Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the subject that is before the Senate this week, and I suppose next week and possibly the week after, the balanced budget amendment. I think we will have extended debate, probably longer than we need, some of which will be to talk about options, some of which will be to talk in real debate about differences in view, but much of it will simply be designed, I think, to delay action on what I think to be a very important issue. So, it will be difficult to focus on new information.<p>
It seems to me there is a very basic question that has to be asked first, before all the detail is entered into and that is, is it morally and fiscally responsible to spend more than we take in? I think that is the question that most Americans ask of their Government: Can we continue to spend more than we take in? Is it morally wrong to spend more than we take in, to transfer that debt to someone in the future? I think Americans ask, is it fiscally responsible to continue to spend more than we take in? The answer, obviously, `is no,' it is not morally responsible, it is not fiscally responsible. So, that is the basic question. And most everyone would answer that the same.<p>
Then we get into a great debate about how we do it. I support a balanced budget amendment. I believe very strongly that it needs to be done. I believe very strongly that it has worked in the States. What are the arguments against it? We hear them time and time again. One of them is it is not needed. The evidence is it is needed. This Congress has not balanced the budget. It has not balanced the budget in 26 years and only balanced it five times in 50 years.<p>
So the evidence is that, sure, we can balance the budget. The fact is that Congress does not. The fact is, it is a little easier to say we like the programs; if we can put it on the credit card, we will do it. If we have to pay for it, it is a different matter. Then it is a matter of setting up priorities. Then it is a matter of a cost-benefit ratio, and we hear, `Here is what it costs. Here is the value.' The decision may be different than saying `Here is the value. We do not have to pay for it now.'<p>
Some say it is not needed. I suggest that the evidence would indicate that it is. Some say we already have the tools; we can do it this year. Certainly, that is true. Again, the evidence shows that that has not happened. It is very difficult. I am persuaded that there needs to be a constitutional discipline to balance the budget on a continuing basis.<p>
Some say it is too strict, it is too confining. It does not need to be. There are arrangements that in case of emergencies--some say in case of war--it can be changed, of course. It can be changed by a vote or supermajority vote or written into the amendment that it is changed under certain circumstances.<p>
Again, I say to Members that almost all of the States in this country have balanced budget amendments. In my State of Wyoming it is in the constitution, and it is not troublesome for that reason. We heard an extended argument earlier this week on how courts and judges would be deciding. The evidence does not show that in the area where we have had a balanced budget amendment in the States. The courts do not do the budgeting. That is, I think, not a good reason for not moving forward. <p>
Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is one of the several procedural changes that seem to me to be imperative. Several of the changes were clearly in the mind of voters in November, changes that will have a long-term impact, not just on this year's decisions in the Congress, but an impact on the way Congress behaves over time. That is the more important question.<p>
We keep expecting different results and continue to use the same process. There is really little reason to expect that results will be different if we continue to do the same thing. We need a forced discipline. We need an external constraint. I think that is true of most political bodies, frankly. Politicians love to be able to provide programs. Politicians love to be able to solve problems. Politicians sort of get to where they like to have problems to resolve for their constituents. A man with a hammer thinks every problem is a nail.<p>
We need some constraint, some constitutional discipline. The Federal debt is nearly $5 trillion, over $18,000 for every person in this country. We spend $800-plus million per day in the gross interest payments.<p>
So we have a moral imperative to balance the budget for people in Wyoming and people in every other State. Families have to balance, businesses have to balance, States, by and large, have to balance, and the Federal Government should have to balance as well and not pass off the debt on its children and grandchildren.<p>
Opponents say, `We already have the tools.' The evidence shows that we do not. The Federal Government has spent more than it has taken in for 55 of the last 63 years. Not a good record--not a good record--and not a good basis for saying we do not need to do anything.<p>
So, Mr. President, I am sure we will hear about draconian cuts. The fact is that what we have to do is slow the growth. We have been increasing spending at 5 percent. Say we increase it only at 2 percent.<p>
So I hope as we go forward, we can continue to make some points about the balanced budget, but the bottom line is, should we do it and, if so, what has to take place to require that the balanced budget be used in the Congress and be used for Federal spending.<p>
