[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 17 (Thursday, February 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 41) proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced
budget.
The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Nevada is to be recognized to offer his amendment.
Amendment No. 1471
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the
desk. This is on behalf of myself, Senator Ford, and Senator Feinstein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] for himself, Mr. Ford
and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 1471.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after ``Assembled'' and insert the following:
(two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the
following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and
purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within
seven years after the date of its submission to the States
for ratification:
article
``Section 1. Total estimated outlays of the operating funds
of the United States for any fiscal year shall not exceed
total estimated receipts to those funds for that fiscal year,
unless Congress by concurrent resolution approves a specific
excess of outlays over receipts by three-fifths of the whole
number of each House on a roll-call vote.
``Section 2. Not later than the first Monday in February in
each calendar year, the President shall transmit to the
Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government
for the fiscal year beginning in that calendar year in which
total estimated outlays of the operating funds of the United
States for that fiscal year shall not exceed total estimated
receipts to those funds for that fiscal year.
``Section 3. This article shall be suspended for any fiscal
year and the first fiscal year thereafter if a declaration of
war is in effect or if the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office, or any successor, estimates that real economic
growth has been or will be less than one percent for two
consecutive quarters during the period of those two fiscal
years. The provisions of this article may be waived for any
fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military
conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat
to national security and it is so declared by a joint
resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each
House of Congress, that becomes law.
``Section 4. Total estimated receipts of the operating
funds shall exclude those derived from net borrowing. Total
estimated outlays of the operating funds of the United States
shall exclude those for repayment of debt principal; and for
capital investment. The receipts (including attributable
interest) and outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance
Trust Fund shall not be counted as receipts or outlays for
purposes of this article.
``Section 5. This article shall be enforced only in
accordance with appropriate legislation enacted by Congress.
The Congress may, by appropriate legislation, delegate to an
officer of Congress the power to order uniform cuts.
``Section 6. Sections 5 and 6 of this article shall take
effect upon ratification. All other sections of this article
shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2001 or the
second fiscal year beginning after its ratification,
whichever is later.''.
Mr. HATCH and Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. I recognize that the distinguished Senator from Nevada
does want to talk about his amendment, and I only intend to take 1
minute or 2, but I was unable to speak earlier in response to the
comments of the distinguished majority leader. I feel as if they do
deserve just a short response. They deserve a longer one, but I will
only give a short one here today.
Frankly, to stand here and say the reason we are putting the due date
when we should reach a balanced budget to the year 2001 is so we can
avoid responsibility, if I interpreted the majority leader's comments
correctly, would be an insult to every Member of this body because what
it is saying is that none of us really is going to take a
constitutional amendment seriously for the next 7 years, assuming that
this amendment passes, assuming that it is submitted to the States, and
let us assume that it is ratified within the average period of time
that constitutional amendments are ratified. That is 20 months.
I do not think Members of this body would fail to take that
amendment, once it passes the Senate, and once it passes the House,
from that minute on, I do not think there is a person in this body who
would not be interested in living up to his oath of office, which
requires fealty to the Constitution of the United States, who would not
take it seriously and who would not realize that the game is up around
here, and that we have only 7 years on a glidepath to reach a balanced
budget.
For anybody to stand here and say that this is a gimmick, when they
realize that this would put fiscal restraint into the Constitution and
into the hearts of every Member of this body, I think is wrong.
I have to tell you, I cannot imagine a Member of this body, if this
resolution passes both Houses of Congress, who would not take their
responsibilities very, very seriously to start that day and do what is
right. I hope the majority leader did not mean that, and I will give
him the benefit of the doubt with regard to it.
But the reason that the year 2001 is put in there is because we do
not believe these two bodies, the Senate and the House, can reach a
balanced budget amendment, even with everybody working on it, in less
time than that. And it also provides for some time for ratification.
This is important. We take our oath seriously around here. There is
nothing in the Constitution right now that requires a balanced budget.
By the way, our amendment does not require it. It just puts the
mechanism in so that we have to face the music if we do not reach it.
And that is important language.
Second, I think it is important to note that the amendment will make
a difference. It is not a gimmick. Olympia Snowe, Congresswoman from
Maine, said if this were a gimmick, Congress would have passed it long
ago and gotten rid of it, and they would not have this embroilment
where we are here fighting every year trying to get a balanced budget
amendment passed. Congress does that with gimmicks.
The reason we are fighting so hard is it is not a gimmick. It is
something that would put the fiscal restraints on every Member of
Congress to have to at least consider doing what is right around here.
Furthermore, to say that by putting our declaratory judgment language
in the amendment we are preventing enforcement also could be construed
as an insult to every Member of Congress, because if we are obligated
to meet the terms of this constitutional amendment, that alone is
enforcement, and the ballot box is going to be even more enforcement.
There will not be any more voice votes around here hiding who is
breaking the budget. We are all going to have to face the music. So do
not say that we should turn over the enforcement to the courts of this
country. It would destroy the judiciary if they had to do that. We, the
Congress, have to do what is right.
Then to stand here and say that Members ought to be doing what is
right anyway I think ignores 60 years of history, because we are not
doing what is right.
I might also add as to that budget reconciliation of last year, 40 of
us did vote against it but for very good and valid reasons. I do not
agree that it was the best deficit reduction package in history. Many
did not like an awful lot of the provisions in that particular package,
and many still do not feel it is a deficit reduction package, but
merely another tax and spend package. There were legitimate and good
reasons to vote against that. I agree 40 did vote against it in this
body.
There is no question in my mind that the way to enforce this
constitutional amendment is by fealty to the Constitution and by having
to stand for election and face the voter who might vote against you if
you do not live up to your fealty to the Constitution.
I do not want the majority leader to be misconstrued. The fact is if
he believes people around here are trying to escape responsibility by
putting it off for a length of time that everybody around here agrees
it is going to take, then that is ignoring the fealty and the
responsibility and the good faith of every Member of this body. I
happen to believe more in this body than that. I believe that we will
do what is right if this passes. If it does not pass, we will continue
doing what is wrong the way we have for 60 years.
I apologize to my good friend and colleague from Nevada, but I just
had to make these comments. There are others I would like to make but I
will make those Monday.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Idaho be recognized for purposes of making an announcement, and
that I have the floor back after that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Nevada
yielding only briefly. I think we are going to engage in a very
important debate with this alternative or substitute amendment.
