[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 18 (Friday, February 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, since 1980, we have spent $1.7 trillion, I 
regret to say--$1.7 trillion--on interest. In the next 5 years, we will 
spend $1.7 trillion on interest. We have to change those habits. We 
spend $800 million a day on interest. That would pay for more than the 
entire annual Federal budget for Amtrak.
  That would be about the same as the annual budget for the FDA. These 
are fiscal 1994 figures.
  That is one-fourth of the annual budget for our WIC Program that 
provides so much help to so many women and infants.
  It is 44 times the annual operating budget for Yellowstone National 
Park, which we spend each day in interest for which we get nothing 
other than higher interest rates.
  And one-forth the annual budget for Head Start, for interest; we get 
nothing for it.
  Clearly, we have to do something. With all due respect for my friend 
from Nevada, the Reid amendment will not do anything. The Reid 
amendment, in fact, if it had been in effect all these years would not 
have reduced the deficit one dime. This morning's New York Times, in an 
article by Adam Clymer, says,

       The substitute version--

referring to the Reid version--

     was intended to serve as a political figleaf that would allow 
     some Senators to vote for the measure and then, after its 
     near certain defeat, vote against the original version and 
     still tell constituents they had supported a balanced budget 
     amendment.

  That is the story right there. That is what it is, otherwise, the 
sponsors would not have requested that we have to have 67 votes to 
adopt the amendment. It is the first time we ever had that kind of 
request.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SIMON. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois, my distinguished 
friend, is accusing me as a cosponsor of the Reid amendment as being a 
stalking horse. I assure him that I am not. I intend to get every vote 
for that resolution that I possibly can. So I do not care what is read 
in the paper or what you read into the Record. I want my personal 
record to be there that I am not giving you or anybody else cover to 
vote for this amendment. If you want to vote for the amendment, which I 
think is better than yours--and I am not shopping it to see if I can 
get something on it to get a few more votes.
  I just want to clear the record, Mr. President, regardless of what 
you read in the newspaper--we just heard our distinguished President 
pro tempore fuss a little bit about the news this morning.
  I just wanted everybody to know this is not a cover for everybody. 
This is a legitimate resolution that is put forward for my colleagues 
to consider. If they like it better than the Simon resolution, well and 
good. If they do not, we will just take our chances. But I am not a 
cover for anybody here to vote for this resolution by Senator Reid, 
myself and Senator Feinstein and Senator Conrad, to give them cover so 
they will not have to vote for the Simon resolution.
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague from Kentucky, and I am pleased to serve 
with him, and we served as lieutenant governors way back when----
  Mr. FORD. You will be telling how old we are. Be careful.
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague recall any other time we had an 
amendment offered where the sponsors of the amendment requested that 
there had to be a 67-vote approval for the acceptance of the amendment?
  Mr. FORD. This is a stand-alone resolution. I have never heard of any 
other constitutional amendment being shopped around like any other 
piece of legislation to see what you would like to have so I can get 
enough votes. You call ours a budget amendment light, or something. I 
am not more lighter than you are. You do not have enough votes. You are 
light; you do not have enough votes for adoption of your amendment yet. 
If you are going to call ours light and start making light--l-i-g-h-t--
of it then I think I ought to be here to defend myself, and I will be 
in a few minutes.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, when I referred to his budget amendment 
light, I was not referring to the votes, but I was referring to the 
substance of it. When the amendment says that you have to balance 
estimated outlays and estimated receipts rather than real outlays and 
real receipts, that is fairly significant.
  When the amendment also says you can have a capital budget and for 
State governments and local governments, that frequently is necessary. 
At the Federal level, we have no project that requires that. The 
biggest project in the history of humanity has been the Interstate 
Highway System. Because of a Senator by the name of Albert Gore, Sr., 
we did not, as President Eisenhower requested, issue bonds. But Albert 
Gore, Sr., said, ``Let's have a tax increase and do it on a pay-as-you-
go basis.''
  That is what we ought to do. That is what GAO has suggested. We ought 
to divide within the budget investment and operating expenses, but they 
make very clear it would be a disaster for the country to start down 
the business of saying, well, capital projects--that means highways, 
airports, all kinds of things that would be there.
  This amendment by my friend from Nevada has no muscle, has no teeth. 
We are going to gum the deficit down with this one. It has no teeth at 
all. Our amendment says if you want to increase the debt, you have to 
have a three-fifths majority. That is tough. Senator Byrd says it is 
too tough. I think it is realistic. I think it has to be tough, 
otherwise it becomes meaningless.
  Finally, this proposed amendment mentions the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office in the constitutional amendment. It talks 
about the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund in the constitutional 
amendment. The Constitution does not mention the Secretary of State or 
Secretary of Defense or other offices. We should not be doing that.
  In just 2 final minutes I want, Mr. President, to talk about 
something else. I do not recall whether the Presiding Officer was here 
when we had the New York City crisis. But people said: ``How come 
someone did not warn us?'' And then they had to make dramatic cutbacks. 
Some of the programs for the poor, for example, were cut back 47 
percent.
  We are here warning you right now for the Nation--and unlike New York 
City, which has the umbrella of the Federal Government, there is no 
umbrella for the United States of America. Yes, there is the 
International Monetary Fund if we had minor problems, but not for a 
country that is one-fifth of the world's economy.
  To my friends who are in opposition to my amendment, I would like to 
speak very directly. Among the labor unions--and I have, by and large, 
voted with labor unions. Sometimes we have differed, but by and large, 
I have been a strong supporter because philosophically I agree with 
it--I can understand why ASFME, some of the governmental unions oppose 
this because there will be some diminution of the numbers of people 
working for the Federal Government. I do not think there is any 
question about that. That is true short term. Long term, I think those 
employees will be well served by this so that we do not spend the money 
on interest and we can be spending the money on other projects. But I 
can understand that.
