[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3382-S3384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I had thought that I might wait until 
tomorrow to speak on the vote that occurred this afternoon, but I think 
perhaps now is as good a time as any simply to reflect on what happened 
today, what has happened in the past and what is likely to happen in 
the future.
  First of all, taking Social Security out of the amendment was a 
perfectly legitimate issue and I supported the Reid amendment and I 
supported the efforts of the Senator from North Dakota to take it out, 
but that is not the real reason I voted against this amendment. I voted 
against it because I have a reverence for the Constitution of the 
United States. I do not want it trivialized. I do not want to put 
economic theory in it. I do not want to put an unenforceable 
requirement in it. I do not want to put a requirement in there which 
can be taken away by 60 votes. And I do not want to have the people 
expecting to see the budget balanced in the year 2002 when that is 
highly unlikely in any case and utterly impossible under the other 
provisions of the Contract With America. That would raise the cynicism 
level about Congress still higher.
  What I want to do is put this Nation on a glidepath toward a balanced 
budget and stick with it. We could reduce the deficit $20 billion a 
year and not disrupt the economy. The economy could handle it. And if 
the American people saw us doing that, year after year, they would be 
happy, they would see that we are solving the problem.
  It is true the polls show that about 70 to 80 percent of the people 
of the country favor the so-called constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget, but I promise you they favor it because they are frustrated 
and they think it is the last best hope. And, second, they think there 
is some magic machine in the amendment that will balance the budget if 
they just put it in the Constitution as the 28th amendment.
  Unhappily, nothing could be further from the truth. This afternoon 
the argument was made, why not submit it to the people? It is a 
powerful argument. The people like that argument. But for just a moment 
let me give a couple of extra thoughts on that. Since this great 
Republic of ours was founded in 1789, there have been over 11,400 
proposals by Members of Congress to change that document--11,400. And 
we have adopted 18 of them, counting the Bill of Rights as one--that is 
the first 10 amendments to the Constitution all adopted at the same 
time.
  Since then, 17 amendments have been ratified out of 11,400 proposed. 
What if we took the argument that every time a constitutional amendment 
came up on the floor we had a duty to submit it to the people? The 
people would not have time to work. They would be so busy voting on 
constitutional amendments they would not have time to hold a job.
  Why do the Members of this body think that James Madison and Ben 
Franklin and all the rest of the Framers, in 1787, when they crafted 
this document--why do they think they gave Congress the first 
responsibility? And more important, why do they think they insisted 
that 67 percent of the Congress vote for it before it is submitted to 
the people? They did not say lay down in the aisle of the Senate and 
vote aye. They said we should deliberate. If they expected a two-thirds 
majority of both Houses to approve this thing before it went to the 
people of the country, surely to God they intended us to have a 
sensible debate on it. And we had one.
  Mr. President, when you start tinkering with the Constitution of the 
United States, I belong to the ``wait just a minute'' club. I do not 
care how meritorious a proposal sounds. The Constitution has given this 
Nation 205 years of unfettered freedom the likes of which no other 
nation on Earth has enjoyed. And when you start trivializing the 
Constitution with amendments that are wholly unenforceable, people will 
lose their reverence for that sacred document. You see, I do not want 
just a balance-the-budget amendment that merely says we will balance 
the budget. I want actually to balance the budget. The people in my 
State and your 
[[Page S3383]] State, they think that opposing a balance-the-budget 
amendment is like saying ``I oppose a balanced budget.''
  Who in this body does not favor a balanced budget? No one, but there 
are some who are not quite as committed to it as others. But in 1993, 
in August, the President and the Democrats in the Congress proposed a 
$500 billion deficit reduction. We stood up and we said exactly what 
the people in the pool hall say, ``I wouldn't mind paying taxes if they 
cut spending.'' So we raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of the 
people in this country. You had to have an income of $180,000 to 
affected by it. I wish I were in that category, I would be tickled to 
death to pay those taxes. We raised taxes on 1.2 percent of the 
wealthiest people in the country to the tune of $250 billion over 5 
years and we cut spending, dollar for dollar, $250 billion, for a total 
of $500 billion in deficit reduction. And, yes, we said in that same 
bill, in the future couples who make $44,000 a year and are on Social 
Security will pay taxes on 85 percent of that amount that exceeds 
$44,000.
