[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 16 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1148-S1151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. THOMAS. It is interesting to stand here beside these budgets that 
have gone on for 26 years--this is less than that--and to then have to 
say we have not balanced the budget in all that time. Yet, we hear 
constantly that we do not need to do anything differently than we have 
been doing. It is hard to imagine that you are going to have different 
results if you do not do something different.
  I was interested in the comments of the Senator from North Dakota. 
Each of us has a little different idea about what has happened and what 
has occurred in terms of economics. Each of us has a little different 
idea about why we made some progress over the last several years in 
reducing the deficit. Certainly one reason is we raised taxes so that 
the average payment of taxes in this country is now about 40 percent of 
the income to families. You can balance the budget that way if you want 
to continue to let Government grow. Continue to raise taxes; that is a 
way to balance the budget. That is partly what this whole discussion is 
about.
  Interestingly enough, the Senator talked about the balanced budget 
amendment looting Social Security. I was going to ask the Senator, if 
he was still here, whether Social Security income is in the budget that 
he talks about that the President is going to balance by 2003. Of 
course it is there. All the trust funds are there that he says you 
cannot put into a balanced budget amendment. They are in the budget 
that the Senator brags about balancing. If you took the Social Security 
out of it, by that time you would have to raise $700 billion additional 
to do that. This is a unified budget.
  So, it is interesting how we seem to have different views. I guess if 
we did not have different views, why, there would not be any discussion 
about this. We would either do it or not. Basically, one of the 
differences, I think, between those of us here who want to have a 
balanced budget amendment to ensure that we, in fact, in the future 
have a balanced budget and have fiscal responsibility is whether you 
want more and more Government or whether you want a balanced budget to 
have something to do with holding down the size of Government and the 
increase in taxes. That is the choice. If you are going to use the 
balanced budget amendment simply to grow, and use the balanced budget, 
as the President has this year, to have an increase in spending by $1.5 
trillion, then that is a choice. The other choice is to allow families 
to have more of their own money and spend it as they choose, to have a 
smaller central Government and move some of those activities to local 
governments, to States and counties. So that is the decision.
  It has been, I think, a most interesting discussion. Of course, the 
budget is, I think, the key to what we do here. Obviously, there are 
many other things that the Government must do and that the Congress 
must do and the administration must do, but it all pretty much turns 
around what you do with the budget. The budget is a guideline of where 
you go, what your priorities are, what your spending is. It is also a 
guideline of your idea of how large Government is, as opposed to a 
reduced size Government. It has to do with how much tax you intend to 
levy. So the budget is the key to where we have been. We talked about 
it for years and will continue to, I suppose, forever. It has a great 
deal to do with what you believe is the responsibility of this Congress 
and the responsibility of the Government, and the responsibility of you 
and me, Mr. President, to establish a spending pattern in which we are 
responsible for the spending we incur and not pass it on to all of our 
children and on to future generations, which is precisely what we have 
done now.
  I hear some on the TV saying, ``Well, a balanced budget isn't that 
important. The deficit really isn't that important.'' The interest 
payment on the deficit this year will be about $250 billion, almost as 
much as defense. It will soon be more than defense. If it continues as 
projected, it will be $330 billion a year out of the budget to pay 
interest on the debt. So it is important. It has to do with 
responsibility.
  The Senator from North Dakota mentioned Jefferson. Jefferson had a 
strong feeling about budgets. Let me quote from the desk of Thomas 
Jefferson:

       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. I mean 
     an additional article taking from the Federal Government the 
     power of borrowing.

  Thomas Jefferson said if you are going to use it, you ought to pay 
for it. And certainly he's exactly right.
  I think we need to look at the benefits of having a balanced budget. 
We have talked about it a great deal. It is not just a benefit to the 
country, it is not just a benefit to the economy, it is a benefit to 
you and me in our lives.
  It's a benefit to you and me in what we have to pay to do the things 
we have to do. On an $80,000 mortgage, the savings per year with a 
balanced budget amendment with a reduction in interest could be $1,272 
for the average family. On a $15,000 car loan, monthly payments would 
be reduced by 200 bucks. It's a real benefit for us, as well as being 
the financially and morally responsible thing to do.
  Some say, ``Just do it, we don't need an amendment.'' Good idea. The 
evidence, however, is that that is not the case. The evidence is that 
we have talked about it for 26 years, through good times and bad. We 
say, ``Well, you have to leave it flexible enough for emergencies.'' I 
certainly agree with that, and this balanced budget amendment has that 
provision. But we have done it through good times and bad. We

