[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.
____________________