[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3384-S3386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise to make a couple comments 
concerning the balanced budget amendment vote today, because I think in 
my 14\1/2\ years in the Senate, it is probably the most important vote 
that we have cast. In my Senate career, we voted on a balanced budget 
amendment four times--three times for real; and once on a cloture vote 
to end debate on a balanced budget amendment which I offered.
  We passed it once, in 1982. We passed it with 69 votes. It was a 
bipartisan vote. At that time, the majority leader of the Senate was 
Howard Baker. I remember his support for the amendment. We had the 
support of Ronald Reagan, who was President at the time. But we lost by 
just a few votes in the House of Representatives.
  The reason we lost the vote today is because six people who voted for 
the balanced budget amendment a year ago voted against it today. They 
have the right to change their minds. Many of the people that voted 
against it today who voted for it last year said they wanted to protect 
Social Security. But when they voted for it last year, there was no 
specific protection for Social Security. Those individuals thought the 
balanced budget amendment was worthy of voting for last year, but they 
voted against it this year. They have that right, and I respect 
Senators for their votes. I also think they should be held accountable.
  When people are running for reelection, they many times claim, ``Oh, 
yes I have always voted for a balanced budget amendment.''
  But today we had a chance to vote for one for real. The one we voted 
on last year, in all likelihood, was not going to pass. The House tried 
it last year and they lost by a few votes. We lost by a few votes.
  This year, the House passed it. This year, if the Senate had passed 
it and we worked out whatever small differences we had between the 
House and the Senate, it would have gone to the States and we would 
have found out whether 38 States would have ratified it. My guess is, 
they would. My guess is, we would have followed the advice of Thomas 
Jefferson. We would have enacted an additional amendment which would 
prohibit Congress from spending more than they take in. Thomas 
Jefferson was right.
  Bob Dole was right when he made his comments. I want to compliment 
Senator Dole for his leadership. He has shown great patience. We spent 
over a month on this amendment. The House of Representatives debated it 
for 2 days. The Senate spent a month. Senator Dole indicated the 
willingness to spend another week if we could have picked up the 
necessary votes. But we might spend another 2 months and still not get 
67 votes. Senator Dole can count votes. All of us can. Many of us were 
working, trying to make a difference, but we were not successful, 
mainly because six people changed their minds. They have the right to 
change their minds, but people need to know why we did not pass it.
  In the November elections, we elected a lot of new people.
  As a matter of fact, all 11 new Senators elected in the 1994 
elections voted for it. But six people who voted for it in the past 
decided to vote against it. That is the reason the amendment failed.
  To pass a constitutional amendment is a high bar to jump over. It is 
not easy. You have to pass the constitutional amendment by two-thirds 
in both Houses, and then additionally it has to be ratified by three-
fifths of the States. That is not easily done.
  We have had 27 amendments to the Constitution, 10 of which were the 
Bill of Rights and were ratified very early in our history. We have 
only had 17 since then. Sixty-six Members of this body felt as though 
we should have the balanced budget amendment, as well. The American 
people have supported it. It was mentioned two or three times on the 
floor that 80 percent of the American people believe we should have it.
  I have been here long enough to know we need a balanced budget 
amendment. I have served on the Budget Committee; I have served on the 
Appropriations Committee; and now I serve on the Finance Committee. I 
think we need the discipline. It would not be necessary if we had a 
strong majority of both bodies, being fiscally responsible Members. 
Maybe then we would not need a balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. President, I am totally committed to trying to balance the 
budget, whether we pass the amendment or not. I think we ought to do it 
by the year 2002. So I hope that we will pass a budget resolution that 
will move Congress toward balancing the budget no later than the year 
2002. I hope we can pass it in both the House and the Senate.
  Maybe that will be the easy part. Then we will have to pass the 
implementing legislation to make it happen, pass what we call a 
reconciliation bill and all 13 appropriations bills. We will 
[[Page S3385]] make Congress, for the first time, really cut 
entitlements. If we do not reduce the rate of growth of entitlements, 
we will never balance the budget.
  Mr. President, the figures are not that complicated. We are spending 
about $1.5 trillion right now. We are taking in a little over $1.3 
trillion. So we have a deficit of $200 billion per year. Unfortunately, 
President Clinton's budget does nothing to reduce the deficit. The 
deficit stays at least about $200 billion for the foreseeable future, 
and then escalates much, much higher in future years.
