[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 15 (Friday, February 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1140-S1143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I express my gratitude to the 
majority leader for graciously arranging at the end of the business 
time for me to address the issue at hand, and that is the proposed 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  I, like all of my colleagues, do not know a single Member of this 
body who disagrees with the proposition that we ought to be balancing 
the budget or getting us close to it and as quickly as we possibly can. 
I don't think there is any debate about the desired goal shared by 
everyone in this Chamber and the overwhelming majority of Americans in 
this country for a balanced budget. They do, I think, Mr. President, 
share this goal for wise reason.
  I was asked the other day in a classroom in my home State of 
Connecticut by students, ``Why is balancing the budget, why is there so 
much talk about that? What is the importance of that?'' Maybe we take 
for granted that everyone understands the answer. We talk about it as 
if it were an end in and of itself, rather than the implications of a 
balanced budget for our Nation and, for that matter, people who live 
beyond our Nation.
  The reason is that balancing the budget is not a goal in and of 
itself. It is what it does, what it creates, and that is, of course, a 
sound economy and an expanded economy. It creates jobs in the country 
and opportunities for people that wouldn't otherwise exist if we were 
operating with a mountain of debt that forced the U.S. Government to 
compete in the borrowing business with private institutions and 
individuals.
  By balancing the budget, what we are doing is contributing 
significantly to the economic growth and the job creation that is 
absolutely essential if any nation is going to succeed, and 
particularly if we are going to be successful in the 21st century.
  Balancing the budget has importance, but its real importance is not 
in and of itself, but rather what it contributes to the overall wealth 
and strength of our Nation.
  So I begin these remarks, Mr. President, by stating what I think is 
the obvious--I hope it is the obvious--and that is that every Member of 
this body believes that balancing the Federal budget is an issue of 
critical importance to our Nation's future. Across the political 
spectrum, from the White House to the Capitol, among Democrats and 
Republicans, liberals, conservatives, moderates, whatever label people 
wish to place on themselves or are placed on them, there exists, I 
think, a broad-based consensus on the desire for bringing the Federal 
budget into balance.
  In fact, in the last Congress, both the President and the Republican 
leaders agreed in principle to a 7-year balanced budget plan. The 
sticking point then was the details of those plans, not the notion of a 
balanced budget itself. So the debate today is not about whether we 
should balance the budget. That we agree on. The debate today, and will 
be over the coming days, is how we balance the budget.
  The proponents of this constitutional amendment would have us believe 
otherwise. They would lead us to believe that the Congress is simply 
incapable of mustering the necessary courage to make the tough choices 
to balance the budget. They would have us believe that only by an 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution would we be forced, and future 
Congresses forced, to act.
  Mr. President, when one considers our efforts at reducing the deficit 
over the past half dozen years, I think it is fair to say such an 
assertion lacks credibility. Over the past decade, the

[[Page S1141]]

deficit, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, has shrunk by 
more than 70 percent. Let me restate that. Over the past decade, the 
deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product has shrunk by 
more than 70 percent. Today, it is only 1.4 percent of the gross 
domestic product. In fact, as a percentage of the economy, the deficit 
is at its lowest level in more than a generation in this country.