  But for the construction unions and the industrial unions, they get 
absolutely nothing out of this continued deficit. When the New York 
Federal Reserve Bank study says we lost 5 percent GNP in 1978 to 1988 
because of the deficit and CBO says 1 percent is 650,000 jobs, that is 
3\1/4\ million jobs. I cannot tell you how many of those jobs are UAW 
jobs or Steelworkers or in the construction trades. But there is no 
question we lost hundreds of thousands of union jobs because of that 
deficit.
  When the Wharton School of Economics a week ago yesterday, in their 
report, says if this is adopted, their prediction is that 30-year bonds 
will drop from 6.5 percent to 2.5 percent, that would be a bonanza for 
home construction and industrial investment in this country. Clearly, 
among the major beneficiaries if this is passed are those who are 
members of the industrial unions and the construction unions.
  Then when we spend money on interest--and this past year, past fiscal 
year we spent $293 billion. That is more than the total budget was when 
I was elected to the House of Representatives. Of that amount, much of 
it we spend here, but it is not countercyclical, like money we give, 
for example, to someone on Social Security. Someone on Social Security 
who receives $800 is going to spend $800. Someone who receives money 
from a Treasury bill will spend it if it is a wise investment. But if 
things look like they are shrinking, the economy is shrinking a little 
bit, they hold on; they save it. Plus 17 percent of those holdings are 
held by foreign individuals and foreign governments, and that is the 
public acknowledgement. There are those in addition to that 17 percent 
who, primarily because of domestic laws in their countries, hide it, 
but 17 percent is there for sure.
  That means of the money we spend for interest, about $60 billion 
every year goes overseas or to other countries. That is money that does 
not create any jobs in this country. That is just a drain on our 
country. It is a drain that we ought to stop.
  In terms of those who fight for those who are less fortunate, for the 
poor in our country, the reality is, as the GAO points out, as interest 
grows as a larger and larger part of the pie, that squeezes out our 
ability to respond to the needs of the poor.
  In the Concord Coalition study--and I have to say I have been 
impressed. While I do not agree with every recommendation they make, I 
have been impressed with the solid work they do in their economic 
studies--they say because of the deficit we have not had the industrial 
investment we should and the loss in productivity has cost us to the 
point where today the average American family gets $35,000 a year. If 
we had not had the deficits, it would be $50,000 a year. And again, 
3.75 million jobs. If we had something up here to create 3.75 million 
jobs, we would be overwhelmed with people fighting for it.
  I think it is important that we continue our effort to save those 
jobs, and the only way you are going to do it I think is with a 
balanced budget amendment.
  Look at the area of education. In the last 12 years, in inflation 
adjusted dollars, education has been minus 8 percent while interest has 
gone up 91 percent. What if 12 years ago we had had a balanced budget 
amendment? I think education would have grown. Certainly interest would 
not have grown as it did. It would have given us the flexibility to do 
some things.
  Finally, for senior citizens, because there is a concern, we are 
protecting, according to Bob Myers, the Chief Actuary for 23 years of 
the system--and I just read a statement by Senator Moynihan, a letter 
to the editor he had in the Washington Post where he said he really 
learned a great deal about the Social Security System from Bob Myers--
Bob Myers says the only way to protect Social Security trust funds is 
to have a balanced budget amendment.
  I think we have to do the responsible thing. I think we need a 
constitutional amendment. I believe we are heading for one. Whether we 
are going to do it next Tuesday or not, I do not know. I hope we do the 
responsible thing and pass it Tuesday.
  I was on a program last night with my colleague from Nevada, Senator 
Reid, and he said it is coming. I would keep in mind what Senator Hatch 
said on this floor yesterday and what Senator Brown of Colorado said 
the other day, that if we do not pass a moderate constitutional 
amendment as I have proposed here, together with many of my colleagues, 
the next one that passes may be much tougher than this. We have 
something I think is balanced, it is in the best interests of the 
country, and I hope we will do the responsible thing and pass it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for up 
to 20 minutes, the time chargeable to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for allowing 
me this time.
  I support a balanced budget amendment and always have. The borrow and 
spend policies of the past must not continue. We all know that. The 
ability to expand our economy and provide job opportunities for this 
and future generations, much less provide for a nation that can 
function beyond simply servicing its debt, absolutely depends upon 
bringing the deficit under control. I think that my friend from 
Illinois would agree with this sentiment and I agree in principle with 
his amendment. I think that the Senator has done the Nation a great 
service by his tireless work on behalf of this serious matter. However, 
there is room for improvement in most things including, the original 
language of Senate Joint Resolution 41.
  It is the job and the responsibility of the Congress to control the 
spending of our Nation. Unfortunately, we have abandoned this role, to 
a large degree, by running large budget deficits during normal times. 
By normal times I mean not during war, or recessions. This practice is 
not only fiscally irresponsible, but with the huge debt we are now 
passing along to our children, it has become morally irresponsible as 
well. We as a congress and, being the representatives of the people, as 
a nation must begin to regain control of our spending policies. We need 
something that forces us to do this. An amendment to the Constitution 
would do just that. While one law can be changed by passing another 
law, this legislation would make fiscal discipline mandatory.
  However, the Congress must not pass the buck once again by 
relinquishing control of the budget all together. Congressional control 
must be maintained and our amendment does just that. Deficit spending 
by itself is not the problem. The problem is chronic deficit spending 
in good times not just bad ones. Furthermore, we are not borrowing at 
the present time to rebuild infrastructure by building roads, airports, 
or an information super highway. Nor have we been borrowing for the 
last 30 years to bring a faltering economy out of recession or prepare 
for war. We have had the need from time to time during that period and 
during these periods, borrowing represents sound fiscal policy. During 
times of war or economic downturn, these policies help the economy and 
help our Nation as a whole. But this is not what we have been doing at 
all. What we have been doing is borrowing to pay the interest on 
previous debt.
