[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 13 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S994-S1015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3 p.m.
having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of
Senate Joint Resolution 1 for debate only. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced
budget.
The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Privileges of the Floor
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Manus
Cooney, Sharon Prost, Shawn Bentley, Paul Larkin, Larry Block, Steve
Tepp, Troy Dow, and Paul Joklik be permitted privileges of the floor
for the duration of the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today we begin one of the most important
debates that has ever taken place in the U.S. Senate or in the Congress
of the
[[Page S995]]
United States. The subject matter goes to the very heart of our
Founding Fathers' hope for our constitutional system--a system that
would protect individual freedom through the maxim of limited
Government.
In the latter half of this century, however, the intentions of the
Framers of the Constitution have been betrayed by the Congress'
inability to control its own spending habits. The size of this Federal
leviathan has grown to such an extent that the very liberties of the
American people are threatened.
I just stood at a press conference with our Democratic cosponsors of
this amendment, and there was a huge table filled with unbalanced
budgets since 1969.
History was made in the 104th Congress when 300 of our courageous
colleagues in the House of Representatives, both Democrats and
Republicans, approved a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the same measure was defeated in this Chamber by one
solitary single vote.
This year we begin a new Congress following an intensive fall
campaign in which people in every State across this Nation made
unmistakably clear their insistence that we put our fiscal house in
order. The eyes of the people, now more than two-thirds of whom favor a
balanced budget amendment, now turn to us to follow through on our
promises.
I am pleased to be joined by 61 of my colleagues, including every
Republican Senator in the U.S. Senate and 7 bold Democrats who have
done exactly that in sponsoring Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced
budget constitutional amendment. Madam President, as we begin the
debate on Senate Joint Resolution 1 proposing an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution to require balanced annual Federal budgets, I want to
summarize why I feel this amendment should be added to the basic great
law of this great Nation.
Let me say that as a lifelong student of the Constitution and having
served on the Judiciary Committee in this body during my tenure here of
20 years, I do not lightly suggest amending our founding document. Yet,
all other avenues having failed us, I believe it appropriate to take
recourse to our basic charter to rein in an abused power of the purse--
as has been done in similar situations in our history since the Magna
Carta--in order that we might save future generations from the heavy
burden of irresponsible Government borrowing.
Madam President, let me just summarize the reasons I believe the
proposed balanced budget amendment should be presented to the States
for ratification. We have to have a two-thirds vote in both of the
bodies and submit this amendment to the States, and we have to get
three-quarters of them to ratify the amendment before it can be entered
into the Constitution. It is a tough process. It ought to be a tough
process.
These are some of the reasons why I believe this amendment should be
presented to the States for their ratification:
No. 1, integrity and accountability. It will bring immediate
credibility to our current budget process and negotiations, and it will
restore a measure of integrity and accountability to our Government.
No. 2, our children's future. Passing the balanced budget
constitutional amendment is a vote for our children's economic freedom.
No. 3, family financial security. Passing the balanced budget
amendment will improve the economic health and stability of all
American families.
No. 4, economic strength. The stabilizing effect the balanced budget
amendment will have on the economy is clear, and it will enable us to
rein in the level of our country's foreign-held debt.
No. 5, retirement security. If we pass this balanced budget
constitutional amendment it will literally save Social Security. It
will stabilize the economy which will benefit all current and future
retirees. Without it, all of these programs will be placed in jeopardy.
Now let me describe these reasons in more detail. On the issue of
integrity and accountability, our national debt is rocketing out of
control and the American people are paying a very heavy price for it.
As you can see by this chart, the debt was relatively stable for many
decades, up to about 1970, a little bit before 1970. In recent years
the debt has increased at alarming rates under the watch of both
political parties. The fact is, our deficits have been structural and
they will not be eliminated in the long run without the discipline of a
balanced budget constitutional amendment.
They really shot up in the 1980's, right on through the 1990's, and
still that arrow is going almost straight up, even today, even with the
efforts and actions that have been taken.
Since 1978, there have been no fewer than five major statutory
schemes or regimes enacted which promised to deliver balanced budgets,
and these include Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. But there has not been a
single balanced budget since 1969, which was the only balanced budget
since 1960.
While I support the steps we have taken to pass the balanced budget
plan, I question whether, without the weight of a constitutional
requirement to balance the budget, we will achieve balance by the year
2002. Without a balanced budget amendment, every year Congress has to
act, and we have seen the lack of will to do what's right around here.
For this reason, I feel passage of the balanced budget amendment is
critical.
Let's just acknowledge what every American citizen knows. In recent
decades, Washington has been biased to spending, without feeling any
constraints by the amount of money it actually has on hand. Washington
has lost the habit of prioritized spending options. Any ideas with
political appeal get enacted regardless of cost. We borrow the money if
we run short. That is what we have been doing for most of the last 60
years. Those listening could try this thinking on their own budgets at
home. Buy any item that looks appealing next time you are at the mall.
Just put it on the card. What happens to your budget? Something like
this chart probably, but hopefully not quite so high.
Washington, however, is not as constrained as the average American.
Washington spends in this way, and when the bill comes, it signs the
debt over to the American people. In addition to paying their own
bills, the American people have to pay Washington's bills in the form
of higher taxes, of course, and accumulated debt. They also pay them in
the form of higher interest rates on their homes, their cars, or
student loans. They pay in the form of lower job growth, lower wages,
and they even pay in the form of decreased services from the Government
because more of the budget is being spent on interest rather than on
education, health care, job training, child care, the environment, et
cetera.
The point is that Americans are getting fed up with Washington
because they feel the pinch put on them by Washington's spendthrift
ways. They know they have to make hard choices about how they will
spend their own money, but they feel that Washington does not feel
constrained to make hard choices about spending priorities. It's not
even Washington's own money that it's spending so freely; it is the
American people's money. No wonder the American people are tired of it.
Besides being dismayed by Washington's free spending habits, the
American people also believe that Washington is not accountable for its
decisionmaking. The balanced budget amendment responds to both of these
concerns. On this chart is the actual text of the balanced budget
amendment before the Senate at this time. This balanced budget
amendment will require Washington to make tough choices about spending
priorities within the constraint of the amount of money it has, or it
requires Members of Congress to go on record for its borrowing and
taxing decisions. There will be no more voice votes when it comes to
raising taxes. There will be no more voice votes when it comes to
raising the deficit. You are going to have to stand up and vote. This
amendment will see to that. It also requires Congress to achieve some
measure of increased consensus about spending priorities if it is going
to finance that spending by borrowing.
The concept is simple: Don't borrow, unless a significant number of
Members are willing to go on record as saying this spending is such a
priority that we must borrow to do it. That would go a long way toward
letting Americans know that their Government is deliberating about its
spending
[[Page S996]]
habits, making choices among competing options, and only spending
beyond its means when it really needs to in order to achieve a goal so
important that a supermajority of Members could agree. The balanced
budget amendment will go a long way toward restoring the people's faith
in the integrity of our budget process and in the accountability of
Washington for its decisions.
A vote for the balanced budget amendment is a vote for integrity and
accountability in Washington.
Now, our children's future. Our national debt now tops $5.3 trillion.
That averages out to about $20,000 in debt for every man, woman, and
child in America. That is what our fiscal insanity has brought us to. A
child born in America today comes into this world $20,000 in debt--and
that is going up. Do we have the right to spend our children's future
for our own comfort today?
Over time, the disproportionate burdens placed or imposed on today's
children and their children by a continuing pattern of deficits could
include some combination of the following: Increased taxes, reduced
public welfare benefits, reduced pensions and Social Security benefits,
reduced benefits or expenditures on infrastructure and other public
investments, diminished capital formation, diminished job creation,
diminished productivity enhancement and less real wage growth in the
private economy, higher interest rates, higher inflation, increased
indebtedness to and economic dependence on foreign creditors, and
increased risk of default on the Federal debt.
Madam President, I have said this in the past. This is ``fiscal child
abuse'' and it must end. It is our children's future versus
Washington's spending addiction. I hope the Senate of the United States
will come down overwhelmingly on the side of our children's future by
passing this amendment.
A vote for the balanced budget amendment is a vote for our children's
economic security.
Now, what about family financial security? It is not just our
children that we hurt with these outrageous deficits. We are
suffocating our own families. The impact of higher interest rates,
higher taxes, lower wage and job growth, and higher mortgages are felt
at kitchen tables all across America. The Concord Coalition has
estimated that the interest payments on our mountainous debt amount to
$5,360 a year for a family of four. Just to pay the interest against
our national debt, it's $5,360 a year.
Chairman Kasich of the House Budget Committee has pointed out that
three of the causes of the ``middle class squeeze''--high taxes,
counterproductive Government spending policies, and anemic wage
growth--are at least partly caused by continued borrowing by the
Federal Government. He points out that the baby boom generation pays
taxes that are at least 50 percent higher than those paid by their
grandparents. Real per hour wages inched up just one-third of 1 percent
annually over the past 4 years, which is one-seventh the rate of growth
in the period between 1960 and 1974, and productivity over the past 4
years grew at only one-fifth the rate of that same period. Economist
Lester Thurow noted that the one-earner middle-class family is extinct
and explains that almost one-third of all men between the ages of 25
and 34 make less each year than is required to keep the average family
of four above the poverty level. These combined pressures tear at the
very fabric of our Nation and our families.
By contrast, implementing the balanced budget amendment will lower
interest rates, making it easier for our families to pay their
mortgages, their car loans, and their student loans. Economist at DRI-
McGraw-Hill estimate that a balanced budget rule would result in a 2-
percent drop in interest rates. Now, DRI-McGraw-Hill is one of the best
econometric groups in the country. A balanced budget rule would mean
annual savings of $1,230 on a middle-class family's home mortgage, $216
each year for an average student loan, and $180 each year on the
average car loan.
The good effects of our overall economic health will help family
budgets in many other possible forms, such as a higher paycheck, more
job opportunity or security, lower taxes in the future, and a greater
ability to save and invest for the future. The Joint Economic Committee
has estimated that the average American family would have an additional
$1,500 a year if we implemented a balanced budget rule. A balanced
budget amendment will make it easier for American families to afford a
house, a car, or to send a child to college. This offers a real way to
relieve the pressure on American families who are struggling to stay
together and get ahead. A vote for the balanced budget amendment is a
vote for the economic health and stability of American families.
Now, economic stability. Economists from all over this country agree
that the balanced budget amendment should pass. They agree that ``we
have lost the moral sense of fiscal responsibility that served to make
formal constitutional restraints unnecessary.'' Hundreds of economists
support the balanced budget amendment as being good for the national
economy by increasing both investor and business confidence, both
foreign and domestic.
Some economists are against us on the balanced budget amendment. As a
general rule, they are academics who depend upon the Government in many
ways for their moneys and in many respects love the spending practices
of the Federal Government. Not all--some sincerely worry about the
amendment. But there are also many, many who worry that if we do not
pass the amendment we are really going to be in trouble, and economic
stability will be threatened.
If the Government would stop borrowing so much money, interest rates
would come down and money would be available for businesses to invest
in creating jobs and paying higher wages. The Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, June E. O'Neill, has testified recently
that ``balancing budget will induce favorable changes in the economy,''
and among those favorable changes she specifically pointed to
``interest rates, economic growth, and the share of GDP represented by
corporate profits.'' All of this can put real money in the pockets of
real people, including small business owners and employees.
CBO Director O'Neill has also suggested that taking action now to
balance the budget can assure greater budgetary stability in the
future. Greater budget stability means greater tax stability. And that
means that Americans, and their families, and the businesses they own,
can plan for the future better, with less risk that shifting tax policy
will wipe out their plans in unforeseen ways. At the very least, this
will save Americans substantial amounts on tax attorneys. But long-term
planning, with less risk from shifting tax policy, can pay dividends
throughout the economy.
Decreasing our dependence on debt to finance Government activities
will also increase our national economic sovereignty. Interest payments
on our debt are increasingly leaving the country. This chart, based on
Treasury Department statistics, shows that from 1992 to 1995, the
portion of our debt held by foreign interests has increased 28 percent.
That is money that leaves the United States, thus weakening our
national economy, and perhaps slowly jeopardizing our national
independence. It has been said, ``It is tough to get tough with your
banker.'' The less we borrow from foreigners, the less dependent we are
on foreigners, and the more independent we will be as a nation.
By returning honesty to budgeting, the balanced budget amendment will
improve our economy and our economic independence.
retirement security
The balanced budget amendment is important to current and future
retirees.
This is a very important chart because this chart is based on the
Social Security trustees' intermediate projections. As you can see
here, while we run modest yearly surpluses until the year 2015--down
here is the 2015, and the green shows the moderate surpluses above
zero, we get to 2015. The long-term projections are mammoth annual
deficits--the red line--mammoth annual deficits that start about the
year 2015, if we are lucky. That is assuming a rosy economic picture
over the next 19 years. The long-term projections are for mammoth
annual deficits projected at current dollars at as much as $7 trillion
for today's children when they retire.
[[Page S997]]
The word ``trust'' in the Social Security trust fund refers to the
trust retirees repose in the Government to meet its future obligations.
We will be hard pressed to meet our obligations if we do not get our
debt under control now and force ourselves to avoid the growth of debt
in the future. The balanced budget amendment will force and empower us
to meet these future obligations.
In addition, the economic benefits of the amendment will benefit
current and future retirees who are increasingly relying on private
financial investments for retirement security. There are 34 million
households that have invested in the stock market in some form. As
financial expert Jim Cramer notes, if you have a pension, it's likely
that it's invested in stocks. If you have a 401K plan, it's probably
invested in stocks. Worth magazine's Ken Kurson points out that in
1996, 34 percent of households headed by someone under 35 had some sort
of mutual fund. Simply put, many Americans are relying less on
Government and more on themselves and their own investments for their
retirement security. The balanced budged amendment will strengthen the
markets and the investments these Americans are relying on.
No matter the source of retirement security, the balanced budget
amendment will benefit current and future older Americans.
Some have argued that we should take Social Security out of the
purview of the balanced budget amendment. They argue that we should
take the highest items in the Federal budget and the most important
item in the Federal budget out of the budget because they think that
might protect Social Security. Give me a break. That is not going to
protect Social Security. It is going to jeopardize it, because what
happens is that if we take it out now, even the President has admitted
that you cannot balance the budget by the year 2002 if you do not keep
Social Security in the total unified budget.
So it is a gradual way that we get there, and if we get there, then
Social Security will be much more stable. When we get to these years
when it starts to drop off, we have to take care of it, and, frankly,
we have to do it within reasonable constraints and do it right.
The fact is that some argue that we should keep Social Security in
the amendment until the year 2003 and then all of a sudden take it out
when all of these deficits occur. The reason they want that is so they
can keep spending. As far as everybody knows, if we take Social
Security out of the purview of the balanced budget, we would be
creating the biggest loophole in the history of this country and they
could spend anything they want by simply labeling it Social Security.
Madam President, this scares me to death. It is true. These are the
trustees' estimates here. That is assuming a fairly rosy economic
picture. If we hit a recession or depression during this period of
time, it is going to be worse. And the deficits might actually start
before then. But that is the best analysis that we can get at this
time.
Madam President, only the force of the Constitution can balance out
the incentives for irresponsibility that dominate the Congress, and
only the balanced budget amendment can save this country from being
swallowed in debt.
A vote for the balanced budget amendment is a vote for a stronger and
a freer future for all Americans.
When we began this debate, we had at least 68 Members of the Senate
who committed and promised that they would vote for this amendment. We
need 67. So we believe the votes should be here. We believe people are
honorable and will honor their commitments when they ran for office and
when they appeared before their families and friends and voting
constituents within their respective States. They all knew at the time
that this was the only amendment we could possibly pass. They all knew
at the time that this is a bipartisan consensus amendment brought about
by both Democrats and Republicans, and that we have worked for over 20
years on this amendment. They all knew at the time that this was the
one time in history when we could really get this done. And I hope we
do. I believe we will because I believe our fellow Senators will live
up to the word that they gave to their constituents.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wonder if I could ask the distinguished
senior Senator from Utah a question. Shall we vote now?
