[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1268-S1270]
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 resolution.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor of the 
Senate to respond to and to discuss some items on the constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget.
  There has been a great deal of talk about the constitutional 
amendment here on the floor of the Senate. There have been press 
conferences on both sides and a great deal of literature distributed in 
the Senate. I want to talk about what the issue is and what the issue 
is not.
  The issue is not, as some would have us believe, a discussion between 
those who think it is meritorious to balance the Federal budget and 
those who think we should not balance the Federal budget. Generally 
speaking, most Members of the Senate believe it is important for this 
country's long-term economic interest to find a way to balance the 
Federal budget. We ought to do that. This Federal Government has spent 
more than it has taken in for a good long while. I would just say, that 
it is the irresponsibility of Democrats and Republicans that have 
allowed that to happen.
  It is true that there is a difference in how they want to spend 
money, but there is not a plug nickel's worth of difference between 
Republicans and Democrats about how much they want to spend. One side 
might want to spend more for Head Start and another might want to spend 
more for B-2 bombers or whatever. But nevertheless, if we take a look 
at the aggregate appetite for spending you will not find a plug 
nickel's worth of difference on either side of the aisle. Priorities 
and choices, though would be different.
  But both political parties--Presidents who are Republican, year in 
and year out, Presidents who are Democrat, not quite as many, I might 
add--both have submitted budgets to the Congress that are wildly out of 
balance and that have had substantial deficits. So this is not a case 
where one can stand on slippery sand and say, ``It's your fault. You're 
the folks who are at fault over here.'' It is everybody's fault. And it 
ought to stop. We ought to balance the Federal budget because that will 
be good for this country.
  The debate here is, shall we alter the Constitution of the United 
States? Shall we change the Constitution of the United States? I would 
observe that if it is done, 5 minutes from now the Federal debt and the 
Federal deficit will not have been altered by one penny. We will have 
altered the constitution of the United States, but we will not have 
changed by one penny the Federal deficit or the Federal debt.
  I want to talk a bit about that because I think there are 
circumstances under which we should alter the Constitution. There are 
circumstances under which I will support a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget. But I think when we do change the U.S. Constitution 
we ought to do it with great care and we ought to do it right, because 
you do not get many chances to correct a mistake.
  First, I want to talk about debt. The discussion about debt is an 
interesting one because we have people coming to the floor of the 
Senate and they say, ``Well, these Federal deficits that we have had, 
you know, everybody else has to balance their budget. Business has to 
balance its budget. Consumers have to balance their budgets.''
  We have about $21 trillion of debt in this country, about $21 
trillion of debt. This chart shows what has happened to debt. The 
growth of debt in my judgment has not been very healthy for this 
country, not in the public sector, not in the private sector.
  This shows what has happened to business debt, corporate debt, 
household debt, Federal Government debt. Take a look at the curve. And 
$21 trillion worth of debt.
  Now someone might stand up and say, ``Well, everybody else has to 
balance their budget.'' That is not true. If so, what is all this debt 
about? In fact, we have developed a culture in this country in which it 
is fine for the private sector to send a dozen solicitations to college 
students who have no jobs and no visible means of support saying to 
them, ``Please take our credit card. You have a $1,000, $2,000, or 
$5,000 approved limit. Just go ahead and take our credit card. We want 
you to have a credit card. You don't have a job, no income. Take our 
credit card.'' That is the culture in our country. Is it good for this 
country? I do not think so.