  These figures clearly demonstrate that contrary to the conventional 
wisdom, contrary to the rhetoric from across the aisle, and from other 
places, this body does, in fact, possess ample courage to reduce the 
deficit. In fact, the tremendous decreases in the Federal deficit came 
in the last 4 years, as this chart to my left, I think, amply 
demonstrates.
  I will just point out, it is entitled ``Bringing the Deficit Down to 
Ground Zero,'' which we all agreed should occur by the year 2002. What 
is indicated by these dots and lines, in 1992, the annual deficit stood 
at $290 billion. Based on the projections in 1992, that deficit was 
going to increase each year from $302 billion over 1993 and 1994, going 
up to $312 billion, then up to $319 billion in 1996, $351 billion by 
1997, $391 billion by 1998. Those were the projections for the increase 
in the deficit that we were given in 1993.
  But in 1993, as many will recall, we adopted a budget plan that was, 
unfortunately, not bipartisan, Mr. President. It was adopted with just 
Democratic votes. Those were the days when we were in the majority on 
this side. That is, before the arrival of the distinguished Presiding 
Officer.
  We were in the majority and passed a budget resolution here in the 
U.S. Senate. A similar one was passed in the House. They were done in 
the most uncommon of fashions. Usually there is some bipartisanship. 
But this one was done exclusively with Democratic votes, on both sides.
  It was hotly contested, hotly debated. People may recall it was 
decided by one vote, I think, in the House of Representatives, and I 
think by that margin here in the Senate as well. In fact, I think it 
was the vote of the Vice President at the time casting the vote that 
made that possible. At any rate, it was a very narrow vote.
  But what has happened since then, since 1993, and that budget 
resolution? We have seen by 1993, instead of being $302 billion, the 
deficit went from $290 billion to $255 billion. Then it has proceeded, 
over the next 3 years, down to $203 billion, $164 billion, and in 1996, 
$107 billion.
  What we hope is going to occur with this budget proposal that is 
before us now, and over the next 5 years, is that the budget will 
continue, based on the projections included, will fall to that ground 
zero, balancing the budget by the year 2002.
  Let me state here that I appreciate immensely the reaction, of the 
majority in both this body and in the House of Representatives, to the 
President's budget. That is not to say they have endorsed the budget. 
Quite to the contrary, there are significant disagreements. But unlike 
almost every year that I can recall, Mr. President, whether it was a 
Republican President or a Democratic President, with the submission of 
budgets you could almost guarantee the press releases would go out from 
whoever was the opposing party in the legislative branch announcing 
that the budget was dead on arrival and we began this tremendous fight 
on Capitol Hill to try to come up with a new budget altogether.
  That is not the case this year. I give the majority here credit, as 
well as the administration, for working ahead of time to try to come up 
with some common ground on some of the more delicate issues. As I said, 
there has not been total agreement, but we are not in the same 
situation we have been in the past where this turns into a huge battle 
from the very beginning.
  So my hope is, despite what previous history there may have been, we 
are now going to be able to work on a budget agreement that gets us to 
that ground zero in the year 2002. That is really what we ought to be 
doing. Because as the Presiding Officer knows, and others are certainly 
aware, writing something into the Constitution and issuing a press 
release about it does not make it happen. You have to do the work.
  Whether it is in the Constitution or not, you have to do the kind of 
work in order to move us in that direction toward ground zero. Because 
of the implications, again, I want to stress the point. This is 
important to do because of what it does to our economy. It gives us the 
kind of economic growth, the stability, the lower interest rates that 
allow for businesses to borrow and expand and put people to work. That 
is the effect of a balanced budget.
  So there has been a good record here now. We are going in the right 
direction for the first time in years. The challenge for all of us 
here, regardless of party or ideology or some label that someone wants 
to put on someone, is to work together to see to it that we achieve 
those desired goals stated in this chart.
  None of us can predict, obviously, what is going to happen next week, 
tomorrow, or, for that matter, next month, next year that might disrupt 
our ability to move in this direction. That is one of the major reasons 
I have such reluctance about writing into the Constitution an economic 
theory that could end up being highly disruptive toward our ultimate 
goals as a nation.
  As someone suggested--I think my colleague from North Dakota, Senator 
Conrad, the other day, Mr. President, in talking about the proposed 
amendment. He suggested to a group of us that if we had any hesitation 
about whether or not this particular amendment belonged in the 
Constitution--and I have made a similar recommendation to people in my 
own home State--to take out 20 minutes or a half-hour, which is all you 
need, to read the Constitution of the United States. It is an 
incredible document in its simplicity and directives.

  Then, if you would, after you read the Constitution of the United 
States, pick up and read this amendment and ask yourself the simple 
question: Does this language in this amendment, putting aside the 
implications of it, but does this language in this amendment belong in 
this document, this organic law of our country, which represents the 
timeless principles--the timeless principles--that we embrace as a 
people?
  Nothing in the Constitution is contemporary in the sense that it 
deals with a present-day problem, except to the extent that human 
nature constantly raises issues that need to be addressed and protected 
by the Constitution. But we have historically stayed away from dealing 
with the issue of the day in the Constitution.
  I urge again that we consider what the implications would be of 
taking language which deals with economic theory, which is the 
contemporary issue of the day, and enshrining it in the organic law of 
the country, in such a way that I think we do an injustice to that 
document. Also, we run the risk, as I hope my colleagues will 
appreciate, of making it far more difficult in many ways for us to 
achieve the kind of economic opportunity, the job creation, the 
stability that is the underlying goal behind the entire discussion of 
whether or not we ought to have a constitutional amendment that 
balances the budget and does what we are presently on the right path 
toward achieving and that the Congresses in the years ahead will have 
to grapple with itself, as it deals with the issues of its day.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that Members, and others who may be in 
doubt about what this debate is all about, that they might take the 
time to read, as I say, both the Constitution and the amendment and ask 
themselves the question that Senator Conrad of North Dakota posed to us 
the other day, as to whether or not those particular words belong in 
the Constitution.
  Mr. President, other issues have been raised over the past number of 
days, and more will be raised next week, which are posed by this 
amendment.
  One of the issues that I will be raising has to do with the issue of 
national security. Again, the Presiding Officer is someone who is no 
stranger to these issues as a new Member of this body and he has a 
distinguished record in serving our country. I commend him for it.
  One of my concerns here is that the amendment would seem to indicate 
that we could not expend resources on a national security problem 
unless there was a declaration of war. As my colleagues are certainly 
aware, it has been many a year since we declared