Let me also say that just minutes ago, in 6 hours and 50 minutes, the
House has just discharged their balanced budget amendment. That is the
fastest discharge in the history of the House since the Speaker's
discharge of the original Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938.
So for Senators who believe that this is merely an exercise in
debate, this issue is now in full bloom in both Houses, the House
having acted today with these issues on the floor before us.
I hope Senators will come to the floor and engage themselves in
debate, whether it is for the Simon approach or whether it is for the
Reid approach. This becomes, in my opinion, a most significant debate
that must be resolved.
I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have supported the concept of the balanced
budget amendment since coming to Congress, and even before coming to
Congress. This has been something that I have worked very hard on,
especially the last several weeks, to arrive at something that is
meaningful but yet responsible.
The Simon amendment on its face seems to accomplish that. That is why
a number of individuals thought it was the way to solve the financial
problems of this country. But under the spotlight of any scrutiny, the
Simon amendment will not solve any of our fiscal problems. Instead, Mr.
President, as many of my colleagues and a multitude of economic experts
across the country fear, this amendment, as written, and as it will be
modified, will create more problems than it will solve.
As I indicated, I spent a great deal of time wrestling with this
issue. I, like the speeches we have heard on this Senate floor over the
years, do not want to leave a legacy of debt to my five children and my
three grandchildren. I do not want to leave a legacy of debt for the
children of Nevada nor the children of this Nation, because I
represent, as we all do who are Members of the U.S. Senate, not only
the children of our State, but we represent the individuals and the
children of this country. I do not want to heap a burden of debt on any
future generation of the American people.
Mr. President, let us talk about some of the things we have done
fiscally in recent months. We have a huge budget. This country is
growing, with over 250 million people. We now have a deficit of $176
billion, a huge amount. I do not in any way trivialize that amount of
money because it is a huge amount of money. But it is the lowest
deficit we have had in 9 years. It is the lowest percentage pertaining
to the gross national product of debt since 1979--15 years. That is not
perfect. But we have been making progress in recent years.
What has the President suggested to us--we the Members of the U.S.
Senate, with our colleagues and friends in the House--what has the
President told us we must do? We must eliminate entirely 115 programs.
We are going to cut 300 others, by direction of the President in this
budget.
For example--and I know the Senator who is presiding presently is
very concerned about agriculture; the State of Minnesota is much more
agriculturally bound than the State of Nevada--the President has
suggested, in spite of the great agricultural power of this country,
that there be a 24 percent cut in agriculture expenditures this year.
That is a tremendous cut, but it is something we are demanding be done.
And the cuts I am going to be talking about, Mr. President, are not
cuts in increases. These are real dollar cuts.
As an example, in 1994, agriculture spending was $16.9 billion. We
have been directed to cut that to $12.8 billion, 24 percent; energy, a
cut of 8 percent; international affairs, a cut of 6 percent; defense--
as much as it has been squeezed--we are going to squeeze it 3 more
percent; science, space--something that I believe is the future of this
country--are being cut 2 percent; discretionary spending will be cut by
$16.5 billion to meet the spending caps that we need to make.
That is a lot of cutting. Twelve years ago, domestic discretionary
spending in this country was 25 percent of our budget. Last year, it
was about 12 percent. Next year, it is going to be even less.
We, Mr. President, are cutting the heart out of the programs of this
country that are so meaningful--research and development at the
National Institutes of Health, education. But we are doing it because
there is an agreement that we need to do that.
Also in this budget is something called reinventing government,
similar to the Grace Commission, done by a different individual, by
Vice President Gore. Approximately 85 percent of Vice President Gore's
reinventing government proposals are reflected in the budget request.
That is very good, Mr. President.
So we have done a pretty good job compared to the last dozen years,
when the debt was skyrocketing. We are beginning to recognize the real
world that we live in.
I believe Senator Simon's heart is in the right place. He is a fine
man. I think the world of my friend from Illinois. But, as I have
struggled with the arguments of those who say the amendment as written
will harm the country, I have come to the conclusion, after significant
thought, that they are right.
Let us see what a few of those people say. These are people who are
scholars. These are not people who suddenly say, ``Well, I do not like
the balanced budget amendment.'' These are thoughtful people.
For example, Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger:
In the absence of any specific mechanism for achieving a
balanced budget, once part of the Constitution, it may be
read to authorize, indeed mandate, extensive judicial
involvement in the budget process. This would constitute a
serious distortion of our constitutional system.
He also says:
Perhaps most alarming of all of the aspects of the proposed
amendment is that by constitutionalizing the budgeting
process, the proposal appears----
He is talking about Senator Simon's proposal.
To mandate the extraordinary expansion of judicial authority.
State and Federal judges may well be required to make
fundamental decisions about spending and taxing, issues that
judges lack the institutional capacity to cite in any
remotely satisfactory manner.
Mr. President, we do not have that problem in my amendment.
Dellinger proceeds to say:
The failure to specify any enforcement mechanisms for the
amendment could result in the transfer of power over
fundamental political questions of taxing and spending to the
courts.
There are individuals here, Mr. President, who in their States have
had the school systems run by the courts in recent years. Why? Because
governments have not lived up to their responsibilities, so the courts
have taken over. If we want the courts to take over all responsibility,
that is what would happen if the amendment of my friend from Illinois
is passed.
Dellinger says:
It would be wonderful if we could simply declare by
constitutional amendment that from this day forward, the air
would be clean, the streets free of drugs, and the budget
forever in balance. But merely saying those things in the
Constitution does not make them happen.
That is why, Mr. President, that I could not in good conscience
support the amendment of my friend from Illinois.
Prof. Charles Fried of Harvard, former Solicitor General, a scholar
by anybody's calculation, said, among other things: ``Majority rule is
so basic a principle of our Constitution that it is nowhere stated
explicitly, but it pervades the whole document.''
Archibald Cox, also a professor from a prominent law school, said,
``I am convinced that adoption of this amendment,''--the Simon
amendment--``described by its supporters as a sign of fiscal
responsibility, would intrude, be an act of congressional
irresponsibility.''
I believe that, Mr. President. That is why I cannot, in good
conscience, support the Simon amendment.
The amendment will erode the protections of the checks and balances
that the framers, in their wisdom, placed in the Constitution. My
amendment does not do that.
