[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.

                          ____________________