[[Page S1149]]

have wanted to spend more than we have been willing to pay in, and 
that's what it is about.
  We say, ``Just do it.'' I don't think there is any question but what 
the President's budget doesn't just do it. The President's budget 
doesn't get us there. The President's budget doesn't balance the budget 
over a period of time.
  Really, there is very little reason to oppose a balanced budget 
amendment. There are a number of reasons that are given, a number of 
excuses that are given. Social Security is one. Almost everyone who 
looks at it says, if you want to save Social Security, it needs to be 
part of the integrated budget. Right now, there is a surplus in Social 
Security. We know there will not be later, and we will have to make 
that accommodation.
  If you take Social Security out of it, I wonder how many things will 
be put into the Social Security Program by the Congress so they would 
be off budget. We have been through that before. We have seen that 
happen before.
  Oversight by the court? How many States are there that have a 
balanced budget amendment of some kind? There are 40, I believe. We do 
in Wyoming in my home State. The court's job is to say if you haven't 
balanced the budget in terms of revenues equaling expenditures, then 
you fix it. That is the authority that they should have.
  An emergency? It provides for an emergency with 60 votes, a 
supermajority. If we have an emergency, 60 votes would not be hard to 
get.
  Mr. President, I think we will be going forward for some time now, 
for a couple of weeks, talking about the balanced budget amendment, 
talking about the benefits that it has to this country, the benefits 
that it has to American families. And I am hopeful that we have now 
come to the position where we will say, ``Look, let's pass this 
amendment, send this amendment to the States, and three-quarters of the 
States will have to ratify it.'' I believe there is strong feeling 
among the American people, that among all things, we ought to be 
financially and fiscally responsible, that we ought not to pass on 
these debts to our offspring.
  So, Mr. President, a number of us have come to the floor this morning 
to talk about that. I believe very strongly that it is the responsible 
thing to do. I believe that the amendments that we will have are not 
designed to strengthen our responsibility but, indeed, to kill the 
amendment so that there will not be the constant of fiscal 
responsibility applied to our future budgeting. And, therefore, I feel 
very strongly that it ought to pass.
  I appreciate the opportunity to share some of those thoughts. I now 
yield to my friend, the Senator from Iowa, for 10 minutes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Wyoming. He has made very clear the need for this amendment. Most 
importantly, he has stressed what can legitimately be stressed on the 
floor of this body: that the political laboratories of our American 
system of Government, our State governments and our State legislatures 
have had much success with constitutional requirements for a balanced 
budget, making those State legislatures, be they controlled by liberals 
or by more conservative people, have a sounder fiscal policy, and a 
sounder spending policy than what we have had in the U.S. Congress. 
This is all due to the fact that each one of those State legislators 
takes an oath to uphold the laws and the constitution of their State, 
and when those respective constitutions require a balanced budget, they 
are carrying out their duty, not only to be fiscally sound, but also 
carrying out a constitutional mandate that they swore to uphold.
  So those of us who support a constitutional amendment suggest that we 
need the fiscal discipline that will come from a constitutional 
amendment, which would not be necessary if the Members of the Congress 
in the last quarter century had been as responsible as the Members of 
Congress in the first 175-year history of our country. During that 
period of time, except during wartime, we had balanced budgets, in a 
majority of the cases, and had just a general understanding that it was 
our responsibility for a present generation to live within its income 
and not put off, as we have been doing for the last quarter of a 
century, the debt to children and grandchildren.
  We are at it again in 1997, like we have in most of the recent 
Congresses, trying to get just one or two more votes to pass a 
constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, which takes a 
two-thirds vote. When you are one or two votes short of, over the last 
decade, getting it passed, that means that the vast majority of the 
Members of this body feel it necessary to amend the Constitution but, 
quite frankly, coming up just a few votes--last year, just one vote--
short of the required two-thirds vote to pass it.
  So all of the hue and cry that you hear from the other side, from the 
opponents of this approach of amending the Constitution to require a 
balanced budget, represents a minority of this body, a small minority 
of this body, just a third or just a little over a third. This year we 
hope that the opponents are just a little bit less than a third, so we 
get the two-thirds necessary to pass it.
  These are the diehards who still believe that it's fine for us to 
spend in our generation and let our children and grandchildren pick up 
the bill for our living high on the hog.
  We have heard several concerns which have been raised by the 
opponents of a balanced budget amendment, and I believe that these 
concerns are simply a mask for the opposition to the balanced budget 
amendment. I want to address those concerns.
  First of all, some in Congress have argued that the balanced budget 
amendment would result in the Federal courts becoming heavily involved 
in the budgetary process that was meant by our constitutional writers 
to be a legislative prerogative. It is my firm belief that such a 
concern is completely unwarranted. It is just another excuse not to 
enact a balanced budget amendment, which the American people want by 
huge margins, and which will force fiscal discipline on those who are 
making this argument against this constitutional amendment. Experience 
has shown that the Federal courts are very reluctant to enter into the 
budgetary issues and the political controversies.
  In order for Federal courts to hear a case, the person filing a 
lawsuit must have what lawyers call ``standing to sue.'' That is, the 
person must show that he or she has suffered a unique injury resulting 
from the balanced budget amendment and that this injury can be 
corrected by the Federal courts. If the person suing the Government 
cannot meet these requirements, then he or she has no standing and the 
court will not hear the case.