  I said also, the culture is walking down the street as a consumer, 
and the picture window of the business literally raps on your elbow and 
says, ``Hey, you, walking in front of me here,'' the window says, 
``Come in and buy this product. It doesn't matter you can't afford it. 
Doesn't matter you don't need it. Buy the product. Take it home. You 
don't have to make a payment for 6 months. And we'll give you a rebate 
next week. And charge it.'' That is the culture. Is it right? No, it is 
not right.
  We ought to change that. We ought to change it here in the Federal 
system by balancing our budgets responsibly. And we have a problem well 
beyond this Federal system. Take a look what is happening with credit 
card debt in this country. Take a look at consumer debt.
  My point is, we ought to be concerned about the Federal debt and the 
Federal deficit, but we ought not stand up and say that is the only 
place debt exists. We have a whole culture of debt that raises real 
significant questions about where we are headed and how we are going to 
get there.
  The discussion today is about altering the Constitution in order to 
require budgets be in balance. Last evening I was privileged to see a 
preview of something that is going to be on public broadcasting on the 
life of Thomas Jefferson. It is a wonderful piece written by Ken Burns. 
It describes Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence 
at age 33. I got a copy of that today. I can only imagine having the 
kind of talent that he had. I mean, he was almost unique in the history 
of the world in his ability to think and write and express for us the 
spirit of what this democracy is.
  Thirty-three years old and in a boarding house he writes:

       When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary 
     for one people to dissolve their political bands which have 
     connected them with another, and to assume among the powers 
     of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the 
     Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent 
     respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should 
     declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
       We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
     created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 
     certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, 
     Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these 
     rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their 
     just powers from the consent of the governed.

  You can see Thomas Jefferson's handwriting and his corrections, the 
words he has crossed out, the words he has added when he wrote this 
marvelous, wonderful document.
  The year following the writing of this document when he was 33 years 
old, a group of 55 white men, largely overweight, we are told, convened 
in a small room in Philadelphia called the Assembly Room in 
Constitution Hall. They said it was so hot that summer in Philadelphia 
that--and those folks had such ample girth--that they had to cover the 
windows to keep the Sun out because it got very warm and they did not 
have air-conditioning in those days. And those 55 men wrote for this 
country a constitution.
  The Constitution itself is quite a wonderful document. Thomas 
Jefferson was in Europe at the time. He contributed to the writing of 
the Constitution by sending substantial writing back about the Bill of 
Rights. The Constitution of course is the living document that is 
unique in the history of this world.

       We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more 
     perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
     Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the 
     general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 
     ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this 
     Constitution for the United States of America.


[[Page S1269]]


