[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 13 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S988-S991]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have had ample discussion this morning 
about a wide range of public issues, discussion about the President's 
State of the Union Address, and a discussion about the agenda before 
the Congress. I wanted to comment on a bit of that, and then begin a 
discussion about the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, 
which the Senate will shortly take up.
  First the general issues. I do not think there is a difference 
between folks who serve in this body on Government or the size of 
Government. I mean, I don't think there is a case where one side says, 
``We want bigger Government.''
  I don't want a bigger Government. I want a better country, and there 
are some circumstances under which the requirement for schools and 
roads and other things that we do together in Government are necessary. 
I want us to improve the things we do in Government. But there are 
things that are important for us to do together in Government.
  Part of the agenda that we discuss, part of the reason for us being 
in a U.S. Senate, is to decide what to do together to make this a 
better country.
  Provide for the common defense? Yes, we do that. We have a Defense 
Department. We created it, and we fund it. We ask men and women in 
uniform to go out and help preserve this country's liberty and put 
their lives on the line to do so. That is part of Government.
  Roads, schools, research in health care at the National Institutes of 
Health, the Coast Guard, and so much more--we do those things together. 
We should do them well. We should make sure they contribute to a better 
country and achieve the goals and objectives that we have for those 
functions.
  Some come to the floor and they say: Our objective is less 
Government, balance the budget, two or three other things, and that's 
all. My objective is this: I want better schools for our kids in this 
country, and we can do that and we should do that. And I want better 
paychecks for workers in this country.
  That has always been the legacy of what we fight for, a country in 
which workers might expect that they will have more opportunity, more 
job security, more advancement, their children will have more income 
and better opportunity and better educations.
  I believe we ought to have good health care in our country, and that 
does not come by accident. At the turn of the century you were expected 
to live to be age 48; 100 years later you are expected to live to 
nearly 78. Is that magic? No. Massive research in health care in this 
country has developed breathtaking new medicine, breathtaking new 
procedures so that those with cataracts now get surgery and see, those 
whose heart muscles get plugged now get open heart surgery and live, 
those with bad hips get their hips replaced and are out of the 
wheelchair and walk. Good health care.
  We don't see people getting on airplanes, leaving America to find 
good health care elsewhere. Our health care system is the envy of the 
world. By accident? No. Wonderful men and women working in health care, 
and a substantial amount of research, especially

[[Page S989]]

Government sponsored research, have allowed these breathtaking 
breakthroughs to occur.
  Safe streets? We want safe streets and safe neighbors. That deals 
with crime. That responds to police and security, the kinds of things 
that we also do in Government.
  Restoration of values? Yes, that is of interest. Really, not so much 
Government, but we all ought to care about it and work together on it.
  It starts in the home, the community, the neighborhood, the family. 
And a balanced budget? Absolutely. We ought not spend beyond our means.
  So better schools, bigger paychecks for workers, good health care, 
safe streets, a sound defense, restoration of values, balancing the 
budget--all of these things are things that we think can make this a 
better country and we ought to work on together.
  It is interesting to me that in the context of the balanced budget, 
we really also will have to talk about priorities. As we balance the 
budget--and we should--what are our priorities? What is important and 
what is not important? What do we invest in and what don't we invest 
in?
  For instance, do we build the star wars program? Do we build a 
program that will cost well over $100 billion, a program that many say 
is not needed? Do we build that and then say we do not have enough 
money to expand the Head Start Program for early intervention for kids?
  These questions are examples of the choices we must make. We must 
choose priorities that we want to develop. That is precisely what the 
Congress must be about: making choices, some of them very hard.
  I want to make one point as I begin talking about the constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. I am not someone who believes that we 
have made a lot of wrong choices in this country. I have heard people 
stand on this floor and talk about shame on the last 50 years in this 
country, shame on us, this country somehow has gone down the wrong 
road. What an awful place, we hear.
  I tell you, this country remains the beacon of hope for the rest of 
the world. I traveled in six countries in November, and one of the 
refrains I heard everywhere I went was they would like to come to 
America. They like America. America is opportunity. America is freedom. 
America is still a beacon of hope.
  We can dwell on the negative, and we have plenty of challenges and 
there are negatives, but look at the positives as well. This country is 
a remarkable country, with a remarkable economy and a market system 
that provides great jobs and great opportunity for a lot of people.
  I agree with those who say there is no social program in this 
country--none--that is as important as a good job that pays well. There 
is no social program as important as a good job that pays well. And 
that's why our economy and the market system that we have had has 
performed so well and helped us create a country that grows and 
prospers.
  As I said, we have lots of challenges, but part of why this has all 
happened is we have made a lot of right choices. We decided that we 
were going to have a substantial system of universal education for 
virtually anyone who wanted it. What happened?
  What happened was we led the world in virtually every area of 
technology and achievement. Who stood people on the Moon? The United 
States of America. How did that happen? It happened because massive 
investments in education unleashed the potential, the technology, the 
understanding and the knowledge that allowed us first to fly and then 
to fly to the Moon. And that has been true in virtually every other 
area of our life. Yes, space, technology, walking on the Moon, but 
health care, and in virtually every other area as well.
  We have made all kinds of decisions about what we do in all of these 
areas, and some of them have been great decisions. Let's have a Head 
Start Program. Let's invest in young kids. Let's build the best system 
of colleges in the world--in the world. No one else comes close to us. 
We have done all these things--including building up our national 
defense. There is no other military in any country that parallels ours 
or matches our strength.
  So it is time for us to understand a bit about what we have built, 
that this is a remarkable achievement.