Here are some things, Mr. President, that I think are important to
consider. The amendment offered by my friend from Illinois places the
courts in an unequal position of power. When the Founding Fathers
developed this great Government that we have, they wanted three
separate but equal branches of Government. We have done a pretty good
job in maintaining that. Over the years, there has been difficulty, and
part of what they built into this framework is there would be a fight
for power among the three branches. The three separate branches
actually advocate and fight for power. That is the way it has worked
for over 200 years. We have had times in the history of this country
when one branch of Government, it seems, is stronger than the other
two, and there comes a balancing.
Well, if the amendment that my friend from Illinois has offered
passes, it will place the judiciary in a situation where they have all
of the power.
It is my understanding--and I think clearly that the sponsors of this
amendment recognize that, and that is why the Danforth amendment to the
Simon amendment is placed into being--but I do not think that solves
the problems of the basic amendment. We have done that in, I think, a
more logical, consistent way in the amendment offered by me, my friend
Senator Ford, and the Senator from California.
Mr. President, we have had cyclical depressions. It happens. It has
not happened in the last 70 years. We have had a few recessions, but
never a depression. But, Mr. President, if you look at what has
happened in the past, we have had a number of times where we have had
some very significant depressions. I would like to list those here. We
will not go into two centuries ago where they had a few. Let us talk
about the last century. When Martin Van Buren was President, in 1837,
pre-Civil War--there was a very significant depression right before the
Civil War. Some scholars say one of the reasons the Civil War came
about, in addition to all of the problems with North versus South, was
the financial problems they had in 1857 when Franklin Pierce was
President. There was another depression in 1873, when Ullysses S. Grant
was President; Chester Arthur, in 1884; Benjamin Harrison, in 1893;
Teddy Roosevelt, in 1907; and the granddaddy was in 1929, Herbert
Hoover.
So we have had the ability in the last 70 years to do a pretty good
job of making it so this country does not have depressions. We have
been able to fight out of depressions and have recessions.
Mr. President, one reason we have been able to do this is because
there has been a new theory in economics that has been accepted by our
country and all of the economists and it has worked well--the Keynesian
theory with modifications by a number of different individuals.
Basically, the Keynesian theory has allowed the Government, in times of
oncoming depression, to spend their way out of it. We have done a
pretty good job. Remember that part of the Keynesian theory also said
when you are in good times, you should save money, as we had some good
times in the 1980's. But we did not do that. Instead of doing what we
were supposed to do, we spent ourselves into the biggest debt in the
history of the world, by far--trillions of dollars, when we should have
been saving that money.
My amendment, of course, would allow us, in times of economic
downturn, to do something so that the downturn does not result in a
depression in this country.
Mr. President, if State-balanced budgets were drafted in same manner
that the amendment my friend from Illinois has offered, every State
would go broke. Why? Because we hear this talk about States balancing
their budgets, and they do. The State of Nevada has a balanced budget,
and I think that is great. But they balance it by placing capital
expenditures off-budget, as we have done in this amendment that I have
offered. That is not allowed in the Simon amendment. The State of
Illinois could not live under the amendment he is asking the United
States to live under. The State of Illinois could not live by that.
There is no State like Illinois that has as much unfunded pension
liability. I believe that is right. If not, it is in the top tier.
Mr. President, changing the subject, and I will get back to my text
in a little bit, I have just watched walk into the Chamber here
somebody I want to mention, because the amendment that is now before
this body--and I will talk about Social Security at some length--has a
provision in it dealing with Social Security. The reason the language
is in this amendment dealing with Social Security is because of my
friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. It is in there because I had
some language in my original amendment, but I had the good fortune and
the experience to sit down and talk to somebody that most of us look to
as a person that really understands finances. I served in the House
with my friend from North Dakota, and I looked to him then as a member
of the Ways and Means Committee as somebody to seek advice from on
fiscal matters. I did so here. He studied the language--as he does--
that I had in my amendment relating to Social Security. He called me,
and we talked. He said, ``I have some language I think is better.'' I
reviewed this, had my staff review it, and had people from the Budget
Committee look at it, and he was right. So that is the reason that I
was willing to change the language in my amendment to what I referred
to as ``the Dorgan and Reid amendment.'' The Social Security language
in my amendment is the Dorgan language.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield to me?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a short time.
Mr. DORGAN. I have a very brief question.
Let me say how much I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from
Nevada in including my language in the amendment he offers.
I had indicated on the floor that I intended to offer an amendment to
exempt the Social Security system in a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget. I would have liked to have offered it to both of
the constitutional amendments that we are going to discuss. For a
number of reasons, including the massive number of amendments that
opponents of the balanced-budget amendment were prepared to offer, I
have had to waive my right to offer my own amendment.
However, I would thank the Senator from Nevada for including the
language of my amendment in his own.
By the way, let me mention to the Senator from Nevada that he has
offered a constitutional amendment that I will support. I say to my
friend from Nevada that I will not necessarily support it to the
exclusion of Senator Simon's amendment. I reserve the right to consider
voting for the Simon amendment if the amendment of the Senator from
Nevada fails.
I did want to say that Senator Reid has served the Senate's interest
by bringing an amendment which is thoughtful. It has provisions that
are interesting and useful, such as the establishment of a capital
budget. He is trying to address the serious deficit and enormous debt
that we face.
To conclude, I will support the amendment of the Senator from Nevada
and I thank him very much for adding my amendment on Social Security to
it. I hope the Senate will give favorable consideration to Senator
Reid's amendment.
I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding to me.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I was speaking earlier before my friend
came in from other places to the Senate floor, I wanted to recognize
him because I failed to do so earlier. I was talking about the Simon
amendment and the fact that almost every State in the Union would go
broke if they had to live by what this amendment is asking the Federal
Government to live by because every State has off-budget capital
expenditures, and some of these expenditures that are off budget are
more than capital expenditures, as I see them. Pension liabilities are
off budget. So let us not get lost in this argument here in the next
few days about, ``We do it in my State. Why cannot we do it here?''
Those who make that statement should understand they better check
with their Governor and their legislature because if those States had
to live by the Simon amendment, they could not do it. Something similar
to the Reid amendment they could because it is reasonable, it is
rational, and it is doable.
So States could not live by it. Mr. President, Members of this
Senate, who, generally speaking, are above the mean as far as average
wages in this country, to say the least, I will bet most every Senator
who has bought a home is paying for it on time. There may be a few in
this body who can pay cash for a home, but not too many.
Under the Simon amendment, if we asked families throughout America to
live by it, they could not. They would have to pay cash for their house
and have to pay cash for their car, and certainly no plastic.