  Let me put this in terms that every American can understand. When a 
company decides to expand or buy more efficient equipment, it generally 
borrows the money, knowing that this investment will more than pay for 
itself in the future. The profit earned is used first to pay off the 
loan and the extra is kept as income. The key word in all of this is 
invest. Investment as our President has been saying for some time is 
good, it provides benefits in years to come. We invest a great deal of 
money on the Federal level, upwards of $200 billion. This money is well 
spent and will pay dividends to our children and their children. When 
we build a highway, it increases economic efficiency and activity, real 
dividends that pay off in real jobs and increased incomes. Congress 
should not cut off its nose to spite its face. Our amendment protects 
this vital investment portion of spending. It keeps responsibility with 
the Congress and gives us the flexibility that we need during hard 
times and the discipline we need during the good ones to manage the 
budget in a responsible manner.
  Let me get back to my example of a business borrowing to expand or 
upgrade its facilities. Bad fiscal policy is when all of the profits 
earned from the improvements are frittered away on other expenses, and 
the loan is never repaid. When this happens, the situation goes 
downhill fast. If the belt is not tightened and the loan is not paid 
off, the company, no matter what, will go bankrupt. It can borrow more 
money for a time but eventually it must pay off its loans or the banks 
will eventually turn that company down. We are a nation that is getting 
perilously close to that last loan. We are borrowing not to invest for 
growth, but instead simply and irresponsibly to pay off interest on 
past loans. All the while our debt continues to mount and we have 
nothing to show for it. This is the type of behavior that must be 
stopped and our amendment is the prescription for this sickness. It 
stops the bad borrowing but keeps the Congress in control of investing 
in our Nation's future.
  Our Founding Fathers placed the country's purse strings under the 
explicit control of the Congress. Our amendment keeps the control here. 
The judicial branch of Government has no business deciding on what 
program should be cut or what revenue should be raised. That is our 
responsibility. Our amendment keeps that responsibility right where it 
belongs. I won't talk on this point too long because, I think there is 
complete agreement among us on this point. However, I cannot stress 
enough that we in the Congress must make the hard choices, and if we do 
not our amendment calls for an internal solution. Should this happen, 
this legislation calls for uniform cuts; with everyone and every 
program paying equally. That is fair and just and it would be a 
congressional action.
  Let me speak on another matter of grave concern to many of our 
citizens. That is the sanctity of the Social Security system. Many 
years ago, our Nation made a pact with its people to help them in 
retirement, whether that be in old age or by disability. Our amendment 
respects that agreement, in fact it reinforces it, makes it stronger, 
safer and more secure. This amendment has a lot to do with responsible 
action and nowhere is that needed more than on dealing with Social 
Security. It is exempt from our amendment, thus securing and fortifying 
its position as a separate trust fund. Neither receipts nor outlays 
will be counted as part of the budget under this provision. As my 
friend, and colleague from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] has pointed out, 
``the Social Security system is not causing the deficit.'' Its revenues 
and surpluses should not be used to mask the deficit nor should its 
outlays be counted as part of expenditures. Our proposal protects the 
sanctity of this most vital program.
  In closing, I would like to stress just how strongly I favor a 
balanced budget amendment, but it must be the right amendment and our 
amendment is it. I have supported and continue to support my colleague 
from Illinois in his efforts to control Federal spending, however, our 
proposed changes make this a more honest and more workable amendment. 
Surpluses in trust funds whether it be for airports, Social Security or 
highways, will not be used to mask the true size of the deficit. And, 
equally important, it will allow Congress to maintain the flexibility 
needed during wars or recessions while protecting our capital 
investments and curtailing our practice of borrowing to pay interest on 
past loans.
  Mr. President, I do not think anyone in this body with certainty can 
tell us what will happen in the future if we have a balanced budget 
amendment to our Constitution. I do not think we can say with 
certainty. And so with uncertainty, we get all the horror stories. And 
all the horror stories if this does not pass; something is going to 
happen. If it does pass, some other things are going to happen.
  The implementing legislation that is required, if and when a balanced 
budget amendment passes, will give us some idea and eliminate some of 
the uncertainties, but that will be the legislative branch prerogative 
to pass the implementing legislation. So I wish to kind of put a little 
oil on the water if I can as to all the uncertainties we have been 
hearing about in the last few days.
  We also hear the horror stories that if the Simon amendment passes, 
the courts will become the legislative body. Well, we scurried around 
and I guess now you have the Danforth amendment included in the Simon 
amendment, because the horror story was that the courts would then 
become the legislative body of this land. They would tell us what new 
taxes to impose and what programs to cut or what all new taxes and no 
programs cut or programs cut and no new taxes. So under the Simon 
original amendment the courts would have had jurisdiction over the 
legislative body. So we scurry around and find an amendment that will 
basically eliminate it. Not good enough. Not good enough because the 
Reid amendment says only the legislative body.
  Well, then we hear we have no way to say to those of us who will make 
a vote, have discipline because the courts will not. So whichever way 
you go, you can find somebody on the other side.
  It reminds me when I was president of a civic organization, and we 
had a question that was bothersome to me. I turned to the legal counsel 
for the civic organization, and I said, ``Which way should we go on 
this?'' He said, ``Mr. President, go either way and we will make a heck 
of a case out of it.'' And so that is what I think we find here. Go 
either way and we will make a case on it.
  We eliminate the worry of the courts telling the legislative body 
that is elected by the people what to do and what not to do, and that 
was our idea which was finally accepted by the so-called Simon 
amendment.
  In 1983, the Social Security Program was in horrible shape. Everyone 
in this body understands that we were in real trouble with Social 
Security. But we all came together in a bipartisan way and corrected 
the problem with Social Security in outyears. Now they say the only way 
that you can save Social Security is a balanced budget.
