[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 16 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1147-S1148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, before the Senate is the question of the 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I 
testified 2 weeks ago before the Judiciary Committee on this question.
  I believe deeply in the need to balance the Federal budget. We have a 
responsibility to do that because just over the horizon, even with all 
the progress that has been made here, we have the demographic time bomb 
lying out there, and that time bomb is the retirement of the baby boom 
generation. When they start to retire, they are going to dramatically 
increase the number of people who are eligible for our major Federal 
programs. In fact, in very short order, they are going to double the 
number of people who are eligible for Social Security and Medicare and 
other programs like veterans' benefits. So, while enormous progress has 
been made, we have to do more. We have to do more.
  Some say the answer is an amendment to the Constitution. Properly 
crafted, I would support an amendment to the Constitution. But the one 
before us is not properly crafted.
  Let me just give three reasons why I believe it is not properly 
crafted. First, the balanced budget amendment before us in this Chamber 
will not balance the budget at all--not at all. Boy, would the American 
people be surprised to find out, if this passes, that come the year 
2002, when the budget is supposed to be balanced, the debt is still 
increasing. Won't they be surprised after having been told that the 
Senate and the House have passed a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Why is that the case? Why would the debt be increasing even after the 
year 2002 if we have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution?
  The answer is very simple. The definition of balanced budget that is 
in this amendment is not the definition of a balanced budget at 
all, because it includes every penny of Social Security surplus that is 
going to accrue to the Federal Treasury between now and the year 2002 
and in the years thereafter. This balanced budget amendment, so-called 
balanced budget amendment, would loot and raid the Social Security 
trust fund of $450 billion over just the next 5 years, take every penny 
of Social Security surplus, throw that into the pot, and call it a 
balanced budget.

  No private employer in this country would be able to take the 
retirement funds of their employees and throw those into the pot and 
say they balanced their operating budget. In fact, that would be a 
violation of Federal law. That is what the Federal Government is doing 
today for Social Security

[[Page S1148]]

trust fund surpluses, and under this so-called balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution, that flawed principle would be enshrined 
in the Constitution of the United States.
  I often wonder, what would Thomas Jefferson think of putting in the 
Constitution of the United States a definition of a balanced budget 
that included every trust fund dollar and call that a balanced budget? 
I wonder what Benjamin Franklin would think of that. I do not think 
they would buy that, and we should not buy it.
  The second major problem with this balanced budget amendment is it 
makes inadequate provision for a national economic emergency. We know 
that the right policy today is to cut spending and balance the budget. 
That is precisely what we ought to do. That was precisely the wrong 
thing to do in the depths of the Great Depression, because raising 
taxes and cutting spending in the midst of the Depression simply would 
make the Depression longer and deeper. We have to pass an amendment 
here that can stand the test of time. The one before us now simply does 
not.
  The third and final point: The balanced budget amendment before us 
now assumes that the Court will enforce this amendment. Can you 
imagine? We can have a situation in which the Supreme Court Justices 
are sitting around a table, just a block from here --in fact, I can 
almost see the Supreme Court through those doors--and we would have the 
Justices of the Supreme Court sitting around a table writing a budget 
for the United States, deciding perhaps to raise taxes to balance the 
budget, deciding they are going to cut funding for transportation or 
education, deciding what is going to happen that affects America in a 
disaster, perhaps an earthquake in California or some calamity in 
Florida. We are going to have unelected judges sit around a table and 
decide the budget of the United States. Is that really what we are 
going to do?
  I can tell you this, I come from a rural State. I do not think any of 
those Justices know much about agriculture. I do not think they know 
much about farming. I do not think they know much about the cattle 
business. I do not think they know much about rural America at all. 
Most of them are from more populous areas.
  So I just say there are fatal flaws in this balanced budget amendment 
that is before us today, and we ought to take steps to improve it.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I believe that we have special order time 
for 12:30 to 1?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. THOMAS. We will expect several more of my associates here, but I 
will begin that.

                          ____________________