  He does not touch entitlements; I had charts up earlier this week 
showing what the President has accomplished budgetwise. The President 
has said in his first 2 years, he has reduced the deficit by $600 
billion, but the facts do not agree with him. The facts are that 
spending has not been cut in the President's first 2 years. Actually, 
spending went up, if we use the CBO baseline. And President Clinton 
mentioned, in his State of the Union speech, that we should use the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  Spending has not been cut. Actually, spending for the first 4 years 
of his administration goes up, compared to what would have otherwise 
happened. So spending has gone up, not down. That is evidenced by the 
fact that we used to spend $1.3 trillion a couple years ago, and now we 
spend $1.5 trillion. Under the President's budget year we spent $1.6 
trillion, and by the year 2000, we spend $1.9 trillion. Spending goes 
up every year.
  The facts are, also, we can balance the budget if we limit the growth 
of spending to about 3 percent per year. The total amount of money that 
we spend, if we can limit that growth to 3 percent, we can balance the 
budget.
  I did not say cut spending; I say limit the growth of spending. We 
will have to somehow ingrain this in people's minds. I can tell Members 
right now when we come up with a budget people will say, ``Republicans, 
are slashing programs. You are insensitive. You are making tough 
decisions.'' We should be.
  But I also say, Mr. President, even under the Republicans, and in 
spite of all the slashing that we will be accused of, Federal spending 
will continue to escalate. I would like for Congress to freeze Federal 
spending. We are spending $1.5 trillion. I would like for Congress to 
spend next year $1.5 trillion. If we have an increase in some programs, 
that means other programs will have to be reduced to pay for it. That 
is what I would like. If we kept spending $1.5 trillion, we could 
balance the budget before the year 2002.
  Mr. President, we have to do it. I just hope that our colleagues, now 
that they have defeated this balanced budget amendment, will help us. 
Many people on the other side of the aisle said we do not need a 
balanced budget amendment. Many Members on this side of the aisle on 
the Budget Committee, on the Finance Committee, on the Appropriations 
Committee, I believe are committed to trying to balance the budget by 
the year 2002, because we think that is the right thing to do.
  I can tell Members it probably will not be the right thing 
politically. We will expose ourselves politically. People will say, 
``You are slashing popular programs and you are not going to be popular 
if you cut this program or that program,'' and we will have to cut most 
all programs. I say cut. We will have to reduce the rate of growth in 
almost all programs if we are going to get there. I hope that we have 
the courage to do it. I think we need to do what needs to be done to 
make Congress balance the budget, regardless of whether or not we pass 
the balanced budget amendment.
  I am really disappointed that we did not pass it today. I think if we 
would have passed it today, it would have changed the way we do 
business. I think people in the Budget Committee, in the Finance 
Committee, in the Appropriations Committee would say, ``Wait a minute; 
this is a different era.''
  We stand right here in this Senate and put our hand on the Bible and 
swear to uphold the Constitution. That is the reason it is more 
important than a statute. That is the reason I think we would be more 
committed to abiding by that balanced budget amendment, regardless of 
the enforcement mechanism, because we are sworn to uphold the 
Constitution. I think we are serious when we take that oath.
  A lot of our colleagues said that the amendment is not necessary. 
Well, we will try to do it, anyway. We will find out how sincere they 
are when we have the tough votes. We will find out what happens when we 
try to curb the growth of entitlements.
  I will give an example. We have 336 different welfare programs--336--
most of them stacked on top of each other. Many of which are 
counterproductive to our goals, if we want to try to help people, 
because it is making people become addicted to Federal programs--
addicted to Federal assistance--not helping them climb up the economic 
ladder, but basically addicted to this idea that, ``Hey, Government 
will take care of me, so why should I bother?'' We have 152 different 
job programs. I know the Senator from Kansas is looking at 
consolidating many of those programs and giving them to the States to 
determine how best to manage them.
  We have to curb programs like Medicaid, which has grown annually by 
28, 29, 13, and 8 percent. We cannot continue to have rates of growth 
like that. We will have to curtail programs like the earned income tax 
credit that President Clinton is so proud of. His tax bill increased it 
dramatically. Three years ago, it cost $5 billion a year. In 3 years, 
it will cost $25 billion per year. These are astronomical rates of 
growth.
