[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 40 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3440-S3441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for that 
analysis. Of course, that was the issue yesterday as we debated and 
finally voted on House Joint Resolution 1. For over 5 weeks we had 
debated the issue of a balanced budget and why this Government and why 
the Congress of the United States ought to be held to the constraints 
of a constitutional amendment requiring us to balance the Federal 
budget. While there were many arguments from a variety of perspectives, 
there was one overriding influence that could not be ignored nor could 
it be denied, and that was, had this issue passed the Senate yesterday, 
it would have been sent to our 50 States to begin a ratification 
process that I believe would have moved very rapidly to gain the 
necessary 38 States to bring about ratification.
  In doing that, of course, the Congress knew that would begin a long 
and very difficult process to move us to a balanced budget by the year 
2002,
 but one the American people now demand and expect from us, and one we 
know we can accomplish, if we can bring about the discipline but, more 
importantly, the pressure and the kind of control that a balanced 
budget amendment to our Constitution would result in.

  There are so many who wrung their hands in the argument that this 
could never be done. But I argue that those who argue that are the many 
of the past. They are the ones who still are stuck in the idea or the 
concept that the Federal Government and its programs must manage and 
control people and direct an economy of a country outside the 
marketplace. That, of course, is exactly what the Congress of the 
United States has done for over 30 years, and we have seen results. We 
have seen the results of a $34.8 trillion debt that remains totally out 
of control. We have seen the results of how interest on that debt 
eroded any ability to spend both in discretionary and entitlement 
programs and locks us into a straitjacket of program and time and 
spending.
  But something else that is also, I think, reflective of that debate 
is that those who argue it argue the status quo. They argue government 
as if it were something static, that it will never change, or that the 
Senators and the Members of the House who are involved in governing 
this country will always vote to have exactly the same programs, that 
we will not eliminate an agency, that we will not reduce or change a 
priority, and that we will not shift the intent of the governing of 
this country from one area to another.
  That is a very false and phony argument. Certainly it is to the 
American people because, if there is anything sure about our country, 
it is change, and it occurs on a constant and daily basis. It is the 
Government that finds itself incapable of changing. So simply to say we 
cannot balance the budget because we cannot get there is to clearly 
argue that it is going to be the same Government and the same kind of 
budget, and we are going to ramp it up to 3, 4, 5, to 6 percent a year 
on the average and heading as far as the eye can see in that direction.
  Why do I say that? Because that is exactly what President Clinton's 
budget demonstrated when he presented it here but a few weeks ago. Here 
is a President who came to town arguing that he must have the largest 
tax increase in history, and, if we gave it to him, that he would then 
begin a very progressive approach toward a budget that would bring us 
to a balanced budget that would bring down the deficit and continue to 
bring it down. That is what he campaigned on. That is what he promised 
the American people. That is what he, the President of the United 
States, promised this Senate and this Congress less than 2 years ago as 
he argued for and his party gave him the largest tax increase in 
history. Then in a most cavalier way, as he presented the budget just 
this year, he not only showed that he would not control the deficit, he 
said let the Republicans make the cuts. Let us see what they want to 
do. Let them make the cuts.
  Mr. President, that is why we need a balanced budget amendment so 
that the Executive of this country can be as responsible as the 
legislative branch of this country, that budgeting becomes a 
partnership of cooperation where the President, the executive branch, 
brings about a balanced budget just as much and just as responsibly as 
the legislative branch of Government must do.
  That is, of course, exactly what the constitutional amendment 
required as we looked at it the other day. That is why five of our 
colleagues from the other side who had once voted with us turned tail 
and ran away from their commitment and their pledge to their 
constituents. I am frustrated by that because they are honorable 
people. All of us in our pledge to our constituency attempt to honor 
it, and yet that did not happen yesterday on five very distinct votes. 
That is too bad.
  We hope as we work this issue and continue to work this issue that we 
can regain the support of those Senators who left us yesterday and left 
their constituency.
  We have several others who want to speak this morning. Before I 
yield, let me make one other point that I think 
[[Page S3441]] is so fundamentally important as we debate a balanced 
budget amendment and as we continue to work on this issue and as we 
continue to assure the American people that we will do all within our 
power to bring down the deficits and to control our debt structure for 
now and for future generations.
  Article V of our Constitution--that is the article that speaks to how 
we amend the organic document--speaks very clearly about how it gets 
done. It says that the Congress shall propose an amendment. That is in 
the first part of article V.
  The second part of article V allows the States to petition for the 
formation of a constitutional convention. Many of us are concerned that 
a convention is not the right way to go and that the most responsible 
way is for the Congress of the United States to craft and propose an 
amendment.
  Yesterday, the vote that we cast here was not to pass a balanced 
budget amendment; it was to propose a balanced budget amendment to our 
Constitution. And in so doing that, it then would allow the citizens of 
our country, the State legislatures, or, if they chose, the forming of 
a convention to debate and ratify the amendment. That action to propose 
was denied yesterday--not to pass but to propose--to send out to the 
States, to conform with article V of the Constitution.
  In essence, what Senators who opposed that process yesterday did was 
to say to their citizens, ``We will not give you the right to choose, 
we will not give you the right to look at this issue, to debate it, to 
understand the process, and to decide whether you want your Government 
to live under a constitutional requirement for a federally balanced 
budget.'' I find that an amazing testimony.
  I really would like those Senators to go home and hold a press 
conference and tell their electorate, ``We did not think you were 
responsible, we did not think you ought to have the right under the 
Constitution to decide,'' because that is exactly what they did. That 
in itself is a tragedy. But more importantly, what this is is a 
reaffirmation of something with which the American people have known 
for a long while, and they spoke so clearly about it last November. 
That was the arrogance of power that resides here on Capitol Hill, this 
all-knowing knowledge that somehow, if the wisdom does not emanate from 
Capitol Hill, it is unwise; that somehow the States and those who 
reside in the States cannot think for themselves, cannot make those 
judgments. That is absolutely the reverse philosophy from those who 
founded our country and who wrote the Constitution and who got it 
ratified. In fact, House Joint Resolution 1 that we voted on yesterday 
was very much a part of the style and the type of constitutional 
amendment that a Tom Jefferson would have put in the Constitution 
because it reflected that attitude of the power and the right of the 
individual citizen and the power to the States and the ability of the 
States to control their central government.
  Yesterday, the Senators who opposed this said very clearly under all 
of the smokescreen and all of the excuses that they gave for not voting 
for it--there were two fundamental things. They did not believe in the 
rights of the States to control their central government, and they 
would not give the citizens of those States the right to choose that 
option. I think that is profound, and it is sad. But that is the 
reality of what happened yesterday.
  It is very important that the American people understand that message 
in the coming days and weeks as we work to revisit this issue to gain 
the necessary 67 votes or the two-thirds votes of this body to propose 
it and to send it to the States for ratification.
  At this time, let me yield to my colleague from Georgia, Senator 
Coverdell, who has worked so closely with us on this issue, has worked 
on a team of Senators who met daily over the course of the last 5 weeks 
to develop the issue and work with Senator Orrin Hatch here on the 
floor, to build the debate. I think it was a remarkable task. I say 
that because for well over 100 hours and for 5 long weeks we debated 
this issue, and there was very little dead time, as we call it, or 
quorum calls because there truly was a message that came through loud 
and clear from this side of the aisle as to the purpose of a balanced 
budget amendment, and part of that message was crafted by the Senator 
from Georgia.
 I am pleased to yield to him at this time for such time as he might 
consume.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.

                          ____________________