In effect, what we have with the Simon amendment would be a growth
business for lawyers, and I will talk about that at some length later.
If you want to really understand why I cannot vote for this
amendment, in all due respect, and I think if my friends really analyze
the Simon amendment, I do not see how they could vote for it, because I
believe that the Simon amendment, as well-intentioned as it might be, I
believe the Simon amendment is so easy to avoid.
How could we avoid the Simon amendment? We could change the fiscal
year date. We could change the fiscal year. It says ``fiscal year.''
Who says what is the fiscal year? Can we change it a day, a month, or 3
months?
My friends in the U.S. Senate should carefully look at the Simon
amendment because I think, if they do and study it seriously, they will
find that they cannot support the Simon amendment.
Mr. President, the Simon amendment as drafted creates an additional
danger to our economic well-being. As I indicated--and I think it is
worth repeating--in times of economic recession, such as the one we
recently passed through, the Federal Government can help ease the
burden on the economy. It cannot wipe it out, but it can help ease the
burden. That is why I gave the examples of Presidents in the last
century who were overburdened with problems, mainly debt. Depression
came. They had not the economic apparatus in the Government to do
anything about it. So, as a result of that, we had depression after
depression after depression.
We have avoided depressions because we have the flexibility to
increase investments while decreasing the tax burden in times of
economic slowdowns. This is the very heart of the economics which has
served this country well since the time of the Great Depression and has
been utilized by both Republican and Democratic administrations since
that time.
Mr. President, the unreasonable restrictions contained in the
amendment of the Senator from Illinois, if in place during the recent
recession, could have resulted in a depression today instead of the
beginnings of a stable growth pattern that is now facing this country.
Looming depression could well be the albatross we pass on to our
children if the Simon amendment is adopted because history indicates
that we have periods of boom and bust, and unless you are allowed
somehow to temper that, a depression is what you have.
I have often heard from people that the Federal Government should
operate like State governments and family budgets, and I agree, as I
have indicated. But under this amendment, as I have said, a family who
would want to buy a car or home simply would be lost. They could not do
it. If States were saddled with the same restrictions contained in the
amendment, their ability to build roads, sewer, or water systems would
be drastically limited. There is no question about that. Rapid-growth
States like Nevada would be severely hampered in their ability to
borrow--and they do--to finance infrastructure which would be
prohibited in the Simon amendment.
Not a single State with so-called budget requirements are hamstrung
by such a broad-brush restriction as we find in the Simon amendment. In
many States the balanced budget amendment applies only to the State
operating fund. That is those expenses not related to costly capital
investment such as roads or universities, those things which States
need.
Instead, these States are able to sell bonds to borrow on to pay for
these essential services. In fact, one study showed that of 42 States
with capital budgets, 37 finance those budgets through borrowing.
So, Mr. President, when I again gain the floor tomorrow, I am going
to spend a considerable amount of time in more detail going through
what has happened across the country in newspapers. I will touch on
some of them now.
Mr. President, an editorial in the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, ``A
Bitter Pill Worse Than the Disease,'' in effect talking about the Simon
amendment.
From another newspaper article in Las Vegas, ``Cosmetic Budget
Amendment''; ``* * * because they don't mean it,'' is what they say
about the Simon amendment.
``What would happen if they failed to agree? Would the
Supreme Court end up as a referee, raising a tax on truck
tires here, laying off the staff of the Columbus, OH HUD
office there? Oh, joy.''
Or a columnist for one of the Las Vegas newspapers, where he says:
Many Members of Congress today nurture the idea by
supporting a balanced budget, they can change Social Security
from an entitlement program to welfare benefits. This would
enable them to use Social Security funds to balance the
budget by taking benefits away.
That is what the opponents are saying about my amendment. Why should
we have Social Security off budget? Why, Mr. President? Because in
1983, President Reagan sat down with Tip O'Neill and other leaders of
the Congress, and they bailed out Social Security for the next century,
at least 70 to 75 years.
But what have we done in the ensuing period? We have not used the
Social Security Trust Fund. We have used it as a slush fund. That is
why my amendment takes it off budget, as it should be off budget. Why
should the budget be balanced on the backs of senior citizens, people
who have paid into this account freely, willingly, with their
employers?
Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. BYRD. With the understanding that I do not seek the floor.
I merely want to propound an inquiry of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state the inquiry.
Mr. BYRD. Under the agreement, it is my understanding that Senators
Simon, Hatch, Byrd, and Reid have time equally shared among us today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BYRD. I do not propose to take my time today. As I understand,
Senator Simon has inquired earlier as to the prospect of having a
deadline of 7:30 p.m. today.
Mr. SIMON. That is correct.
Mr. BYRD. That is perfectly agreeable with me.
I ask unanimous consent that my portion of that time be under the
control of Mr. Reid. I do not propose to stay around and take the time
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SIMON. I have no objection. I was hoping the Senator would yield
it to me, Mr. President, but he has not done that, so I have no
objection to that at all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I would be happy to yield half of it to Mr. Simon and half
to Mr. Reid.
Mr. SIMON. I said that only in jest, Mr. President. I certainly have
no objection.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I yield my time, then, to Mr. Reid.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
between now and 7:30 p.m. this evening be divided as under the existing
agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada has the
floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we also have here a column written by
William Buckley in which he talks about the amendment. Among other
things, he says there are weaknesses in the proposed amendment. That is
an understatement.
I see in the back of the Chamber someone else has certainly pointed
to the editorial by Michael Ruby in the U.S. News and World Report. I
am going to take a lot of time tomorrow or the next day, whenever I
again get the floor, to talk about these newspapers around the country
that, in effect, are trashing the Simon amendment. And they do it, Mr.
President, for obvious and good reasons, because the Simon amendment,
as it is written, simply will not work. It will not work for a lot of
different reasons, some of which I have already enumerated.
I have here, Mr. President, a side-by-side Simon balanced budget
amendment and the Reid balanced budget amendment. It is my
understanding that this first issue will soon be the same, because they
want to amend their amendment to the year 2001.
The Simon amendment includes Social Security. In effect, what the
Simon amendment will do is attempt to balance the budget on the back of
the Social Security trust funds. I think that is wrong. That is why my
amendment excludes Social Security.
I have also felt that we need a budget that is comparable and similar
to what we do on a State level. States are generally pretty healthy. If
they are not, as happened in Nevada, the Governor of the State of
Nevada had to call back the State legislature because they were
spending more money than they should. They had to balance their budget.