Mr. HATCH. We would be happy to do it, if the Senator wants to.
Mr. LEAHY. Shall we call the roll?
Mr. HATCH. Sure. That would be fine with me.
Mr. LEAHY. It would be fine with me.
Mr. HATCH. I do not think it would be fine with that side, but it
would be fine with me.
Mr. LEAHY. I suspect that you probably have at least one leader on
that side who might not be in favor.
Mr. HATCH. I will clear the way.
Mr. LEAHY. Why not talk with him while I give my opening statement to
see if we want to do that.
Mr. HATCH. Let us let everybody say what they want to say about this
on both sides, and at a reasonable time we would like to----
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator would like to this afternoon----
Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to do it.
Mr. LEAHY. Why not talk with him.
Mr. HATCH. I will.
Mr. LEAHY. And see if it could be cleared here, too.
Madam President, last night in his State of the Union Address, the
President of the United States spoke of the difference between taking
action to balance the Federal budget and the political exercise of
considering a constitutional amendment on balancing the budget. I
mention this because the American people know there is a big difference
between talking about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget,
a big difference between talking about what you might or might not do,
and actually doing it. Here is what President Clinton said.
Balancing the budget requires only your vote and my
signature. It does not require us to rewrite our
Constitution. I believe it is both unnecessary and unwise to
adopt a balanced budget amendment that would cripple our
country in time of economic crisis and force unwanted
results, such as judges halting Social Security checks or
increasing taxes.
Listen to what the President said. Balancing the budget requires only
the vote of the Congress and his signature.
This from a President who in the 22 years I have been here is the
only President who has brought the deficit down 4 years in a row--the
only President who has done that. In fact, if we were not paying the
interest on the deficits run up during Presidents Reagan and Bush
administrations, we would have a surplus today and not a deficit.
In fact, I believe he is probably the only President in my lifetime,
Republican or Democrat, who has 4 years in a row brought the deficit
down and certainly the only one since the last President, a Democrat,
who had a surplus. That was President Johnson. Deficits have run since
then, and only President Clinton has brought them down four times in a
row and is about to submit a budget which will bring the deficits down
for the fifth time in a row.
That is a record which certainly in modern times, certainly the
postwar time, no President, Democrat, or Republican, has done and is a
marked contrast to the two Republican Presidents who preceded him who
tripled the national debt, who took all the debt from 200 years and
tripled it in just 12 years.
So President Clinton is committed to signing a balanced budget that
protects America's values, honors our promises to seniors and our
veterans and fulfills our responsibilities to the disadvantaged and the
young. If this Congress, the 105th, will join him for the good of the
Nation and the future, we can, in fact, be the Congress that finally
balances the budget.
Madam President, I would like to be part of that Congress, and I
would like to see Democrats and Republicans work together to bring
about that kind of a balanced budget. But that would mean each one of
us, every man and woman in this body and every man and woman in the
other body, will have to stand up and cast votes that are politically
unpopular--not a vote that sounds very popular but does not cut a
single program and does nothing to balance the budget.
[[Page S998]]
My good friend from Utah has talked about the public opinion polls
that say how popular a balanced budget is. I support a balanced budget.
I voted for more deficit reduction than most of the Members of this
body. But wanting it and voting it can be sometimes two different
things. It is easy to stand up, as we all do, in town meetings back
home and say we want a balanced budget. It is very difficult to come
back and face special interest groups on the right and left and say we
are going to cast votes to achieve balance.
This is not one of those tough votes. This proposed constitutional
amendment is unnecessary, it is unwise, it is unsound, and it is
dangerous.
First, it demeans our Constitution. It will destabilize the power
among our three branches of Government. That balance of power between
our three branches of Government gives this, the greatest and most
powerful democracy in history, its greatest protection. It would head
us down the road to minority rule and undermine our constitutional
democracy. It would likely result in a shifting of burdens,
responsibilities and costs to State governments. Whether my own State
of Vermont, the State of Maine, the State of Utah, or any other of the
50 States, these State governments are ill-equipped to assume the vast
burdens of the Federal Government.
Both because of what it would do and what it would not accomplish,
adoption of this proposed 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution would
be wrong. Treasury Secretary Rubin testified that the proposed
constitutional amendment would ``subject the Nation to unacceptable
economic risks in perpetuity. It would be a terrible, terrible mistake
for this country.''
Treasury Secretary Rubin commands the highest respect of both
Republicans and Democrats and certainly within the financial community,
and when he speaks of the unacceptable economic risks in perpetuity we
ought to stop and listen to him. We should also listen to the 11 Nobel
laureates in economics who joined 1,000 other economists who condemn
the proposal as unsound and unnecessary. It is what the Los Angeles
Times calls a false political star.
Now, there are responsible ways to reduce our budget deficit, but
focusing our attention on this proposed amendment only delays us from
making progress on what are some very tough choices. This is the same
old sleight of hand that we have witnessed around here since 1982 when
people began voting for a constitutional amendment on the budget rather
than to vote to balance the budget. A lot of people stood up to say,
``Yes, I voted to amend the Constitution to balance the budget.''
Hurrah, hurrah, how brave they are, but they cannot quite step up
here and vote on these tough issues that actually do balance the
budget. There is no magic in the proposed constitutional amendment. The
magic is hard work. Reducing the deficit will take hard work, and it
will require hard choices.
Some may even use a ``feel good'' vote for this proposed amendment as
the excuse to sit back and await the ratification process in the
States, and then they would sit back and await the consideration of
implementing legislation. Then they would sit back and await the
consideration of budgets consistent with such implementing legislation.
Then maybe, just maybe, they would start making the necessary cuts.
Madam President, it is like some of the people who stand on the floor
of this body or the other body and say that we have to amend the
Constitution and have term limits. There are those who stand up and
say, ``I have been arguing for term limits for 20 years,'' some who
have been arguing term limits before some of the Members of this body
were born, and they will keep on into the next century saying we have
to have a constitutional amendment for term limits.
I heard one Member of the House, who has been here, I think, 14
terms, say, ``If I do nothing before I leave here, we are going to get
term limits--if it takes me another 14 terms to get term limits.''
What makes more sense, instead of looking for bumper sticker
amendments and bumper sticker politics, is to cast votes that will cut
the deficit now. Do not wait until the next century. I want to continue
to lower the deficit now, not wait for two more election cycles to pass
before balancing the budget sometime after the year 2002, which,
incidentally, is the earliest date this amendment could be effective.
We showed in the last two Congresses we could make progress in
undoing the mistakes of the deficits-building decade of the 1980's
without having this proposed amendment in the Constitution. For the
first time since Harry Truman was President, the deficit has declined 4
years in a row and with the help of President Clinton we have reduced
the deficit 63 percent over the last 4 years. We have reduced the
deficit, as a percentage of our economy, from 4.7 to 1.4 percent. These
may seem like just numbers, but what we have done is we have reduced
the deficit as a percentage of our economy to the lowest among the
world's industrialized countries. Instead of constantly standing up
supporting this because it might sound like good politics, let us be
honest with the people we represent. We have done better than any
industrialized country in the world.
As part of our efforts we passed legislation that saves tens of
billions of dollars of taxpayer-financed Government programs. These are
tough votes. For example, the distinguished senior Senator from
Indiana, Senator Lugar, and I sponsored legislation that reorganized
the U.S. Department of Agriculture to become a more efficient and
effective agency. The Leahy-Lugar bill passed Congress at the end of
1994. It will result in saving over $3 billion, but it has to close
1,200 USDA field offices including, should anybody ask, a large number
of offices in my home State of Vermont.
What the distinguished Senator from Indiana and I did was not just to
talk about it, we actually put together a piece of legislation which
means in every single State in this country somebody is going to feel
the pain. I know because I got letters from all over the country about
it. But we passed it.
Maybe some of the same people who so eagerly support this
constitutional amendment should ask themselves, are they responsible
for the huge and unprecedented budget deficits of the Reagan and Bush
years? Many are. I am one of only five remaining Senators in this body
who voted against the 1981 Reagan budget package that increased defense
spending by a huge amount while cutting taxes by a huge amount and
which, of course, caused our debt to explode. The 12 years following
Reaganomics have left us with over $2.6 trillion in additional debt.
Do we have a deficit today? Of course we do. If we did not have to
pay the interest on the debt run up during President Reagan and
President Bush's terms, we would have a surplus today. I commend,
again, the President, who, while inheriting a huge national debt, a
huge deficit, and a huge debt service when he came into office, has
brought the deficit down. President Clinton has, four times in a row,
brought the deficit down and is about to do it a fifth time in a row,
something that none of us in our lifetime have seen.
But this proposed constitutional amendment remains now what it was
then: political cover for the failed policies of the 1980's and their
tragic legacy. Those mistakes continue to cost our country hundreds of
millions of dollars every workday in interest on deficits run up during
the last two Republican administrations. Think of that--hundreds of
millions of dollars every single workday just on interest alone based
on the deficits of those years. As I said before, were it not for the
interest on this debt, we would have had a balanced budget in each of
the last several years.
The proposed constitutional amendment contains no protection against
the Federal Government seeking to balance its budget by shifting costs
and burdens to the States. That is the ultimate budget gimmick--pass
the buck to the States. The proposed constitutional amendment would be
a prescription for disaster, especially for small States that are ill-
equipped to handle the extra load. We know what happened in the 1980's;
Federal contributions to State and local governments fell sharply, by
about a third. During that same decade, my home State of Vermont had to
make up the difference. We had to raise the State income tax rate from
23 to 28 percent. In addition, State and local property taxes and taxes
of all kinds had to be increased.
I remember talking to so many people in my State of Vermont, hard-
[[Page S999]]
working men and women, people who bring home a weekly paycheck and pay
the mortgages, set money aside for their children to go to college.
They keep our economy going. I said, ``Have you felt these huge tax
cuts that we read you have gotten under Reaganomics?'' Except for a
couple of my friends who, frankly, Madam President, make a heck of a
lot more money than I do, they had not. In fact, what they had seen,
the average person had seen their taxes go up. They saw Social Security
taxes go up, they saw their local taxes go up, they saw their State
taxes go up to cover the differences.
That is not the way to cut the Federal deficit. It is the Federal
deficit. You do not cut it by simply shifting the burdens to State and
local government and telling them to raise the taxes on their people.
Working people cannot afford tax increases any more just because they
are imposed by State and local authorities and not by the Federal
Government.
While we passed unfunded mandates legislation last Congress, even
that legislation offers insufficient protection. My concerns extend
beyond new legislation that the lawyers determine include legally
binding obligations. I am concerned as well about those programs that
respond to the basic needs of individuals.
Human needs are no less real because they are not set forth in a
Federal statute. Hunger, cold, illness, the ills of the aged--these do
not need statutory definition to cause suffering. With or without
definition, they do cause suffering. If we try to balance the Federal
budget by scaling back services, we are just as surely going to be
shifting the costs and burdens of these unmet needs, as well as Federal
mandates, on State and local governments.
I know the people of Vermont are not going to let their neighbors go
hungry or go without medical care, and I expect people elsewhere will
not either. As much as our churches and synagogues and our charities
and our communities will contribute, a large part of the problem and a
large share of the costs are still going to fall to State and local
governments.
The distinguished majority leader in the other body, Richard Armey,
said in 1995 that he did not want to spell out the effects of this
constitutional amendment before it is passed because he is afraid that
Congress would not vote to pass it if it knew what it would do. He
later reinforced his remarks by warning supporters not to reveal where
the necessary cuts would be made because knees would buckle.
If we are going to be asked to consider this constitutional
amendment, let us find out what the impact is likely to be. Certainly,
before any State is called upon to consider ratification of such a
constitutional amendment, we ought to know what the impact is going to
be. Every State ought to be able to look at the debate here and our
actions here and know what the impact is going to be if they ratify.
Each State should be advised of the likely effects on its economy and,
in particular, on personal income levels and job losses in that State.
Let us get some of the answers. Let us know where we are headed.
In fact, I believe this proposed constitutional amendment would
invite the worst kind of cynical evasion and budget gimmickry. The
experience of States that do have balanced budget requirements only
bears this out. My State, which has one of the best credit ratings in
the country, takes care of its budget without having in its State
constitution a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Because
we know we have good times and bad times, we have provisions to set
aside a rainy day fund. We know that there are things that we have to
do in our small State economy at a time of recession to help.
But look what happens with States with a balanced budget requirement.
Many that do achieve compliance do so only with what the former
comptroller of New York State calls dubious practices and financial
gimmicks. These gimmicks include shifting expenditures to off-budget
accounts, postponing payments to school district suppliers, delaying
refunds to taxpayers, deferring contributions to pension funds, and
selling State assets. The proposed constitutional amendment does not
prohibit the Federal Government from using the same and other dubious
practices and gimmicks.
With Congress facing a constitutional mandate, the overwhelming
temptation will be to exaggerate estimates of economic growth and tax
receipts, underestimate spending, and engage in all kinds of accounting
tricks as was done before the honest budgeting efforts of 1993. The
result will be that those who do business with the Government may never
be certain in what fiscal year the Government will choose to pay up or
deliver, and those who rely on tax refunds can certainly expect
extended delays from the IRS.
Passing a constitutional directive that will inevitably encourage
evasion is only going to invite public cynicism and scorn, and not just
toward the Congress. That, Madam President, does bother me, since we
represent one of the three branches of Government. What bothers me far
more is cynicism toward the Constitution itself.
None of us in this body owns the seat that we are in. We are all here
for 6 years at a time. Some day we will leave, as we should, either by
our own choice or because we are given an invitation to do so by the
voters of our State. But while we are here, we have a responsibility to
the institutions of this country, and certainly to our Constitution, an
oath that we each take solemnly and without any reservation.
(Mr. CRAIG assumed the chair.)
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are, in some ways, an unprecedented
country. No nation, no democracy has achieved the power that we have.
In fact, in history, no country, democracy or otherwise, has had the
great economy and the great power of the United States. But no other
country has had a constitution like ours, a short constitution, a
simple constitution, an understandable constitution. Since the Bill of
Rights, it has only been amended 17 times. In one of those cases, it
was amended for prohibition and then to repeal prohibition.
I mention this because I think there is a definite connection between
the greatness of the United States, the fact that we maintain our
democratic principles and, notwithstanding our enormous power, a
respect for Government and a respect for our Constitution based on the
knowledge of that Government and that Constitution and not because a
dictator and army tell us we have to.
But that has meant that the men and women who have occupied these
seats that we only temporarily occupy, the men and women who have
occupied the seats in the other body that were only temporarily
occupied, were wise enough--even though there were hundreds and
hundreds of proposals over 200 years--were wise enough not to amend the
Constitution willy-nilly, especially for those things that can be taken
care of legislatively. As the President said last night, it only
requires our vote and his signature for a balanced budget, not a
constitutional amendment.
Our predecessors on both sides of the aisle and our predecessors on
both sides of the aisle in the other body were wise enough to refrain,
no matter how popular it sounded or no matter how much it helped them
in their elections, from amending the Constitution willy-nilly,
especially for those things they knew they could do legislatively.
It is one thing to amend the Constitution to limit the terms of
Presidents or to set up successions when there is a vacancy in the Vice
Presidency or the Presidency itself. Those are of constitutional
import. But something we can do simply legislatively, why amend the
Constitution? Let's not debase our national charter with a misguided
political attempt to curry favor with the American people by this
declaration against budget deficits. Let us not make the mistake of
other countries and turn our Constitution into a series of hollow
promises.
We are too great a nation for that. We are too great a democracy for
that, and the loopholes in Senate Joint Resolution 1 already abound.
One need only consult the language of the proposed amendment and
majority report for the first sets of exceptions and creative
interpretations that will allow Congress to reduce the deficit only so
far as Members choose to cast responsible votes. The Judiciary
Committee reports that the Congress will have flexibility in
implementing the constitutional amendment. It will leave the critical
details to implementing legislation.