  Language so clear and so wonderfully written, they established the 
foundation of this country, the fabric of a democracy that has now 
become the most successful surviving democracy on this Earth.
  The spirit of that document, the spirit of that Constitution is, I 
think, attested to by virtually all who serve here in what it means to 
us, our families, our future, to our country. When we decide that we 
should consider altering that Constitution, provisions for which were 
made in the very Constitution, we should do it carefully.
  We have had people propose all kinds of schemes to alter the 
Constitution of the United States. I am told there was a proposal to 
alter the Constitution that would require a President first coming from 
the northern part of America and then followed by a requirement that 
the next President come from the South.
  There have been thousands of proposals--some good, some bad, some 
baked, some half-baked--to change the Constitution of the United 
States. In fact, it was not very long ago that we had three proposals 
to alter the Constitution, in the last session of Congress, proposed to 
be voted on by the U.S. Senate, in the period of 6 weeks--three 
separate proposals to alter the work of Franklin, Madison, Mason, 
George Washington, and so many others, who over 200 years ago framed 
this issue.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. When I got the unanimous consent-agreement, I did so that 
all time would be divided equally. Can the Senator give me an 
indication of how long he will be speaking?
  Mr. DORGAN. About another 10 to 12 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Could we divide the time so the Republican time will be 
taken off our time and the Democratic time is taken off your time? It 
would be fairer.
  Mr. DORGAN. I do not have a problem with that. There will be ample 
time for everyone to speak. I am happy to accommodate the Senator.
  I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for the next 12 minutes 
and it come off the Democratic time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I observe that there will be no limit of time for anyone 
here to speak to their last breath about any subject they so choose on 
this issue, I guess.
  I will continue because I wanted to provide a framework for what I 
was going to say. I respect the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch. He 
has been on this floor on this issue and he has not wavered. He 
believes very strongly in what he is doing. I would support him if he 
would make one change in the constitutional amendment.
  A columnist said, ``Call his bluff,'' naming me by name. I say to the 
Senator, you make the change and I vote with it. I expect the change 
will not be made. If you do, chalk me up. I am one more vote.
  I want to talk about that change and the dimensions of it and the 
response of it. The change is in the issue of Social Security. We have 
had a lot of debate about this. Some said this is the biggest red 
herring in the world. Two political pundits this weekend said this is a 
fraudulent issue. Of course, pundits are either 100 percent right or 
100 percent wrong and no one knows which or who. A columnist said this 
is a totally fraudulent issue. I want to describe the issue once again 
and describe why I think not only is it not fraudulent, it is one of 
the most significant issues we will face in fiscal policy. A position 
on this issue is now prepared to be put into the Constitution of the 
United States in a way I think hurts this country.
  Let me describe it. Social Security is a remarkably successful 
program in this country. We decided some long while ago that we would 
have people pay in a payroll tax and that payroll tax would accumulate 
money which would be available to people when they retire. What has 
happened is we have developed kind of a ``bulge'' in our population, a 
very large group of children who were born just after the Second World 
War. I mentioned the other day, kind of kidding, but it was true, there 
was a tremendous outpouring of love and affection after the Second 
World War. A lot of folks came back and a lot of this love and 
affection blossomed into the largest baby crop in the history of our 
country. It caused some real long-term demographic problems, because 
when they hit the retirement rolls, what will happen is we will have 
the fewest numbers of workers supporting the largest number of retirees 
in this country's history.
  What was to be done? About 13 years ago, a discussion was held about 
how do we finance that when the largest baby crop hits the retirement 
rolls and we do not have enough money. The answer was, let's accumulate 
some surpluses in the Social Security system to be used when we need 
them later. I do not expect there is disagreement about that, that we 
have a circumstance where we accumulate $70 million more now than we 
need to be put into a trust fund to be saved for the future. If there 
is disagreement, I want to hear that, but those are the facts.
  Now, what is happening is a proposal is now made to alter the U.S. 
Constitution with this language, according to the Congressional 
Research Service, and the language says that all receipts and 
expenditures shall be counted for purposes of completing a balanced 
budget, and therefore the Congressional Research Service says ``because 
the balanced budget amendment requires that the required balance be 
between the outlays for that year and the receipts for that year,'' the 
moneys that we are ``saving in the surplus would not be available as a 
balance for the payments of benefits.'' That means if we save $70 
million extra this year for Social Security to be made available in the 
year 2015 or 2020, and in the year 2020 we balance the rest of the 
budget but want to spend that surplus we have in the Social Security 
accounts, the Congressional Research Service says you cannot do it. You 
cannot do it. This ought not be a controversial conclusion. I do not 
know of anyone who disagrees with it. You cannot do it unless you raise 
taxes in the rest of the budget to accommodate it.

  I say if that is the case, why are we raising more money than we now 
need in Social Security if it will not be saved and it will not be 
available for future use?
  I want to read to my colleagues something from the Social Security 
trustees last year:

       ``Total income for Social Security is estimated to fall 
     short of the total expenditures in the year 2019 and will 
     continue thereafter under the immediate assumptions, but in 
     this circumstance the trust funds would be redeemed over that 
     period to cover the difference until the assets are exhausted 
     in 2029.

  That is what the Social Security trustees said. CRS says that cannot 
be done because the trust funds will not be able to be used in those 
years unless you have raised taxes on the other part of the budget or 
cut spending in the other part of the budget, and I say in the year 
2029 it would require $600 billion that year alone.
  I have a 9-year-old son. This is not rocket science. I think he would 
understand that double-entry bookkeeping does not mean you can use the 
same money twice. You cannot say I am using this money to show a 
balanced budget and then use this money to save over here for Social 
Security. You do it one way or the other. You cannot do it both ways.
  My Uncle Joe used to own a gas station. Can you imagine him coming 
home to my Aunt Blanche and saying, ``We lost money this year, Blanche, 
but I put away money for my employees because I bargained with them and 
I told them I put money in their retirement account. So we got money in 
their retirement account for their pensions. But since I lost money in 
the service station, what I intend to do is take their money out of the 
retirement account I have put it in and use it over here so I can tell 
people I don't have a loss on my service station anymore.'' My aunt 
would say, ``Joe, you cannot do that. It is illegal. Somebody will send 
you to jail for that.'' Joe would say, ``Well, the folks down there in 
Washington, DC, seem to think it is OK. They think they can take $1 
trillion in the first 10 years and put it first in this pocket and then 
in that pocket, thumb their suspenders and puff on their cigars and 
say, ``We balanced the budget.''
  Guess what? The year in which the budget is presumably balanced and 
the year in which all of those who will