  For several reasons, I believe that it is unlikely that the courts 
would determine such a person has standing to bring a case under the 
balanced budget amendment.
  The courts are very strict in insisting that standing requirements be 
met by citizens who wish to sue the Government. In case after case, the 
Federal courts have refused to permit citizens to challenge Government 
action solely on the basis of being a taxpayer. Therefore, there is 
absolutely no reason to fear a flood of litigation over the 
implementation of the balanced budget amendment.
  The most important reason I do not expect to see a flood of Federal 
cases is that once the balanced budget amendment is passed and 
ratified, Congress, taking the oath to uphold the Constitution, will 
naturally abide by it. With the force of a constitutional amendment 
mandating fiscal responsibility, we will be obligated to produce a 
balanced budget. By obeying the constitutional law, there will be no 
reason for any citizen to take Government to court.
  Having seen such an amendment work in my home State of Iowa, I am 
confident that it will force us here in Washington to be disciplined in 
our spending. In my view, the courts will have no need to become 
involved in the budget.
  Clearly, the balanced budget amendment does not provide any basis for 
the court to micromanage the budget process, as has been indicated by 
the opponents of this amendment. Without mentioning the issue of 
judicial review, the sponsors of the resolution have refused to give 
congressional sanction to the courts to involve themselves in the

[[Page S1150]]

budgetary decisions. I believe that explicitly putting language on the 
issue of judicial review in the balanced budget amendment implies that 
the Federal courts might have power that we do not intend them to have 
and that they should not have.
  Furthermore, should there be any unwarranted infringement in the 
process by the Federal courts, which, as I have stated, is highly 
unlikely, the Congress has the right, under article III of the 
Constitution, going back for 200 some years, to limit the Federal 
courts' jurisdiction.
  Another baseless concern which has been raised regarding the balanced 
budget amendment is that it will allow the President to impound funds. 
Again, this is simply false. There is nothing in the balanced budget 
amendment giving the President new powers in the budget process. He 
must submit a balanced budget to the Congress. But beyond that, his 
role is not changed in any way.
  In fact, the balanced budget amendment reaffirms the Supreme Court's 
ruling that the President is required to faithfully execute the law and 
to spend funds as directed by statute. The President therefore does not 
have impoundment authority over the Social Security trust fund since he 
must spend it.
  Arguments against the balanced budget amendment on the grounds that 
it gives the President some new impoundment powers are simply 
unfounded. So, Mr. President, I think we can conclude that it is now 
time to pass this amendment. The American people are tired of all the 
excuses we have been hearing from a small minority of people who oppose 
amending the Constitution to force fiscal discipline upon the Congress. 
They know that we have to impose fiscal discipline on Washington if we 
are to preserve the American dream for future generations of our young 
people.
  The American people are smart enough to know the empty excuses that 
have been heard today, and particularly those involving the courts, are 
mere delaying tactics meant to derail the balanced budget amendment.
  I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we cannot 
allow ourselves to lose our focus on the major purpose of the balanced 
budget amendment--putting an end to the Federal deficit and keeping the 
budget balanced in the future. Let us keep our eyes on the ball and not 
be distracted or deterred by phony arguments. Senate Joint Resolution 1 
has been carefully considered and analyzed by its supporters on both 
sides of the aisle. We must not allow a vocal minority and narrow 
partisan concerns to derail this critically important legislation and 
put the American dream in jeopardy. I say we need to send the balanced 
budget amendment to the States and let the American people decide.
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of passage of the balanced 
budget constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1. When we 
vote on Senator Durbin's amendment later today, I will urge my 
colleagues to oppose that measure.
  The amendment of the Senator from Illinois seeks to skirt the three-
fifths majority vote required by Senate Joint Resolution 1 to approve 
the deficit. This gaping hole would give Congress the ability to knock 
the teeth out of the constitutional amendment with a simple majority 
vote. The three-fifths requirement was placed in the balanced budget 
amendment so that Congress could not run deficits except during times 
of war or serious threat.
  The Durbin amendment adds two additional situations and neglects to 
define them. In addition, it overrides the desire of a balanced budget 
by three-fourths of the States which would be necessary for the 
amendment's ratification. Senator Durbin's amendment gives Congress 
excuses for not balancing the budget. The American people are tired of 
excuses coming from Washington.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on the attacks 
that have been continued and have increased in intensity against this 
commonsense amendment.
  Our opponents are conjuring up fatalistic and doomsday predictions 
about the future with their crystal balls. They are right to be 
concerned about a possible economic recession and the insolvency of our 
Social Security system. But they are wrong about the cause and the 
solution. If we fail to control our future, it will control us. We need 
to fear the future only if we fail to pass this amendment.
  If there were only one social injustice in America today, it would be 
the mountain of debt we are leaving to our kids, grandkids, and those 
not yet old enough to vote today. An inheritance of debt is a cruel 
legacy. They will be left to wonder if we failed to remember the 
Revolutionary battle cry, ``No taxation without representation.''
  Congressman J.C. Watts stated in his recent speech:

       If things continue as they are, by the time [those people] 
     are 25, the tax they could pay will be about 84 cents on the 
     dollar. That's more than a shame. It's a scandal.

  I concur. Let us quit cosigning on our kids' behalf without their 
consent.
  The opponents of the balanced budget constitutional amendment say 
that some of us consider the Constitution to be a draft. I need to 
remind those opponents that the Constitution is being amended on a very 
regular basis without a majority vote each time it is amended by the 
judicial courts.
  Opponents of the amendment also use the argument that it would be 
unconstitutional. I have never heard anyone declare a provision in the 
Constitution as unconstitutional. How could that be possible? Think 
about it.
  Senate Joint Resolution 1 has wide bipartisan support. That is the 
only way we could get 62 original cosponsors to the amendment. The 
present administration has stated working together is the key to 
action. I wholeheartedly agree. We should not care who gets the credit 
for balancing the budget, Republicans or Democrats, Congress or the 
President, as long as it gets done.
  This is something that the administration pays lip service to, but 
then proclaimed an all-out war on the balanced budget amendment even 
though they submitted a proposal just a few days ago stuffed and 
overstuffed with new Government programs that we cannot afford.
  The President's budget purportedly brings the budget into balance by 
the year 2002. He has front-loaded his budget proposals with catchy, 
pretty little initiatives tied up in illusory little bows.
  Mr. President, you cannot fill a leaking bucket from a dry well. 
Americans must know that long after this President has left office, 
Congress will no longer be able to avoid the mess. Tax hikes loom large 
on the horizon for many Americans in 2002 under President Clinton's 
plan--the exact year that the budget amendment might take effect.
  The administration has declared war on the will of the American 
people as well. Let us take a look at some recent numbers from a CBS 
poll released February 4, 1997. When the American people were asked the 
question, ``Do you favor a balanced budget amendment?'' 76 percent of 
those polled said ``yes.'' But when they were asked if the Federal 
budget would be balanced by 2002, 84 percent said no. This tells me the 
American people do not believe that the political leaders of today have 
the will to pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment. This 
lack of will is what creates cynicism and apathy in the American 
people.
  Why don't we just give the individual States the opportunity to 
ratify the balanced budget amendment? Three-fourths of the States have 
to pass it before it becomes part of the Constitution. That is a tough 
test. We need to give the States this opportunity to force the Federal 
Government to come to grips with its finances just as the State 
governments are required to do. I found the best decisions are made 
closest to the people. The American people know best how a decision 
made here in Washington will affect them and their daily lives. Giving 
the States the opportunity to ratify the amendment would bring the 
budget closer to the people.
  The administration likes playing the underdog, hoping to get sympathy 
votes against the amendment. They are insisting this could do severe 
damage to some important Government programs and the economy. This is 
shown by the proposed budget for fiscal years 1998 through fiscal year 
2002.
  The President's plan sets up Congress and future administrations to 
do the heavy lifting. If we are to balance the