[[Page S1000]]
This proposed constitutional amendment uses the seemingly
straightforward term ``fiscal year.'' But according to the committee
report, this time period can mean whatever a majority in Congress wants
it to mean. It has no immutable definition. It may mean one thing this
year, and we may decide the next year it means something else. It can
be shifted around the calendar as Congress deems appropriate. Watch out
for the shifting of fiscal years in order to juggle accounts when
elections are approaching.
This proposed amendment gives congressional leeway to rely
on estimates to balance the budget, to make temporary self-correcting
imbalances and to ignore very small or negligible deficits. But what is
temporary? What is self-correcting? What is small? What is negligible?
With apologies to one of our distinguished predecessors, the Senator
from Illinois, Senator Everett Dirksen, a billion here, a billion
there; after a while, it does not add up. This is a lawyer's dream.
What is negligible? We think a billion is negligible, and somebody
sues, or a whole lot of people sue. My guess is that unless it becomes
a political bone of contention between political parties as we approach
an election, we could go a long time without Congress declaring itself
in violation of this proposed amendment.
What happens if the President of the United States says, ``Well, here
are my estimates. My estimates are we are going to receive x number of
dollars and my estimates are we are going to spend x number of
dollars,'' and it turns out he is wrong? What do we do? Sue him?
What happens if the Congress does the same thing? We estimate in our
budget resolution we are going to receive x number of dollars and spend
x number of dollars. What happens if we are wrong? Do all 535 Members
go to jail or just those who voted for it?
This proposed constitutional amendment could be economically ruinous.
During a recession, deficits rise because tax receipts go down. But
various Government payments, like unemployment insurance, go up. By
contrast, the amendment would demand the taxes be raised and spending
be cut during a recession or depression. It is almost like when
President Herbert Hoover, as we started into a slight recession, said
the thing that would give the most confidence to the country would be
to force through a balanced budget. He did, and we went through the
worst depression in this century.
As Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin testified in the Judiciary
Committee, ``the balanced budget amendment would turn slowdowns into
recessions and recessions into more severe recessions or even
depressions.''
Economic policy has to be flexible enough to change with a changing
and increasingly global economy. But the requirements of this proposal
would tie Congress' hands to address regional, national, and
international problems. We should not hamstring the legislative power
that is expressly authorized in article I, section 8, of the
Constitution. Let us not undo that which our Founders wisely provided:
flexibility.
This proposed constitutional amendment risks seriously undercutting
the protection of our constitutional separation of powers. No one has
yet convincingly explained how the proposed amendment would work and
what role would the President play and what role would the courts play
in its implementation and enforcement?
I can just see the new law school courses all over the country. How
do you sue under the constitutional amendment?
When you put the budget in the Constitution, economic policy would
inevitably throw the Nation's fiscal policy into the courts. That is
the last place issues of taxing and spending should be decided.
Basically what it does is it destroys this delicate balance between the
three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the
judicial.
I cannot understand why Members of Congress want to give up their
powers to the judiciary, because the effect of the proposed amendment
could be to toss important issues of spending priorities and funding
levels to the President or to thousands of lawyers in hundreds of
lawsuits in dozens of Federal and State courts.
If approved, the amendment would have let Congress off the hook by
kicking massive responsibilities for how tax dollars are spent to
unelected judges and the President. Judge Robert Bork warned of the
danger more than a decade ago. Again, Mr. President, why--why--would we
give up the constitutional powers we have had for 200 years and give
them over to the courts who do not want them and have not asked for
them?
So instead of creating future constitutional questions, let us do the
job we were elected to do. Let us remember what the President said last
night: You vote it, I sign it; we have a balanced budget. Simple as
that. But it means we have to make the tough choices and cast the
difficult votes and make progress toward a balanced budget.
I worry, Mr. President, that perhaps some, because it is a lot
easier, just vote for a constitutional amendment which has huge
popularity. It is a lot easier to do that than to vote against a whole
lot of programs where your vote is not popular.
It is not popular to actually cast the votes to balance the budget.
It is easy to cast the vote for the constitutional amendment. It is
sort of like saying, ``I will vote today to eliminate cancer.'' Who
disagrees with that? Or the person says, ``I'm against cancer. I don't
want to give up smoking, but I'm against cancer.'' It is the difficult
steps.
This proposed constitutional amendment undermines the fundamental
principle of majority rule by imposing a three-fifths supermajority
vote to adopt certain budgets and raise the debt limit.
Again, has anybody read a history book in this body? Has anybody
found out how this country started? Go back to our Founders. Our
Founders rejected such supermajority voter requirements on matters that
are within Congress' purview. Alexander Hamilton described
supermajority requirements as poison. I sometimes wonder if anybody
around here even knows who Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson,
George Washington or these people were.
Hamilton observed that:
Supermajority requirements serve to destroy the energy of
the Government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or
artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto to
the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable
majority.
These supermajority requirements are a recipe for increased gridlock,
not more efficient action. If there are some in here who have not read
The Federalist Papers, just recall the lessons of the last 2 years when
the Government was shut down by a determined minority intent on getting
its way. The Nation was pushed to the brink of default when a group
pledged that, no matter what, they would not vote on raising the debt
limit, they were going to let the Government be shut down. Whether it
was political or they went out the wrong door in an airplane or
whatever, they shut down the Federal Government.
That cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. It certainly
cost everybody in private enterprise in this area, just about any area
in the country, hundreds of millions of dollars more. We looked
ridiculous to the rest of the world. But all because a minority made
that determination.
Such supermajority requirements reflect a basic distrust, not just of
Congress, but of the electorate itself. I reject that notion. I have
faith in the electorate. I am prepared to keep faith with and in the
American people.
Mr. President, we have also said that ``The devil is in the
details.'' I believe Emerson first said that. The proposed
constitutional amendment uses such general terms even its sponsors
concede that implementing legislation will be necessary to clarify how
it is going to work.
So we ask, what will the implementing legislation say? Well, we are
not going to find out until we see the implementing legislation.
Basically this says, ``Trust us. Pass this. And we'll tell you
afterward what it means.'' That is kind of like somebody saying, ``I'll
sell you this business. Would you sign this contract in blank? Give me
all your money, but I will fill in the terms afterward.''
I am a Vermonter. We just do not quite do it that way back home. We
trust each other, but we kind of like to see the details. The questions
raised by this proposed constitutional amendment still lack
satisfactory answers.
[[Page S1001]]
For example, what programs are going to be off budget? What role will
the courts and what role will the President have in executing and
enforcing the amendment? How much of our constitutional power do we
give up? What is really compliance with the amendment? How much of a
deficit may be financed and then carried over to the next year? There
are a lot of questions like these that are critical to our
understanding of this amendment. And they have not been answered.
Should Congress be asked to amend the Constitution by signing what
amounts to a blank check? I disagree with that. No Congress should be
asked to do that. Nor should each State be asked to ratify a pig in a
poke.
In the interest of fair disclosure, Congress should first determine
the substance of any implementing legislation as it did in connection
with the 18th amendment, the other attempt to draft a substantive
behavioral policy into the Constitution. Let us go look at the
implementing legislation first.
In my view, this amendment does not meet the requirements of article
V of the Constitution for proposals to the States because it is not
constitutionally necessary. It is only with resolve and hard work that
we make progress. Neither is evident in the proposed constitutional
amendment.
I have heard some of the speeches about why it would be good
politics, popular politics to vote for this. Politics--good, popular or
otherwise--have no place when we are dealing with the Constitution of
the United States. We inherited a great legacy from those who went
before us because they resisted the temptation to play politics and to
amend our Constitution willy-nilly.
As a result, we are the greatest and strongest democracy history has
ever known. The bedrock of it is our Constitution, which sets up three
branches of Government, with powers that make sure there are checks and
balances. This amendment destroys so much of what this country has
rested on for over 200 years.
So instead of a bumper sticker for the Constitution, what we need is
the wisdom to ask what programs we must cut, and the courage to explain
to the American people that there is no procedural gimmick that can cut
the deficit or the debt. There is no nice, easy self-serving item.
There is only hard work. But I think the American people would rather
have the hard work than have us fool around with our Constitution.
Yesterday the Wall Street Journal printed an editorial titled
``Constitutional boondoggle'' in its editorial page. The editorial
says:
We do need to get the national debt declining . . .
I agree.
We do need to restrain federal spending.
Again, Mr. President, I agree.
We do need to resolve the Medicare crisis . . .
Mr. President, I agree.
We do need to look beyond the year 2002.
Mr. President, I agree. But then they said:
But these battles have to be fought one by one, and [they]
can't be solved by amending the Constitution.
Once again, Mr. President, I agree.
The Wall Street Journal editorial concludes:
The concept embodied in the proposed [constitutional]
amendment measures nothing useful; it is at best a
distraction, and at worst, causes confusion that makes the
right things harder to do, not easier.
I ask unanimous consent the Wall Street Journal editorial be printed
in the Record immediately after my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, think back again to last night's State of
the Union address. The President said all it takes is for us to cast
the votes and for me to sign the bill to balance the budget. Many of us
who cast those tough votes to cut programs, to bring the deficits down,
have faced in the short term the wrath of our constituents but in the
long term a realization that we have done the right thing for the
country.
I am proud that I have voted for budgets that have now, 4 years in a
row, brought down the deficits, something that has not happened
certainly in the last 15 years or so. We have had a President who has
had the courage to give us four budgets in a row that bring down the
deficits. They have meant tough votes.
Some Members who voted to bring down the deficit have probably lost
elections because of those tough votes. How much better they have been
to themselves, to their children and their children's children because
they resisted the temptation, as Senators and Representatives have for
over 200 years, to amend our Constitution unnecessarily.
So let us not proceed to a view of short-run popularity but with a
vision of our responsibilities to our constituents and the Nation in
accordance with our cherished Constitution.
Mr. President, first and foremost I am going to cast votes on this
floor to protect that Constitution, popular or otherwise. I take my
oath of office seriously. I appreciate the privilege the people of
Vermont have given me to represent them in this body. There is nothing
I will ever do in my life that will make me as proud as being in this
body representing the people of Vermont. As I have told the people of
Vermont in each one of my elections, I will protect the Constitution
first and foremost. As I told them in my last two elections, I will
vote against this constitutional amendment because it does not protect
our country, it demeans the Constitution, and it lets us off the hook
from doing the things that we really should do.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 4, 1997]
Constitutional Boondoggle
With President Clinton about to deliver his State of the
Union Address and new budget, this is an apt moment to say
that the President is right and the Republicans are wrong on
item one of the GOP Congressional agenda. The balanced budget
amendment is a flake-out.
The notion of amending the Constitution to outlaw budget
deficits is silly on any number of counts. Politically it's
empty symbolism. Legally it clutters the Constitution with
dubious prose. Today's lesson, though, concerns economics and
accounting. You can't measure economic rectitude by any one
number, let alone the ``deficit,'' however defined, let alone
the deficit projections the proposals will inevitably involve
in practice. The attempt to enshrine such a number in the
Constitution is bound to prove a snare and a delusion.
The proposal passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee says
that outlays (``except for those for repayment of debt
principal'') shall not exceed receipts (``except those
derived from borrowing''). While this concept sounds simple,
in fact it reflects neither accounting principles nor
economic reality.
If you can balance your family budget, the thinking goes,
the government can balance the federal budget. But applying
the budget amendment's principles to households would outlaw
home mortgages, which have proved a boon to countless
families and the general economy. What a family balances is
its operating budget, a concept foreign to the federal
accounts. In corporate accounting, similarly, the health of
an enterprise is measured by careful distinctions such as
accruals or depreciation. Even the balanced budget restraints
of state and local governments exclude spending on capital
improvements financed by bond issues approved by voters.
The reality is that borrowing money is not a sin; it
depends on how much money, and in particular on the uses of
the borrowed funds. Even the amendment itself recognizes this
by allowing Congress to waive the amendment by majority vote
when war is declared or when a joint resolution declares ``a
military conflict which causes an imminent and serious
military threat to national security.'' Other emergencies
would presumably be dealt through the provision that Congress
could approve borrowing by a two-thirds vote.
Republicans back the amendment because it scores well with
focus group participants, who don't understand the
difficulties, and with Ross Perot, who doesn't care. They
also hope that limiting the government's power to borrow will
force it to limit spending. Democrats seem pretty much to
agree, and want to voice support for the amendment to appease
focus groups while also killing it to avoid a spending
straitjacket. We're not so sure.
For one thing, we've observed how European politicians,
even supposedly conservative ones, have been behaving toward
the budget-deficit requirements they imposed on themselves in
the Maastricht agreement. To get within the numerical
criteria, the Italians are taking their railroads off and on
budget; the French government, in return for an infusion of
funds this year, assumed pension obligations running into the
far future. Governmental accounting, you see, simply counts
formal government debt; it ignores unfunded governmental
promises.
This is a loophole enormous enough that Rep. Fernand St
Germain could drive half of
[[Page S1002]]
the S&L crisis through it in one night in 1980, when he
doubled deposit-insurance limits. Another enormous loophole
is the government's ability to offload, or ``mandate,'' costs
on corporations, individuals and state and local governments
without running any receipts or outlays through the
Washington books. And when the bill for Rep. St Germain's
coup suddenly came due in 1989, would it really have been
better to avoid borrowing and put the rest of the government
through a temporary wringer?
These imperfections might not matter if the amendment did
no harm, but it's easy enough to imagine scenarios in which
it would keep us from doing the economically right thing.
Take the proposals by the most conservative bloc in the
recent Social Security Commission. They would allow current
taxpayers to personally invest part of what they owe in
payroll tax, giving them a better return. But meeting
obligations to those retiring before their benefits were
funded would require a big issue of government debt. The new
debt would merely formally recognize current obligations, and
the privatization would dramatically reduce future
obligations. Though this transaction would plainly improve
the federal fisc, the balanced budget amendment would outlaw
it.
Or for that matter, take the Reagan defense build-up, which
led to victory in the Cold War. The balanced budget amendment
would have allowed a majority to vote for borrowing if
fighting broke out, but not for expenditures to deter it. Is
this what we want?
And take the Reagan tax cuts, which in combination with
Paul Volcker's tight money, led the country out of 1970s
malaise, conquering inflation without an extended recession.
Clearly, deficit projections would have prevented the tax
changes.
Yes, this policy mix gave us deficits, but the 1980s
deficits are themselves a large part of the reason we have a
new concern with budget discipline today. Indeed, it seems to
us that history argues that discipline comes from forcing
governments to borrow, and pay interest--instead of raising
taxes or making unfunded promises or issuing unfunded
mandates. Yet in the form passed by the Finance Committee,
the amendment says you need a majority to raise taxes, a
majority to declare a military emergency, but two-thirds to
borrow.
What President Reagan understood is that if you limit
taxes, spending will sooner or later have to follow. For
permanent budget discipline, the best idea now on the table
is Rep. Joe Barton's proposal, up for a vote in the House
April 15, simply to require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes.
If that should pass, nature will take its course.
We do need to get the national debt declining as a per cent
of economic output. We do need to restrain federal spending.
We do need to solve the Medicare crisis, as Senator Phil
Gramm notes alongside. We do need to look beyond the year
2002. But these battles have to be fought one by one, and
can't be solved by amending the Constitution. The concept
embodied in the proposed amendment measures nothing useful;
it is at best a distraction, and at worst spreads confusion
that will make the right things harder to do, not easier.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senator Thurmond, who has worked on the
balanced budget amendment for all this time that he has been in this
body, the imminent President pro tempore of this body, who deserves so
much credit for even getting it up for us to vote on it, has asked that
one of our new Senators from Nebraska be given the opportunity to take
his place at this point. He wanted to defer to the distinguished
Senator from Nebraska who will be giving his maiden speech on the
balanced budget amendment in the Senate. I am proud of him for doing
so. It is an honor to all of us that Senator Thurmond would do this.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the distinguished Senator from
Nebraska proceed with his remarks, and then I ask unanimous consent
that the distinguished Senator from Nevada be allowed to proceed.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, certainly the Senator from Nebraska, who
has been waiting some time, should go next, but perhaps somebody on
this side of the issue might go after the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HATCH. Let me amend my unanimous consent.
Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Senator from Utah and I have had enough
bills on the floor. It might be good to go back and forth.