[[Page S1142]]

war despite the fact that we have had many conflicts in which American 
men and women have lost their lives. My concern would be that, given 
how difficult that can be, given the nature of the world in which we 
live today, declarations of war may be harder to achieve.
  This could be a matter for a separate discussion, the whole issue of 
the role of Congress and the war powers resolutions which we have 
debated extensively here over the years. But I can imagine, as I am 
sure the Presiding Officer could, situations that would not warrant 
necessarily a declaration of war, and yet it may be critically 
important that the United States respond because the national interest 
of the country is at stake, and yet we find ourselves engaged in such a 
debate where we have to first declare war before a President might be 
able to act and get the necessary funds.
  That is the kind of problem I see posed by the well-intended authors 
of this amendment, to create situations that could pose serious 
problems for our country. I have drafted an amendment and I have asked 
people to look at it. It may be an amendment that can be agreed to. It 
seems to me that we ought to be able to respond to situations without 
tying ourselves into long legislative knots around here. It may be 
absolutely critical that the Chief Executive, the Commander in Chief of 
this country be able to respond to a situation without getting bogged 
down in what could be a partisan battle, for whatever reason, and put 
in jeopardy the lives of American men and women or put in jeopardy the 
interests of our country. We could find ourselves hamstrung by a 
problem in the constitutional amendment that its authors never 
intended, but in the years to come could occur.