  Well, we are still collecting out of my check every month, and I 
suggest my distinguished colleague from Illinois is having his taken 
out every month. I do not know what that has to do with a balanced 
budget except if it is out there you can use it to help balance the 
budget.
  So what the Reid amendment says is that after we have gone through 
the 1983 labor to fix the Social Security question, we have included in 
this amendment that we would not touch Social Security. On this floor 
you hear it. ``Don't touch Social Security.'' Now we are trying to say 
a balanced budget saves it. That is the only way because they do not 
have this exclusion in this amendment. In the cloakrooms you hear talk, 
``We have to save Social Security.'' And over the lunch table we hear 
it, ``We should not destroy Social Security.'' So the Reid amendment or 
resolution has taken care of that problem.
  Do you know something, Mr. President? You can sympathize with me over 
this a little bit. I have heard for days now, and really for years: If 
40-some-odd Governors can operate under a balanced budget, why cannot 
Federal Government? Well, Mr. President, I had the privilege, as you 
did, given me by the people of my State to serve as Governor. I even 
had the line-item veto. And the Kentucky Constitution states that the 
Governor--nobody else--the Governor must reduce expenditures if it is 
determined that the State would have a shortfall. But if you want to 
raise taxes, you have to call a special session for the purpose of 
raising taxes.
  Now we hear that we do not want to operate like Governors. We just 
want to use them as operating under a balanced budget. We are going to 
give you an opportunity to say that you do not want to operate like 
Governors. You just want to use them as an image out there that 
operates under a balanced budget because Governors must operate under a 
balanced budget. Then we think that is good. But we do not want the 
Federal Government to do that.
  Let us follow the State procedure, if it works. And it is simple. I 
operated, as I said earlier, under this procedure. We had an operating 
account and a capital account. I never vetoed a budget. I never 
exercised the line-item veto in 4 years. And I left $300 million in 
surplus. Pretty good, I thought, a lot better than we are doing here. 
We had the operating account and we had the bond issue. We have T bills 
here. Whatever the legislative process is, after the amendment is 
approved or disapproved, if it is, right now they are a little bit 
light. They call our amendment light. But they are light in votes, and 
they are struggling now to try to figure out a way to get some more. 
They are condemning our proposal because it has, in my opinion, more 
common sense in it than theirs.
  So we had our operating account. We had our bond issue. We had the 
payments to be made out of the operating account. We paid it. We had a 
balanced budget. We had a surplus. Our estimates were pretty good.
  If we had not gotten the agreement, as we now have, to vote next 
Tuesday at 3 o'clock, and then 4 hours later on the second amendment, 
we would have had the opportunity to vote on each one of those 
amendments to the Simon amendment, because many in this Chamber felt 
the Simon amendment did not include the exclusion of the courts. That 
is one. Social Security is another. You would have the operating and 
capital construction accounts to vote on up or down. And we would have 
had to vote on each one of those separately. We would delay moving 
towards a balanced budget, and the delays would have been, I think, 
helpful to those that oppose a balanced budget.
  Mr. President, I interrupted the distinguished Senator from Illinois 
[Mr. Simon], awhile ago when he was reading from the newspaper that 
this amendment is just a stalking horse to give cover to those who want 
to vote for a constitutional amendment that probably will not pass, and 
then that gives them a reason to vote against Senator Simon.
  Let me clear everybody's mind. I am for a balanced budget amendment. 
And I intend to vote for a balanced budget amendment, and maybe two 
before next week is over. But some ideas around here might just be 
worth looking at for a moment. There might be a moment. If you look 
into the future and how we are going to operate, this may be a pretty 
decent idea to try.
  I hear that, ``Oh, well, if we are going to vote for this, we will 
not have to do anything for 7 years.'' I thought we were under a budget 
constraint now. I thought we had caps on our budget now. I thought this 
was the third straight year of deficit decline, unprecedented in the 
last 31 years since Harry Truman. I thought we would have to continue 
to do that even though we required 2001 to have the budget balanced or 
begin that process.
  I think this is a way we can do this to accommodate most people, 
rather than take the position that it is this way or nothing. I come 
from the State of Henry Clay. Henry Clay was a great compromiser. Henry 
Clay described compromise as ``negotiating hurt''--negotiating hurt. 
You had to give up something most of the time that you really did not 
want to, and it hurt to give it up. But for the sake of progress, for 
the sake of bringing a consensus together, compromise is a pretty good 
thing.
  So, we offer to the colleagues in the Senate the ability to say, we 
are not going to disturb Social Security. I do not care what you say 
about a balanced budget as long as you take it out of your paycheck and 
put it into a Social Security account. That is where it belongs.
  We talk about capital construction of the highways. We are taxing now 
and not spending it. We are not spending it. We have billions; a $15-, 
$17-, $18-billion surplus in the highway account. We are not spending 
it.
  Talk about airports capital construction; 10 percent of every ticket 
that is purchased goes into the airport improvement trust fund. There 
is $7, $8 billion in there not building airports. What is a balanced 
budget going to do for that? We are already charging the tax.
  We can have our operating account. We can have our capital account. 
Some say that we ought to balance the Federal budget like we do our 
house account or our budget at home. We have an operating account at 
home. That operating account is the amount of income we have. We buy a 
car.
  We can buy a car, maybe not a luxury car, but one within our means 
and what we can pay for. We decide we want to buy a house, and it may 
not be a mansion, but it is what we can pay for. What we should have in 
an operating account is our income. We make those payments on those 
capital investments that we have, and we keep our operating account 
balanced. I do not see anything wrong with it. If Governors operate 
that way--and some are beating their chests saying if Governors can do 
it, we can do it--here is how Governors do it. I operated under it. I 
understand it. I had a veto of the budget; I had the line-item veto; 
all of those, when I was Governor. We operated out of an operating 
account and out of a capital account. It was in the budget. We made our 
payments and we had a surplus.
