[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 25 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1810-S1811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS DESERVE A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to again express my strong 
support for the balanced budget amendment.
  I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee for providing a forum which has encouraged debate on all 
sides of this critically important issue. The public has been well 
served by these many hours of discussion.
  Mr. President, let me describe the need for the balanced budget 
amendment by comparing it to a situation to which many Americans can 
relate.
  By repeated abuse of a high-interest credit card, your debt is 
rapidly mounting until you reach the point of maxing out. You're barely 
paying enough to cover the minimum monthly payments--let alone make any 
dent in the principal--and your debts threaten to consume the entire 
family budget.
  With every available dollar being funneled into your credit card 
payments, there is no money left over to meet your daily needs or 
invest in your family's future.
  You, the overextended consumer, are left with only two viable 
options: Either file for bankruptcy or drastically cut your spending.
  If you're so far in debt that you see nothing in your future but 
despair, you may seek out the help of a credit counseling service. I 
guarantee they'll take one look at the horrendous mess you've created 
and demand you come up with an immediate plan for climbing out of debt.
  They'll tell you there are only three options that will return you to 
financial solvency: Discipline, discipline, and discipline.
  Now imagine that scenario multiplied several trillion times, where 
the reckless consumer is not an individual but the Federal Government 
itself. That's very much the predicament the United States will soon 
face.
  As Washington continues to spend dollars it does not have, each 
annual budget deficit is added to the balance of the overall national 
debt.
  The national debt today stands at $5.3 trillion, or $20,000 for every 
American man, woman, and child.
  The debt is increasing by $721 million every day, and $1 in every $7 
Federal tax goes to service just the interest on a debt so massive.
  If an individual acted with equal irresponsibility, the consequences 
would be severe.
  The Federal Government, however, simply writes another IOU in the 
name of our children and grandchildren and keeps right on spending, 
demanding services today that it wants our kids to pay for tomorrow.
  In recent years, the credit counselors--in this case, the American 
taxpayers--have been scrutinizing Federal spending and demanding that 
the Government be accountable for every tax dollar.
  But instead of hearing ``discipline, discipline, discipline,'' 
Washington somehow hears it as ``spend, spend, spend.'' And spend it 
does--even when every ounce of common sense demands that it should not.
  Despite all the recent talk about controlling Federal spending, there 
is no reason to believe Washington has fundamentally changed its ways.
  Without the constitutional protections of a balanced budget 
amendment, the outlook for our fiscal future is grim: The national debt 
will continue to explode, America will eventually run out of IOU's, and 
a bankrupt nation will surely follow.
  For an entire generation--more than three decades--Washington has 
talked about eliminating the deficit. ``[My program] is the surest and 
soundest way of achieving in time a balanced budget,'' said President 
John F. Kennedy in his State of the Union Address in 1963.
  That sentiment has been echoed by every President since Johnson, 
Nixon,

[[Page S1811]]

Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.
  The fact that we haven't balanced the budget since 1969 demonstrates 
that talking about balancing the budget is far easier than actually 
doing it.
  Many budget balancing plans have been proposed over the years, yet 
even the most well-intentioned of them have not brought about balance, 
just larger deficits.
  The pervasive growth of government makes it painfully obvious that in 
a government where politicians exhibit compassion by spending other 
people's money, we cannot be assured our budgets will ever balance 
without the moral authority of the Constitution to enforce it.
  The latest budget proposal from the White House illustrates the real 
need for a balanced budget amendment.
  Although President Clinton's plan is billed as being balanced, it 
really isn't--the deficit would increase next year and early reports 
from the Congressional Budget Office say the Clinton plan would remain 
about $80 billion short of balance in 2002. Seventy-five percent of the 
President's deficit reduction would not occur until after the year 
2000, meaning the Clinton administration will never have to make the 
tough choices it will take to eliminate the deficit. In other words, 
talk about it but leave it up to somebody else to do it. And most 
disturbing, instead of cutting spending and asking Washington to 
sacrifice, the President's budget raises taxes by $76 billion and asks, 
once again, that the taxpayers step forward and sacrifice. I can think 
of no more compelling justification for enacting the balanced budget 
amendment.