  Where do we go from here? We can undercut all of those achievements 
and weaken this country substantially if we don't balance our budget. I 
agree with that. We ought to balance the Federal budget. I will say 
this, that I am one of those in 1993 who cast a very controversial 
vote, and the vote cut spending and increased some taxes. It carried by 
one single vote, and since that time, the unified budget deficit is 
down 60 percent.
  I am pleased I did it. Was it an easy vote? No. The political vote 
would have been to say, ``No, I don't want to do any heavy hitting.'' I 
did it because it was the right thing for this country. Controversial, 
yes, but right. We made some progress in reducing the Federal budget 
deficit, but it is not enough, and we must do more to balance the 
budget. The debate will be about changing the Constitution to balance 
the budget.
  Let me say that I am someone who will support a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. Do I think it is a great choice? No, 
not necessarily, but do I think it probably is a reasonable choice, 
given the need for fiscal policy discipline in our country? Yes. But I 
insist that it be done the right way, not the wrong way.
  I have been in the room where they wrote the Constitution of the 
United States, and for those who want to visit it, George Washington's 
chair still sits in front of the room. Fifty-five of them wrote a 
Constitution over 200 years ago. Some here think it is a rough draft. 
Every second day they want to make a change in the Constitution. I, 
frankly, don't see a lot of folks who can represent Madisons, Masons, 
or Franklins these days. So if we are going to change the Constitution, 
we need to think it through.
  We are going to have a proposition on the floor of the Senate that 
says, let us amend the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget. 
And it says that for describing when a budget is in balance, all 
spending and all revenue will be considered to determine whether the 
budget is in balance.
  The dilemma with that is this: In 1983 this country recognized it was 
going to have a difficult time with Social Security in the long term 
because America was growing older and there were going to be more 
people retiring relative to people working to support them in Social 
Security. So we decided that we would do something different for a 
change. We would begin saving in the Social Security system. In other 
words, each year taking in more in Social Security revenue than we need 
to expend, and that money would then be saved so that when the baby 
boomers retire after the turn of the century, we could more easily 
afford to pay them the benefits they will have earned.
  I was involved in that decision. I was on the House Ways and Means 
Committee, and I cast a vote in support of that legislation. But the 
decision was not to increase payroll taxes and accrue a body of savings 
so that someday later somebody can misuse it to claim they balanced the 
budget with Social Security trust funds. That is not what we said. We 
said, let's increase savings so that savings will be available after 
the turn of the century.
  When you describe a balanced budget proposal that says let's take 
Social Security trust funds and throw them over here to use the surplus 
to show we balanced the budget, I want to show you what happens. What 
happens is the very year in which the budget is balanced, according to 
the majority that is supporting this constitutional amendment, the very 
year in which they claim the budget of the United States is in balance, 
Federal debt will rise in that year by nearly $130 billion.
  Question: If the Federal debt is increasing by $130 billion in a 
year, is the budget in balance? If the budget is in balance, why would 
one have to increase the Federal debt?
  Answer: Because the budget isn't in balance. They pretend it is in 
balance, they say it is in balance, but they use the Social Security 
dedicated trust funds to make it look like it is in balance, but it is 
not. The Federal debt will continue to increase.
  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has put out a report that 
I hope my colleagues will read. In it they describe exactly this 
dilemma. The constitutional amendment that is going to

[[Page S990]]

be debated, and I will address this matter again during that debate, is 
an amendment that offers no choice. It says we will take the Social 
Security trust funds and use them as an offset for other revenue and 
claim we balanced the budget, when we really have not.
  We will give our Senate colleagues an opportunity to vote on another 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It is one that does it 
the right way. It says let us balance the budget. Let us require in the 
Constitution that we balance the budget. But let us do it exclusive of 
the Social Security trust funds because we promised that we would save 
those trust funds for the future when they are needed.
  This publication by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 
describes chapter and verse of exactly what is happening in this area. 
I have heard people come to the floor and say, ``Oh, what a bunch of 
prattle that is. What a bunch of nonsense, these folks worried about 
Social Security.'' Well, it is not prattle, and it is not nonsense.
  We had a column by Mr. Krauthammer in the Washington Post last week. 
It is the third column he has written on this subject. In it he says 
essentially what he has said before. He says, there is no Social 
Security trust fund. There is no Social Security trust fund.
  Let me suggest a tour to him in Parkersburg, WV, where, under armed 
guard, the bonds that are the securities of the Social Security trust 
fund exist. It would not be too long a drive for him to go on up there 
and take a look at those bonds.
  He is wrong. There is a Social Security trust fund. The dilemma is 
that there will not be anything there of meaning unless we decide to 
make the right choice here.
  Mr. Krauthammer also says that Social Security is a pay-as-you-go 
system. He must have missed 1983, because in 1983 it was decided that 
it will be more than a pay-as-you-go system. It was decided in 1983 
that we would collect more money than is necessary in current years, 
specifically in order to accrue a surplus. Social Security is more than 
a pay-as-you-go system. So, when Mr. Krauthammer says it is pay-as-you-
go, he clearly does not understand the law and clearly does not 
understand what the Congress did to save some money.
  Let me read for him and for others something from the 1983 commission 
on Social Security because they described exactly the plan. This is a 
quote by commission member Robert Ball in testimony before the House 
Ways and Means Committee talking about separating the Social Security 
system from the operating budget.

