[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 40 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3455-S3456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate that round one of the
balanced budget effort has been disposed of. But there will be other
rounds. Our new Republican colleague, Senator Campbell, when he was
talking to some of the reporters, was saying the thing that really made
the decision for him was the balanced budget amendment and the games
that are being played with the balanced budget amendment and those who
one year vote one way and the next year vote another way on the
balanced budget amendment.
As I said in my remarks yesterday, it seems to me that this issue
should not and will not go away. We will proceed on the basis that the
balanced budget amendment will be passed. We will see how many are
willing to make the tough votes--we hope a majority on both sides of
the aisle--and we will see about Social Security and some of the other
smokescreens that were talked about during the debate.
But I would just assure my colleagues that this issue--and it is an
issue and will continue to be an issue because 80 percent of the
American people have told us that they want a balanced budget
amendment. We have told them we do not care what you want, we know what
is best. A minority of 34 knows what is best, even though a majority of
80 percent have a different view.
So I am excited about the prospects of taking this case to the
American people for the next 3 months, 4 months, 6 months, 8 months, 10
months, a year, 16 months, whatever it takes because it is that
important. Again, it is not a matter of partisanship, because I
congratulate the 14 Democrats who withstood the pressure from the White
House and the leadership on the other side to vote consistently and to
vote their convictions. This was a bipartisan effort, as it should have
been. And I read the obituaries in the morning's paper about what it
means for A or X or Y or Z. It is what it means to the American people
that makes the difference. And what it means to the American people is
that the U.S. Senate by one vote, one vote, has said wait. You have to
wait. We will make these judgments for you. You do not understand. We
understand all these complex issues.
But I must say traveling around the country when you make speeches
and you talk about unfunded mandates, people say ``Well, I do not think
I have had that.'' They do not really focus on unfunded mandates. You
talk about covering Congress like we cover everybody else. Most people
say that is a good idea. But I find the thing that the American people
understand without any further explanation is when you say ``balanced
budget.'' They are doing it in their business. They are doing it in
their homes. They are doing it in their offices, and they understand
the balanced budget. They also understand regulatory reform, which is
another issue that will be on this floor very soon.
So I do not know when this reconsideration will take place, but
hopefully very soon. But if not, there is time to take the case to the
American people. I do not suggest that many of my colleagues were not
properly motivated. But I think in some cases it was a lot of politics,
and that is not without precedent on either side of the aisle either, I
would say, because this is a political institution in a sense. But this
issue is larger than any one Senator or larger than this institution.
As I have said, we do not amend the Constitution lightly around here.
We certainly had adequate debate.
I conclude by saying to all of my colleagues that we are going to
have to change our operating rules in the Senate because we are now
starting to report out some of the legislation.
So I just alert my colleagues to be prepared to be here almost every
night until 10 or 11 o'clock. There will not be any recesses in the
Senate this year that I can see after the Easter recess. We have tried
to accommodate our colleagues who want to spend 10 days on this, 3
weeks on this, 3 or 4 weeks on this. And I do not know of any other way
to finish our work. But I think every Senator will accept that because,
if we want to have these extended debates and we want to have this full
discussion, then certainly we understand that it is going to take more
time. I do not have any objection to that except to say that we are
going to try to complete our work this year. I do not see any other way
unless there is some way that the Democratic leader and I could come
together and figure out some way to do it. But if you look at what has
happened so far this year, we have had about 2 months now on three
pieces of legislation.
And we have been in session almost every day. Maybe that is the way it
is. On that basis, you would pass about 15 pieces of legislation.
I alert my colleagues that we are going to meet with the Democratic
leader next week to try to outline a program for the next couple of
months. I know that after legislation comes from the House it properly
goes to committees here and we have hearings and markups. The line-item
veto will be on this floor by the end of next week, and we will stay on
the line-item veto and we will be here nights. We are not going to
spend 30 days on the line-item veto. We will find out where the votes
are when the President says he supports a line-item veto. We will see
if
[[Page S3456]] he really believes in it. If you are really going to
work for the line-item veto. We hope he does.
So I alert my colleagues that though many of us would like to have a
little more time off these next few months, I do not believe it is
possible. If it is, I will try to accommodate all my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
The Balanced Budget Amendment
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have heard speeches this morning that
suggest because the balanced budget amendment has been defeated, we
somehow have to wait to balance the budget. I simply say that there is
no need to wait. There is nothing that prevents us from moving to write
budgets that balance the budget. We can do that in the normal process
of the Congress--and we should.
Mr. President, no one should use as an excuse that the balanced
budget amendment failed. Mr. President, we have an obligation--all of
us, Democrats and Republicans--to now go to work to move this country
toward balance. And there is no time to spare, because we face a
demographic time bomb in this country; that is, when the baby boomers
start to retire and the number of people who are eligible for Medicare
and Social Security doubles. That requires that we go to work and write
balanced budgets.