But remember, that budget excludes capital expenditures. We are going
to do the same. I think that is appropriate.
Wartime national security--of course, we need an exemption there.
That is why we have the same.
I have in my amendment a recession exemption, not one that is easily
obtained. You have to have growth of less than 1 percent for two
consecutive quarters. If that happens, then we can practice the
economics that has kept us out of depression for this century. And, Mr.
President, we have to do that. We cannot revert back to boom and bust
like we had last century and the century before.
Now, under the terms of the unanimous consent agreement--after all
these years, we have heard that this amendment is so good--they are
going to amend the amendment to allow court preemption, but watch very
closely what their preemption amendment does.
We do not do that with ours, even though we have court preemption,
because we outline what Congress must do, including a provision that
absolutely, Mr. President, allows the cuts to take place automatically
if we do not do it. We can assign an agency of the legislative branch
the ability and the power to cut. That is the way it should be. That is
why we have that exemption in there.
Enforcement legislation subject to implementing legislation--we have
that also. But we also state that the legislation will allow us to
determine what a capital budget is. That is not a difficult thing to
do, because the President has been doing it in his budgets for years;
CBO has done reports on it; GAO has done reports on it. This is no
magic. You will hear the opponents raise objections to what the capital
budget is. It is a way that the Federal Government can act like a State
government, act responsibly.
Mr. President, with the deepest respect I have for the Senator from
Illinois, I must oppose his amendment as it is written and as it will
be modified for its dubious constitutional effects and its creation of
a legal quagmire--and when I say ``legal quagmire,'' Mr. President,
that is what I mean: A legal quagmire. We will have a business for
lawyers if this amendment passes and its potential choke hold on the
American economy and future generations.
I do not believe the Simon amendment will accomplish that which we
had originally hoped. I think the amendment offered by Senators Reid,
Ford, and Feinstein will do that. I think it is an honest attempt to
arrive at a way to balance the budget and not on the backs of seniors.
And to allow the Federal Government the same leeway States have. That
does not seem unreasonable.
For these reasons and others, I am introducing a balanced budget
amendment that I believe will accomplish the goals of those of us here
who responsibly want to balance the budget. This is my desire.
I would at this time yield. Senator Simon controls time and I control
time. Mr. President, how much time do we have left?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has approximately 18
minutes under his control this evening.
Mr. REID. I yield 10 minutes, if the Senator from Illinois will allow
me, to the Senator from California and reserve 8 minutes until the
Senator from Illinois and whoever else wants to speak on their behalf
have finished.
Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield, I understand the Senator from
New Mexico wants to leave and Senator Hatch wants to yield 2 minutes to
him first and then I will be happy to agree.
Mr. REID. Agreed.
Mr. HATCH. I yield the Senator 2 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have been listed as undecided on the
constitutional amendment, but today I understand a very significant
amendment has been agreed to and that has to do with judicial review.
It is a Danforth amendment. I believe it clarifies that if we get into
a bind and gridlock up here as we seek the implementing legislation,
that during that gridlock, if it occurs, we do not have the courts of
America deciding how to balance the budget of the United States. That
is very important to me. I have read a few decisions where the courts
have in fact ordered taxes imposed. I think they may go beyond that in
the future. So I think it is important that amendment be accepted.
Having said that, I have come to the conclusion, having heard all of
the administration witnesses as to why we should not adopt this
constitutional amendment, that many of the reasons that they state we
should not adopt it are the very reasons we must. Because from this
Senator's standpoint it is not the appropriated accounts of this
Government, the domestic part of that is about 17 percent of the budget
on our side for all the programs that everybody says are breaking the
bank.
Mr. President, 17 percent is not causing this constitutional
amendment to be an important issue with our people. What is really
causing it is the plethora of entitlement programs that grow, willy-
nilly, frankly with no relation to means, no relation to who really
needs them, no oversight--which is beginning to concern me as much as
anything. So I frankly believe we will never get those under control
unless we are confronted with a situation where the balanced budget
amendment says you must control them.
Obviously there is nothing perfect. There are some downsides to the
amendment. The one that worries me the most is the business cycle of
the United States. We do not like to think of a business cycle as being
a reality but it just seems that since the Second World War our economy
flows and ebbs in tides, with what we have all chosen to say is the
business cycle. Frankly, I do not think we have ruled that out yet.
So the downside is I am going to rely on the 60 votes that are
necessary to permit us, in serious times when we really need not have a
balanced budget, that 60 votes will come to the forefront and we will
exercise that 60 votes with good judgment. So if indeed we need some
deficit spending we will find a way, between the two parties and a
President, to see that takes place.
My last point is if anyone is voting against this amendment because
they think we have the deficit under control, my good friend Paul Simon
has borrowed a graph of where the deficit is going. He now calls it the
Domenici graph. It is actually the President's. It shows the deficit is
going to go up substantially from where it is today. Just give it a
couple of years.
If we put health care insurance on top of it and do not pay for that
but rather spend all the savings, then we are right back in the middle
again in about 7 or 8 years with the deficit being $300 billion, $350
billion, $400 billion.
Next week I will give a more detailed explanation if I can get time.
I ask the managers if they would, as they are seeking time next week,
if we could find time, 15 or 20 minutes, for the Senator from New
Mexico to do an analysis of the past and the future.
I yield.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
California.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for
the time.
I am here to speak on behalf of the Reid amendment. I believe it is
improved over the Simon amendment. This amendment would protect Social
Security. I do not believe that the trust fund should be used to
balance the budget. It would allow the creation of a capital budget,
just as many cities and States do now. It would allow flexibility in
time of recession. And it would keep the courts from mandating actions
that are legislative prerogatives. These changes make this amendment a
much more workable balanced budget amendment.
There are many in this body who believe that amending the
Constitution is very strong medicine, perhaps too strong. I have
listened very carefully to those arguments. But I have come to the
conclusion that without the strong medicine the patient is not going to
heal.
People have said to me: You come from California and you supported an
amendment for earthquake disaster relief that was off budget.
Yes, I did. Disaster relief for floods was off budget. Disaster
relief for Hurricane Iniki was off budget. Disaster relief for
Hurricane Andrew was off budget. So why should California be treated
any differently? That is why we need an amendment to make everyone play
by the same rules.
