[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S5756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, once again I rise in support of the
pending proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced
Federal budget. The reason is quite simple. After all of the turmoil of
this past year, after all of the posturing and the pandering and the
promises and the Government shutdowns, Congress and the President have
not come to an agreement to balance the Federal budget. Short of a
constitutional requirement, I have serious doubts that the Congress and
the President will do so.
Admittedly, there is some political Presidential posturing going on
with this impending vote. The majority leader, who is his party's
presumptive Presidential nominee, is calling up this vote knowing full
well that he does not have the necessary two-thirds majority. On the
other hand, the President is proudly stating to the public that his
efforts in his deficit reduction plan have resulted in reducing the
annual deficit from when he took office from $294 billion to nearly
$130 billion this year. He has invited the majority leader to the White
House for further negotiations on balancing the budget.
When the majority leader leaves, I hope that the new majority leader
will be extended an invitation to go to the White House and to go
through negotiations and settle the differences.
In actual dollars and cents, I believe that over the 7-year period
there is something in the neighborhood of $12 trillion involved in the
budget process, and the difference between the White House's and the
Republican Party's position is only $100 billion. That is less than 0.8
of 1 percent. And that difference we ought to be able to resolve, get
together and work out.
However, this is a political year. We must recognize that. The Senate
has just completed action on a $1.6 trillion budget resolution proposed
by the majority party which seeks to balance the budget by 2002 with a
combination of tax and spending cuts. I supported a proposal submitted
by the President which also called for a balanced budget and would
achieve a balanced budget, but contained fewer tax cuts and less
cutting of the Medicare Program. However, this proposal was not
adopted.
The Senate and the House must settle their differences in regard to
the budget figures, and then the Appropriations Committees must act,
and a reconciliation bill must be passed. All of this must be signed by
the President. It is going to be a long, hot summer here in Washington
while the rest of the country simmers at our inaction.
The budget process is not easy, as we have learned from last year. It
does not guarantee that the President and the Congress will enact a
balanced Federal budget. We have seen this, gone through Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings and other proposals which tried to achieve a balanced budget.
But all of these have come up wanting. That is one of the reasons why I
feel that we need the discipline which a constitutional amendment will
provide.
I believe that most of my colleagues are well intentioned and want to
enact balanced budgets for the benefit of generations of Americans yet
to be born. Unfortunately, I have seen in my Senate career--some 18
years that I have been here--that we can often find an easy excuse for
not fulfilling our commitment to deliver a balanced budget each year.
There is a way out of the thicket right now in regard to the adoption
of the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. A handful
of Senators, I think as many as eight, have indicated they would vote
for the constitutional amendment if a compromise can be reached with
regard to the Social Security issue.
This compromise would not allow Social Security trust fund revenues
to be used when calculating whether the budget is balanced. Admittedly,
this will make balancing the Federal budget more difficult because the
Social Security trust fund surpluses will no longer be used to mask the
true size of the deficit.
A constitutional amendment will remove all doubt, regardless of
whether we reach any compromise pertaining to Social Security trust
funds or not. A constitutional amendment will remove all doubt, and the
Federal Government will have to balance its budget. The process will
still be difficult, but it will be necessary to achieve the final goal
as required by this proposed amendment to the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution, in my judgment, is a last-resort method
which should be utilized sparingly and only when the national interest
so demands. I am often asked to cosponsor worthy proposals to amend the
Constitution, but I rarely do so under the test that I have just
mentioned.
The balanced budget amendment meets that test. The national interest
demands that we act to allow the States the opportunity to ratify the
proposed amendment. They may not do so. And if that is the case, then
the will of the American people will have been spoken. Therein is the
genius of our Nation's organic document. Ultimately, the sovereign
power of the Government rests with the people.
These will perhaps be my last comments--or perhaps not my last
comments on this, but among my last words on this great issue. Further,
the first bill I introduced when I came to Congress was a bill calling
for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. I truly
believe that on behalf of the generations of Americans yet unborn, this
proposed amendment is necessary to prevent them from inheriting an even
greater debt than they now most certainly will incur.
Politics aside, now is the time to act, once and for all.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The 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.
____________________