Mr. HATCH. Senator Bryan would like to go after Senator Hagel, if
there is not another opponent who wishes to speak.
Mr. LEAHY. If we do not have another opponent, I am certainly willing
to yield to the distinguished Senator.
Mr. HATCH. I wanted to make it clear. We will finish here about 5:30
today, I understand, and certainly we want to have both of these
Senators give their speech.
Mr. LEAHY. I assumed the excitement level would be at such a high
level we might want to go on all night, but if the distinguished
Senator from Utah wants to stop, I will contain my excitement.
Mr. HATCH. We are only doing it to accommodate our friends on the
other side who have a dinner. I would like to get the remarks in, and I
particularly want to listen to these two Senators.
I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the junior Senator from
Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me also add my thanks to the
distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, for
giving me an opportunity to take his place this afternoon in this
debate over the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. President, I rise today to add my strong support for Senate Joint
Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. I believe Americans want a
smaller, less intrusive Federal Government. They want more freedom from
the burdens of Government. This is America, a country born from a
desire to escape the yoke of oppressive government. Our Founding
Fathers did not trust government. They trusted the people.
As we approach a new century, we have again reached a turning point
in America's history. We have been given a charge, as a nation and as
representatives of the people, to work together to prioritize the role
of Government, to redefine the role of Government in our lives. How
much Government do we want? How much do we want Government to do for
us? What do we want Government to do for us? How much Government are we
willing to pay for?
Reducing the role of the Federal Government will require tough
choices. A balanced budget amendment will not make those tough choices
and difficult decisions. It is the responsibility of those of us
entrusted by the American people in leadership positions in this
country to make those tough choices and those difficult decisions.
However, a balanced budget amendment will force us to step up to these
decisions and help make us better able and disciplined to make those
choices necessary to ensure a strong future for this country.
The American people are tired of political posturing and partisan
rhetoric. They want action. They want results. They want us to do what
we said we would do. We are not here to defend the status quo. We are
here to solve problems. We are here to ensure that the taxpayers get
the most efficient and effective use of their tax dollars. After all,
the money we spend is not our money. It is not the Senate's money. It
is not the President's money. It is the American people's money. They
earned it. They work for it. It is up to us to spend it wisely. And
right now the American people do not believe that Washington spends
their money wisely. The American people want us to get control of this
country's fiscal policy. They want fiscal responsibility.
That is why a balanced budget amendment is so important. It will
force discipline upon the Congress of the United States, a fiscal
discipline that has been absent since 1969, the last time America
balanced its budget; 36 of the last 37 budgets in this country have not
been balanced. It will force us to be honest with the American people.
As our former colleague, Paul Simon, a strong proponent of the
balanced budget amendment, wrote just last week in the New York Times:
``Elected officials like to do popular things, and there is no popular
way to balance the Federal budget.'' The balanced budget amendment will
give us the constitutional discipline to do the right thing.
This debate is about accountability. This debate is about
responsibility and leadership. It is about restoring the confidence and
trust of the American people and their Government.
We have all been called upon to provide leadership. There is no
bigger challenge facing the future of this country than paying down our
enormous national debt.
During the debate on the balanced budget amendment there will be
numbers and numbers and more numbers. But I ask you to focus on these
numbers: America made gross interest payments of $344 billion in fiscal
year 1996 on our national debt. That's $344 billion that was not used
to improve our schools, strengthen our national defense, protect our
environment, or
[[Page S1003]]
build new transportation systems. And that's just the annual interest.
The only thing that we are doing is paying interest on the national
debt. We are not even beginning to touch the principal. Each day, we
add an average of $700 million to our national debt that already totals
$5.3 billion. By the time we reach anyone's plan for a balanced budget,
the national debt will be $7 trillion.
The national debt that we are leaving for our children and our
children and grandchildren is the real issue in this debate.
What we are doing in cheating the generations that follow us is
immoral. We must put our Government in a position to begin paying down
our national debt. We must begin to put our fiscal house in order, or
our next generation--and I see young people in the galleries today--
will face a disaster. They will have a limited future because they will
have limited opportunities. This debate is about their future, the
future of America, the future of our children and their children.
It strikes me as ironic, Mr. President, that opponents of the
balanced budget amendment argue that it will cause cuts in education,
Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. What they fail to tell
the American people is that if we do nothing--if we fail to act--
deficits and our debt will continue to rise until there is nothing left
in the Federal budget for education, entitlement programs, national
defense, or any other programs--including Social Security.
The real threat to Social Security is the national debt. If we don't
act to balance the budget and stop adding to that debt, then we are
truly placing the future of Social Security in jeopardy.
Furthermore, exempting Social Security from the balanced budget
amendment would actually make Social Security more vulnerable. We are
all well aware that Social Security will begin to run a deficit of
trillions of dollars early in the next century. Taking Social Security
off budget would put it out on a plank all by itself when that time
comes. Including Social Security in our total unified budget
calculations ensures that Congress will have to deal with this crisis
before it hits. How can we take America's largest program off budget?
If Congress took Social Security off budget and ran trillions of
dollars of deficits in it, Congress could still say that they balanced
the budget. That is ludicrous. That is folly. But, more important, it's
dishonest. Does anyone truly believe that Social Security will suffer
if we balance our budget? Let's get real. Social Security has been, and
will continue to be, the highest priority program in the Federal
budget.
Let me say this as straightforward as I can. The best thing we can do
to ensure a sound future for Social Security and America is balance a
unified Federal budget.
Let's be honest with the American people and say it straight. We have
to balance our budget. We cannot continue to pile on to the debt that
we are leaving this next generation and then expect them to be
competitive in the global economy of the 21st century. If it takes an
amendment to the Constitution to balance the budget, we should have
one. Our Framers gave us that option. When it was required to do the
right thing for the people and the Nation, the Framers gave us
amendments to the Constitution to help ensure that we balance our
budget, and we need a balanced budget constitutional amendment. So
let's get at it. Let's show the American people that we are going to do
what we said we would do.
The future for our next generations is growth and more economic
opportunities for all Americans. Only through growing our economy,
cutting taxes, cutting regulation, and cutting Government spending will
we be able to pay off our national debt.
We cannot delay these decisions any longer. Generation after
generation will live with the consequences of our actions or our
inactions. Will they live with the crushing debt of our indecision? Or
will they look back and say that we did rise to the occasion and to the
challenge? Will they say that we faced the deficit and the debt
honestly and took action and ensured the survival of the American
dream?
The magic of America has always been that each generation has done
better than the last because it had more opportunities. I do not want
to look my 6-year-old and 4-year-old in their eyes in 20 years and say
to them that I was a Member of the U.S. Senate, but I didn't do enough
to protect their future.
I will not allow that to be the legacy of this U.S. Senator, nor do I
believe that this is the legacy my distinguished colleagues wish to
leave to their children, grandchildren, and America.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, we being consideration of a
proposed constitutional amendment to require the Federal Government to
achieve and maintain a balanced budget.
Undoubtedly, it is the desire of every Member who supports the
balanced budget amendment to see the Federal budget deficit eliminated
so that we may begin to cut away at the Federal debt which is currently
over $5.28 trillion. Without a balanced budget amendment, there has
been little pressure on the President to submit a balanced budget and
on the Congress to make tough legislative choices on Federal spending.
I would note that the Republican-controlled Congress is working hard to
balance the Federal budget. However, we need a balanced budget
amendment as part of the Constitution. As the Congress authorizes
Federal spending, we must understand the reality that there are a
finite number of tax dollars available for public spending and various
proposals would compete on merit and need, not popularity.
The balanced budget amendment would instill legislative
accountability as the Congress considers various proposals for
increased Federal spending. Currently, there is no real check on
runaway Federal spending, and there will never be a shortage of
legislation creating new Federal programs or efforts to increase
spending in existing programs. Without a balanced budget amendment,
budget deficits over the long term will continue to rise and the
Federal debt will continue to grow. There have been times when gestures
were made to bring spending within our means but those efforts were
shortlived. Statutes to reduce Federal spending have not been enough.
They are too easily cast aside and the Federal Government rolls along
on its path of fiscal irresponsibility.
I am convinced that without the mandate of a balanced budget
amendment, Federal spending will continue to eclipse receipts and the
American people will continue to shoulder inordinate tax burdens to
sustain an indefensible Federal appetite for spending. In 1950, an
average American family with two children sent $1 out of every $50 it
earned to the Federal Government. Today, the average American family is
spending $1 out of every $4 it earns to the Federal Government.
Mr. President, we can trace the debate on a balanced budget amendment
back in our history for 200 years. A defining moment may well have been
the appointment of Thomas Jefferson as Minister to France. Thomas
Jefferson was abroad when the Constitution was written and he did not
attend the constitutional convention. If Jefferson had been in
attendance, it is quite possible that he would have been successful in
having language placed in the Constitution to limit the spending
authority of the Federal Government. Upon studying the Constitution,
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter of a change he so fervently believed
should become part of the Constitution. He wrote the following:
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our
Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for
the reduction of the administration of our government to the
genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an
additional article taking from the government the power of
borrowing.
Further, Jefferson stated,
To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers
load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election
between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.
Another former President, Andrew Jackson, stated the following,
Once the budget is balanced and the debts paid off, our
population will be relieved from a considerable portion of
its present burdens and will find . . . additional means for
the display of individual enterprise.
President Harrison described unnecessary public debt as ``criminal.''
[[Page S1004]]
Mr. President, early American Presidents and public leaders
understood the dangers of excessive public debt. For almost 150 years,
balanced budgets or budget surpluses were the fiscal norm followed by
the Federal Government. The unwritten rule followed by Presidents and
legislators until recently in our Nation's history was to achieve
balanced budgets except in wartime. Unfortunately, the role and the
size of the Federal Government has grown out of control. In the past
three decades, the Federal Government has run deficits in every year
except one. Further, the Federal Government has run deficits in 56 of
the last 64 years.
The Federal debt has grown as deficits have continued and the debt is
now over $5.28 trillion. It took this Nation over 200 years to run the
first trillion dollar debt yet we have recently been adding another
trillion dollars to our debt about every 5 years.
I have been deeply concerned during my time in the Senate over the
growth of the Federal Government. It has been too easy for the Congress
to pass legislation creating new Federal programs and spending more tax
dollars whenever there is a call for Federal intervention. Of course,
the Federal Government has an appropriate role to protect the citizens
of this Nation, but it is not realistic to believe that Washington
should respond to every perceived problem with a new Federal approach.
This Nation has drifted from its original foundations as a national
government of limited authority. I believe the adoption of a balanced
budget amendment will do much to return us to a more limited Federal
Government and decentralized authority and the mandates of such an
amendment will increase legislative accountability. A balanced budget
amendment is the single most important addition we can propose to the
Constitution to begin reducing the size of the Federal Government.
Mr. President, we have seen the national debt and deficits rise in
large part because the Federal Government has grown. The first $100
billion budget in the history of the Nation occurred in 1962. This was
almost 180 years after the Nation was founded. Yet, it took only 9
years, from 1962 to 1971, for the Federal budget to reach $200 billion.
Then, the Federal budget continued to skyrocket; $300 billion in 1975,
$500 billion in 1979, $800 billion in 1983, and the first $1 trillion
budget in 1987. The budget for fiscal year 1996 was over $1.5 trillion.
Federal spending has gripped Congress as a narcotic but it is time to
break the habit and restore order to the fiscal policy of this Nation.
Two years ago, we were only one vote short of the votes needed to
pass the balanced budget amendment. We now have another opportunity to
send the balanced budget amendment to the American people for
ratification. I hope we do not fail the American people on this
historic opportunity and instead present to the States our proposed
amendment to mandate balanced Federal budgets. It is time to act to
secure the future for all Americans.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as you can see, this is a very important
amendment. This is a very important debate. This particular debate is
going to determine whether this country is going to go ahead with a
fiscally responsible Government or whether it isn't. And, frankly, I
think it is time that we do vote on this and that we do what is right
for our country.
We are waiting for a couple of Senators who would like to come and
speak to this.
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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from
Nebraska for his maiden speech on the floor of the Senate on the
balanced budget amendment. He did a very good job. He made a lot of
very important points. I hope everybody in this country will pay
attention to him.
This is a fellow who has sacrificed for his country. He was a war
hero. He has been much decorated. He decided he wanted to run for the
U.S. Senate so he could make a difference, and he made a real
difference here today. I personally commend him for it and thank him
for it.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while I disagree with the position of the
distinguished Senator from Nebraska, I, too, compliment him on his
first speech. He obviously had given great thought to it and to his
position. It was sort of in the dim recesses of my own memory of the
first time I spoke on the floor. I know it is a special time. I applaud
him for waiting to speak on this matter. Whichever side we are on, we
all agree that it is a very serious matter.
I notice that the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts is
on the floor and wishes to speak. Following the sort of informal
arrangement the Senator from Utah and I have worked out, trying to go
back and forth, I will yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. Mr.
President, I support a balanced budget, but I oppose this
constitutional amendment. It is unnecessary, unwise, and untimely. At
the very moment when Congress is about to balance the Federal budget
the right way, our Republican friends are attempting to do it the wrong
way, by writing an inflexible requirement into the Constitution.
Tomorrow, President Clinton will give Congress an opportunity to
approve a balanced budget that genuinely protects the priorities of
American families on key issues, such as Social Security, Medicare,
education, jobs, health care, and the environment, while achieving the
goal of a balanced budget in the year 2002. That is what American
families want and need, not a risky and unnecessary constitutional
amendment that would jeopardize these priorities, hamstring the
economy, and place a straitjacket in the Constitution.
Our Republican friends refuse to admit the extraordinary progress we
have already made under President Clinton to balance the budget. Twelve
years of Reagan-Bush budgets tripled the national debt and quadrupled
the deficit. But in 4 years under President Clinton's leadership, we
have reduced the deficit by nearly two-thirds, and the goal of a
balanced budget is clearly within our grasp.
The proposed constitutional amendment has several fatal flaws. One of
the most flagrant is the clear threat it poses to Social Security.
Today, over 43 million senior citizens rely on Social Security as a
lifeline, and millions more are counting on it for their future. Yet
the balanced budget constitutional amendment does not protect Social
Security--it endangers it.
For over a decade, beginning with the Reagan administration when
Social Security first came under heavy hostile fire from some members
of the Republican Party, large bipartisan majorities in both the Senate
and the House of Representatives have consistently dealt with that
threat by providing clear protection for that basic program. Major
legislation in 1983, 1985, and 1990 all protected Social Security by
placing it outside the regular budget process. Yet this proposed
constitutional amendment would undo all those protections, and put
Social Security on the chopping block with all other programs.
When we were considering the markup of the balanced budget amendment,
I made this point. Those who took a different position said, ``Well,
Social Security will be protected in any event because of the existing
statutes.'' But what they fail to understand is that we are talking
about a constitutional amendment that will override those particular
statutes. Those statutes will be ineffective because of the new
constitutional mandate.
We will erode the protections afforded Social Security in the past.
The protections recommended by the Social Security Commission in 1983,
which were effectively adopted in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget
statute and restated, with bipartisan support, in 1990. These are
important pieces of legislation that clearly said that Social Security
is different.
Social Security is special. Social Security represents dollars paid
in by workers with the clear understanding and effective guarantee that
they will
[[Page S1005]]
be paid back at retirement. Social Security is different, as all of us
well understand, from other provisions of legislation--direct
appropriations and the discretionary budget, which funds, for example,
education programs, NIH, the military, and the entitlement programs,
plus the interest on the debt. As much as I strongly support the
commitments at NIH or the Pell Grant Program, citizens do not pay into
those programs expecting to get something back in the future.
That is why, Mr. President, it has been the time-honored position of
this body--with bipartisan support--to place a firewall around Social
Security. But not under the balanced budget amendment. It is right in
there along with other programs, eligible for the chopping block.
This proposal could easily force the Federal Government to stop
making payments on Social Security checks. As House sponsors of the
amendment have admitted, ``The President would be bound, at the point
at which the Government runs out of money, to stop issuing checks.''