  Who thinks I enjoyed voting for that? I hated it. But you are not 
going to solve the deficit problem on people flipping hamburgers down 
at McDonald's. Justice Holmes said taxes are what you pay in order to 
live in a civilized society. So we passed that deficit reduction bill 
and we have now lowered the deficit for three straight years for the 
first time since Harry Truman was in the White House.
  Mr. President, it has been said time and time again, and it is worth 
repeating: not one single Republican favored deficit reduction that 
day--not one. They said, ``We hate taxes.'' I do, too, but I hate 
deficits as well.
 And on October 1, 1994, the deficit was $100 billion less than it 
would have otherwise been if we had not passed the deficit reduction 
package. You think about it. We cut the deficit $100 billion last year. 
And it will be down $110 to $120 billion this year from what it would 
have otherwise been.

  The distinguished majority leader, whom I respect and admire and 
consider to be my friend, this afternoon said that the Senate walked 
away from the American people today. In August 1993, the Republicans 
ran away from the people of this country. Not one vote.
  Mr. President, we have never put anything into the Constitution in 
205 years that you can suspend with 60 votes in the U.S. Senate. You 
think about it. Anytime this amendment is adopted and subsequent 
thereto, 60 people in this body can say we vote for an unbalanced 
budget and those words will mean nothing. What if I came on this floor 
and said: Here is an amendment that says, the fourth amendment, which 
protects us against unlawful searches and seizures--can be suspended by 
60 percent of the Congress? You would be home calling the carpenter to 
put some more locks on your door, never knowing when Congress might 
cast 60 votes to suspend your right to be protected from police who 
might want to knock your door down on any flimsy excuse they can find, 
or ne excuse at all.
  Women are now permitted to vote as a result of the 19th amendment 
adopted in 1921. Can you believe the women have only had the right to 
vote in this country since 1921? Suppose we passed an amendment saying, 
with 60 votes of both Houses, we could suspend the right of women to 
vote. With 60 votes, we can suspend the right of due process. With 60 
votes, we can suspend religious freedom, freedom of the press, freedom 
of speech. With 60 votes, we will put the poll tax back in. With 60 
votes, we will take any right in the Constitution out of it. The people 
would be marching in the streets.
  So where does that leave us on this amendment? We say, ``Well, here 
is an amendment that requires us to balance the budget by the year 
2002.'' How? I do not know. Well, can we go to court? No. We took care 
of that in order to accommodate the Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn. 
The courts could not involve themselves in the budget unless Congress 
expressly gave them jurisdiction . Next question: Who can enforce this 
amendment? Search me. I do not know.
  If you have an amendment that requires a balanced budget by the year 
2002 and the courts are taken out in that same amendment, who does that 
leave you to enforce it? The same U.S. Congress that has refused to do 
it in the past. We are back to square one. You pass this amendment, and 
the American people will have been hoodwinked like they have never been 
hoodwinked before in the history of this Nation. That is right. We are 
right back where we started, with the U.S. Congress having to balance 
the budget, and with the right to ignore it with 60 votes. We have 
never put anything in the Constitution that was not absolute and 
inviolate. We act as if we are dealing with a State constitution around 
here. The balanced budget amendment is legislation all dressed up in 
the finery of the Constitution.
  I remember that spectacle in 1993 where only the Democrats voted for 
a bill to actually reduce the deficit. It is the most significant thing 
that has happened since I have been in the U.S. Senate. Every fall, for 
7 years, I have stood at this desk and offered amendment after 
amendment after amendment to cut spending. In 1993 I offered six 
amendments to kill or cut appropriations. Those amendments would have 
saved the taxpayers over $420 billion, including interest over the next 
35 years, but 13 Republican votes was my highwater mark on those votes. 
It reminds me of the back bencher who hears the preacher say ``Who all 
here wants to go to Heaven?'' and replies, ``I do, but not tonight.''
  I want a balanced budget, and I do not like to have to go home and 
tell the voters that we cut the spending that affects their job or 
affects something else important to them or raises their taxes. We just 
want to talk about it.
  Here on this chart are the budget-cutting amendments I put in just 
the other day for this year. I want my colleagues to look at these 
right now because they are coming, I promise you. The space station, 5-
year savings of $10 billion; long-term savings, $52 billion. The same 
people who will vote to cut food stamps, Medicare, put children in 
orphanages, will vote to spend every dime of that. The F-22 fighter, we 
do not need it. We can postpone it for at least 4 years; it will cost 
$6 billion next year; in 5 years, $24 billion. I will not go through 
all of them, but we could save $33 billion over the next 5 years, and 
$114 billion over the next 15 years just on the amendments that I have 
introduced.
