[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 25 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1814-S1815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not have the opportunity to hear 
our majority leader last week discuss matters of concern to him, 
especially as they related to the balanced budget amendment. But I was 
disappointed to read press reports, and then read the Record this 
morning, with regard to some of his comments relating to some of our 
colleagues.
  He has noted on the floor that in the past, this has been a positive 
debate, an instructive debate and a debate that clarifies differences 
among us. I think that characterization is accurate. Oftentimes on the 
Senate floor, in heated debate, we say and espouse things we wish we 
could take back later. But this debate has largely been devoid of that. 
I think that has been productive and ought to be the way we conduct 
ourselves.
  So it was somewhat surprising to me to hear the majority leader so 
personally attack some of our colleagues and express himself as he did. 
It was, in my view, uncharacteristic of the majority leader. I hope 
that we can retain the level of decorum and the level of civility on 
the Senate floor that will lend itself to a good debate on this and 
many other very controversial and extraordinarily contentious issues in 
the future. We, as leaders, need to set the example. We, as leaders, 
need to demonstrate that there is a threshold of civility and a 
standard which we should follow that, in my view, ought to be 
demonstrated first and foremost by the leadership.
  I know of many cases where colleagues on the Senate floor, Republican 
and Democratic, have taken positions on any one of a number of issues 
and concluded, having been presented with more information, that the 
original position they took was not one they could accept now. That has 
happened in cases involving constitutional amendments, involving 
statutory law, and involving other legislation. I hope it would be the 
way we conduct ourselves in considering many of the issues affecting 
our country and its future.
  Obviously, with new information, and under different circumstances, 
one comes to different conclusions. I, myself, faced a similar set of 
circumstances early on. I have always wanted to be on the side of those 
supporting a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  On reflection, much of the language that we have resorted to in the 
past, that we have used in the past, is language that, in retrospect, 
is not as appropriate for the Constitution as we had originally thought 
it might be.
  I am very concerned about the implications of any amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution, but especially one involving our economy, especially 
one involving our own fiscal responsibility, especially one involving 
our ability to cope with a myriad of circumstances that this country is 
going to confront at some point in the future.
  So clearly, as my colleagues have indicated, new information has been 
presented to us this year. We have received new information from the 
Congressional Research Service, new information from the Office of 
Management and Budget, and new information from the Treasury 
Department, all reporting that the circumstances involving the Social 
Security trust fund are vastly different than what we were originally 
led to believe during the 1980's.
  There is a difference in the interpretation of the Social Security 
trust fund than what I was originally presented as fact in years past. 
What we are now told, not by some partisan organization but by the 
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, and by the Office of 
Management and Budget, is that funds used for Social Security purposes 
are going to have to be offset with other funds, such as tax increases 
or spending cuts, in order to be paid out at an appropriate time in the 
future.
  Now, if we worked for a company and we were told that we had invested 
a certain amount of dollars--say $100,000--in our own retirement fund 
and then told that, before we could draw those funds out, the company 
would have to replenish those funds with other funds in order for that 
to be available, Mr. President, I think every single prospective 
retiree would feel very cheated. They would feel robbed.
  Yet, that is exactly the circumstances now with the Social Security 
trust fund. Workers are paying into that fund with the expectation that 
it would be paid out in time to those who paid in. That will not be the 
case if we enshrine in the Constitution the utilization of the Social 
Security trust fund for purposes other than Social Security.
  The same can be said for the capital budget. I know that we could 
have a good debate for days about whether or not we have a capital 
budget in this country. We all recognize that most States have them. We 
recognize that most businesses have them. There is not a family I know 
of, that pays off its mortgage in any one year. Families, businesses, 
and States currently have capital budgets or a very similar budgeting 
concept that allow them to differentiate between long-term investment 
and operating expenses. My family does that. My father's business used 
to do that.
  The question is, Should we as a country do that at some point in the 
future? I think the answer is resoundingly, yes, we should. We need to 
differentiate between long-term investment and capital costs.
  Mr. President, we are not doing that. But whether we subscribe to 
that concept or not, the question should be, Should we forevermore 
preclude this country from even considering a capital budget? We are 
now told by the Congressional Research Service that we will preclude 
the consideration of a

[[Page S1815]]

capital budget if this amendment passes in its current form.
  So, Mr. President, both on the basis of Social Security as well as 
the analysis of the Congressional Research Service--also confirmed by 
the Treasury Department--that we would be precluded from even 
considering a capital budget, I think these are issues that ought to 
weigh very heavily prior to the time our colleagues vote tomorrow 
afternoon.
  I am also very concerned about the implications for recession. When 
there is an economic downturn, there is no doubt that we need to 
respond in ways that will allow us adequate time, adequate resources, 
and adequate flexibility to ensure that the downturn does not get any 
worse. We must ensure that we have some sort of a reflexive 
countercyclical approach to the economic consequences that we could be 
facing were we to do nothing. This legislation undermines our ability 
to do that.