[[Page S1270]]

stand up on the highest desk in this Chamber and bray and bellow and 
trumpet and talk about how they balanced the budget, I ask every 
American to look at one number. What happened to the debt in that year 
in which they balance the budget? The answer: They say they balanced 
the budget and they have to increase the Federal debt limit by $130 
billion, the same year in which they claim they balance the budget. 
Why? Because the budget has been balanced.
  And it is not just me. I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, who is 
on the floor, he raised the same points the other day. There are 
Republicans in the House, two or three dozen, that raised the same 
points. I do not know how he and others will vote on final passage, but 
I say, as controversial as this is, I agree with what the Senator from 
Pennsylvania said on the floor the other day. I agree with what 
Congressman Neumann and others are saying in the House. I agree with 
the presentation I am making. This is an issue that is not 
insignificant, $1 trillion in 10 years, and it is much more than that 
in the 20 to 25 years that you have to look out to see what will be the 
consequence of this kind of proposal.
  Let me frame it in a positive way. I believe we ought to balance the 
Federal budget. I will support altering the Constitution to place in 
the Constitution a requirement to balance the Federal budget. We will 
vote on an alternative, on a substitute constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget that does that. I will offer it. I intend to vote 
for it. I will not vote for a constitutional amendment that 
accomplishes this--that essentially reduces by 10 years the solvency of 
the current Social Security system and guarantees that which we are 
supposed to be saving will not be saved and that which we are supposed 
to be saving cannot, by virtue of the language of this constitutional 
amendment, be available for use by Social Security recipients when it 
was promised.
  Sometimes I get the feeling that the only thing we do in this Chamber 
is talk to ourselves. We just talk back and forth with ``budgetspeak'' 
and language and a priesthood of dialog that only we understand and 
that seems almost totally foreign to the American people. I will bet 
you that with a lot of this discussion that's the case. The American 
people, I think, want a balanced budget and should expect that we can 
do what is necessary to balance the budget. But let me emphasize again 
that, although I believe there is merit to alter the Constitution to 
require a balanced budget, if we alter the Constitution at 2:05, by 
2:10--which is 5 minutes later--we would not have changed by one penny 
either the Federal debt or Federal deficit. That will only be altered 
by decisions on taxing and spending made individually by Members of 
this Congress, deciding what is a priority and what isn't, how much 
should we spend or should we not spend, or how we raise revenues or how 
don't we raise revenues. Only those decisions will bring us to a place 
we want to be--a balanced budget that provides for the long-term 
economic health of this country.
  My hope is that, in the coming days, when we finish this debate, we 
will have accomplished something in that we will all have resolved not 
only to perhaps make a change in the Constitution, if we can reach 
agreement on how that is done, but we will have resolved that we 
should, as men and women, balance the budget. Changing the Constitution 
is not balancing the budget. Some want to substitute that as political 
rhetoric. But, ultimately, the question of whether we balance the 
budget will be determined by the choices that we make individually.
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Connecticut on the floor. I 
wanted to say to the Senator that I used a bit of the time in the 4-
hour block. I hope he didn't mind. I wanted to make this point. I hope 
to come back in general debate, and I hope that the Senator from Utah 
and I can engage on the consequences of this language because I think 
it is a trillion-dollar question that remains unanswered. I would like 
to have a dialog back and forth rather than just presentations that 
vanish into the air when the presentations are completed. I thank the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Sessions]. The Senator from Pennsylvania 
is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have checked with the managers of both 
sides and he has agreed to yield me 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent 
that I may proceed as in morning business for a period of up to 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________