On the recordJanuary 21, 1997
2 years ago, the Senate failed by one vote to support a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. At the time, opponents told the Senate that balancing the budget didn't require amending the Constitution. All we needed, they told us, was to make the tough choices and cast the hard votes. Two budgets, hundreds of tough votes, and one Government shutdown later, the budget is still in deficit, and the case for a constitutional balanced budget amendment is stronger than ever. That's not to say we haven't made progress in the past 2 years. We have. Since the 1994 elections, Congress has worked hard to hold the line on discretionary spending while just last fall we passed historic reforms to the 60-year-old welfare state. Perhaps just as importantly, we have witnessed a dramatic shift in the debate itself. Two years ago, President Clinton submitted a budget that never reached balance. Today all sides have agreed--at least in principle--to the goal of balancing the budget by the year 2002. That's the good news. The bad news is that while we have all seemingly agreed on the goal of balancing the budget, we are miles apart on the details. It's one thing to say you support a balanced budget--it's quite another to make the tough decisions necessary to make it happen. Mr. President, that's where Senator Hatch's amendment to the Constitution comes in.
Source
govinfo.gov