[[Page S1151]]

budget by 2002, drastic cuts in programs will have to be made in the 2 
years after the President leaves office. The President's proposed 
budget acknowledges that the deficit will increase, from about $107 
billion in 1996 to $121 billion in 1998. That is not responsible and 
courageous leadership for next year, let alone the next 50 years. 
Responsible leadership requires the tough decisions to be made now, 
instead of continuing to ignore the problem and forcing future leaders 
to balance the budget when a slower economy may make it more difficult 
to get it done.
  As the late Senator Paul Tsongas said, ``There are a lot of votes in 
deficit spending. There are no votes in fiscal discipline.'' Former 
Senator Paul Simon also said, ``People in public office like to do 
popular things, and there is no popular way to balance the budget.'' To 
these two highly esteemed former Democrat Senators, a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment is the only guarantee to fiscal discipline. It 
would require Congress and the President to make some unpopular, but 
desperately needed actions to control Federal spending. If we have the 
best economy in the post-World-War II era, why can't we balance the 
budget in fiscal year 1999, and make the necessary cuts now, instead of 
later when uncertainty of the future economic condition is greater.
  I challenge the Members of this body and the President of this great 
Nation to balance the budget now, while the economy is growing. This 
would cause the economy to flourish even more, reducing interest rates 
and guaranteeing investors that a balanced budget will occur. It is 
also Social Security's only hope.
  The Federal Government should be in the business of doing a few 
things well, instead of many things poorly. Our Federal budget is 
pockmarked with programs that do not work as intended, whose missions 
are obsolete, and have grown out of control. The balanced budget 
amendment would force the Government to prioritize programs, and then 
perform with better results. The American people have always been 
fearful of an overly intrusive and powerful Federal Government.
  There is still a certain amount of anti-federalism in each of us. The 
natural response to the constraints put on Government by this amendment 
would be a limited government. This leads me to point out the 
advantages of a biennial budget. A biennial budget would complement the 
balanced budget constitutional amendment by allowing Congress to spend 
more time ironing out the details of a budget. A biennial budget would 
also allow Congress more time for oversight, making sure the various 
agencies and departments are effectively, accurately, and honestly 
performing their mission. It would also allow longer range planning by 
the Federal agencies, and State and local governments. The current 
annual budget and budget reconciliation process causes shortsighted 
planning. A biennial budget would allow more time for Congress to 
prioritize the agencies' and departments' functions.
  American essayist, Artemus Ward said, ``It ain't the things we don't 
know that hurt us--It's the things we do know that ain't so.'' I am 
talking about capital budgeting. A few opponents of the amendment have 
called for capital budgeting. As the U.S. Senate's only accountant, I 
can tell you that you are not being told the whole story.
  It is misleading to speak about the need for a capital budget at 
the Federal level, as though it is an idea which has been championed 
for some time in this Chamber. It is being used solely as a means to 
confuse the issue on the appropriateness of the balanced budget 
amendment. The comparison has been made to the practice in State 
budgeting of separating capital and operating expenses, and paying for 
capital improvements through the method of issuing debt. The Federal 
budget has even been compared to the family budget and a home mortgage.

  There are some distinctions which need to be made with the practice 
of sound capital budgeting in our States and homes and what has 
occurred here. First, a plan must be in place to replace or expand 
facilities and equipment based on its reasonable economic life. I would 
question whether or not the Federal Government even has an inventory of 
our existing facilities and equipment, let alone a plan for its 
replacement or expansion.
  Second, both the States and our families borrow with a purpose, and 
with the full intent and capability of repayment of both the interest 
and the principal over a fixed period. The annual cost of this debt 
repayment is included within the annual budget. We not only lack a 
capital budget, we incur debt for day-to-day expenses. No State or 
family, if it hopes to remain solvent, incurs debt for the cost of 
operations or day-to-day living with the intent of only paying the 
interest.
  This is exactly what we have been doing since 1969. Given the 
affinity of the Federal Government to borrow for normal day-to-day 
living, I can only guess at the problems we could generate if we were 
to create additional debt to finance capital improvements. It is a 
reasonable premise of borrowing that you don't loan money to a person 
who has shown that they cannot be trusted to repay what they already 
owe.
  I will conclude with the famous words of Benjamin Franklin: ``Work 
while it is called today, for you know not how much you may be hindered 
tomorrow. One today is worth two tomorrows; never leave that till 
tomorrow which you can do today.'' Now is the time for hard work and 
seriousness.
  We must pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment. I urge all 
Americans to write or call your Representatives and Senators and tell 
them to pass the balanced budget amendment now. No more excuses--the 
future of our children and grandchildren and parents and grandparents 
is at stake.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________