  I do not understand why that is not at least tickling the interest of 
some folks. But we are rigid right now. ``It is ours or nothing.'' 
Well, you may just get nothing, with a capital ``N.'' And you are light 
right now on votes. If you are light on votes, why not look at 
something that will be workable, because you will get some votes for 
this one. With the others, you might just pass this amendment. But the 
way you are going now, you are light by several votes.
  My colleague keeps talking about taxes. I do not know that this 
brings new taxes. That one does. That is all I have heard is ``the 
courts imposing taxes.'' Yes; we will have to pay taxes. For the Simons 
resolution, the report was $570 in new taxes per individual in my 
State. If you want it, I will get it and give it to you. Everybody 
quotes the paper around here. I will give you an article out of the 
paper. They do not necessarily have to be true, but we sure do quote 
them. So all of this propaganda is being put out.
  So I hope that those who are so rigidly stuck to one amendment could 
at least give this one a little read; look at it a little bit. We take 
care of depression; we take care of war; we take care of those things. 
I think it is important that we have the opportunity to put something 
in place. If you are going to tinker with the Constitution now, give 
the Constitution something that will work. Give it something that you 
think would have a chance of working. And then the implementing 
legislation will set up the procedure whereby we use the operating 
account, and what is the capital construction, and how do we pay for 
it? Do we use T-bills for capital and pay the bills off?
  We heard the Senator from Illinois say that it was Albert Gore, Sr. 
that said pay as you go and put on new taxes, and President Eisenhower 
was saying let us bond it and pay the bonds off. That was a difference 
of opinion then. So we taxed the payoff; rather than having an 
operating fund to pay off capital construction, pay off the bond issue.
  So I hope that we will give this very serious consideration. I will 
have other things to say before the vote comes next Tuesday, and I 
welcome any cosponsors. We have had many come to us this morning to 
talk about it. We have picked up a good many votes today. We are 
further away from passing this amendment than Senator Simon is, but if 
we combined our efforts, we would pass it.
  You say I am a stalking-horse? No; I am not a stalking-horse. You say 
I am trying to give people cover. No; they are not getting cover from 
this one. We have a legitimate proposal to be given to the colleagues 
in the U.S. Senate, that they can go back home and say: I voted for a 
Constitutional amendment to balance the budget that is doable.
  The other one is, you either eliminate or increase taxes, or both. I 
do not think this one puts you in the posture of raising taxes. That is 
a great, great difference, in my opinion. I have been listening very 
carefully as to raising taxes and how much new tax it is going to cost 
to pay for the Simon resolution, and I think it is time we take a step 
back and look at an opportunity now to have a balanced budget 
amendment. I do not have the words to get you out on the edge of the 
seat or the ability to say, boy, that is it. I just do not have that 
ability.
  I do believe sincerely that we have an amendment that is important, 
an amendment that should be considered, and maybe, just maybe, we can 
put our two groups together and say that we have a resolution here that 
could be doable; it is workable, and we could vote for a balanced 
budget, and the future of Senator Simon's unborn grandchildren will be 
saved.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can ask my friend from Idaho a 
question. It is my understanding that Senator Murkowski is going to 
speak now.
  Mr. CRAIG. I believe he is en route.
  Mr. REID. Senator Conrad is in the building. We have arranged for 
Senator Murkowski to go first, but if he is not here, perhaps Senator 
Conrad can speak first.
  I ask that the time run against the three floor managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time divided 
one-third/one-third/one-third among the floor managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 30 minutes to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from North Dakota, 
[Mr. Conrad], is recognized for up to 30 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  I thank him for the time. But more than that, I thank him for 
authoring this amendment which I think is now the only amendment that 
has any chance of passing this Chamber.
  Mr. President, the other day I took the floor and explained to my 
colleagues why I believed there had to be specific changes to the Simon 
balanced budget amendment for it to have a chance of passing.
  It is well known that I am one of the swing votes with respect to 
this question. Senator Reid from Nevada is recognized as one of the 
swing votes, and there are others, on the question of whether or not 
any balanced budget amendment would pass the Senate of the United 
States.
  Let me make clear I believe there is a need for a balanced budget 
amendment. I believe there is a need because when I look at what has 
happened over the last decade, I conclude that additional pressure is 
needed for us to finish the job of getting our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. President, I have brought with me several charts to illustrate 
that point.
  This chart shows the deficits from 1980 to the year 2004 as a 
percentage of our gross domestic product. And it shows during this 
period what happened during the Reagan and Bush years when deficits 
escalated dramatically and we went up to having deficits that were 
running over 6 percent of gross domestic product.
  Last year we put in place a budget deal that dramatically reduced 
deficits as a percentage of our gross domestic product. Real progress 
was made, but, Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, look at what 
happens as we get past 1996, 1997, and 1998. Then we see the deficit 
again start to increase as a percentage of our gross domestic product. 
I think it is an indication that more must be done.
  Let me go to the next chart, Mr. President, that shows the gross debt 
of the United States. I have taken a very long timeframe because I 
think this is instructive, and I hope people around the country will 
have a chance to learn what has happened with respect to debt in this 
country's history.
  We saw back in 1940 that our debt in comparison to the size of our 
economy, our gross domestic product, was just over 50 percent. Then we 
went into the war years, and debt in comparison with the size of our 
economy skyrocketed. The United States took on more and more debt as we 
financed the Second World War, and we left that war with debt to gross 
domestic product of over 120 percent.
  Mr. President, that was the high watermark. Once World War II ended, 
the United States entered into a period in which debt in relationship 
to the size of our economy fell consistently. For nearly 40 years, 
almost without interruption, the debt of the United States dropped in 
relationship to the size of the economy until we got to the Reagan 
years, and then we saw the debt start to grow dramatically in 
relationship to the size of our economy. And look what happened. It 
shot up. We had gotten down to 34 percent in terms of gross debt 
compared to the domestic product of this country, and then it 
skyrocketed until we got over 70 percent.