  So that is one issue that I find particularly troublesome about the 
balanced budget amendment. I urge again my colleagues to review and 
look at it.
  Another issue was raised by our colleagues from California, Senator 
Feinstein and Senator Boxer. Unfortunately, their State, maybe more so 
than any other in recent years, has been plagued by one disaster after 
another, natural disasters in most cases, where they have needed 
additional attention and resources. There seems to be little or no 
provision to respond to those situations again without having to go 
through the tremendous gyrations of developing some support.
  California is a big State. They have more than 50 Members of Congress 
in the House. They have the same number of Senators we have. What if 
you come from a smaller State that does not have the same kind of 
political clout that California might bring to a situation, where they 
need those extra dollars? Are we going to be able to respond? A 
legitimate issue is raised, Mr. President, by the language of this 
amendment, this constitutional amendment, that would make it extremely 
difficult for the Congress to respond to natural disasters that could 
hit any State in this country.
  Again, that is another reason that I think my colleagues ought to 
examine carefully some proposals that will be offered and, I would say, 
ultimately to step away from what I consider to be sort of a bumper-
sticker approach to an issue that deserves far greater work and 
diligence than merely writing into the Constitution language that could 
make our job as legislators far more difficult in responding to the 
needs of our Nation.
  Mr. President, I will not take a great deal of time here today. I 
merely wanted to rise to indicate once again that we are on the right 
track. I think we are going in the right direction in dealing with the 
issue of getting our budgetary house in order. That is what we are 
going to have to do year in and year out, to see to it that we have the 
ability to respond.
  I am not old enough to remember the Great Depression, and I am 
confident the Presiding Officer is not either, but there are people 
certainly who will read this Record who are listening to what we are 
saying who remember the 1930's. I can only imagine how difficult it 
must have been for that Congress and that Chief Executive Officer. In 
the Northeast, in my State of Connecticut, and the Midwest was 
particularly hard hit in those years, what would life have been like in 
a Connecticut or Nebraska if we had been hit as we were with that Great 
Depression and faced with the tremendous need to provide resources to 
people in our States. We ought to be very thankful that we do not have 
national depressions. We have taken enough steps over the years to 
avoid the kind of difficulties that can sweep across a nation.
  Mr. President, I am sure the President is aware of this, my State, 
over the last 4, 5, 6, or 7 years, has been very hard hit economically. 
We have historically been called the Provision State, dating back to 
the Revolutionary War, and we are proud of it. The builders of 
helicopters, and jet engines at Pratt & Whitney, and submarines and 
electric boats, radar systems at Norden, we have a long history. The 
end of the cold war, the recession and the real estate collapse all hit 
my small State very hard. It has been very, very difficult for us to 
get back on our feet. Luckily, these economic troubles did not sweep 
across the country. Most parts of the country have done well. What am I 
to do in my State because of its unique problems? We need some 
particular help in responding to the needs of our people.
  What worries me is that we may not have national depressions, but we 
could have regional depressions. Will there be enough votes in these 
bodies to have supermajorities to provide the resources that specific 
regions of the country need? It could be an agricultural problem that 
hits--possibly bad crop seasons. I know the people of my State have 
been sympathetic in the past in responding when that has occurred. They 
are consumers of the food that is produced in this country. But natural 
disasters can hit. People can be literally wiped out in a matter of 
weeks. How do we respond? Should we respond? Is every State that does 
not have the same interests going to vote accordingly?
  Again, hamstrung by a constitutional amendment, it would make it 
difficult for us to use common sense and respond. That is troublesome 
to me, to put it mildly. For those reasons and others, Mr. President, I 
urge my colleagues to move away from this particular debate. If the 
issue was we needed to get the attention of some reluctant Members of 
Congress--and I happen to believe there were some who were not serious 
enough about this issue. I go back to the days of the early 1980's. As 
an original sponsor of the Gramm-Rudman proposal, I think it could have 
worked had we not had a bunch of loopholes. Back in 1982 or 1983, I 
offered a pay-as-you-go budget, Mr. President, requiring that for every 
single expenditure there had to be resource to pay for it--every single 
expenditure. Had we adopted a pay-as-you-go in 1982, we would have been 
in balance 11 years ago, in 1986. I only got 22 votes on the floor of 
this Chamber in 1982 on that proposal.
  I take very seriously this debate about getting this budget in 
balance and moving in the right direction, but I again argue, as I did 
at the outset, it is work. It is not easy. Everybody has to go back to 
their constituencies and explain why everyone has to share in this 
responsibility. Merely taking out a chisel and etching into the organic 
law of this country the conclusion of a proposal of balancing the 
budget does not get us there, and it does raise serious, serious 
questions about other weighty matters that this Nation must come to 
terms with from time to time.
  In my view, it places them in jeopardy, and particularly at a time 
when it seems to me that we are on the right track, moving in the right 
direction. I do not understand why we would place in jeopardy other 
vitally important issues when, in fact, we are achieving, I think all 
would agree, the goals stated by those who strongly endorse this 
constitutional amendment.
  In addition the constant inflexibility in our budgetary 
decisionmaking process could have a disastrous impact on the business 
community. The private sector expects order and consistency in our 
economic policy. What's more, they rely on the Federal Government for 
our support and assistance in myriad ways.
  Whether it's the research and experimentation tax credit, our 
aggressive advocacy for American exporters, or the vital statistics and 
information published by Federal agencies, the private sector receives 
crucial support from the Federal Government. However, passage of this 
amendment could

[[Page S1143]]

