[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 25 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1808-S1809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
Senate Joint Resolution 1, a version of a balanced budget amendment to 
the U.S. Constitution currently pending before the Senate.
  Throughout the more than 10 years that I have had the honor and 
opportunity to represent the people of South Dakota as a Congressman 
and now as a U.S. Senator, I have consistently supported a policy of 
fiscal prudence and restraint. I have supported, among other 
initiatives, a line-item veto and enhanced line-item rescission, the 
1990 budget agreement initiated by President Bush and the 1993 budget 
agreement initiated by President Clinton. The latter two budget 
agreements having played a very significant role in capping 
discretionary spending, placing our Government on a must-pay-as-you-go 
basis and contributing to over a 60-percent reduction in the annual 
Federal budget deficit. I am pleased that these and other efforts taken 
by the Clinton administration, though almost universally opposed by the 
Republican congressional caucuses have led to economic growth, 
prosperity, and now a deficit that is smaller relative to our economy 
than in any industrial nation on Earth. Even so, we have farther to go 
to bring our Federal expenditures and revenue into greater equilibrium. 
To that end, I have also voted in favor of various balanced budget 
amendments while serving in the other body.
  I do not take the amendment of our Nation's Constitution lightly. I 
am mindful that this is the legislative body that served as the forum 
for Clay and for Webster and many other great names of American 
history. Unlike ordinary legislation, a constitutional

[[Page S1809]]

amendment cannot be easily changed if it proves faulty--it must be 
crafted in such a manner that serves the interests of our Nation not 
only now, but for 200 years and more from now. We must of necessity 
approach such a difficult task--that of drafting a constitutional 
amendment for the ages--with some humility and with a full recognition 
of the great care that is required if future generations are to look to 
our deliberations with the same respect that we today hold for the 
Founders of our Republic.
  Over the past 4 years, we, and in particular the Clinton 
administration, have taken an exploding deficit that had reached nearly 
$300 billion annually and a cumulative national debt that had 
quadrupled on the watch of Presidents Reagan and Bush, and cut that 
annual deficit by over 60 percent. Yet, despite this progress, I began 
my service in the Senate at the commencement of the 105th Congress with 
the assumption that I would cast a vote in favor of a constitutional 
amendment drafted in much the manner that Senate Joint Resolution 1 
appears before us today. However, the findings of the nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service later substantiated by an analysis of 
the Office of Management and Budget and the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities have cast such grave doubts about the wisdom of Senate Joint 
Resolution 1 as it is currently drafted, that I cannot cast a vote for 
an unamended version with the confidence I need to have that it truly 
will achieve the goals its advocates claim.
  The CRS report makes it clear that Senate Joint Resolution 1 would 
prohibit the Federal Government from conducting its financial affairs 
in the same prudent manner that every South Dakota family attempts to 
achieve. It would effectively prevent the Federal Government from 
setting aside cash reserves in good times in order to have them 
available in times of crisis--a policy that flies in the face of common 
sense and one that certainly should not be imposed on all future 
generations of Americans.
  While the Social Security trust fund is the source of the greatest 
attention in this debate, and that is understandable since Senate Joint 
Resolution 1 would convert the Federal Government's largest effort to 
set aside resources for a future generation into a virtual fraud on the 
taxpayers, the implications of denying the Federal Government the 
ability to raise funds now for future needs goes far beyond damage to 
Social Security. Such a provision diminishes the usefulness of all our 
trust funds, especially those that have been designed to gain revenue 
during good times and to be available to fall back on during bad times. 
It makes any realistic effort to set aside funds now to be available 
for a future countercyclical economic strategy much more difficult--a 
criticism that has been the chief reason why Republican economic 
experts such as Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, 11 
Nobel laureate economists, and even the conservative Wall Street 
Journal have condemned Senate Joint Resolution 1.
  While a few Members of this body may attempt to lecture me about what 
pledges I have made to the people of South Dakota during the past 
campaign, I will refrain from attempting to impugn their motives or to 
engage in self-righteous assertions about their responsibilities to 
their constituents or to their oath of office.
  I have pledged to the people of South Dakota that I would support a 
balanced budget and that I would vote for a balanced budget amendment--
one that works--one that would help achieve the goal of balancing the 
Federal budget without destroying Social Security or otherwise placing 
our Nation's economic growth and prosperity at great risk. What 
arrogance for anyone to suggest on this floor that a vote for any 
proposed amendment other than Senate Joint Resolution 1 constitutes a 
breach of honor.
  I have voted, and it is duly recorded in the Senate Journal, for a 
balanced budget amendment and for modifications to Senate Joint 
Resolution 1 which would promote a balanced budget without the 
disastrous flaws of Senate Joint Resolution 1.
  I am a fourth generation South Dakotan. My family homesteaded in our 
State and I'm proud that my children now represent the fifth 
consecutive generation of our family to claim Clay County, SD as home. 
With that background, I have a profound appreciation for the concerns 
and more importantly the values of the citizens of my State. During 
this past campaign I pledged to them the most important pledge of all--
that I would exercise my best judgment and greatest care in casting my 
vote in the Senate and that in doing so, I would ignore the immediate 
winds of political pressure and cast my votes in a manner consistent 
with the long-term needs of our State and Nation.
  There is no doubt that the easy thing for me to do would be to 
capitulate to the current political pressures ginned up and funded by 
the special interests promoting exclusively Senate Joint Resolution 1. 
That would be the path of least resistance, and, clearly, the negative 
impact of that particular version of balanced budget amendment would 
not be felt until after my next election where I too choose to run for 
another term in this body.
  It would take, frankly, several years to ratify any amendment and 
some years beyond that before the public would fully recognize the 
enormous wrong this body would have done to the Constitution. But I 
told my constituents that I would do the right thing, not the 
politically expedient thing. While I respect the integrity of 
everyone's professed views, as I look about this Chamber, I have to 
wonder if there would in fact be a close vote on Senate Joint 
Resolution 1 if the ballot were secret, and intellect and conscience 
the only driving forces in this debate.
  Mr. President, when this debate concludes tomorrow, I will have the 
satisfaction of knowing that I have honorably lived up to my pledges to 
the people of South Dakota and to my sacred responsibilities to this 
Nation and to the U.S. Senate. To cast a vote for this specific version 
of a balanced budget amendment knowing what I know today, would 
constitute a betrayal of the people of my State, and inasmuch as I am a 
U.S. Senator, it would be a betrayal of my commitment and my love for 
our Nation--that I will not and cannot do.
  I yield back the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________