  Mr. President, if I get 13 votes on the Republican side this year for 
any of those, I will be absolutely amazed. Everybody wants to go to 
Heaven. But not just yet.
  There is not one thing in this amendment that would require us to do 
anything between now and the year 2002. There is not one single 
enforceable thing about this that would require us to cut the deficit 
one dime between now and the year 2002.
  I offered an amendment. I got 37 votes. The amendment I offered said 
that, starting this year, the budget resolution must contain a deficit 
smaller than last year. And, in addition to that, it must show us how 
we are going to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002; that would be 
difficult to achieve but at least my amendment would keep us honest.
  I submit that the people of this country would be immensely gratified 
if they could go to bed tonight and realize that Congress is going to 
cut the deficit every year for the next 7 years, not wait until the 
year 2002. Do it now.
  The Contract With America--and to the eternal credit of the 
Republicans in the U.S. Senate, they are not a party to that. They want 
us to spend $471 billion in tax cuts and defense increases between now 
and the year 2002, and then start dealing with the deficit.
  Do you think I enjoy standing here and saying I am not going to 
support a so-called middle-class tax cut? Do you think the people of my 
State do not need tax relief? If you do what the Contract With America 
proposes, I will tell you where you wind up. You will wind up with a 
deficit that will choke a mule, that will cause interest rates to start 
soaring again, and the poor guy who would have otherwise gotten a tax 
cut that might buy him a pizza every Friday night will lose two pizzas 
every Friday on interest costs. And 74 percent of the people of this 
country agree that they would rather see the savings put into deficit 
reduction.
  Over and over and over again, I heard people say the balanced budget 
amendment is very popular, that 75 percent of 
[[Page S3384]] the people in this country favor it. When you get down 
to a little tax cut, I will be saying that 75 percent of the people 
would rather see this go on the deficit than into a middle-class tax 
cut. You say we must do what 75 percent of the people want on one 
thing. But on the next thing that 75 percent of the people want, you 
say something else.
  Mr. President, I will tell you what ought to happen. The Republican 
and Democratic leaders ought to get together and say, look, we share a 
common goal, and that common goal is to keep faith with the American 
people. In order to do that, we have to start getting the deficit under 
control. You go back to your people and submit a list of cuts, and we 
will come up with our own cuts; then we will get back together and try 
to figure out what we can agree on. Once we agree on what we can cut, 
once we are convinced in our own minds that we are going to actually 
cut the deficit this year and the next year and the next year, the 
leaders, Democrats and Republicans, can go before the television 
cameras and say solemnly to the American people: Here is our contract. 
We all agree on it.
  If we keep going like we are going, Mr. President, the Constitution 
and the American people both are going to lose mightily. I did not sign 
that contract. As far as I know, not a single one of the 100 Members of 
the U.S. Senate signed that contract. Can you believe that that 
contract would be as dramaticaly unrealistic as it is--we are going to 
have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, provide $471 
billion in tax cuts, and defense increases. Most of the people who 
signed that are wannabes, people running for Congress who will say 
anything, sign their name to anything, and worry about the details 
later, after they have been elected.
  And they will do it in 100 days. We are supposed to be a deliberative 
body. If it takes 100 days, fine; if it takes 300 days, fine. These 
things are supposed to be seriously considered. 100 days? It would not 
have been unthinkable in this Senator's mind to spend half of that--
which we almost did--on this amendment until the American people 
focused on it and understood precisely what the consequences were going 
to be.
  I must say I was terribly chagrined when I realized that no change to 
the constitutional amendment was going to be adopted. We were presented 
with a constitutional amendment that was crafted by the House of 
Representatives and sent to the Senate, and they said here it is, do 
not change one word. Do not uncross one ``t,'' do not undot one ``i,'' 
do not change anything. Think of that, saying to Senators here, who 
represent the people of their States, who want to improve it or kill it 
or otherwise change it. And they say, no, you do not count. We have 52 
votes locked up over here and we will table anything you try to do. 
What kind of deliberative body is that? It is like saying we do not 
care that we are dealing with this precious document and we do not care 
what you think.
  That is not a fan you hear, Mr. President, that is the sound of James 
Madison whirling in his grave.
  I yield the floor and 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________