That would be a disaster for senior citizens on fixed incomes who count
on Social Security to pay their rent, buy their food, or pay their
heating bills.
How can any senior citizen count on Republican pledges that say,
``Trust us. We won't hurt Social Security''? Our answer is clear--stop
dissembling about Social Security. Stop playing this phony shell game
with Social Security. We all know how to protect Social Security--so I
say, protect it.
The second fatal flaw surrounding this amendment is the pretense of
broad public approval. Proponents claim the amendment has widespread
support among families in communities across the country. The polls
seem--but only seem--to confirm that. A balanced budget constitutional
amendment does have superficial appeal. It sounds good in a sound bite,
but it can't survive serious debate.
Families don't balance their budgets this way. If they did, they
could never buy a home through a mortgage, or borrow money to send
their children to college or to buy a car.
That is the family budget. We hear, ``Well, the families have to
account for their funding.'' They do, and we should. And we will under
President Clinton's budget. But to say that the families of this
country do not mortgage their homes and pay off the debt over a period
of time or borrow to send their children to college or to buy a car is
misstating and misrepresenting what is really happening on Main Street
USA.
Our Republican friends should not be lulled into a false sense of
public support for this phony amendment. When families across America
realize its flaws, this amendment will flunk the kitchen table test.
The third fatal flaw in this amendment is its threat to the economy.
Republicans tell us that this proposal is good for families. But over
1,000 economists, including 7 Nobel prize winners, have condemned the
amendment as an unacceptable risk to the health of the economy.
As Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin told the Senate Judiciary
Committee, the amendment would ``subject the Nation to unacceptable
economic risks in perpetuity * * *. A balanced budget amendment could
turn slowdowns into recessions, and recessions into more severe
recessions or even depressions.''
Mr. President, we have seen an expanding and growing economy in
recent years. It has worked very well for an important percentage of
the American people. It has not worked as well for all working families
in this country. We acknowledge that. That is an area which I think we
have to give greater focus and attention. But we do not have the
dramatic swings that we experienced at other times in our economic
history. Times that had a disastrous effect on working families--in
particular, working families at the lower level of the economic ladder.
So why are we putting them at risk with the balanced budget amendment?
The wealthiest individuals are not going to be hurt if their Social
Security check is cut or the Pell Grant program is reduced. Working
families will be at risk. And the working poor have the most to lose
because, if this country is put into a depression, they are the ones
who will forfeit their jobs and the opportunity to provide for their
families.
This amendment could spell disaster for working families during times
of recession. The amendment turns off the economy's automatic
stabilizers. That could cause unemployment to rise dramatically.
It is estimated that the unemployment rate in the 1992 recession
would have risen to 9 percent, instead of 7.7 percent, and an
additional 1 million Americans would have been thrown into the
unemployment lines. What sense does it make to pass a fell-good
constitutional amendment that could have harsh and extreme consequences
like that?
Proponents claim that Congress would act in time to avoid any
economic emergency. Does anyone seriously believe that? Under the
three-fifths rule in this amendment, a willful minority could hold the
economy and the entire country hostage indefinitely.
The House sponsors of the amendment have acknowledged this problem.
They admit the amendment would have the effect of ``lowering the
blackmail threshold * * * from 50 percent plus one in either body to 40
percent plus one.'' That is the height of irresponsible government.
I say, let's work together, on both sides of the aisle, to pass an
honest balanced budget that protects the Nation's priorities, protects
the economy, and protects the Constitution too. Amending the
Constitution is a transparent partisan political gimmick, and I'm
convinced the people will see through it as this debate continues.
Mr. President, I look forward later in this debate to have the chance
to debate the issues on Social Security, the enforcement provision, how
this measure would tend to force amendments, and we will work with the
leadership, Senators Leahy and Hatch, to offer those amendments in a
timely way to permit Members to engage in this debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
I note by way of a prefacing comment the amendment that we are
debating is a significant one. Obviously, there is going to be
prolonged and thoughtful debate on the merits of Senate Joint
Resolution 1, as is appropriate.
I note that not all Democrats agree with the position I take in
support of this amendment, and not all members of the same family
agree. The very able and distinguished senior Senator from
Massachusetts has made an eloquent statement here just moments ago in
opposition. His articulate and able nephew joined us at a press
conference earlier today with equal vigor arguing for its ratification.
So this will have some ramifications, I am sure, in terms of the
process here in Washington.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BRYAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the comment. It is two out of three. We
have two out of three members of the family who oppose it. But I
appreciate the Senator's pointing out the one member of the family. We
will have a chance to talk to him.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BRYAN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. HATCH. I think we see some hope for the Kennedy family.
Mr. BRYAN. I do not want to transgress and separate that wall of
separation between church and state, but I think there may be a period
of redemption here for those who have not yet been enlightened by our
view.
It is always a pleasure to engage the Senator from Massachusetts in
conversation because I know that he advocates from a position of
conviction, sincerely a colleague whom I respect even though in this
particular case I find myself in disagreement with his position.
Mr. President, this debate will climax later this month when the
Senate tries to muster the 67 votes necessary to make this the 28th
amendment to the Constitution. The outcome of this vote will have
historic consequences which will significantly affect this country for
decades to come. If we are successful in getting this amendment added
to our Constitution, it will be this Congress' legacy to the history
books and to our children and our grandchildren.
[[Page S1006]]
The President spoke eloquently last evening in his State of the Union
Address. I have known the President for at least 15 years, when he and
I served as chief executive officers of our respective States, and I
have never heard him speak more eloquently. I believe it is the most
eloquent of the State of the Union Messages that I have heard as a
Member of this body. He spoke at considerable length about our children
and the 21st century. We are part of the 20th century. As he pointed
out, those who are born this year will have little or no memory of the
century that has been the governing influence in the lives of every
Member of this institution and those who report our actions for this
generation.
I believe with equal sincerity that the action we take on this
amendment is, likewise, for our children and their legacy so that they
may have the same economic opportunities we have. It is my sense, and I
will speak to this more in just a moment, that we foreclose and
mortgage their future if we do not arrest a trend that has been
institutionalized with both Democratic and Republican administrations
and with Democratic and Republican Congresses.
As I commented earlier this month at a press conference with my able
colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, both
the White House and the Congress have supported a balanced budget.
Democrats and Republicans in the Congress support a balanced budget. It
has become the Holy Grail, if you will, of American political strategy
to reach a balanced budget. Suffice it to say, our track record has not
been particularly impressive. In 59 of the last 67 years, we have
failed to balance the budget, and as a consequence these numbers are
staggering. I want to talk to that issue a little bit more in a moment.
I do not underestimate the seriousness of an undertaking to amend the
Constitution. We have only done so 27 times in our history, and so we
should approach this carefully and analytically. This will and should
be a lengthy debate, with serious consideration given to legitimate
points of view, but in the final analysis I believe it is imperative
that Congress send to the States some form of a balanced budget
amendment. Other approaches have been tried and failed, but for the
future economic well-being of our country, our children, and
our grandchildren, we must take this step.
The wording of the resolution is straightforward and the text is
barely two pages long. Under Senate Joint Resolution 1, total Federal
spending must not exceed total Federal revenues for each year unless a
60-percent supermajority of those elected in both the House and the
Senate vote to allow the Congress to authorize a specific amount of
deficit spending.
While the wording is straightforward, the significance in terms of
its impact on our country cannot be overestimated. Balanced budget
amendments are not alien to our Government. In fact, almost all States
have balanced budget requirements either in their constitutions or in
their statutes.
As Governor of Nevada, I was required to balance the State's budget.
It was not always an easy task, particularly during the economic
slowdown of the early 1980's which affected my own State of Nevada and
many other States. The year that I was elected Governor, in 1982, the
recession had reached its low point in my State, and in January 1983,
as I assumed office, we were not sure in that first month whether we
could handle the payroll for State government. It was close. It was nip
and tuck.
It is always the lot of those who seek support for programs, many of
which I support, many of which the Members of this Chamber are
supportive of, it is always the nature of those groups to ask more than
they know you can provide, and Governors have the responsibility
reinforced with a balanced budget provision, notwithstanding those
requests and the merit of many of them, to simply say I would love to
do it, I would like to do it, but we simply cannot do it because we do
not have the money to do it and we have to operate within the revenue
stream that we have.
That is the way we conduct our personal affairs, in business and
private life. We lack that institutional discipline, it seems to me,
here at the Federal level. And I say that without respect to
partisanship. That is true with Democratic and Republican
administrations alike.
My experience born out of that time is that a balanced budget
requirement instills fiscal discipline in a system that is otherwise
predisposed to avoid making hard, unpopular choices, and for the most
part States have performed admirably when it comes to fiscal
responsibility. We cannot say the same for the Federal Government in
recent history.
In our country's first 150 years, there was almost an unwritten rule
that the Federal Government should balance its budget. The United
States Government ran deficits during the War of 1812, the Civil War
and the Spanish-American War, to name a few occasions. But in other
periods the Federal Government ran surpluses to reduce its outstanding
debts. On the whole, only emergencies justified running deficits.
However, in the past 36 years, the Federal Government has balanced its
budget only once, in fiscal year 1969, and has failed in 59 of the last
67 years.
That is not an impressive record. None of us ought to be proud of
that record. Let me emphasize, because this is bipartisan, that
occurred under Republican administrations, Democrat administrations,
Republican Congresses, and Democrat Congresses. So institutionally we
all share the failure in being able to achieve that balanced budget.
Since 1980, the accumulated Federal debt has skyrocketed from less
than $1 trillion to over $5 trillion. That represents $20,000 for every
American, man, woman, and child. This has taken place in an era when
our country has not been at war and has enjoyed relatively healthy
economic conditions. No one can claim national emergency necessitated
running these deficits.
Many in Washington believe there is now a true commitment to fiscal
discipline. On the Federal level, in the last few years there has been
some cause for optimism. For the first time since before the American
Civil War, for four consecutive years, the annual deficit has declined.
The President can take credit for that as well as the Congress for
actions that have been taken.
What we do not hear is that in the current budget year we are
developing, the deficits will begin to rise again, and so they will in
each successive year to the year 2002. That success has been achieved
as a result of a number of things that we have done in the Congress and
in an economy that has enjoyed a surprising long run in growth. The
deficit has been cut in half from its projected level just 4 years ago
and the deficit has fallen from 4.9 percent of the gross domestic
product in 1992 to 1.4 percent in 1996.
I know, and I think every Member of this Chamber knows, it is going
to be extremely difficult, but we must complete the task and balance
the budget by 2002. I am pleased to note and to sense a strong
bipartisan will to achieve this goal. When we debate the budget
resolution and 13 appropriations bills later this year, our will to
achieve a balanced budget by 2002 will be sorely tested. I am
optimistic, and I am hopeful we will rise to that challenge.
If we can balance the budget by 2002, some may ask, why do we need a
balanced budget constitutional amendment? The simple answer is that
this amendment is in the form of an insurance policy that Congress will
live up to its good intentions. The amendment will keep our feet to the
fire. While I respect the good intention of Members of Congress,
history has proven that in the past three-quarters of a century we have
not been up to the challenge. As I indicated a moment ago, in 59 of the
last 67 years, the Federal Government has spent more money than it took
in.
Additionally, since 1978, Congress has enacted five statutes
requiring a balanced Federal budget--clearly good intentions. But
Federal statutes have not worked, which is why I believe an amendment
to the Constitution is the next logical and necessary step we must
take. If we have the desire to balance the budget, why have we had so
much difficulty in achieving this goal? While people in theory support
a balanced budget, I am sure my colleagues share the same experience
that I have had. At every townhall meeting, if asked, ``Do you favor
the Federal Government balancing its budget?'' The answer is
overwhelmingly in the affirmative. But when it comes down to specific
cuts, it is interesting that that
[[Page S1007]]
same townhall meeting will say, ``But I don't want you to cut here.''
And in an audience of a couple hundred people, there are probably a
dozen programs that those of our constituents who come to these
meetings suggest: Balance the budget but don't make any cuts in these
respective programs. They, like past Congresses, shy away from the hard
choices.
Unfortunately, the consequences of failing to make the hard choices
are either very subtle or are not felt for years or decades. While cuts
in food stamps or home heating assistance are felt immediately and
energize a specific constituency, a point or two rise in interest rates
caused by deficit spending is hidden. Some of the American people have
to make the connection between large Federal budget deficits and higher
interest rates. These higher interest rates have a dramatic impact on
the American family's bottom line. In fact, DRI-McGraw-Hill estimates
that interest rates will drop by 2 percent if we balance the budget.
This will save an average family $2,169 per year in mortgage interest,
$180 on an auto loan, and $216 on a typical student loan.
But the most insidious effects of deficit spending are the larger and
larger burdens we pass on to the next generation. In just a decade, the
deficit has gone from $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in this
country to more than $20,000 this year. We are burdening future
generations with the tab for our inability to bite the bullet, to make
the hard choices.
Our inability to balance the budget has had a compounding effect.
Each year we fail to do so, the job becomes harder the next year, as we
have to pay more to service the national debt. In the past 20 years,
the percentage of our budget that goes to servicing the debt has risen
from 7 to 15 percent. We lose 15 percent of our budget just paying for
the excesses of the past and just the interest, none of that retiring
the principal which is now approximately $5.3 trillion.
Put another way, $1 in every $6 of our Federal budget goes to paying
interest on our more than $5 trillion national debt. Before the first
school lunch is paid for, before another road is paved, before much-
needed repair is undertaken on our neglected National Park System, we
spend in gross interest payments alone, $300 billion as the cost of
servicing our national debt. It is the second largest Federal spending
item, following Social Security, and is equal to almost one-half of our
personal income taxes paid to the Federal Government. Yet we have
nothing to show for it.
While there is little disagreement on the evils of budget deficits,
there is a serious disagreement and debate over whether Senate Joine
Resolution 1 addresses specific concerns people have. I want to address
one that is very sensitive and certainly worthy of being discussed and
carefully considered, and that is whether Social Security should be
included in a balanced budget amendment.
I believe Social Security should be removed from the balanced budget
amendment. I do not do this lightly, because removing the Social
Security surpluses will make it more difficult in our task of balancing
the budget. The surplus for 1996 was approximately $60 billion. But
whether Social Security should be taken out of the balanced budget
amendment depends on how you view the Social Security system. If you
believe it to be a pay-as-you-go system where today's workers' payroll
taxes should go to pay the benefits of today's retirees, then Social
Security should remain a part of the overall budget, and that is an
honest, philosophical point of view. If, however, you believe the funds
being taken out of today's workers' payrolls should be set aside for
their retirement, years from now, then Social Security should be taken
out of budget.
In fact, Congress has spoken on this issue and, in 1990, enacted
legislation to take Social Security out of the unified budget. But my
support for taking Social Security out of the balanced budget amendment
is based on my conviction that we must start putting aside money for
future retirees or we will face, as a country, financial calamity. The
math does not work out, for there will be far too few workers to
support far too many retirees when the baby boom generation retires in
the next century.
Finally, we currently have 3.2 workers for every retiree. In the year
2030, we will have only two workers for every retiree, and young people
today are rightfully skeptical about what will be left to pay for their
retirement. One way to restore their confidence would be to truly set
aside their payroll contribution by taking it out of a balanced budget
amendment. This would prohibit the Federal Government from using Social
Security surpluses when it balances the budget, and Social Security
would look more like a traditional retirement system.
Over the next several weeks the Senate will engage in serious debate
over the issue of excluding Social Security from a balanced budget
amendment. While I support such an amendment, I believe it is vital
that we pass a balanced budget amendment, even if it does not exclude
Social Security. The worst thing we can do for Social Security is to
fail to pass any balanced budget amendment.
Without the fiscal discipline provided by the amendment, we will
never be able to keep our budget in order.
If we have learned nothing else from our past budget problems, it
should be that putting off the solution only makes matters more
difficult to rectify. A little pain now helps us to avoid a lot of pain
later. The fiscal discipline of the balanced budget amendment will make
it much easier for us to responsibly assure the long-term solvency of
the Social Security System. The worst option for the long-term
viability of Social Security, in my opinion, would be to continue with
the status quo and fail to enact a balanced budget amendment.
