[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1349-S1350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to use the morning business 
time to further the debate on the balanced budget amendment and to 
indicate that I oppose the proposed amendment to our Constitution.
  During the 103d Congress, Mr. President, this body wisely rejected 
the proposed amendment. It did so again during the 104th Congress, a 
Congress which, perhaps unlike any other in our recent history, seemed 
intent on finding different ways to amend the U.S. Constitution, 
actually voting on more amendments to the Constitution than any of its 
recent predecessors.
  Mr. President, some of us believe there are many reasons to oppose 
this constitutional amendment, and we have been hearing a lot of them. 
A number of respected authorities have raised several significant 
points of concern, including problems related to the role of the courts 
and the power it might confer on unelected judges to set our national 
budget policies and priorities.
  Another serious concern that we have heard a lot about and we will 
hear even more about is the damage this proposal could do to the Social 
Security Program. There may also be unintended changes to Presidential 
impoundment authority arising out of the constitutional amendment.
  I believe that the constitutional amendment, in addition, will lead 
to unnecessary and possibly dislocating restrictions on our ability to 
establish capital or investment budgets, to even have the kind of 
flexibility that States have or municipalities have when they happen to 
have a balanced budget requirement.
  Finally, Mr. President, I think the balanced budget amendment leads 
to an effective prohibition on developing a fiscally responsible budget 
structure that could include a surplus fund, a rainy day fund, a fund 
that could be tapped for emergencies, such as national disasters or 
military conflicts. The way it is drafted, we would not be able to plan 
for or project even a small surplus that could actually be used to 
solve an emergency.
  Mr. President, during the next several days as we consider the 
amendment, I, along with many others, will comment on some of those 
concerns in more detail as we debate amendments designed to address 
those defects that I have just listed. For now, Mr. President, I want 
to focus on the underlying assumption behind the proposed amendment, 
namely that without making this change to our Constitution, the 
Congress and the President will not balance the budget, that it just 
will not happen. It is a fair issue, it is a fair question, a fair 
premise for this whole debate.
  Mr. President, the assumption that that job will not be done by this 
Congress and this President is not necessarily right. We have brought 
the unified budget deficit down since 1992 by about 60 percent. Yet, 
all the rhetoric on the floor has not changed one bit. It has not 
changed one iota to reflect the fact that real and significant progress 
has been made in the past 4 years. All of the naysaying about ``it 
can't be done, it will never be done, Congress and the President will 
never get together and do this,'' has at least got to be questioned a 
little bit by the advocates of the balanced budget amendment when they 
look at the record of the last 4 years. We have seen several plans 
offered by both sides that will bring the unified budget into balance 
by the year 2002. We have seen that from Democrats, we have seen it 
from Republicans, and we have seen it in a bipartisan package.
  Mr. President, I recall when some of the Republican Members were 
pushing for a 7-year balanced budget by the year 2002 using CBO 
numbers, and the President was not sure he wanted to go with that. But, 
I agreed with the Republicans. I felt they were right, that we needed 
to have that timeframe and have a clear commitment. I still stand by 
that. Today we have a President and a Congress in agreement that the 
date we should be going for is the year 2002.
  In fact, nearly every Member of this body voted for a unified budget 
plan that reached balance by 2002 at some time during the 104th 
Congress, and I really think working together this year, understanding 
that neither party is running the whole show here, that we can come 
together in a bipartisan package that will, in fact, finish the good 
work we have done and balance the budget by the year 2002.

  Mr. President, all the budget plans I mentioned, all the votes we 
took, all the progress we have made in the past 4 years, was done 
without a constitutional mandate. In fact, it was done without a 
constitutional amendment floating out among the States, while we wonder 
whether the States will ratify it or by when they will ratify it. In 
fact, Mr. President, I firmly believe that if we had adopted a 
constitutional amendment in 1993, 1994, or 1995, and sent it to the 
States for ratification, that many of those balanced budget plans would 
not have been forthcoming in this Congress, that they would not have 
even been proposed, because people in both Houses would have been 
looking to a future date when the hammer would come down, instead of 
believing that the hammer is coming down now, where we here have been 
elected to do the job now and not wait for the States to decide whether 
to ratify a constitutional amendment.
  Mr. President, without the ability to hide behind a lengthy 
ratification process, Congress in the last few years has been forced to 
live up to its rhetoric at least in part. A Member cannot go back home 
and say, ``Listen, I am very eager to cut spending in Washington. I 
don't know exactly what we ought to cut, but once we get that balanced 
budget amendment ratified, then we will get back to work on it.'' That 
excuse is not available now. People in an audience for such a Senator 
or Member of Congress would say back to that person, ``Why don't you 
just do the job now? You were elected to do it now.'' That is, in fact, 
what we were elected to do.
  Mr. President, I do not think the American public realizes that even 
if Congress approves the proposed amendment, it could be another 9 
years--9 years--before the balanced budget mandate begins to bite. If 
the proposal languishes with State legislatures, we might not be forced 
to reach balance in 2002, but until the year 2006. The States get 7 
years to ratify, and the provision calls for the amendment to really 
take its effect, to have its bite, 2 years after that. So it could be 
the year 2006 if we wait for a constitutional amendment.
  Mr. President, there is strong reason to believe the States will not 
act quickly. We have already heard some loud second thoughts from many 
State policymakers about the impact of the proposed amendment on their 
State and local budgets. This proposal may not, in effect, Mr. 
President, then be the so-called slam-dunk ratification that some 
people claim it will be.
  Ironically, some who voiced their support for a constitutional 
amendment may not really care. I do not think this is true of everyone, 
by any means. Some do care. Some are genuinely frustrated and turn only 
to this

