[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S585-S586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE AGENDA
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I just finished testifying before the
Senate Judiciary Committee on the issue of a constitutional amendment
to balance the budget. When I appeared before the committee, there was
a debt clock the chairman put up in the back of him. He hung it up in
the room. It showed the debt increasing every second as we were there
testifying. It was a fairly effective prop, I thought, because we ought
to be concerned about the debt. And we are on the right subject when we
are talking about eliminating the deficit and trying to reduce the
Federal debt.
But I pointed out to the chairman of the committee that if we pass
his proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget, if we pass
it right now, and then pass the proposed budget that will balance the
budget in the year 2002, it doesn't stop the debt clock. The debt clock
doesn't become a stopwatch on debt, because they are defining a
balanced budget as a budget that takes all the money in the Social
Security system that is coming in and uses it as other revenue to
balance the Federal budget. The result is, in the year 2002, when they
claim the budget will be in balance and they will comply with the
constitutional requirement to balance the budget, the debt in America
will increase by $130 billion.
I went to a small school, a high school class of nine. We didn't take
the most sophisticated arithmetic in the world, but I guarantee you
nobody in the country teaches that if you claim you balance the budget,
it is OK for your debt to continue to increase. Let me say it again.
They will enshrine in the U.S. Constitution a practice that takes
dedicated trust funds that can be used only for Social Security to be
used now as other revenue, and then claim they have balanced the
budget, even as the Federal debt will continue to increase by $130
billion a year after they say the budget is balanced.
It is not budgeting that is correct, it is budgeting that--if you
were in the private sector saying, by the way, in my business, I am
going to take the workers' pension funds and use them to cover my
operating loss in the business, it would get you sent off to 2 years of
hard tennis in a minimum security prison. That is illegal. In Congress,
they can simply change the definition so it allows them to say they
have balanced the budget, even when they have not balanced the budget
and are still borrowing $130 billion a year more. That is not a good
recipe for my children or yours. And it is not an honest way to balance
the budget.
We will introduce tomorrow, a group of us, a constitutional amendment
to balance the budget that says, yes, we support it. Let us do it the
right way, the honest way. If we are going to balance the budget, let
us do it the old-fashioned way. In fact, putting the provision in the
Constitution won't balance the budget. It will be men and women who
vote for a combination of taxing and spending changes that ultimately
will balance the budget.
We have made progress, and I am proud to say that I am part of the
team that has allowed us to make that progress year after year,
reductions in appropriations in program after program, year after year,
biting the bullet to do the tough things, make the hard choices, to
bring the budget deficit down 4 years in a row, down by 60 percent. I
am pleased to be a part of the group in this body that says that is the
right course, it's the responsible thing, a thing we ought to do for
our children's future.
Now, Mr. President, let me make a final point. We are going to
introduce that tomorrow with eight or nine of us as original
cosponsors. I hope that will be considered whenever there is
consideration of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That
is an important first topic for this Congress--again, how to get our
fiscal house in order. But there is much more to be done.
The convening of a new Congress is not just about trumpeting by
elephants or parading by donkeys; it is about people representing men
and women of good will across the country who send us here to do the
public's business and to try to do the things that improve the future
of this country.
We care about education because that is America's future. What do we
do to improve education in this country? That is a topic that we need
to address. We can address that in a bipartisan way, in my judgment.
What about health care? What about 10 million kids who don't have
health care? What about a 2-year-old that is crying with an ache in his
stomach, but his parents don't have money in their wallets and can't
take him to a doctor they believe in? We should address health care.
That is the right subject.
What about the environment? Nobody in America would have predicted
that in the past 20 years we have doubled our use of energy, but we now
have cleaner air and cleaner water. Why did we end up with cleaner air
and water when we doubled our use of energy? Because this Congress said
to those who pollute this country, ``You can't do that anymore.'' We
are not done with that job. There is more to do. But that is the right
topic as well, to improve the future of this country.
Crime. Yes, crime. They say statistics show that crime has
diminished. We have a lot to do on crime. I am somebody who believes we
ought to say to people in this country: If you commit a violent act,
you stay in jail until the end of your time, and no time off for good
behavior. You go to prison and stay there. We have a lot to do on
crime. We can do that, I hope, in a bipartisan way.
Trade. I hope in the next few days my distinguished colleague from
West Virginia and I will introduce, once again, a piece of legislation
we introduced toward the end of the last session, which says, what
about the other deficit, the deficit that is increasing at an alarming
rate, the merchandise trade deficit, which was the largest in the
history of this country last year, breaking records 3 years in a row.
What about the other deficit? How does this country get its trade in
balance? Because the trade deficit, after all, must be repaid in the
future with a lower standard of living in this country. That is why it
is dangerous for our future. That represents an export of American
jobs. Jobs that used to be here are there. Jobs that used to be ours
are theirs. We must confront this trade deficit. It is dangerous for
this country to proceed without dealing with the other deficit, the
merchandise trade deficit, which, after all, in my judgment, is the
deficit that will inexorably weaken this country.
No country will long remain a world economic power unless it retains
a strong manufacturing base. The merchandise trade deficit represents
the erosion of America's manufacturing base, the loss of American jobs,
jobs that pay well, jobs that have good benefits. That is why it is so
critically important to the future of our economy. I will be
introducing again some days ahead, with Senator Byrd, the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, a piece of legislation that establishes an
emergency commission to make recommendations in how to address this
[[Page S586]]
vexing, dangerous merchandise trade deficit.
Mr. President, I know the Senator from Florida is waiting for the
floor. I yield the floor to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. GRAHAM. yes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at conclusion
of the remarks by the distinguished Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham],
I be recognized for not to exceed 5 minutes in morning business for the
purpose of introducing a bill and making some comments thereon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________