  The EITC is an entitlement program. I read by one estimation that 40-
some percent of the people in the District of Columbia are eligible for 
the earned income tax credit. That is absurd. It is a negative income 
tax under which Uncle Sam writes checks. It is rife with fraud. The IRS 
is now slowing the processing of returns because of fraud. A lot of 
people found out, ``If I give you a few hundred dollars for your social 
security number, I can do your return and collect a $1,000 or $2,000 
check from Uncle Sam.'' A lot of people are pulling that scam.
  Food stamps--we have had unbelievable fraud and abuse in food stamps. 
The program's cost has compounded in growth well beyond inflation. We 
will have to take all programs, Mr. President, and look to scale many 
back substantially. If we want programs to grow more than 2 percent or 
3 percent per year, we will have to cut other programs to make that 
happen.
  I just hope we will have the courage to do it, in a bipartisan 
fashion. I hope that we will come up with a budget unlike President 
Clinton's, which projects $200 billion deficits forever. I hope that we 
will pass a program that will bring the deficits on a downward trend 
where we will be down to zero no later than the year 2002. That will 
not be easy. And maybe if we cannot do it--I hope we can, but maybe we 
cannot--people on the other side will realize they made a mistake in 
voting against the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. 
Maybe they will realize that we need that kind of discipline to be able 
to say no.
  Congress will have to say no to Federal spending if we are ever going 
to get there. You are more popular as elected officials giving people 
money, cutting ribbons for more Federal spending, for XYZ school and 
XYZ projects, than taking away from them in taxation. You are more 
popular giving than taking away, and more popular spending than taxing.
  I am really disappointed in the vote today. I think we need a 
constitutional amendment. I hope and expect that we will have the 
opportunity to vote again, and maybe they will hear from their 
constituents. I hope people across the country, when they find out that 
their elected Members voted against this amendment, will talk to their 
Members,
 and let them know how strongly they feel that this amendment should 
have passed.

  If this is a democracy where people really have a chance to meet with 
their constituencies and listen to their constituencies, this amendment 
should pass, and I believe it will pass. I would like for it to pass 
this year. Maybe it will take another election. The American people 
spoke clearly in the elections in 1994. I believe they will be speaking 
very loudly in 1996, and maybe they will hold their elected Members 
accountable. Then maybe that will enable us to pick up the extra 
[[Page S3386]] vote or two necessary to pass this amendment.
  So, Mr. President, I am very sincere in saying I think this is 
probably the most important vote we have had in decades. It is 
unfortunate it did not pass today. It did not fail for a lack of effort 
or leadership on behalf of Senator Dole. He showed great patience and, 
I think, great leadership. I also wish to compliment Senator Hatch and 
Senator Craig for the hours and hours that they spent on the floor. It 
is just unfortunate we were not successful.
  I hope that the American people help us succeed, not just for 
Republicans in the Senate, not just for the idea of a balanced budget 
but really succeed for American taxpayers, for our children. People 
should not be confused about claims that, ``I would vote for that 
except I want to protect the Social Security trust funds.''
  That is one of the most absurd arguments made on the floor of the 
Senate. How can they protect Social Security trust funds which do not 
exist? The Social Security trust fund is a falacy. There are no trust 
funds. There is not a bank account where any person in America can go 
look at the billions of dollars accumulating there. The trust fund is 
full of IOU's. And very soon, perhaps by the year 2013, we are going to 
be paying out more than is coming in.
  At that point it is assumed that we will start cashing in on the 
trust fund IOU's. But what is really there? There is nothing in the 
trust fund but an IOU. How do we pay off Government IOU's? We borrow 
more money. By the year 2013, we are going to be paying more in social 
security benefits more than we take in from social security payroll 
taxes, and for each IOU we cash in to pay benefits we are going to have 
to borrow to pay off the IOU. That will put an enormous burden on 
younger generations.
  I think my colleagues who say they voted against this amendment to 
protect the trust funds do not understand that there are no real trust 
funds, there is no bank account, there is no fund where money is 
actually accumulating. There is just a Government IOU, and that 
Government IOU is going to be paid for like we pay other Government 
IOU's. It is going to be paid for with additional borrowing.
  Maybe that was the political cover they needed to excuse them from 
voting against this amendment, but it is very deceptive and very 
misleading. I think we have to be truthful with the American people.
  Again, those same people who voted ``no'' today voted ``yes'' last 
year, and we had no special protection for social security. We had no 
such exemption for Social Security. I hope that the people will speak 
out loud and clear to their elected officials, and maybe we can reverse 
the result that we had on the floor today.
  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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________