[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.
____________________