  Despite guarded optimism in Washington about reaching agreement this 
year to balance the budget, surveys show most Americans do not believe 
the deficit will be eliminated by the target date of 2002. They realize 
that all the laws, goals, plans, and pledges may not be strong enough 
to hold back the tide of rising deficits.
  Even if the budget were to be balanced in 2002, there is nothing to 
stop a future, less-vigilant Congress from picking up where the big 
spenders left off. The constitutional protections guaranteed by the 
balanced budget amendment remain our best hope of enforcing future 
fiscal restraint.
  Mr. President, I am greatly disappointed by the efforts of some of 
our colleagues who have chosen to use Social Security as a shield to 
disguise their opposition to the balanced budget amendment. Most of us 
have come to the conclusion this is nothing more than a transparent 
political ploy to defeat the amendment, while playing to the fears of 
senior citizens by demagoguing the Social Security issue.
  I have absolutely no doubt that if the Social Security concerns were 
erased today, another problem with the amendment would crop up 
tomorrow, and we would once again find ourselves in the position of 
being a single vote short of passage. This is already evident through 
the lineup of amendments we have been considering the last few weeks.
  I wonder if my colleagues are aware of the massive tax increase the 
American people would be forced to accept if we did indeed factor 
Social Security surpluses out of the budget process.
  Between 2002 and 2007 alone, the tax hike required to bring the 
budget into balance would amount to $706 billion. Yes, $706 billion.--
That dwarfs the record-breaking $265 billion tax increase President 
Clinton ushered through Congress in 1993.
  As their share, taxpayers in my home State of Minnesota could face a 
total Federal tax hike of about $12 billion. That is an average 
household tax increase of $1,085 per year. And again, that is just from 
2002 to 2007.
  Mr. President, Social Security is facing serious problems, and 
reforms are needed to ensure that retirement benefits will continue to 
be available to all Americans. But taking Social Security off budget 
does nothing to help the trust fund remain solvent.
  We all know that, by law, any Social Security surpluses must be 
invested in Treasury securities. Without serious reform, as long as the 
Government is allowed to grow and to continue its deficit-spending 
ways, it will still borrow from the trust fund, leaving nothing but 
IOUs to future beneficiaries.
  Therefore, first and foremost, we must overhaul the way Washington 
spends taxpayer dollars by imposing some constitutionally mandated 
fiscal discipline. We must pass the balanced budget amendment and we 
must take appropriate actions to protect and preserve the trust fund.
  While I understand the arguments of those who have supported the 
various Social Security amendments during this debate, a more 
reasonable approach would be to take Social Security off budget after 
the budget is balanced. Congress should begin considering legislation 
that ensures Social Security benefits will be payable for the current 
and future generations, stops the use of trust fund surpluses on other 
Government programs, and puts real assets in the Social Security trust 
fund.
  For now, let us face it: we will never achieve a balanced budget if 
Social Security is taken off budget and omitted from our deficit 
calculations. President Clinton himself has come to that very 
conclusion.
  Mr. President, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is committed to 
passing a balanced budget amendment in 1997 because we believe the 
taxpayers deserve a responsible Government that pays its bills and 
saves for the future.
  We also support passing the balanced budget amendment in 1997.
  Ending deficits and lowering the national debt will free up public 
and private resources for more productive and innovative uses in the 
global economy of the 21st century. On a more personal level, working 
Americans will benefit directly when a balanced budget leads to lower 
interest rates that could save a middle-class family about $125 a month 
in lower mortgage, car, and student loan payments.
  The 105th Congress has a historic opportunity and obligation to leave 
a legacy of responsible governing for the generations to come. The path 
is well marked: To one side leads the road to bankruptcy and America's 
fiscal ruin; to the other, the path of political promises which may or 
not be kept; while directly ahead lies the trail of discipline, 
discipline, discipline we must--pursue the road to prosperity and 
accountable governing marked by passage of the balanced budget 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Jerry 
Reed, a congressional fellow, be allowed to have floor privileges 
during the pendency of Senate Joint Resolution 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________