I think this is the heart of the matter. If people believe that under
our present way of doing business we can balance this budget, then they
should vote against a balanced budget amendment. If in their heart of
hearts they believe we are not going to be able to balance the budget
under the current process, then I believe they should support the
balanced budget amendment. At least that is the conclusion to which I
have come. Without a constitutional amendment, a balanced budget just
is not going to be achieved.
I hearken back to the debate on the reconciliation bill, where
Congress took the biggest bite in history out of the deficit--nearly
$500 billion over 5 years. Yet that was only achieved because the Vice
President broke a tie vote in this Chamber. I remember the discussion:
If Medicare is cut anymore I will not vote for it. If Social Security
is touched, I will not vote for it.
In a way, that, too, was the heart of the debate. Because it is not
an argument over discretionary spending, whether that discretionary
spending be defense or nondefense. Both are either frozen or they are
being cut. The argument over whether a budget can be balanced in the
future is over two things: Reducing interest on the debt instead of
allowing it to continue to expand and, second, either coming to grips
with premiums or programs that are related to entitlements.
As other graphs have shown, entitlements and interest on the debt are
going to eventually eat everything we do with respect to discretionary
spending--whether that be defense or nondefense --and unless we deal
with entitlements and interest, we will never be able to balance the
budget.
The question becomes, can we deal with these things? I have
reluctantly come to the conclusion that under the present system we
cannot. We have to develop a prospective system and then be able to
stick to it and do those things which, indeed, are difficult to do.
There are many people that I respect very deeply on both sides of
this debate. I submit that the vote on this is probably as personal a
vote as any of us are going to cast. It really is going to end up how
we see the future and how we think this body can do the difficult
things which must be done if balancing the budget is important.
To me, there is just one single thing that makes me believe that
balancing the budget really is important, and that is our grandchildren
are going to have to pay 65 percent of their income in taxes if we do
not. My belief is that the way we are going, we will bankrupt our
Nation unless we make significant changes.
Since 1960, the Federal Government has balanced its budget exactly
twice: Once in 1960, a surplus of $300 million, and again in 1969, a
surplus of $3.2 billion.
In the last 25 years, the Federal Government has run up trillions of
dollars of debt without once balancing the budget. And during this
time, this Nation has experienced both economic booms and recessions.
Yet, never did this Government balance a Federal budget.
The Federal Government now spends over $200 billion annually just to
pay interest on its $4 trillion debt. If current policies continue, the
CBO estimates that net interest payments will reach $334 billion by the
year 2004. To put spending on interest into perspective, this year the
Federal Government will spend only $43 billion more on domestic
discretionary spending than it will on interest and the debt; $244
billion in discretionary spending to $201 billion in net interest. So
that is what is happening. That is the story of all of this, and that
is the story of just doing business as usual. True, this is not going
to shrink the debt. This is going to give us an opportunity to, in
essence, change the way business is done.
Let me speak for a moment about this interest because $200 billion
does not buy a new highway or bridge, a plane or a ship. It does not
provide medical care to a child or a grandparent or education to our
Nation's students. It does nothing positive by way of infrastructure.
It simply pays out interest and it increases and increases and
increases.
Most Americans incur debt for major purchases, and I think they
confuse Federal interest with interest on a home mortgage. When you pay
interest on a home mortgage, the interest payments go down over time
and your equity increases. When the Federal Government pays interest on
the Federal debt, it does not. Interest costs just keeps increasing.
What has 25 years of accumulated debt meant to our economy? The
Federal Reserve Board states that the low national savings rate --and I
am speaking about national savings rate--is now under 3 percent. It is
the lowest of any major industrialized country in the world. They say
it is largely attributable to Federal deficits; that it has resulted in
a loss of 5 percent growth in our national income during the decade of
the eighties alone.
I have listened just as carefully as I can to debate on this issue.
Some have pointed out that we have frozen discretionary spending, and
that is true. But the largest escalating part of the debt, the part
that I have talked about--entitlements and interest--by the year 2004
will rise to nearly $6 trillion, despite this freeze on discretionary
spending.
Some hold out hope that health care reform, as big a package as it
now seems to be, is going to cut the debt substantially. Maybe yes,
maybe no. But I am convinced that without a constitutional amendment,
this body and any body, no matter who is in it, is going to be unable
to balance the budget.
The Reid amendment requires Congress and the President to balance the
budget by the year 2001. It excludes Social Security. It creates a
capital budget. It includes an exception for war and recession to
preserve the Federal Government's ability to operate effectively in
times of need, and it provides that enforcement of this amendment will
only be in accordance with congressional legislation. I believe this is
a good amendment that provides the strong medicine necessary for
Congress to do what is needed and balance the Federal budget. I yield
the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's 10 minutes have
expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, and I yield the time.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first, I hope not to use my full 30
minutes. The Senator from Utah indicated he may not use his full time,
so we can get some rest this evening before we start on the debate
tomorrow.
First, I want to comment on the observations of the majority leader,
for whom I have great respect, when he said we are putting this off to
the year 2001 so no one here will have to act on it. Senator Feinstein
was one of those who talked to me about extending the date. People in
the administration talked about extending the date. The Concord
Coalition, and some other groups, said if you have this by the year
2001, you can have a gradual glide path down and it will work.
But no one is going to wait until the year 2001. I am not going to
wait until the year 2001. Senator Feinstein is not. My good friend from
Wisconsin, who is presiding, is not going to wait until the year 2001.
Orrin Hatch is not going to. Larry Craig is not going to. Robert Byrd
is not going to. And George Mitchell, who is a responsible United
States Senator, is not going to wait until the year 2001. If this is
adopted, we are going to move very quickly.
Second, he said it cannot be enforced. Just the day before yesterday,
the majority leader made a speech in the caucus about how the courts
were going to be enmeshed in this thing. The reality is he is going to
criticize these provisions no matter what.
But our provision says that the courts can be involved but not in
terms of telling us we have to cut back on this or raise taxes. It is
interesting. We have another provision saying that we can give the
courts additional authority if we see things are not working out. But
when Gramm-Rudman was the law, we did not have some courts coming down
here telling us what to do. Forty-eight of the 50 States have some kind
of constitutional provision and, with rare exception, the States have
not had any problems with the courts. So I think that simply does not
hold any water at all.
Let me look at the Reid amendment, offered by my colleague. And I
mentioned earlier that I have great respect for my colleague from
Nevada.