  I have heard it said many times that if it is a national emergency, 
clearly by the very definition of ``national'' you are going to have a 
sympathetic Senate responding to the circumstances and a sympathetic 
House responding to these circumstances in ways that would easily allow 
us to reach that threshold.
  Well, I ask, what about a regional recession? During the early 1990's 
and late 1980's, there were seven or eight very deep regional 
recessions. The fact is that on many occasions were we to have 
presented some sort of a countercyclical, antirecessionary legislative 
remedy, I think it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, 
to reach that 60-vote threshold simply because of the circumstances 
that involve the regional implications of a recession.
  So, I think it is very disconcerting to be locking into place 
forevermore the requirement that a supermajority be the threshold by 
which a countercyclical recession package be considered.
  In addition, a poorly crafted balanced budget amendment deprives us 
of the automatic stabilizers that cushion the blows of a weakening 
economy. As an economic downturn begins, Government spending 
automatically increases just as tax revenues decline. Such a time would 
prove the worst moment to increase taxes or cut spending. Yet, a 
balanced budget amendment could require exactly that result, with 
potentially devastating consequences. A recession could be turned into 
a depression under those circumstances.
  The risk of default and shutdowns are also very disconcerting. The 
fact is that a supermajority requirement under this constitutional 
amendment may preclude our ability to reach the threshold necessary to 
increase the statutory debt limit at times in the future. A minority of 
our colleagues could hold U.S. creditworthiness hostage were we to pass 
an amendment that allows the minority in this country to dictate 
whether or not we are going to increase the debt limit. How many times 
have we been on the floor and struggled to find a simple majority to do 
what has been required? I think it is going to be extraordinarily 
difficult for us with the supermajority requirement to do it at any 
time in the future.
  National security is also a very serious matter. Section 5 of the 
pending amendment jeopardizes our ability to prepare for situations 
that we know will require intervention, such as the Persian Gulf 
effort. For Congress to waive the balanced budget amendment, the United 
States must be engaged in military conflict--must be engaged.
  In Desert Shield we needed to build up before the conflict. In Desert 
Shield we stipulated that the conflict was imminent, and, as a result, 
we needed to prepare to be as aggressively engaged as that resolution 
provided. To say that there has to be conflict before we can issue or 
provide for any legislative support, in my view, is extraordinarily 
poorly worded and ill-founded.
  Finally, Mr. President, with regard to the budget itself, I think our 
record over the last 5 years demonstrates that where there is a will 
there is a way. There has been a will. We have reduced the deficit from 
$295 billion to $107 billion since 1993. We have reduced the deficit by 
60 percent through congressional action.
  Obviously, we need to go the rest of the way. But clearly, if we are 
going to achieve our goals in balancing the budget, we can do so if we 
continue to commit as successfully and as aggressively in the next 5 or 
6 years as we have in the past.
  But I am troubled in that regard as well, Mr. President, because 
there are proposals, including the one offered by the majority leader, 
that would create a deficit of more than $500 billion in new tax breaks 
were we to pass the bill that he has proposed--$500 billion over 10 
years and $750 billion, three-quarters of a trillion dollars, in the 
second decade that that tax bill would go into effect.

  So, it is very difficult for me to understand how some of my 
colleagues on one hand can argue that we need to pass a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget, but then offer legislation which 
exacerbates the problem by a substantial margin of $500 to $750 billion 
in additional deficits if that legislation were to pass.
  I might remind my colleagues, even if we balance the budget, we have 
a $5.5 trillion accumulated debt that we have not yet paid down.
  The difference between the deficit and the debt is that the deficit, 
of course, is what we accumulate in new debt every year; the debt is 
what we have already accumulated. And we have accumulated a lot. When 
are we going to start buying that debt down? And how are we going to do 
that if we continue to exacerbate the problem, continue to complicate 
our situation by offering tax measures that allow a deficit of that 
magnitude to be added on to the troubles that we are facing over the 
next couple of years? Mr. President, for all those reasons, I hope my 
colleagues will take great care as they make their choices tomorrow 
afternoon.

  The leader had suggested that he has a couple of potential surprises 
in his pocket. Well, I guess I have to announce to my colleagues that I 
have a couple of surprises that I do not wish to talk about right now 
to ensure that the vote will be as we expect it will. But I do not 
think it ought to be a question or a contest of surprises or 
parliamentary maneuvers or amendments that may or may not be in our 
best interest.
  The question can be and will be and should be: Can we have a good 
debate about any one of a number of divisive issues like we know we 
have to face in this Senate, on a number of very, very difficult 
matters that will keep coming back? Can we do it in a civil way? Can we 
do it in a way that does not in some way question the motives or the 
positions taken by some of our colleagues? Can we do it with an 
expectation that will resolve that matter and go on to yet another and 
another day?
  I hope we can do that. I hope the leadership will set the example as 
we do that. I hope that after the vote tomorrow we can move on to other 
things. We are prepared to debate this longer if we need to do that. I 
hope that will not be the case. We should move on and get work done in 
the body and move on with some expectation that bipartisanship is still 
alive and well and flourishing here in this body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I first thank my distinguished colleague 
who so kindly allowed me to precede him on the floor for a few minutes.

                          ____________________