Let me just embellish upon that for a moment. I know that many of my
colleagues will be joining me in supporting an amendment to take Social
Security off budget, and I believe they are sincere in desiring to
protect Social Security. But I must say, I find it difficult to follow
the logic that if there is not sufficient votes to take Social Security
off budget in this constitutional amendment, that somehow voting
against a balanced budget in some way protects Social Security.
I have been a Member of this body since 1989. I have seen budgets
submitted by a Republican and a Democratic President, and we will see a
budget submitted to us tomorrow by this President. Each President has
submitted as part of a budget proposal to us the Social Security
surplus. So tomorrow, the $60 billion that represents this year's
surplus will be included in the spending plan that is recommended to
the Congress.
So the notion that somehow if we fail to adopt a balanced budget
amendment we are protecting Social Security, I must say, is an argument
the logic of which I do not understand. We are currently using that
surplus in the Social Security budget to finance the operational
expenses of the Federal Government. Republican Presidents have done it;
Democratic Presidents have done it. And in my view, it is a misguided
notion that we protect Social Security by rejecting a balanced budget
amendment that does not contain the off-budget language.
Mr. President, this Congress has a historic opportunity to take
action that will positively affect this country for generations to
come. If we fail, I am afraid we will continue to push financial
burdens on those who come after us. Let this Congress' legacy be that
it took bold action and that it did so in a bipartisan way, and that by
so doing, we protect the future economic well-being of all Americans. I
urge my colleagues to enact Senate Joint Resolution 1.
As I said at the outset, I do not take amending our Constitution
lightly, but I feel, in light of the circumstances of our recent
history, it is the only responsible course of action. History has shown
us that good intentions, Federal statutory enactments have failed to do
the job. A balanced budget amendment will bring about the fiscal
discipline our country so desperately needs, and I urge my colleagues,
Democrats and Republicans alike, to join with us in enacting a
constitutional amendment that will balance the Federal budget in the
year 2002, and, by so doing, ensure that our children and our
grandchildren will enjoy the economic opportunities that have been the
privilege of our generation to enjoy.
[[Page S1008]]
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will only take a moment, because the
distinguished Senator from Minnesota wishes to make a statement on the
other side of the issue.
I thank my colleague from Nevada for an excellent set of remarks. He
is a tremendous leader on this issue, the principal cosponsor of this
amendment on the Democratic side of the aisle. I thank him for all the
work he has done and the excellent remarks that he has made. It means
an awful lot to all of us.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank my colleague from Utah for his generous remarks. I
look forward to working with him and our other colleagues in seeing
this measure is enacted into law.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a few seconds to point
out this little stack. This is only 28. This stack is only 28 of the
unbalanced budgets since 1969. We were afraid to put up the ones before
1969, which was the last year when we had a balanced budget in this
country. So those who get up and say, ``Well, we just simply ought to
have the will to do it,'' look at this stack. We are going to have to
take it down because we are afraid somebody will get hurt. We wanted
the American people to see just what they have lived with for 28 solid
years, and that doesn't even count the years before. It is pitiful for
people to stand up and say, ``Well, we don't need a balanced budget
amendment.'' That is pitiful, too,
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if Senator Hatch will yield for 1 minute.
Mr. HATCH. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, I happened
to be on ``Meet the Press'' on Sunday. I couldn't put all 29 unbalanced
budgets there, but I put a couple. Frankly, I described this episode in
American history as 29 years of engagement where we have been engaged
with the American people and to the American people on a balanced
budget, and, as I put it, the time has come to get married, to tie the
knot. The engagement has been too long, 29 years.
My second point is, for those who are listening and frequently see
some of us speak to these issues on the floor, before you believe the
statements coming from those who oppose this constitutional amendment
that by taking it off budget you make it more secure and more safe,
just be patient. Some of us will convince you that by taking it off
budget, you put the Social Security trust fund at risk and pensions for
the future at risk, because they will be subject to exclusively the
will of a Congress.
That is all you need to worry about is to put a trust fund out there
that has money and let Congress have ahold of it and no balanced budget
requirement. You can just imagine what we are going to be able to show
seniors what is going to happen to that fund if you take it off budget.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I won't make some of the arguments that
have been made in opposition to this amendment. With all due respect to
my colleagues, we can look back with a sense of history, and I think
there is probably plenty of blame on both sides--I am glad to say I
wasn't here during most of that history--about budgets that were not in
balance. But the fact of the matter is, people in our country have made
it really clear that they want to see us get our fiscal house in order.
We can do that, we should do that, and we don't need this amendment.
I do, in a moment, want to talk about who is at risk and exactly what
kind of priorities I believe this amendment is going to lock us into,
which I don't think are the priorities and values of people in our
country.
Privilege of the Floor
Before I do that, I ask unanimous consent that Jordan Cross, who is
an intern, be granted privilege of the floor for the duration of this
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as we turn our thoughts to the new
century--and I have a different context about this debate--we can
celebrate a great deal. The past 100 years have seen massive
improvements in the quality of our national life, American leadership
in getting the world past murderous global conflict and successful
transcendence of economic crisis.
Our population is more diverse than ever, and at midcentury, we
dismantled the legal framework encasing our original sin of State-
sanctioned racism. We are, in many varied ways, a model for much of the
world.
But there is at least one way in which we are not a model, one area
in which in recent times we have been moving in the wrong direction.
That is in fulfilling our national vow of equal opportunity.
We said in 1776 that every American should have the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In 1997, that national
commitment is in need of refurbishing and renewal. Mr. President, I
will explain in a moment why I start out with this context.
More than 35 million Americans--1 out of every 7 of our fellow
citizens--are officially poor. More than one out of every four children
in our country today are poor. One out of every two children of color
are poor in America today. And the poor are getting poorer.
In 1994, of the poor children under the age of 6, nearly half lived
in families with incomes below half the poverty line. That figure has
doubled over the last 20 years, as has the number of people who work
full time, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and still are poor.
Mr. President, minorities are poorer than the rest of Americans.
African Americans are close to 30 percent and Hispanics at a little
over 30 percent. And 44.6 percent of children who lived in families
that are female-headed families were poor in 1994. Almost half of all
children who were poor live in female-headed households. Women are
disproportionately among the ranks of the poor in America. There is a
convergence between race and gender and poverty and children.
Mr. President, when I introduce my amendments in this debate that
will ensue over the next couple of weeks, I am going to talk in very
concrete terms about what it means to be poor in America.
Context, Time magazine, ``Special Report: How A Child's Brain
Develops, And What It Means for Child Care and Welfare Reform.'' This
is startling. This is medical evidence that is irreducible and
irrefutable, and the evidence says that the first 3 years are critical.
We have to make sure that, first of all, women that are expecting
children have an adequate diet. Otherwise, their children at birth may
not have the opportunity and the chance that is the very essence of the
American dream. And if children do not have an adequate diet during
these early years, and decent health care, and children do not get a
smart start and have nurturing care and stimulation by age 3, it may
very well be that they will never be able to fully participate in the
economic and political and social and cultural life of our Nation.
What does this have to do with this debate? Let me be clear about who
is at risk. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--by
the way, Bob Greenstein and the work of this organization is
impeccable. All of us on both sides of the aisle have a tremendous
amount of respect for their work.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than 93
percent of the budget reductions in entitlement programs in the 104th
Congress came from programs for low-income people. Congress reduced
entitlement programs by $65.6 billion over the period from 1996 to
2002. Of that amount, $61 billion out of the $65 billion came out of
low-income entitlement programs. Entitlement programs not targeted on
low-income households were reduced only $4.6 billion--whether it was
nutrition, whether it was health care, whether it was early childhood
development.
I will tell you what was interesting. Those citizens in this country
who do not have the political power, who do not hire the lobbyists, who
are not the heavy hitters--let me make a connection to campaign finance
reform, who were not the big givers--they are the ones who
disproportionately were asked to pay the price.
[[Page S1009]]
We had deficit reduction--talking about how to balance the budget--
based on the path of least political resistance. It was not the oil
companies. It was not the pharmaceutical companies. It was not the big
insurance companies. But it was children, disproportionately low-income
citizens and disproportionately poor children in America.
Mr. President, therefore, the first amendment that I am going to
offer, which I think is a litmus test for all of us--I hope I will get
support from the other side of the aisle--will read as follows: ``This
amendment would exempt outlays that would disproportionately affect
nutrition, health care, and education programs.''
Mr. President, this is an amendment that basically says that we want
to make sure we would exempt outlays that would disproportionately
affect the nutrition, health care, and educational programs and status
of children.
Mr. President, it is a simple amendment. We have been hearing
speeches in which all of us have talked about education and children.
We love to have photo opportunities with children. This amendment just
says, ``OK, if you're going to lock us in to a balanced budget, I think
we need to get a commitment, based upon the record of the 104th
Congress, that you are not going to make disproportionate cuts in
programs that deal with the educational, health care, and nutritional
status of children.'' Everyone should vote yes for that.
Let us go on record. Let us be clear that we are not going to target
for cuts, we are not going to target for pain poor children in America,
that we will not make those disproportionate cuts in nutritional
programs for those children, in health care programs for those
children, in educational programs and early childhood programs for
those children.
I think this amendment speaks to a very real concern that people have
in this country. Exactly what is the agenda here?
Mr. President, the second amendment--let me repeat the first
amendment one more time: ``Federal outlays shall not be reduced in a
manner that disproportionately affects outlays for education,
nutrition, and health care programs for children.''
That should be an amendment that I should get support on from both
sides of the aisle. ``Federal outlays shall not be reduced in a manner
that disproportionately affects outlays for education, nutrition, and
health care programs for children.''
Mr. President, the second amendment that I am going to offer is that
``Funding for the Women, Infants, and Children Program shall be
exempted from the definition of outlays for balanced budget
calculations, thus protecting such spending from cuts under a balanced
budget amendment.''
Mr. President, it is pretty simple. The Women, Infants, and Children
Program provided assistance in 1996 for 7.3 million women, infants, and
children. However, it was only 60 percent of the eligible population,
and 11 million mothers and children were eligible. Only 7.2 million
were covered, leaving 4 million women, infants, and children vulnerable
and not benefiting from the Women, Infants, and Children Program.
We all know what the evidence suggests. And so my amendment just
simply says, we will exempt that from the definition of outlays for
balanced budget calculations, thus protecting this program. Are we
going to protect it or not? I want to hear people tell me why we would
not go on record saying we would protect it.
The third amendment that I am going to lay out on the floor:
``Funding for Head Start shall be exempted from the definition of
outlays for balanced budget calculations, thus protecting such spending
from cuts under the balanced budget amendment.''
Mr. President, in 1996, Head Start served 796,500 children. According
to the Census Bureau, there were roughly 2 million American children
living in poverty. That leaves 1,200,000 children who were still
unserved.
This program, which gives children just what the title says it does,
a head start, reached only 17 percent of eligible 3-year-olds and only
41 percent of eligible 4-year-olds. The medical evidence is in. These
are the ages where we need to support these children. These children,
just because they come from poor households, deserve every bit of
support we can give them.
This amendment lays itself on the line. If you are going to support
this amendment to balance the budget and lock us in, then I want a
commitment from this Senate that we will not target these children and
we will not have cuts in this vital program that gives children a head
start, some of the most vulnerable poor children in America.
Finally, Mr. President, another amendment--and these are just four I
am going to preview. ``Funding for education shall be exempted from the
definition of outlays for balanced budget calculations, thus protecting
such spending from cuts under the balanced budget amendment.''
I heard the President last night talking about education. I heard the
President last night talking about early childhood development.
Senators were on their feet applauding. So I am just saying since I saw
what we did last Congress, I saw where we made the cuts, I want to hear
Senators argue with me that, if there is another position here--almost
all those cuts affected low-income citizens. Almost all those cuts
affected poor children in America, the very citizens who do not get to
the bargaining table, the very citizens who do not march on Washington,
DC, the very citizens who do not have lobbyists.
So I say to my colleagues who support this, how about giving me some
reassurance and, more importantly, how about giving people in our
country reassurance that when we do this we will make sure, one more
time, that Federal outlays shall not be reduced in a manner that
disproportionately affects outlays for education, nutrition and health
care programs for children; that we go on record that we are not going
to cut benefits that deal with the Women, Infants, and Children
Program; that we are going to make sure that a woman expecting a child
has an adequate diet; that we are not going to make cuts in Head Start,
we are going to make sure these children are given a head start; and we
are not going to make cuts in educational programs. It is real simple.
It is up-or-down votes.
I want to know exactly where my colleagues want to take our country
with this constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I want to
know what the priorities are. I want to know where the cuts are going
to be. My understanding, and I will talk much more about this when I
bring the amendments to the floor, is that the majority party, roughly
speaking, has about $500 billion of tax cuts, most of it accelerated
beyond the year 2002--my colleague is shaking his head. We can have a
debate upon that, and I will be very reassured if that is not the case.
Mr. President, if we have hundreds of billions of dollars, even if it
is not $500 billion, in tax cuts and then the tradeoff is going to be
cuts, but where? What is going to be the offset? They do not want to go
after the corporate welfare. They do not want to go after the Pentagon
budget. They want to have hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts,
most of it benefiting high-income, wealthy people. Where will the cuts
be?
In the last Congress almost all cuts focused on low-income families,
low-income children, educational programs. All those programs were in
jeopardy last time.
This time I think we need a reassurance and we need a strong vote in
favor of each of these amendments so that we can have a reassurance for
many, many citizens in our country. The goodness of America says do not
cut Head Start. The goodness of America says do not cut the Women,
Infants, and Children Program. The goodness of America says do not cut
health care programs that will affect the status of children. The
goodness of America says do not make disproportionate cuts in any of
those programs. They have worked. They are important. They are vital.
I hope I will get 100 votes for each of these amendments. If not,
then my colleagues will be making their point. My colleagues will be
saying we refuse to vote for an amendment that puts us on record that
we will not reduce Federal outlays in a manner that disproportionately
affects outlays for education, nutrition, and health programs for
children. I cannot imagine why any Senator would vote against such an
amendment. We should go on record
[[Page S1010]]
and let the goodness of the Senate speak out on these amendments.
I look forward to coming to the floor with each of these amendments.
I will have much supporting evidence. I want to talk about what
happened in the last Congress. I want to go over exactly where we made
the cuts, and I want to see if I can get my colleagues to make a
commitment that we will not continue down this path. I really do
believe that the vast majority of people in America think it would be
wrong to make more cuts in programs like WIC and Head Start, more cuts
in programs that affect the health care, nutrition and educational
status of our children.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think we are about to conclude the
business of the Senate for today. Prior to that happening, I want to
make some opening observations about this historic constitutional
amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, that we have on the floor this
evening and on which we have started debate.
Let me also say to my colleague from Minnesota, who has eloquently
and passionately laid out a variety of critically important items for
us to debate in the coming days, my colleague from Minnesota mentioned
programs that I support. I have always voted for Head Start, and I have
always voted for Women, Infants and Children. Those are very important
programs for our country. I am also one who says those programs have to
be funded within the context of a balanced budget.
I am standing here beside this 6-foot tall stack of budget documents,
what I call the budgets of the era of liberalism. This is when America
said that poor people ought to be cared for, and unprecedented in the
world, this Nation poured out its riches to the poor. Mr. President, 28
years of budgets are represented here, and benefits resulted from some
of what was in them.
We started the WIC program. We started Head Start in these budgets.
They were funded last year and will continue to be funded. But what
happened along the way? People did not seem to get better. People
seemed to get poorer. While this Nation spoke about having a safety
net, and it must speak to the need for a safety net for the truly
needy, we began to learn lessons in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. We
began to learn that handouts are not necessarily a hand up. In a
society as wealthy as ours, while we truly need to be kind and caring--
and the Senator from Minnesota is truly that, and I think that all
Senators are--somehow, along the way, we began to realize that the
cumulative effect of all these spending programs was to put the whole
Nation at risk. These 28 budgets--28 budget packages submitted by six
presidents, both Democrats and Republicans--also represent $5.3
trillion worth of debt. Enough money is paid out annually in interest
to service the debt that these budgets created to fund all the programs
that the Senator from Minnesota wants and many, many more.
