendment requires. We must not substitute political slogans for 
straight talk. We must not cover up the reality with rhetoric. We must 
not ask South Dakotans, or any Americans, to trust us or future 
Congresses if we are not willing to give them good reason to do so.
  We cannot build a house of credibility if we do not produce the 
blueprint first. Neither can we build that house without knowing what 
tools to use. The American people have a right to know how we are going 
to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  Two years ago when a Democratic Congress cut $500 billion from the 
deficit, we gave the Congress and the country a blueprint of our list 
of budget-cutting tools--page after page of painful cuts. Everyone 
recognizes what an unpopular vote that was, how difficult it was to 
make those choices, to lay out with specificity, line by line, item by 
item, exactly what we were going to do over the course of the next 5 
years to reduce spending by $500 billion. And because it was tough, 
because it was specific, it passed by a single vote.
  Today the American people have the same right to know. They have a 
right to know what is in the plan. They have a right to know whether 
the majority plans to cut Medicare, student loans, or veterans 
benefits.
  Our deficit reduction target is at least $1.2 trillion--$1.2 
trillion--over the course of the next 7 years. It is not going to get 
smaller, and with each year of delay, it is going to be exacerbated. It 
is a daunting goal, we all recognize that, but we all recognize, too, 
that it must be met.
  The question, frankly, is how. How are we going to do it? How are we 
going to do what the speech by the majority leader yesterday suggested? 
Are we going to keep Social Security on the table and talk about a debt 
that is only $685 billion? Are we going to include everything, put it 
on the table, recognize that if we are going to increase defense 
spending, if we are going to cut taxes, if we are going to protect 
Social Security and do all of this in the next 7 years, that we are 
going to do it using the tools that we have available to us?
  Americans have a right to know. We have a responsibility to tell 
them.
  I proposed the right-to-know amendment to the Constitution that would 
both require a balanced budget and require Democrats and Republicans to 
work together to draft a plan and make it public. But the amendment was 
defeated, and the result will be that this Congress will collectively 
say ``no'' to being honest with the American people, leaving us with 
only the hope--only the hope--that we can accomplish our goals. No 
blueprint, no mechanism in place, no real plan. Just a hope that 
somehow we can do something in 7 years that we have not been able to do 
in decades.
  Everyone would agree that the idea of a balanced budget in the 
abstract has universal support. But no budget is balanced in the 
abstract. Budgets are balanced in the context of existing 
circumstances. We have a new majority in Congress that claims it will 
cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget, but 
refuses to explain how and refuses to guarantee that it will be 
accomplished fairly.
  Last year, I supported a balanced budget amendment. This year, in 
this context, I cannot.
  Last year, a Democratic Congress was committed to protecting Social 
Security and Medicare. This year, the new majority has been unwilling 
to do so in law. Last year, Congress honored the people's right to 
know. Last year, Congress was committed to an open, honest debate about 
how to reduce Government spending.
  Last year, Congress leveled with the American people. This year, the 
majority refuses to acknowledge Americans' right to know.
  This country is in need of a serious, principled debate about our 
future and our increasing national indebtedness. It should be a debate 
about the generational debt that we owe our children and how best to 
discharge it. It should be a debate about the ways past Government 
commitments to Americans will always be kept. It should be a 
[[Page S2773]] debate about rational fiscal policy, about consumption 
versus investment, savings over spending, and all of the elements that 
together make up a sound basis for future economic growth. It should be 
a debate about what we hold to be most important now and in the future.
  That debate may never come. Yet, I deeply hope it will come, and when 
it does, I hope we will have an opportunity to write an amendment to 
the Constitution that represents our best effort, one which will stand 
the test of time, a balanced budget amendment that honors our past 
commitments, protects our future investment, and tells the American 
people the truth. It must be a serious obligation, not merely a 
statement made of good intentions.
  Finally, while I believe we need an honest and fair balanced budget 
amendment, I know we need an honest and fair balanced budget even more. 
We can and we must get immediately to the real work of deficit 
reduction. I know I speak for my Democratic colleagues when I say we 
are ready to work with the majority right now to develop a budget 
resolution that cuts spending and balances the budget. It is an effort 
which requires bipartisan cooperation as well as concentration.
  So, Mr. President, whatever the fate of this amendment, it is time 
for us to work together to fulfill that promise and renew the hope of 
all American people that at long last--at long last--we can accomplish 
what we all want and what our children deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
proceed for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________