  As a result of last year's budget agreement, we have stopped the 
growth in relationship to the size of our economy.
  So, much was accomplished last year but not enough, not enough 
because you can see we are looking at an up-tick, and that is going to 
grow as those deficits compared to the size of our economy grow as a 
result of the CBO's prediction of what happens once we get past 1998 
and 1999. That is why it makes sense to put more pressure on the 
process to hold down the growth of deficits, to hold down the growth of 
debt.
  Mr. President, yesterday a fatal error was made, I believe, by those 
advocating the Simon amendment. The fatal error was to agree to limit 
amendments to the Simon-Craig underlying balanced budget amendment. I 
had urged the day before not to limit amendments, do not limit 
amendments, because there are fatal defects with what is before us from 
the Simon-Craig coalition.
  Mr. President, let me just say the situation that we confront now 
leaves us with a Simon balanced budget amendment and a Reid balanced 
budget amendment. In my judgment, the only balanced budget amendment 
that has any hope of passing this body is the Reid balanced budget 
amendment.
  I hope my colleagues are listening.
  I think most vote counters know the Simon-Craig amendment as it is 
before us will not pass. It will fall 3 to 5 votes short. The only 
amendment that has a possibility of getting 67 votes in this Chamber is 
the amendment that has been offered to us by Senator Reid of Nevada.
  Why is that the case? Mr. President, I believe it is the case because 
central to the Simon amendment is a raid on the Social Security Trust 
Funds in order to provide for a balanced budget. This is the Achilles' 
heel of the Simon-Craig amendment. In fact, it is really misnamed. It 
is not just a balanced budget amendment. It is a loot of the Social 
Security trust funds in order to get a balanced budget amendment. That 
is the Achilles' heel of what has been put in front of us by Senator 
Simon and Senator Craig.
  Let me just point out why I say what they have offered us is a loot 
of the Social Security trust funds balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. President, Social Security is included in the Simon balanced 
budget amendment that is before us today. It assumes that we will 
balance the budget by using the Social Security trust funds surplus.
  This chart, Mr. President, shows the surplus in Social Security that 
is anticipated over the next years, from 1993 to 2004. Look at what the 
amendment contemplates that is before us from Senator Simon and Senator 
Craig. It says we are going to take $47 billion of surplus from Social 
Security in 1993; $62 billion in 1994; $70 billion in 1995; $76 billion 
in 1996; $84 billion in 1997. That is how we are going to balance the 
budget. We are going to use the Social Security trust funds surplus to 
balance the budget.
  I hope my colleagues are listening, and I hope they are realizing the 
implications of what is before us. This is the same old shell game--we 
are going to use the trust funds to balance the budget.
  I will tell you there are an awful lot of Social Security recipients 
out there who are going to be mighty surprised to find out that when 
they go to the cupboard to get their Social Security check, the 
cupboard is bare, and the cupboard is bare because the trust funds have 
been systemically looted to balance the Federal budget.
  Mr. President, we have been doing that and we have been doing that 
for too long. That cannot be enshrined in the Constitution. That is why 
the other day I urged my colleagues to permit further amendments to the 
Simon-Craig underlying balanced budget proposal, because Social 
Security needed to be taken out for that amendment to have any chance 
to pass, in my judgment.
  Senator Reid has done that. Senator Reid's proposal does not use 
Social Security trust funds to balance the budget. They are 
specifically precluded.
  Mr. President, I think all of us remember just a few years ago a 
President of the United States addressing a joint session of Congress 
and saying to the Members there, ``Don't mess with Social Security.'' 
Remember that? He got a standing ovation from all the Members. Oh, how 
soon we have forgotten, because now we are contemplating a 
constitutional amendment that would loot the Social Security trust 
funds in order to provide a balanced budget; in my judgment, a profound 
mistake and one that will prevent the Simon-Craig amendment from ever 
passing this Chamber.
  Mr. President, that is why I say there is only one balanced budget 
amendment that has any chance of passing this Chamber and that is the 
Reid balanced budget amendment.
  First, it does not loot the Social Security trust funds in order to 
provide a balanced budget.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Will the Senator yield briefly just for one moment on 
that point?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I thank the Senator.
  I want to commend him for the great importance of his comments at 
this time. I think the threat to the Social Security trust funds is one 
of the great dangers in this so-called balanced budget proposal.
  The Senator is exactly right in pointing out that under the guise of 
balancing the budget or trying to, over the last few years, we have 
been looting the Social Security trust funds and in effect using those 
balances within the structure of the budget to appear to be paying for 
other things that have nothing to do with Social Security. And it is 
wrong that we do that. I think the Senator from North Dakota performs a 
great service to the country by laying this out. I thank him and 
commend him.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Michigan.
  I just might say, the Senator from Michigan, who serves on the Budget 
Committee with me, may recall that one night we were in session in the 
Budget Committee and I asked my colleagues, ``What makes us the same as 
Reverend Jim Bakker?''
  I think many of my colleagues remember, Rev. Jim Bakker--Jim and 
Tammy, who used to have the PTL show on television--is now in a Federal 
prison. I asked my colleagues why he was there. And there was sort of a 
silence as people were trying to recall the events that led to his 
incarceration. And I reminded them that he is in a Federal jail for 
raising money for one purpose and using it for another. That is why Jim 
Bakker is in jail.
  Under that test, all of us could be in a jail because we have gone 
out and told the American people we are raising money for the Social 
Security trust funds, we are running surpluses, so when the baby 
boomers retire we are ready to pay the bill. But, do you know what? 
There is no money in the trust funds. There is a piece of paper.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Stack of IOU's.
  Mr. CONRAD. A stack of IOU's. There is a chit. There is a chit that 
says, ``Well, we will pay you back in the by-and-by, but right now we 
are using the money for some other purpose.''