What this amendment says, and it has loopholes--if people are
criticizing the amendment that Senator Hatch and I have in for not
being tight enough, this has gargantuan loopholes in it. First of all,
there is no requirement that outlays and revenues have to match, only
that estimated outlays and estimated receipts have to match. That is a
very, very different thing. I recognize estimates have to be part of
the process, but ultimately you have to have outlays and receipts
match.
Second, it permits a capital budget. That may have some superficial
appeal because a school district or a family may need to have capital
budgets. The United States of America does not. The biggest single
project in the history of humanity was a U.S. project recommended by
President Eisenhower, the Interstate Highway System, and he recommended
that we issue bonds for that Interstate Highway System. A U.S. Senator
who sat on this floor by the name of Albert Gore, Sr., said: ``Let us
not issue bonds. Let us increase the gas tax and pay for this
Interstate Highway System on a pay-as-you-go basis.'' And we saved over
$800 billion in interest doing it that way.
We do not need that. Four percent of our budget goes for capital
outlays. What is the biggest single project we have? It is a nuclear
carrier. We could pay for that over a 6-year period. We will not pay
more than $1 billion any one year. We do not need to issue bonds for
that. We do not need a capital budget.
It is very interesting that the General Accounting Office has warned
us again and again and again while we should have a division within the
budget between investment and consumption and operating expenses, do
not have a capital budget that gives you an excuse for bonds.
Second, how do you enforce this provision in the Reid amendment?
There is no enforcement mechanism. In ours, we have a very powerful one
that Senator Byrd described as giving us ``no wiggle room.'' We do not
have ``wiggle room.'' What we say is to raise the debt, you have to
have a three-fifths vote. That puts muscle in the amendment. There is
no muscle in the Reid amendment.
Next, the Reid amendment would put the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office in the Constitution, the Federal Old Age and Survivors
Trust Fund in the Constitution, and the Federal Disability Trust Fund
in the Constitution. The Constitution right now does not even mention
Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, or any of these other
offices. We do not do that in the Constitution. The Constitution deals
in general principles and whatever provisions we need to force us to
protect ourselves from abuses by Government.
What about the problem of a recession, which was mentioned? In fact,
Senator Domenici, who announced he was going to be supporting our
amendment, mentioned this. Since 1962, we have passed 11 stimulus
packages to deal with recessions. Every one of those has passed by more
than 60 votes. We can deal with this.
Now, where we are in trouble is that we are getting so deep into the
red it is hard to get the votes right now, and last year we were not
able to get the votes for an $11 billion stimulus package--$11 billion
in a $6.7 trillion economy. But we did last year get 60 votes for
extending unemployment compensation. When it comes to a specific thing
that really is needed, we are able to do something.
Fred Bergsten, one of the finest economists in the Nation, who was
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Jimmy Carter, said we can do
much more to stimulate the economy with the balanced budget amendment
than we are able to do with the present restrictions that we have and
the present huge debt, because the debt really reduces the possibility
of our responding.
He said we ought to try to get a $15 or $30 billion surplus each year
and then have that available to use in a time of recession.
The other part of the recession thing that is so important is our
reliance on foreign debt and what that does. Instead of being
countercyclical, it is precisely the reverse; 17 percent is the
publicly acknowledged amount of debt held by foreign individuals and
foreign governments. The actual number is higher than that because some
people hide it. But unlike people who are on Social Security, for
example, who will spend that money, those who are more affluent will
save money. And so you do not have that countercyclical effect, plus
with that 17 percent plus that goes overseas it means you have $60
billion of interest that goes to Japan, to Great Britain, to the
Netherlands, to Saudi Arabia, to other countries. That does not do one
thing to help this country, and if we do not pass this constitutional
amendment those numbers are going to rise and we harm our ability to
respond.
Now, let me respond to the Social Security aspects of this, and I
appreciated the comments of Senator Dorgan. As some of my colleagues
know, I have been the principal fighter for the Medicare provisions in
the Budget Committee, and I am strongly in favor of protecting Social
Security. But we have to ask, with this kind of an amendment, what
about veterans' pensions? What about veterans' benefits? Are we going
to protect them? Or what about the WIC Program?
Once you start down this road of saying we are going to protect this
program and not others, we get into deep, deep trouble, plus we are
really not protecting Social Security with this amendment because right
now Social Security is running a surplus. I agree with Senator Dorgan
completely. I would like to see us not count that surplus as we put our
budget together, do it without that. But I do not want to put it in the
Constitution.
But the interesting thing is in the year 2024--right now Social
Security runs a surplus. In the year 2024, it starts to go into the
red. And with this kind of an amendment, we no longer protect the
Social Security trust funds with the overall budget. That means anyone
35 years or less will not be protected with the Reid amendment as they
are with the Simon-Hatch amendment.
I would point out also that Bob Myers, who was the Chief Actuary for
Social Security for 23 years, was Executive Director of the Legislative
Commission that was identified with the late Congressman Claude Pepper,
has written to me saying the only way to protect Social Security is
with a balanced budget amendment. Otherwise, we are going to end up
monetizing the debt.
There are other points to be made, and I will make them tomorrow. At
this point, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I do not intend to take all my time. I
would like our colleagues to be able to leave this evening, but I do
want to say just a few words about this amendment.
I appreciate the comments of my distinguished colleague from
Illinois. I think he explained the problems with the Reid amendment
about as well as they can be explained. I just have to call this
proposal a sham. I called it upstairs the ``cover your backside''
amendment because basically that is all it is there for. It relies on
estimates, but it does not have the backup of a debt limit like Senate
Joint Resolution 41, which requires a three-fifths vote to waive the
debt ceiling. Like the distinguished Senator from Illinois said, that
is where the teeth of this amendment is. That is the strength of Senate
Joint Resolution 41. It is what will make the difference. It is what
really will enforce this. And this one just ignores that possibility.
Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield.
Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. SIMON. I think he has made an important point; this amendment is
introduced for political cover only.
Mr. HATCH. That is right.
Mr. SIMON. It is designed so that Members of the Senate who under
pressure from the administration or because of persuasion from Senator
Byrd or whatever other reason, they want to vote against Senate Joint
Resolution 41, the real thing, but they want to go back home and say,
``I voted for a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget.'' And
so this gives them a way to cover themselves.
If there was any real desire on the part of the majority leader or
anyone to pass this, there would not have been a suggestion that we
have to have 67 votes to adopt this amendment. I can never remember in
now my 19th year in Congress anyone ever suggesting for any amendment
you have to have 67 votes to pass it. The proponents would not have
suggested that if they believed it was desirable to pass it.