Mr. President, I want to just put in some perspective why some of us
felt so keenly that the balanced budget amendment that was before us
was flawed. I come from a financial background. I was a tax
commissioner of my State before I came to this body. In that position,
I fought the looting of trust funds at the State level. We were faced
with it consistently because we had large energy trust funds and,
repeatedly, there were attempts by people in the legislature to raid
those funds. I thought it was wrong then. I thought it was wrong when I
came to this Chamber that we were doing the same thing with respect to
trust funds.
Mr. President, I think when people talk about a balanced budget
amendment, we ought to ask: What budget was being balanced? What budget
was being balanced with that amendment that we considered yesterday?
I remind my colleagues of the language of section 7, which defined
what budget was being balanced. It said:
Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United
States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total
outlays shall include all outlays of the United States
Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Mr. President, this definition includes all Social Security revenue
and all Social Security outlays. And the problem is, Social Security is
not contributing to the deficit; it is in surplus. So, by definition,
the amendment we were considering yesterday would have taken Social
Security surpluses and applied them to other operating expenses of the
Federal Government. That is what was wrong with the amendment we
considered yesterday. In principle, that is what was wrong.
Mr. President, I understand fully that when you do not use Social
Security surpluses, when you do not use trust fund moneys, that makes
the task more difficult. That makes the challenge greater. But I do not
think we should say to the American people we are balancing the budget
when we are really looting and raiding trust funds in order to balance
the budget. That is a fraud. That should not be enshrined in the
Constitution of the United States, because that would make it virtually
impossible to fix. And if we fail to fix it, the economic implications
for the future are far more severe. We will never be able to keep the
promise to those who have paid the taxes on the promise that they will
receive retirement benefits, if we do not treat the Social Security
surpluses that are supposed to be treated as a trust fund in that way.
During the discussions, a number of the leaders who were proponents
of the amendment came to me in an attempt to secure my vote and said
they would agree to stop using the Social Security trust fund surpluses
by the year 2012.
Mr. President, this chart shows what they were suggesting. This chart
shows the flow of funds in the Social Security trust fund. The year
2012 is about here on the chart. So when they are saying they would use
the Social Security trust fund surpluses until the year 2012, they were
saying they would use most of the trust fund moneys, because you can
see that is about the high-water mark of the buildup of the trust fund.
Then it starts to decline as the baby boom generation starts to retire.
I said, no, I would not accept a proposal that would use trust fund
moneys until the year 2012. That is about $2 trillion that would have
been used. They came back to me several moments later and said, ``How
about if we stopped using the Social Security trust fund money by the
year 2008?''
Mr. President, I said no to 2008 because after consulting on the flow
of funds that moved through the trust funds or the projections of the
flow of funds, my staff reported to me that it would be $1.3 trillion.
Mr. President, I think those exchanges confirm that those who were
proponents of the amendment fully intended to use Social Security trust
fund moneys to offset other Government operating expenses. I think that
is wrong as a principle, just wrong. I do not think we should do that.
I think it would be a mistake to do that. I understand that it makes
the job tougher.
Mr. President, if we are going to tell the American people we are
balancing the budget, then I think we ought to do it honestly. We ought
to be really balancing the budget, not taking trust fund moneys to help
balance the budget. If that means we have to stretch out the time
period so that we set an honest goal, then we should do that. And the
reason I feel this so acutely is when we look at what the flow of funds
will be, or are projected to be, if we do not save that money, when we
reach out here in 2025 and when we reach 2029, all of the money is
gone. It is all gone by 2029. And that assumes that we allow the trust
funds to be built up. So I think it is imperative that we treat the
trust funds separately from the other operating accounts of the
Government.
Mr. President, let me just go back to this final chart because it
speaks to the need for all of us to come together.
We have had high levels of partisanship in the last days, and perhaps
that was inevitable. I think some of the things that have been said
that question each other's motives are unfortunate. I think when
Members of Congress start name calling, that is uncalled for. None of
us should engage in that. That demeans this institution.
Mr. President, we now do have an obligation to try to address what is
a serious crisis facing this country.
This chart shows why current trends are not sustainable. The green
line here shows the revenues anticipated for the United States. It
shows the history from 1970 to today and a projection out to the year
2030. Revenue is pretty constant. The colored bars here show the
expenses. And we can all see what is going to happen because of this
demographic time bomb, the tremendous number of baby boomers who are
going to retire and what that does to Medicare and Medicaid and Social
Security. It explodes the costs. That has to be addressed. And nothing
precludes us from doing that.
Mr. President, it is time for us to work together, to put aside
partisanship to get the job done.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________