That is what the debate is about today. This debate is not about
Women, Infants, and Children. This debate is not about Head Start. This
debate is about fiscal responsibility. This debate is about making
tough policy choices.
I am amazed that the Senator from Minnesota would fear the
constitutional amendment, as eloquent as he is on the issues that he is
impassioned about, because he can appeal to me and he will get my
vote--within the context of a balanced budget--for Head Start and for
Women, Infants, and Children. Then he and I, working together, will
have to work with our other colleagues to make sure that we choose a
rational spending policy that prioritizes these programs because we
decide to reduce elsewhere.
What I will not do and what this Congress will not do is send to the
American people for ratification a constitutional amendment with a
loophole in it large enough to drive all of the trucks that service the
industries in Minnesota through. We dare not send to the American
people a phony document that they might put in the Constitution, in
which we exempt all of these programs from the responsible
decisionmaking that the Senator from Minnesota and I want to make here
on the floor.
Should we exempt Social Security? If we exempted Social Security and
Women, Infants, and Children and Head Start and all of the other
programs being suggested, that is probably better than a third of the
budget. How can we turn to the American people and say now we have a
balanced budget when we just took a third of it off-budget? No longer
would we have the right to make the choice to set priorities. These
would autopilot programs. But instead of protecting these programs,
they would become the loophole through which to channel all sorts of
new and increased spending. I do not think the Senator from Minnesota
wants that. I think what the Senator from Minnesota is speaking to is
setting priorities, making tough choices for the right reasons on the
right issues for people who are less fortunate. If that is what he
means, and I know he means that because I know him well, then he will
have the Presiding Officer's support and he will have my support.
What we would like to ask him to do is to join us in pleading that we
get away from this stack of 28 unbalanced budgets in a row, that we get
away from adding to this $5.3 trillion worth of debt, with its $340
billion a year worth of interest to service the debt. Those huge
interest payments actually strip this country of its resources to do
what that Senator wants done. If we did not have to pay all that
interest, if we had paid off the past Federal debts, then we would have
a surplus today of more than $100 billion a year, available to spend on
programs like those the Senator from Minnesota advances.
The American people now agree with us. Mr. President, 70 or 80
percent plus of the American people say a balanced budget is critical.
President Clinton said last night he was sending us a balanced budget
tomorrow. I bet he funds WIC, and I bet he funds Head Start, and I bet
inside that budget is Social Security. This President, our President,
last night said that was a balanced budget.
A few moments ago the Senator from Massachusetts was on the floor,
and he said we should treat Social Security differently--that there
will be an amendment to treat Social Security differently--from how we,
the Republicans and some Democrats want to under the balanced budget.
He said he wanted to keep it separate and apart. Then he spoke
eloquently about the President's budget, and the President treats
Social Security exactly the way Republicans want to treat it, leaving
it inside the budget, making sure that our Government's fiscal house is
in order so that a government whose budget is balanced is a government
that can meet its obligation. That is really the issue here, and that
is the crux of the debate that will go on over the course of the next
several weeks.
The Senator from Minnesota has approached us this afternoon with four
amendments. They are important amendments and they should be debated;
they should be voted on. I hope that my colleagues, in considering any
amendment, will consider that all of the budget be a part of the whole
and the whole should be balanced. The Secretary of the Treasury does
not suggest that we split anything out of the budget. He suggests that
we deal with a whole budget, that we don't start prying things apart.
The President will present that kind of a budget tomorrow. The reason
that we want to make sure that happens is that it is time this country
makes the tough choices. I think that when we make those tough choices,
under the responsibility of a balanced budget requirement in our
Constitution, social spending programs critical to the truly needy of
our country will survive.
For a few moments, Mr. President, let me talk about what stands
before us here. Twenty-eight years of endlessly unbalanced budgets are
stacked here at my right hand, 28 years of deficit spending, 28 years
since the last time this Government balanced its budget in 1969. Now,
14 of these 28 budgets were never intended to be balanced. They were
intended to be in deficit, to create debt. But 14 of them--the other
half--promised a balanced budget at some point. It was the same kind of
promise we heard from President Clinton last night. These were sincere
promises, all 14 of these budgets that promised eventual balance,
spread over the last 28 years. And I do not question this President's
sincerity in promising yet another budget that reaches balance in a few
years. I believe that he
[[Page S1011]]
believes he can produce a balanced budget.
What was the rhetoric last night? ``You vote for it and I will sign
it.'' The problem is choice making--choice making in an environment in
which we don't have to make hard choices. And as a result of not having
to make hard choices, wanting to serve the needs of the American
people, wanting to address the truly needy, Congresses and Presidents
instead have made easy choices, 28 long years of easy choices.
Oh, they were tough choices at the time, or at least they felt tough.
But when you know you don't have to balance the budget--you do not
really set priorities and make hard choices. And we went through an era
when deficit spending was supposed to be good because it supposedly
stimulated the economy and created jobs. Well, that may have been all
right in some instances when we didn't have a $5.3 trillion debt, when
service on the debt was $5 or $6 billion a year and was a minuscule
part of a total budget. All of a sudden, over the last decade and a
half, this debt has exploded on the American scene and on the American
taxpayer's pocketbook. Today, Social Security and the interest on debt
created by these 28 budgets now rival each other as to which is the
largest single expenditure in the annual budgets of the Federal
Government.
That is why, consistently over recent years, the American people have
said to this Congress--Republican or Democrat-- ``Get your fiscal house
in order and balance the Federal budget.'' Seventy-plus percent of the
American people want a constitutional amendment. But recently polled,
only 12 percent really believed that we would get to a balanced budget
by the year 2002. Why? Here is the reason why: 28 consistent years of
promises made and promises broken to the real people of this country,
the taxpayer who now feels exploited and put upon largely because this
Congress and Congresses like it promised but failed to deliver. Twenty-
eight years of budgets submitted by Presidents that promised deficit
reduction or balanced budgets that never came to be.
Twenty-eight years of borrowing, a total of 36 deficits in 37 years,
$5.3 trillion worth of gross debt. That is $20,000 of debt for every
man, woman, and child in America. So the majority of all the real
people living in this country today have seen a budget actually
balanced only once or never. And they now question the integrity of
their Government and the reality of what this country really is about
and, more important, what its politicians are about.
We will honor the promises made by Social Security because we want to
and because we must. It is a contract with the elderly of our country.
A government whose budget is balanced is a government that can honor
that pledge. A government that is in bankruptcy sends no checks out to
a defense contractor, to an elderly person, or to a single parent on
welfare.
That's the reality of the debate. Somehow we think there are special
needs that could get separated out. At a time when our Government finds
its fiscal house increasingly in trouble, if it goes bankrupt, no
checks go out. That is why, for over 3 years, those who believe in a
balanced budget amendment have argued against those who wish to exempt
out Social Security and other unique social programs. We understand
that the threat to Social Security, the threat to Women, Infants and
Children, the threat to Head Start, is not the balanced budget
amendment, but the debt. Why are we having to cut back on spending on
some programs today? Because we did not balance the budget for so many
years before now. Because of deficits and because of a huge, heavy debt
structure, and because the American people are saying, ``Fix it, it's
broken, correct it.''
What does it mean? What does this stack of paper--thousands of pages
of debt--say to the average American family? Well, it's something like
this, in the sense of what it costs them. Since the time I started
debating this issue in 1982 until today it represents $15,000 for every
American family in income loss, minimally--$15,000. That means that the
average American family's income today--if we had balanced the Federal
budget in 1982 and kept it balanced until 1997--would be $15,000 more.
Those are not my figures. Those are the figures based on a study by the
Concord Coalition. We talk of the needy and of wanting to care for
people. Put an extra $15,000 in every American family's budget and see
what kind of help you have offered them. But, instead, the Government
has taken those fruits of their hard work to service the debt structure
represented by 28 years of profligate deficit spending.
What does it mean to a household with a 30-year mortgage if the
economists are right and we pass this amendment and balance the budget?
Interest rates drop 1\1/2\ to 2 points. And that $30,000 to the average
American family, saved on a 30-year mortgage, is a year in one of the
most expensive colleges in the country. Or if you are in Idaho, that is
2\1/2\ to 3 years of college education in our land grant university.
That is a lot of money. Where does it go today? Out of the working
person's pocketbook into the IRS coffers to pay to service the debt
structure created right here by Congresses past--caring and well-
meaning Congresses--that created this stack of paper representing $5.3
trillion worth of debt.
Well, if there is frustration in this debate for some of our Members,
I don't reject their concerns and I don't take it lightly. I must say
that it may be frustration that we have inflicted upon ourselves,
because it is now necessary to propose a constitutional amendment that
is very simple. It gives us plenty of latitude to get our fiscal house
in order by 2002. It does so in a way that also creates the necessary
flexibility in times of real need and in times of war. It says that
there are margins in which deficit spending can occur, but now it will
take tough choices to deficit spend, not the automatic and easy choices
of past years, not ``oh, well, we will make it up next year or a few
years down the road.''
We will see a variety of amendments to the balanced budget amendment
that will come to the floor in the next several weeks. Senators that
will talk impassionedly about certain priorities that are all critical
and all important. And all these priorities can be served inside a
balanced budget by tough decisions and tough choices on this Congress.
What am I talking about this evening? Correcting a problem that we
created, correcting a problem that threatens--not me, not the Presiding
Officer, and not the Senator from Vermont, but his children, my
children, our grandchildren, and future generations of American
citizens who will want to be as productive as we hope we have been.
How important is correcting that problem of adding to the debt? The
Office of Management and Budget--President Clinton's Office of
Management and Budget--said that if we continue down the path that this
Congress and other Congresses have been on, future generations would
pay 82 percent of their total income in taxes for all levels of
government because of debt, debt service, and government needs--82
percent. That means there is no money left to buy a house, there is no
money to put in a savings account for a rainy day, and there is no
money left for a college education.
So what happens? You turn to your government, and the endless process
is always underway of a government having to do something for more
people because government has taken so much from those who worked so
hard and find themselves getting nowhere.
That is why this has to be corrected, or there will be no future for
the young people of our country. Because a future in which 82 percent
of your gross pay goes to all levels of government is no future at all.
Those are some of the kinds of things we are talking about.
A child born today--again, not my figures, but those of the National
Taxpayers Union--a child born today will pay an additional $180,000 in
taxes during his or her lifetime to service the Federal debt--debt that
his or her grandmas and grandpas spent but didn't pay for. And that is
a tragedy.
Our friend Paul Simon, the now retired Senator from Illinois, who is
as liberal as I am conservative but who stood shoulder to shoulder with
me for a decade fighting the battle of the balanced budget amendment to
our Constitution, called it fiscal child abuse. And he is right.
Because that legacy of crushing debt is no future for any child
[[Page S1012]]
born in America today, having that obligation out in front of them,
being required of them by their Government for from which something
they get no value. That is why this issue has become the No. 1 issue in
America.
Our President spoke of valuable priorities last night, important
issues--education, some tax cuts, the kind of priorities that an
American wants to be proud of and wants to be a part of. Republican or
Democrat, there were many of us who heard a President last night speak
of issues that we can all identify with. But in doing so, we say, with
a simple caveat: They must be within the limit and the capacity of the
ability of the Government to pay for them, and the permission of our
citizens to pay for them, within a balanced budget. It is a simple
requirement. The problem is that the choices are tough, but that is
what my job is and that is what I have hired on to do, as has the
Presiding Officer, and as has the Senator from Vermont.
In the coming days, as we debate, I hope we can see the very clear
differences between those who oppose requiring fiscal responsibility,
who do not want the citizens of this country through the Constitution
to impose that kind of discipline on the floor of this Senate, and
those of us who say that after 28 years of endless spending, endless
debt, and endless deficits, it is time we offer the American people the
choice of whether to require that kind of constitutional discipline.
The time is growing late. It is our intent to adjourn as soon as we
can. But the debate will go on through tomorrow and next week, and we
hope through the balance of February, as we deal with this issue and as
Members of the Senate speak their will, as they should, because I know
of no issue more important than this constitutional amendment.
Our vote will not make it so. Our Founding Fathers decided that was
not our job. Our vote is simply to propose to the American people a
constitutional amendment. And then 38 States, three-fourths of the
States must vote to ratify, and the debate will go on in every State
capital across this country--the debate about Government, the Federal
Government, and its budgets and its priorities. And that will be one of
the healthiest debates the American citizenry has ever been involved
in. From that, Senators serving in this Congress and future Congresses
will not only have the absolute constitutional requirement to balance
the budget, but they will probably have a much clearer idea of what the
American people expect of their Federal Government. That ratification
process is an important process. If we send forth this amendment, we
will have started in this country what I think not only assures that we
get our fiscal house in order, but it assures future generations the
same kind of opportunity that all of us have had in our lifetime.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will not be long because, if nobody else
wants to go home, I know that staff who serve in this body probably
would like to, including the young pages on both sides of the aisle.
They are as important as any contributors to this body. They keep us
going. I hope that for all of them their service here will be an
experience that they will remember all of their lives as worthwhile. I
know that former Senator Pryor, who just recently retired, had been a
page and felt that way. I know two of my children were pages--here and
in the other body--and feel that way.
Mr. President, my good friend from Idaho--he is my good friend--spoke
eloquently of the stacks of budgets. You know that every year we do
have a large document that represents the Federal budget, but I would
point out to him that no constitutional amendment is needed to balance
those budgets.
I have great affection for President Reagan. We had a very good
personal relationship. I used to kid him that every year he would talk
about a need for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and
then he would send up a budget that increased our national debt,
something he did more than any President in our Nation's history. By
the time he got done, he had doubled or tripled the national debt that
had taken over 200 years to build up.
He had wonderful speeches saying, ``Let us balance the budget. But,
by the way, guys, here is my budget, and guess what is in it? It is one
more huge deficit.''
We talk about charts showing how the deficits went up and they did
throughout the 1980's. From President Reagan's election to President
Clinton's election, they skyrocketed more than in all the Nation's
history put together before those 12 years--more than all the debt that
had been arisen from World War II, World War I, the Civil War, the War
of 1812, from all of our wars combined, and from all of our depressions
and from all of our recessions. In just 12 years, the amount of debt
that had grown up was doubled and tripled.
We talk about the last 28 years. Well, President Clinton is the only
President in those 28 years--and now for 4 years in a row--who has
brought down the deficit. That is not withstanding the fact that he has
to find in our budget several hundred million dollars every day, every
single day, just to pay the interest on the debt that was built up
during President Reagan's and President Bush's terms.
I have great affection for President Reagan and President Bush. I
felt privileged to think of them as friends. But there is a big
difference between the rhetoric and the reality when it came to
balancing the budget with them. The debt that the Senator from Idaho so
eloquently speaks of, in terms of our children and our children's
children, the vast bulk of that debt built up just during those 12
years when some talked the talk but were not willing to walk the walk.
And now we have to pay it off.
In 4 years, President Clinton has submitted budgets and fought hard
for them. For 4 years, he has brought the deficit down. No President in
my lifetime, Republican or Democrat, has done that. This year he is
trying to reduce the deficit, again, and achieve a balanced budget
agreement for the next several years.
We talk of amending this Constitution, this little, short
Constitution, the greatest Constitution democracy ever had and the
reason we are the most powerful democracy known to history. We talk
about amending it as if we could, then we all go home and 10 years from
now somehow the amendment would magically come into play and the
Federal budget would be balanced. President Clinton told us last night
that all it takes to balance the budget is our votes, courageous votes,
and his signature. We can balance the budget and we can do it now
without a constitutional amendment.
So, instead of amending our Constitution, why not proceed to use our
votes. I hold up here the voting lists with the names of all Senators
and places marked where they can vote ``yea'' or ``nay.'' Every one of
us can stand up and vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' for a balanced budget. That
is all it takes. We do not have to go through and say 10 years from now
maybe the States will ratify it and it will be in place and maybe some
future Congress will act to make the tough decisions. We can vote right
this minute, today, this month, this year and do what we should do--
make the tough decisions ourselves.