Mr. HATCH. That is a good indication also that they do not want it
passed. They know it is bad themselves. They know that it is just a
subterfuge to give people some cover so they do not have to vote for
the real balanced budget amendment, which is the Simon-Hatch amendment.
Look, we know the game. We have been at this the full 18 years I have
been here and all of the time the distinguished Senator from Illinois
has been here. We know that if we are going to pass a balanced budget
constitutional amendment it has to be Senate Joint Resolution 41 or
something awfully close to it because it is the consensus vehicle to
get Congress to do what has to be done.
I have to compliment all of those who have worked on this because we
have worked very hard to get this consensus, and we have the consensus
of the majority of the House of Representatives. I think we are very
close to having that consensus here. I hope our colleagues will
consider that.
Mr. President, the Reid amendment exempts capital investments from
balanced budget requirements. ``Capital investments'' is not defined.
Who knows how broadly that is going to be construed or what it might
include? It could cover everything from education to transportation
expenditures. Virtually anything could be excluded from being subject
to a balanced budget requisite under this provision.
So it is crazy to call this Reid amendment a balanced budget
amendment. Anybody who thinks they are going to get away with that
subterfuge I think is in for a surprise. Mr. President, some opponents
have argued that Senate Joint Resolution 41 is a paper tiger. Well, the
Reid amendment prohibits any judicial review or other enforcement
unless Congress at some time in the future so provides.
Unless Congress provides for enforcement, the Reid amendment is a
real paper tiger. I do not know how they can tell us that ours is bad
when they have this language in the Reid amendment.
Stunningly, the amendment--this is really stunning to me--the
amendment also provides that the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office, the CBO, may estimate that the country's economic growth has
been or will be less than 1 percent for two consecutive quarters. And
if the Director of the CBO makes that determination, the balanced
budget requirement is suspended. Can you imagine? They are now
proposing that a very minor official in Government, really of the
Congress, the Director of the CBO, be authorized under the Constitution
to make deficit spending decisions. And they call our amendment
undemocratic.
To me, this is the first time in the history of constitutional
deliberation that someone has proposed to have one person in Government
make these decisions for all of us. Let us be honest about it. If you
are going to have a recession provision, with the cyclical economic
cycle that we go through, it just means basically you can never really
enforce the balanced budget amendment written by Senator Reid.
As a matter of fact, you would have an excuse every time you turned
around. The loopholes are so large that any truck could go through
them. It is a sham. It is a facade.
I am sorry to call it that because I know the distinguished Senator
from Nevada is sincere. But personally, I think he is being used on
this matter because his amendment just does not make sense. There is no
way you could ever reach a balanced budget amendment with the Reid
amendment. There is no real mechanism to do it, nor is there the
pressure on Congress, nor is there institutional reform, nor is there
institutional discipline necessary to do it.
To be honest with you, I do not see how anybody can argue that this
is a balanced budget amendment with a straight face.
Look, it comes down to this. Senator Simon and I do not believe that
there is any perfect balanced budget amendment right now.
We have to do the art of the possible. It really is the art of the
impossible in some ways to pass an amendment through the Congress. But
we have to do the art of the impossible if necessary. We have to bring
people together--and we have done that over a period of 14 years or 12
years--bring people together in a way that will accomplish getting to a
balanced budget and getting this country to live within its means.
Our amendment definitely will do that. That is why it is being fought
so hard against, because it will curtail the profligacy of the Congress
which has been going on for 60 years. We just simply have to pass this
constitutional amendment.
I am hoping the American people out there will raise such Cain about
it that we will all do what is right and pass the balanced budget
amendment that is called the Simon-Hatch amendment, Senate Joint
Resolution 41, which also has a counterpart in the House.
There are many things I would like to say. But I do not want to take
much longer.
There is one other thing I would like to mention; that is, it was no
small thing today for 218-plus Members of the House of Representatives
to go in and sign a discharge petition. It was the second quickest
discharge in history.
That is how important these people feel this issue is. And they are
right; it is extremely important.
This pressure is not going to go away. If we fail to do it this year,
I have to tell you, it will be back again. And as this economy goes
more and more into the garbage can, which is where it is going, the
balanced budget amendment is going to become more radical. Senate Joint
Resolution 41 is reasonable. We can live with it. We can work with it.
It does not require a balanced budget. But it certainly puts all of the
institutional mechanisms into place to get us there. And it will be
very tough not to get there. People who vote ``no'' to get there are
going to have to really face the electorate for the first time in their
lives. That is the theory of accountability.
We who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, every one of us, are
going to work to make it work. Frankly, that is what needs to be done.
I want to thank my friend and colleague from Illinois for his valiant
work on this.
I want to thank everybody else who has worked hard on this, too,
because we have a chance of doing it this year. Frankly, I hope
everybody will consider that and really come to the conclusion, as the
distinguished Senator from California did, that nothing short of a real
balance-the-budget amendment is going to get us into an appropriate
mode here that will help save this country.
That is all I care to say. I am prepared to yield back the remainder
of my time if we can get everybody else to do it.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Hatch again for all
he has done, and also our colleagues, Senator Larry Craig and Senator
Dennis DeConcini. Both have been just great throughout this.
Order of Procedure
Mr. SIMON. We have cleared this with Senator Byrd, and with the
understanding we have with him, I ask unanimous consent that the time,
when we come in at 10 o'clock tomorrow, that we be in session until 6
tomorrow on this. That does not preclude the majority leader or anyone
else from working out morning hour, or anything else, at any other
time. But this is the understanding we have worked out with Senator
Byrd. I ask that the time be allocated according to our previous
agreement.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, under that previous agreement, all four of
us are each entitled to 2 hours. Is that right?
Mr. SIMON. That would be correct.
Mr. REID. Senator Simon and I and the other Senators will work it out
tomorrow, not subject to unanimous consent, when we will be here, to
make it as easy on each other as possible.
Mr. SIMON. We will work that out; yes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to yield mine, if the distinguished Senator
from Nevada will yield his.
Mr. REID. I am prepared to yield back my time, yes.
Mr. HATCH. I yield my time, as well.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time is yielded back.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, could the Chair inform me as to what the
pending business is on the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The matter before the Senate is Senate Joint
Resolution 41.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for up to 10 minutes
as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________