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Senator Ford, the senior Senator from Kentucky, answered 
the question here earlier and I want to ask you the same question.
  A newspaper reported that those supporters of this amendment were a 
stalking horse for the leadership. Recognizing the background and the 
personality of the Senator from North Dakota, are you a stalking horse 
for the leadership on this amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. I think the leadership would be mighty surprised to find 
me to be a stalking horse for them on almost any subject. I am somebody 
that is viewed as very independent around here.
  I am a stalking horse for one thing. I truly want to accomplish a 
mechanism to hold down budget deficits and to move us towards a 
balanced budget, but to do it in a way that does not endanger the 
economy of this country, does not harm future economic growth, does not 
use the Social Security trust funds as a mechanism to balance the 
Federal budget. I have been opposed to that from day one.
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to my good friend.
  Mr. REID. As long as it is on the time of the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. I would be happy to have it charged to my time. I 
appreciate the caution of my colleague from Nevada.
  The Senator from North Dakota has been a stalwart on the Budget 
Committee in terms of these things.
  Is the Senator from North Dakota aware of the statement by Bob Myers, 
the actuary for 23 years for the Social Security system, that says the 
balanced budget amendment that I have introduced is the only protection 
that the Social Security system can have?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am.
  If I might just say, on my time, I think he is right with respect to 
a balanced budget amendment. Of course, he wrote the letter--and I have 
read the letter, read it carefully--he wrote the letter before the Reid 
amendment was available to us.
  I have enormous respect and real affection for my colleague from 
Illinois. He has been someone who, by the way, has been rather 
consistent in his view that we should not use Social Security trust 
funds to balance the budget.
  Mr. SIMON. We agree.
  Mr. CONRAD. I know he has been put in a difficult situation here by 
being part of a coalition of others having different views. I just say 
to you, I believe this deeply: I think at this juncture, the only 
balanced budget amendment that has a chance of passing this body is the 
Reid amendment.
  As I said the other day, I was very hopeful that the Simon-Craig 
amendment would have remained open for amendment so that some of these 
things could have been addressed. That did not happen. I understand 
perhaps the reason for it.
  But I say to you now, I believe the tide has changed. I believe if 
one sits down and carefully thinks about where we are, the only chance 
to pass a balanced budget amendment is the Reid amendment.
  Mr. SIMON. If my colleague would yield just once more here.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to.
  Mr. REID. On the time of the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. On my own time, yes, Mr. President.
  In terms of doing statutorily what the Senator is suggesting, I would 
strongly favor that and I have favored it for some time. But to do it 
in terms of a constitutional amendment, I believe, is unwise for 
several reasons; one of them being the reality that starting in the 
year 2024 Social Security is not running a surplus, but a deficit. That 
means that anyone 35 years of age or younger right now would, if this 
amendment were adopted, be in some jeopardy.
  So I favor statutorily doing that. I do not favor blocking that off 
in terms of the Constitution because of the long-term implications.
  And then I would finally say, the need to pass something. When 
Senator Riegle says it is just a slip of paper that is there, that is 
what is there for Social Security trust funds right now, called U.S. 
bonds.
  And where are we headed? Every other nation, when we go down that 
road, every other nation has monetized the debt, had hyperinflation. 
The most recent example is Mexico. In 1988, they had a 12.5-percent 
deficit relative to GDP. They had 114 percent inflation. That 114 
percent inflation means cutting the Social Security trust funds in 
half, cutting savings in half, and everything else.
  So we are talking about something that is calamitous for the future 
of our country and, I regret to say--and I have great respect for my 
colleague from Nevada--that because of the loopholes in the amendment 
of my colleague from Nevada, I do not think if, it had been in effect 
for the last 12 years, that it would have saved one dime.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield on my time?
  Mr. CONRAD. If I might just complete my thoughts, and I will be happy 
to yield again.
  Mr. CRAIG. If you can yield to me on my time, I would like to ask a 
question.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we can come back to that. I very much 
would like to complete my statement and thoughts because I have spent a 
great deal of time soul searching on this question.
  I am convinced at this moment that no balanced budget amendment will 
be adopted by this Chamber other than the Reid amendment. I think I can 
count the votes. The Simon amendment is not going to achieve the 
necessary votes, and it will not because of certain defects.
  The first of them I have identified as the Social Security problem. 
We can talk about 2024. What is happening right now has significant 
implications for 2024. The Social Security trust funds are running huge 
surpluses and, under the terms of the amendment that is before us from 
Senator Simon and Senator Craig, they will use these surpluses to 
balance the budget. That is, I believe, a profound mistake. Using trust 
funds to balance the operating budget is a mistake and it is a mistake 
that will continue until at least the year 2015 or 2020, and beyond 
that it is hard to project.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield on that point? That was the point I 
wanted to cover.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would like to come back because I have a number of 
other points. I would very much like to come back and hear the thoughts 
of the Senator.
  Let me talk about a matter I addressed the other day with respect to 
another defect that I see in the Simon-Craig amendment that I think 
will cause it to fail. That is the matter of using estimates. The Simon 
amendment in section 6 provides that Congress can implement the 
balanced budget amendment by the use of estimates.
  We have had a bitter experience with estimates. This chart shows the 
problem with estimates. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 1985 versus Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings 1987 versus the actual deficit. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings for 1985 
is in blue; Gramm-Rudman-Hollings for 1987 is in green; and the red bar 
is the actual deficit. Look at the experience we have had.
  For 1986, blue bar: That is what Gramm-Rudman-Hollings said we would 
experience by way of deficits. That was the law. Instead, the red bar 
shows what we experienced. Instead of $172 billion of deficits, well 
over $200 billion, $221 billion.
  For 1987: They were pretty close.
  For 1988: You can see the variance. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 1985 
predicted; Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 1987 is this level; here is the actual 
deficit.