[[Page S1350]]

constitutional amendment alternative as a last resort. I can think of a 
great example, the previous Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, who I 
know only turned to this alternative, I am sure, out of sheer 
frustration with the process. He turned to that alternative prior to 
the progress we made in 1992 through 1996.
  I am afraid for others who pushed this amendment, the agenda is not 
so much a balanced budget but some political advantage. During the 
debate, we will have an opportunity to see who really wants to reduce 
the deficit and who is a little more interested in political posturing. 
I am going to offer an amendment, for example, that would reduce the 
time for ratification from 7 years to 3 years to prevent unnecessary 
delay by the States and ensuring Congress does not hide behind a 
protracted ratification process during which Members could say, ``Well, 
we are going to get to this balancing of the budget later, after the 
States get done doing their job.''
  Mr. President, if this amendment is more than just a political 
exercise, my proposal, my modification of going from 7 years to 3 years 
for ratification should sail through the U.S. Senate.
  I have to say I have some doubts about it because the proposed 
amendment to our Constitution is, at its core, really political. We 
should not be shocked by that. Congress, by its nature, is a political 
beast. What is disturbing, though, is the growing willingness on the 
part of some to place in jeopardy our Constitution in this manner to 
get some momentary political advantage.
  Sadly, using our Constitution as a political foil is becoming 
increasingly popular. The so-called balanced budget amendment is only 
one of many proposed changes to our Constitution. During the last 
Congress alone, over 130 changes were proposed to the U.S. 
Constitution. Many of them, I am afraid, were offered for political 
ends. Many of them are entirely unnecessary. In fact, I say virtually 
all of them are entirely unnecessary to solve the problems at which 
they are directed.
  One of them, an amendment to require a supermajority to raise taxes, 
was brought to the other body's floor solely because it was tax day, 
April 15, so the proponents could stand up on tax day and make some 
speeches about it. I am troubled by that use of the constitutional 
amendment process. The thought that an amendment to our Constitution 
could be offered because it presents the opportunity for a really 
timely sound bite is indefensible. Many of the advocates of a balanced 
budget amendment may be sincere in their support for the proposal, but 
their sincerity does not address the practical problems with the 
amendment with a fundamental flaw underlying a constitutional approach.
  The Constitution, Mr. President, will not solve our budget problems. 
That says it all. The Constitution cannot solve our year-to-year and 
day-to-day budgeting problems. It will not give us the courage or the 
answers we need to balance our books.
  As President Clinton said in his State of the Union Address, all that 
is needed to balance the budget is our vote and his signature. The 
President's budget is a good starting place. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues on the Budget Committee to build on the President's 
budget and move beyond to reach balance, without using the Social 
Security surplus. We don't have to amend the Constitution to do that.
  As I noted on the Senate floor last year, for over 200 years, the 
Constitution has served this Nation very, very well. It is essential to 
the continuing development of our young Nation that the Constitution 
remains a statement of general principles, not a budgeting document.
  In charting a different course, one which allows the Constitution to 
serve as a method of addressing each difficult challenge we face in 
this Nation, inevitably, Mr. President, we will sacrifice the integrity 
of the most fundamental document of our Nation. This process will 
sacrifice the integrity of our Constitution.
  We must guard against the U.S. Constitution becoming what James 
Madison feared would be, in his words, ``little more than a list of 
special provisos.''
  Mr. President, the Constitution remains the cornerstone of our 
freedom. Its power is its brilliant simplicity. The spate of 
constitutional amendments offered over the past few years are at odds 
with the fundamental notion that our Constitution establishes the 
framework or great outlines of our society. By seeking to use that 
document to address specific problems, no matter how severe, the 
Constitution will become something much less than it was intended to be 
and that it has been.
  Although our Nation faces many problems--and I think the issue of 
balancing the budget may be our most important problem--no problem can 
really be attributed purely to a constitutional deficiency. We should 
quell our desire to amend this great document and, instead, address the 
problems that confront this Nation.
  Mr. President, I suggest, after the process of the balanced budget 
amendment debate is over, that we get, as fast as we can, to the real 
work of balancing the budget and leave the Constitution alone.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time between 12 
and 1 p.m. is divided between the Senator from Rhode Island and the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. As I understand it, the time reverts, 
at 1 o'clock, back to the proponents of the amendment, am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed until 1 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________