       Only by such a separation can it be made unmistakably clear 
     that Social Security decisions are being made for reasons 
     internal to [Social Security] and not for the purpose of 
     making a unified budget look better. Since Social Security 
     funds can be used only for Social Security benefits and to 
     pay for the cost of administration, I believe that separation 
     is also better accounting practice.

  The point is, the increase in taxes and the other things that were 
necessary to accrue this surplus in Social Security will all be 
obliterated by a decision to enshrine in the Constitution a practice of 
misusing the Social Security trust funds.
  Mr. Krauthammer does not like this problem. He says, well, this 
debate is without substance. I can only say that his argument is 
without substance. He is flat, dead wrong on this issue, demonstrably 
wrong. And he ought to know it. The minimum amount of research would 
tell him that.
  The same is true of colleagues here who have taken three lines of 
defense offered at different times by different people.
  One will pop up like one of these little carnival games and will say, 
``Well, first of all, there is no Social Security trust fund,'' and 
make a long, windy argument about it, and then sit down.
  Then someone else will pop up at another moment and say, ``All right, 
there is a Social Security trust fund, but we are not misusing the 
money,'' and then vanish.
  Then a day later someone else will pop up and say, ``All right, there 
is a Social Security trust fund, and we are misusing the money, and we 
pledge to stop doing it by the year 2008.''
  Those are the three stages of denial I have heard on the floor of the 
Senate, all from supporters of a constitutional amendment that would 
enshrine in the Constitution the practice of taking Social Security 
trust funds, using them as an offset against other revenue, and 
claiming you have balanced the budget at the same time that the Federal 
debt will increase by $130 billion the year they claim the budget is in 
balance.

  There is a way to solve this. A way to solve it is to vote for a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget that does not use or 
misuse the Social Security trust funds. I will offer it, along with my 
colleagues, Senator Reid, Senator Hollings, Senator Ford, Senator 
Feinstein, and others, and we will give people an opportunity to say, 
``Yes, I support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but 
when we do it, let us make sure we really balance the budget.''
  Let us make sure we keep the promise of accruing the surpluses in the 
Social Security trust fund and make sure that no one is able to misuse 
the Social Security trust fund in the future.
  Mr. President, there will be much more to discuss on this subject. I 
wanted to make note of the piece that Mr. Krauthammer did because it is 
the third time that he has essentially written the same piece, 
misunderstanding the issue in this country.
  Everybody has a right to be wrong. I do not quarrel with that.
  I just say that someone got up this morning and went to work. That 
person will work hard all day, and then collect a paycheck and discover 
that part of that paycheck is taken away first. The part taken away is 
called Social Security taxes, and it is promised by the Government to 
the worker that the amount of money we took from your paycheck is going 
to be put in a fund, and it is a fund dedicated for one purpose, Social 
Security. That worker does not deserve to have someone in Congress now 
say, ``Oh, but we changed our mind. That's the premise under which we 
took it from you, but we're using it for another purpose.'' That is 
precisely what is happening today. I think we ought to stop it. There 
is a way to stop it when we have these votes in the coming days or 
weeks.
  We can amend the Constitution the right way, or we can, as is usually 
the wont around here, mess around some more, talk and talk some more, 
and claim and claim some more that we have really done something worthy 
and meritorious and have balanced the budget, and then have some 
constituent stand up in a town meeting some night, somewhere, and ask 
you, ``Mr. Senator, if you balanced the budget, why did my son or 
daughter just inherit a Federal debt that went up $130 billion this 
year?'' I want to be in the room with a microphone to record the 
response because there is not a response that is adequate.
  What our constituents should expect from us is that we balance the 
budget the right way and that we amend the Constitution the right way. 
I hope at the end of this debate this Senate and this Congress will 
have determined to do that.
  It is not just a few Democrats who believe this is a serious problem. 
Several dozen Republicans over in the House of Representatives, some of 
whom I have talked to, make exactly the same case in the House of 
Representatives. So it is not a one-sided issue. We have Republicans 
and Democrats who believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to 
do things. Some of us are going to insist that when we do something as 
significant as amending the U.S. Constitution that finally we do it the 
right way.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  (The remarks of Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S. 265 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S991]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________