threaten to create a frantic rush, year in and year out, for the 
savings necessary for bringing the budget into constitutional 
compliance. In that sort of an environment, no Federal program would be 
safe. Business leaders would be unable to plan ahead, not knowing what 
programs will be funded or cut from year to year. An R&E tax credit 
that is constantly in jeopardy of being canceled is of little benefit 
to American business.
  Contrary to the rhetoric of those who support this amendment, 
American businesses will suffer if they are forced to operate in the 
looming shadow of tax increases or potential cuts in important 
programs. What's more, under the requirements of a balanced budget 
amendment the Congress would be forced to reorder our budgetary 
priorities every fiscal year. There'd be no rhyme or reason to what we 
cut and what we fund, because our decisions would be based on short-
term economic factors. Long-term considerations would simply go by the 
wayside. By almost any standard, the balanced budget amendment is bad 
economic policy. But, it would have even worse and more far-reaching 
constitutional implications. Passage of this amendment risks allowing 
direct judicial involvement in the enforcement of a balanced budget 
requirement.
  If for whatever reason, the Congress was unable to achieve either a 
balanced budget or get 60 votes to waive the requirement for such, then 
the Federal judiciary could be forced to make critical decisions on 
budgetary allocations. I must say, I find it quite interesting that 
many of the same people who complain about so-called judicial activism 
are seeking to pass an amendment that would thrust the judiciary 
directly into our budgetary discussions. Theoretically, judges could 
order the Government to stop Social Security checks from being sent 
out, cut Federal spending, or even raise taxes. Additionally, to those 
who complain about a clogged court system, we could see a significant 
rise in litigation by either Members of Congress or private citizens 
hurt by spending cuts mandated by this amendment.
  For the Congress to go along with such a proposal represents an 
abdication of our responsibilities as legislators. The Constitution 
mandates very clearly that the legislative and executive branches must 
posses sole responsibility for fiscal policy. Yet, this amendment would 
fundamentally transform our constitutional system of checks and 
balances by placing the judiciary in an unheard of position--making 
budgetary decisions. This contravenes the most sacrosanct notions of 
constitutional integrity--our system of checks and balances and 
division of authority among the three branches of government. And it 
would debase the Constitution by involving it directly in economic 
decision making. This constitutional amendment would place what is 
fundamentally a fiscal policy into our organic law.

  Again, I urge all my colleagues to read the Constitution before they 
cast their vote. Look at the sorts of amendments that have been 
enacted. At their core, they deal almost universally with issues of 
social policy and the functioning of our democratic institutions--not 
with economic policy. But, this amendment would change that legacy. And 
I believe it could begin a disquieting process of including what is 
basically statutory language into our national Constitution. There can 
be little doubt that we face a momentous decision.
  Changing the Constitution is not like adopting a simple statute that 
can be modified or repealed somewhere down the road. The fact is, 
amending the Constitution is one of the most sacred duties of our role 
as national leaders. Indeed, the language we insert into the 
Constitution is timeless. And it will likely stay there long after all 
of us leave this Earth. However, I worry that the fundamental, hallowed 
nature of our Constitution is being lost on my colleagues.
  The last Congress advocated one of the most sweeping rewrites of the 
U.S. Constitution since the Bill of Rights. And I worry that this 
Congress will continue this troubling precedent. In the 104th Congress, 
amendments were proposed requiring a supermajority for taxes, 
advocating terms limits, providing for a line-item veto, allowing 
school prayer, preventing unfunded mandates, criminalizing flag 
burning, and the list goes on.
  The Constitution is not a set of institutional guidelines to be 
amended by each new generation of leaders. Generation after generation 
will live with the consequences of our constitutional decisions. And 
while I realize that this amendment is incredibly popular among the 
American people, that should not be our determining factor. Amending 
the Constitution must not be based on the political currents of today, 
but the sacred principles on which our Nation was founded. There is a 
very good reason why, in the more than 200 years since this Nation 
adopted the Constitution, we have seen fit to amend it only 27 times--
27 times in more than 200 years. In fact, in those 200 or so years, 
there've been approximately 11,000 proposed amendments to the 
Constitution. Only 33 passed the Congress. And the Bill of Rights 
notwithstanding, only 17 are now part of the Constitution. What's more, 
amending the Constitution remains an incredibly difficult task.
  Two-thirds of the Congress, and three-fourths of the State 
legislatures must agree before we change the law of the land. Our 
Founding Fathers made clear that amending the Constitution would not be 
an easy or brazen decision. As Henry Clay said 145 years ago, ``The 
Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the 
generation that then existed, but for posterity--unlimited, undefined, 
endless, perpetual posterity.''
  These are not idle words. The Constitution is sacred parchment--our 
guiding force for more than 200 years of democratic rule and a beacon 
for millions around the world who yearn for the dignity that freedom 
and democracy bestows. In my view, this document remains one of the 
greatest political and democratic accomplishments in human history and 
the amending of it must not be a rash or impetuous act. We all agree on 
the need for balancing the budget, but this amendment is the wrong way 
to go about doing it. If we are to really bring our fiscal house in 
order; if we are to guarantee to future generations that they will not 
be burdened with our debts; if we are to balance the budget in a fair 
and equitable manner, then let us reject this amendment and instead 
roll up our shirt sleeves and get down to the task of making the tough 
choices to truly balance the budget.
  I thank the majority leader for making this possible. I yield the 
floor.

                          ____________________