There are only five Senators remaining in this body who had the
courage to vote against Reaganomics, which tripled the national debt. I
am proud to be one of those five. I have cast the tough votes. I have
had special-interest groups from the right and the left, from my State
and your State and every other State, come and give me heck for voting
against their favorite programs. I have probably written as much
legislation as anybody here that has cut huge hunks out of the Federal
budget, cuts that affected my State as well as others. But that is the
way you do it. You do not cast a vote that is just a nice, popular
thing that fits the polls of the moment. You cast votes that run the
test of time.
I urge us to be courageous and think of the future. My children are
going to live most of their lives in the next century, and when I vote
I think of what that next century will be. I do not want them burdened
with debt.
I wish the debt had not gone up as it did during the 1980's. I think
it was a great mistake. This body went along
[[Page S1013]]
with it. I commend the political abilities of President Reagan. He got
within one-quarter of 1 percent of every single budget he ever asked
for. In fact, when we talk about the veto pen, the only appropriation,
or spending bill that President Reagan ever vetoed was one that did not
give him as much money as he wanted. He never vetoed a bill because it
had too much money. The only spending bill he ever vetoed was one that
did not give him all the money he wanted. As I recall, the years when
the Democrats were in office, we actually came back with budgets that
were smaller than asked for.
What was, was; what is, is. What is today is the ability, as
President Clinton said last night, to vote for and enact a balanced
budget.
Economists are not asking for a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution. Over 1,000 economists signed a letter, including 11 Nobel
laureates, saying do not amend the Constitution; it creates far more
problems than it solves. What they said was balance the budget, which
we can do if we have the courage, but do not amend the Constitution to
do it. Even as conservative a newspaper as the Wall Street Journal
yesterday had an editorial saying do not vote for this constitutional
amendment. Certainly nobody thinks of Alan Greenspan as a profligate,
shoot-for-the-Moon kind of spender, and Alan Greenspan said do not pass
this constitutional amendment. Secretary Rubin, one of the most trusted
and respected Secretaries of the Treasury any administration has had,
says do not pass this constitutional amendment. Instead of passing a
bumper-sticker form of economics, do what is right. Have the courage to
vote for budgets and spending bills that bring about a balanced budget.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, for the past ten years I have spoken out
in favor of a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, and have
supported and voted for this measure each time I have had the
opportunity to do so.
In fact, in preparing for this statement, I looked back on my career
in Congress to see how many times I have supported this measure, and I
noted with interest that in January 1987, my first month of being a
member of the House of Representatives, I joined as an original
cosponsor to the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. One of the
primary sponsors of the legislation on the House side was my colleague,
Senator Craig, and on the Senate side, Senator Hatch was in the
forefront introducing the measure in this body. It is with great
pleasure that I join my friends in this effort once again, along with
well over 50 of my Senate colleagues.
Opponents believe it would be easy to give up on the idea of passing
the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. For a number of years,
despite the hard work of many individuals, this measure has failed to
pass through Congress and move on to the states for ratification where
it belongs. I believe passage of this Amendment is in the best interest
of the future of our country because it will force us to make the tough
decisions now that need to be made to balance the budget and eventually
eliminate the staggering debt that threatens the economic well-being of
every American.
Now, there are those that believe there is no need for the Balanced
Budget Constitutional Amendment--that the federal government can be
fiscally responsible without being mandated by the Constitution to do
so. Well, I have been a Member of Congress for 10 years now, and I have
yet to see Congress or the administration bite the bullet, balance the
budget, and tackle our enormous debt.
Just last week, the Congressional Budget Office released one of its
annual reports making projections on the economic and budget outlook
for Fiscal Years 1998-2007. According to CBO, last year's deficit was
$107 billion, making it the fourth year in a row that the deficit has
decreased. However, the news is not all good. CBO also projects that
the deficit will increase for Fiscal Year 1997 to become $124 billion.
And, if we do not commit ourselves to balancing the budget, and
discretionary spending keeps pace with inflation, this country will be
faced with a deficit estimated at $278 billion in 2007.
What does all this mean? It means that nothing ever changes. Year
after year we are faced with huge deficits and an increasing national
debt. Year after year we talk about doing the right thing, the
responsible thing, and passing a balanced budget. And yet, once again,
here we are debating the merits of the Balanced Budget Constitutional
Amendment.
Back in my home state of Colorado, I have been conducting a series of
town meetings, discussing a wide range of issues with my friends and
constituents. When the discussion turns to balancing the budget,
Coloradans realize that if we do not address this important issue with
Constitutional authority, the amount of the federal budget devoted
toward paying off the interest on the debt and the entitlement programs
will increase to the point that there will be barely any money left for
those programs which deserve and require Federal funding.
Currently, more than half of the $1.6 trillion in spending goes
toward the entitlements and mandatory spending. According to CBO, ``if
current policies remain unchanged, mandatory spending will be twice as
large as discretionary spending by 2002.'' In addition, another 15
percent of all outlays goes toward interest costs on the debt. This is
money that does not go toward education, law enforcement, national
security, or even our national parks and monuments. As far as I am
concerned, it is wasted money. My constituents realize this, and on
their behalf I continue to fight for the Balanced Budget Constitutional
Amendment.
Now, I am not saying that this Amendment will be the silver bullet
which solves all of our problems. However, it will make us accountable
to the Constitution and to the will of a majority of Americans and
force us to get our fiscal house in order. If we achieve a balanced
budget and reduce the deficit, we can expect even lower interest rates,
an increased savings rate, and increased economic growth for every
American. Essentially, Americans can expect an increase in their
standard of living, and I think that is something everyone of us wants
and deserves.
Congress came within one vote last session of passing the Balanced
Budget Constitutional Amendment. I am optimistic that this year we can
pass this legislation and send the measure on to the states for their
deliberation. It is time to allow the American people and the state
legislatures the opportunity to debate the merits of the Balanced
Budget Constitutional Amendment, and I hope that the Congress will see
fit to entrust this measure to those who must ratify or reject it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to speak in
behalf of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
I especially thank two of my colleagues, Mr. Domenici, the
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, and Mr. Hatch, the
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for their
longstanding leadership and efforts in behalf of this legislation and
in effect, enabling us to protect the financial and economic future of
our children and their children.
Mr. President, for those who have had the perseverance and tenacity
to pursue this goal, it has at times been a lonely trail. Whatever
success we might achieve and I hope that we will achieve has been in
large part due to the efforts of these two Senators.
I have read some interesting commentary regarding this effort. Our
opponents predict dark budget clouds for Social Security and any other
program deemed essential to a particular economic interest group. But,
contrary to that dire prediction, I see a bright future with the sum of
the balanced budget parts. I see a nation with 6.1 million more jobs in
10 years. I see lower interest rates that will directly affect the
daily lives and pocketbooks of every citizen in terms of the amount of
hard-earned income they pay now for living essentials, health care,
housing, education loans, food, and transportation. With a 2-percent
drop in interest rates, how would you like 6 months of groceries free
or corresponding savings in your health care premium costs, mortgage
payment, student loan? Compare those savings with the marginal
reductions in the amount of growth of Federal programs.
In his State of the Union Address, the President said: ``Don't give
me a balanced budget amendment; give me a balanced budget.''
[[Page S1014]]
I must say I agree. But, with all due respect, Mr. President, many of
my colleagues and I have done just that to no avail. During the last
session of Congress, we sent two balanced budgets to 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue and despite exhaustive effort, we were not able to reach
agreement or accommodation.
However, I must say that passing the balanced budget amendment and
two budgets that were, in fact, in balance did provide the kind of
fiscal backbone and tenacity not seen in the Congress for decades. In
my own case, I was proud of our efforts within the House Agriculture
Committee in enacting farm program and food stamp reform that also
produced an estimated $33 billion in savings over the life of the
budget agreement. So, I agree with you. It can be done. And, with our
reform of farm program policy passing by overwhelming margins, we also
proved there is bipartisan support for true reform and budget savings.
We also achieved considerable budget savings in discretionary spending
at the conclusion of the appropriations process; something unique to
the last Congress.
However, the real problem is that while there is considerable talk
about accepting responsibility and standing four square for a balanced
budget, there are serious differences of opinion as to how to bring the
budget into balance. Which programs will be cut? Do we have the
political wherewithal to save Medicare and other entitlements? In this
regard, the President and many of our friends across the aisle stated
over and over again they are for a balanced budget but not that
budget--that budget meaning any cuts in their favorite and priority
programs.
And, I must say, despite the fact that a Republican Congress and the
President were within $10 a month difference in regard to preventing
Medicare bankruptcy, the fact we were not able to reach agreement and
the fact that the Democrat Party made a conscious decision to make
Medicare a top issue in last year's campaign, I am not overly confident
any budget agreement can be worked out--unless we have to--unless there
is some outside discipline that will force Congress to get the job
done. The lure of political opportunism is just too great, the coming
debate regarding Social Security being a classic example.
The real question is, does the Congress have the fortitude, the
perseverance and the tenacity to balance the budget? Despite good men
and women of both parties and the best of intentions, it is now the
28th year in which a majority in the Congress has failed in efforts for
the Federal Government to live within its means. We all agree we must
make progress toward a balanced budget and then during the course of
political deliberations we most generally agree to disagree as to how
to achieve this goal. It is clear that if there is anything to be
learned during the time we have regretfully experienced ever increasing
deficits, it is that we need a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution to get the job done.
With the fall of the Greek Republic as an example, there is a theory
that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. The
theory is it can only exist until the voters discover that they can
vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on,
the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most
benefits with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose
fiscal policy.
That is the theory. If true, it is a terrible prospect.
Mr. President, I choose not to accept that dire prediction but I must
say given our most recent history and given the fact our best efforts
fell short during the last session of Congress, I believe this debate,
this legislation, and this time represents our vest best opportunity to
set our Nation's fiscal house in order.
As President Clinton stated, ``We don't need a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget, we need action.'' Again, with due
respect to the President, it is indeed time for action and for action,
we need a constitutional amendment to get the job done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to give some opening
remarks with respect to the resolution on the balanced budget that is
now before us. I suspect during the course of the next several weeks in
the debate that is ahead, I will probably be here several more times to
discuss various aspects of this resolution as well as some of the
amendments which are going to be offered. But today I thought I would
just make some initial comments regarding what I consider to be the
need, the necessity really, for this amendment, both why we need a
balanced budget, why we need to have a balanced budget amendment, and
why we need to do it now.
First of all, I think it should be clear to all Americans why we need
a balanced budget, although it certainly has not been the case that the
Congress or the President, over the last many, many years, has
responded to the public's demands. The first reason is simple. We have
gone literally a generation without balancing the budget.
Just a few minutes ago, all of these budgets were presented to us,
reflecting the many years in which we have failed to balance the
budget. This is as close to balancing the budget as we have come today,
piling these documents on top of each other and making sure they do not
fall over, but that is as close to balancing the budget as we have been
in a quarter of a century. These years of deficits have to come to an
end.
We need a balanced budget also because a failure to balance the
budget has hurt the economy. To the extent that Government borrows, it
means less capital is available for private citizens to borrow. That
means that our economy cannot grow as fast as we would like it. It has
especially meant that families in America have suffered. Families have
suffered to the extent that the Federal Government's encroachment in
capital markets means higher interest rates, higher interest rates on
new home purchases, on new automobile loans, on student loans, on the
variety of other things which average, hardworking American families
must seek financing.
It has also hurt our families in the sense we are passing on to our
children what is obviously a mountain of debt. Kids in America today,
as one of the earlier speakers, the Senator from Idaho, indicated,
inherit immediately upon their birth, an enormous responsibility for
debts built up by past Congresses. A child born in America today--and I
have a 5-month-old child so I suspect it applies to him--is immediately
responsible for paying over his or her lifetime something in the
vicinity of $180,000 in taxes simply to pay his or her share of this
debt.
That is certainly not the kind of legacy that was passed on to my
generation. It is not the legacy I intend to pass on to my children's
generation. Therefore, it is essential that we balance the budget and
we do so immediately so we do not continue to hurt our families, our
businesses, and especially our children.
The next question is why we need a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget. Indeed it is true, as many have said, that simply
an action by Congress and the President would bring about a balanced
budget. But, as we have seen just in the last 2 years, saying it and
doing it are very different things. We reached an impasse in Washington
in 1995. I don't think it's an impasse that was unique to the 104th
Congress or President Clinton. I think it is the kind of impasse that
is likely to be reached on almost any occasion in which the Congress of
the United States is controlled by one political party and the
executive branch is controlled by someone from the other party. The
impasse was over spending priorities. But, even though everyone on all
sides of the issue said they wanted a balanced budget, we did not get a
balanced budget because of that impasse. The absence of a
constitutional requirement that we balance the budget, that outlays not
exceed revenues to the Federal Government, meant that the impasse
continued in spite of the rhetoric on all sides, in spite of all of the
balanced budget proposals that flowed from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and
on Capitol Hill. Despite all of that, we never got to the balanced
budget. It is my view that, without an amendment, without a
constitutional requirement that the Congress and the President bring
about a balanced budget, impasses such as the one that existed during
the winter of 1995 will occur again.
Another reason I believe we need an amendment is because we do not
know
[[Page S1015]]
what the future will bring, and we need to have a permanent safeguard
against the kinds of deficits that have plagued the Nation over the
past quarter of a century. Yes, today, today in America, talking about
balancing the budget, advocating a balanced budget, is politically
popular and what the American people are demanding. But, as we have
seen for a quarter of a century, something that is simply politically
popular may not get done. We have no idea what future Congresses will
think about this issue. If we provide this sort of loophole that a
failure to pass this amendment provides, we will be right where we have
been for the last 25 years.
Yes, it is possible we all might get together and in this Congress,
even though the parties that control the Congress and the White House
are different, we might finally reach a balanced budget for the year
2002. But what about the year 2003, or 2005, or 2010? What is the
safeguard the American people deserve, to guarantee that in those years
the same atmosphere that will bring about a balanced budget maybe in 1
year, will continue? I think the only safeguard will be an amendment to
the Constitution.
The last issue is why now? I think the crisis we confront today is
one of the strongest arguments that we could have for balancing the
budget. But the crises that fiscally will afflict this country in
another 15 or 20 years are an even stronger argument for this amendment
at this time. As we know, projections with respect to a variety of
Federal spending programs, particularly the Federal entitlement
programs, suggest that as the baby boom generation members age and
ultimately become consumers of entitlements rather than providers of
revenue to the Federal Government, such programs as Medicare and
retirement programs will begin to run even greater costs than they do
at this time. What we need to do is get our fiscal house in order today
so that when those greater demands on the Federal Government begin to
occur, we have the resources necessary to ensure they are honored. A
constitutional amendment that prohibits us from running the deficits
that are reflected in this stack of budgets before me will assist us in
getting our fiscal house in order.
In summary, the average family in my State of Michigan has interests
rates that are unnecessarily high due to the deficits we have run and
due to the borrowing of the Federal Government. Because of that, the
average family in my State does not have as much to spend on its
priorities as it deserves.
That family's parents should have more income to spend on their
children and their priorities and send less dollars to Washington and
less dollars on interest payments than they do at this time. We need a
balanced budget to help that working family in Michigan.
America's long-term security also is at stake. America deserves to
have fiscal integrity so that as we move forward into the 21st century,
this debt does not bind us down, this debt does not undermine our
economic security, this debt does not hold America back as we try to
compete in the global economy, this ever-more competitive global
economy, in the years ahead.
For all these reasons, I think action is required now. I think a
balanced budget is a necessity, and I think the only way to achieve it
is with an amendment to the Constitution that not only brings about a
balanced budget in the year 2002, but assures we will continue
balancing the budget into the next century and into the future of our
Nation.
For those reasons, Madam President, I support the balanced budget
amendment. I look forward to continuing this debate as we move forward
into the next few weeks and hope that by the time we reach a final vote
on this issue, two-thirds of our colleagues will join together to
finally change the direction here in Washington, in America and, most
importantly, end the unbroken series of Federal deficit represented by
this stack of budgets standing next to me.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
____________________