  Let us go to 1990, where you see the real disparity. Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings of 1985 said we would have a deficit of $36 billion that year, 
and we had a $221 billion deficit. For 1991, the 1987 Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings predicted deficits of about $64 billion. Instead, we were 
approaching $270 billion of deficits.
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. Not at this point, but I will be happy to yield later.
  The point is, Mr. President, estimates are the Achilles' heel here. 
We can make any kind of estimate around here--any kind of estimate. We 
will bring back the old ``rosy scenario'' and we all know what will 
happen. The President will send up a budget that will overestimate the 
revenue and will underestimate the expenditures, and it will say that 
we are in balance and we will not be.
  Mr. President, that is a very serious problem with respect to the 
Simon-Craig amendment. I might add, the Reid amendment suffers from 
some of this same trouble because it, too, uses estimates. I tried very 
hard to get that part of it changed with respect to the Reid amendment. 
I failed on that. But I believe that is an Achilles' heel of the Simon 
amendment. At least, in the Reid amendment, there is a provision that 
calls for the Congress to institute a system that would allow us to 
look back and institute across-the-board cuts if the estimates are off. 
That will provide an enormous incentive not to phony up the estimates.
  No. 3: In the Simon-Craig amendment, there is no provision for 
recession. It would be a serious economic mistake for us to implement a 
constitutional amendment that would require a supermajority to take the 
steps necessary to emerge from a recession. The worst thing in the 
world you can do if you are in recession is to cut spending and raise 
taxes. That is the worst thing you can do. That has the potential of 
turning a recession into a depression.
  Mr. President, the Reid amendment wisely has provided an exemption 
for when we are in recession, and a recession not determined by 
Congress but a recession determined by the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office Director based on a specific definition of recession.
  The fourth point: The Simon-Craig amendment has no provision for a 
capital budget. We have heard a lot of talk on this floor that the 
States almost uniformly have a balanced budget requirement, but what 
budget are they balancing? They are balancing, almost without 
exception, their general fund operating budget. In fact, I am told by 
GAO that 48 States provide for their balanced budget requirement to 
apply to their operating budget. In practice, according to GAO, it does 
not apply to their capital budget.
  Somebody watching me will say, ``What is he talking about; operating 
budget, capital budget? Why don't they balance all the budgets?'' 
Probably the easiest way to explain it is, when you buy your home, you 
do not pay for it all within 1 year. You have a mortgage, and that 
makes economic sense because that house is not going to depreciate, is 
not going to lose value over time. In fact, it is going to add value 
over time, in all likelihood. So issuing a mortgage and paying it off 
over time makes sense. The same is true of governments--State 
government and Federal Government. When it acquires capital assets, it 
should not be required to pay cash on the barrelhead for long-lived 
assets. That does not make economic sense.
  The Reid amendment addresses that specific problem. It provides for a 
capital budget, just the way the States have a capital budget, that is 
treated differently for the purposes of a balanced budget amendment.
  I was talking at noon today to the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky, who is former Governor of the State of Kentucky. I asked him: 
``Senator Ford, when you were Governor of Kentucky, did you have a 
balanced budget requirement?'' He told me he did. And I asked him: 
``Did you have a capital budget?'' And he told me, yes, he did. I asked 
him if the balanced budget requirement applied to the operating budget 
or the capital budget? And he said quite clearly, the operating budget.
  That is the way the States operate, and if people want to talk about 
a balanced budget amendment that is the same as what the States have, 
more than 40 of the States have provisions for a capital budget and 
they balance their operating budget. Why? Because it makes economic 
sense. What is before us in the Simon-Craig amendment does not have 
that provision.
  Again, I just want to say, I implored my colleagues the other day: Do 
not close your minds to the prospect or the possibility of allowing 
other amendments to the Simon-Craig balanced budget amendment because 
there are problems with it that we could have an opportunity to correct 
so we would strengthen it.
  Yesterday, a decision was made to shut it down and not have any more 
amendments. I believe that was a mistake. I believe that killed the 
chance for the Simon-Craig amendment to be adopted by this Chamber, at 
least this year.
  Mr. President, that is why I believe, as we meet today, the only 
amendment that has any chance of being adopted by this body is the Reid 
amendment, and I am quick to acknowledge the prospects are mighty slim, 
because those who are the advocates of the Simon-Craig amendment 
probably are not going to budge, just as they would not budge to allow 
amendments. That means we will not get enough people, who really do 
want to see a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, to vote 
for one.
  There is a fifth issue that I identified the other day as being a 
serious matter, and that is allowing the courts into this whole 
process. I think it would be a profound mistake to allow the courts of 
the United States to write the budgets for the country.
  Judges are not elected by anyone. Federal judges are appointed; they 
are not elected. This country believes in having elected people make 
budget decisions. The Reid amendment excludes the courts specifically 
and completely from involvement in this process. Can you imagine the 
possibilities here, Mr. President, if we allow the courts into the 
process? Why, we will have the 1994 budget decided by probably 1996 or 
1997.
  Mr. President, I would be quick to acknowledge the Simon-Craig forces 
have altered their amendment to in large measure exclude the courts. 
There is still a provision that will allow court determinations on the 
question of whether or not there is an unbalanced budget. I think we 
would be better off without that. The Reid amendment specifically and 
completely precludes the courts from being involved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 30 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Can I have 2 additional minutes?
  Mr. REID. The Senator can have 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  We have a weekend here to think this over. I hope we use that time 
wisely. Right now, we are on a collision course that is going to lead 
nowhere. Right now, we are on a course that is going to mean the defeat 
of the Reid amendment and the defeat of the Simon-Craig amendment and 
will have raised the issue, but we will not have advanced the ball.
  Mr. President, there is another possible outcome. The other possible 
outcome is that people decide we really do need to do something about 
holding down the growth of debt in this country, that the only 
amendment that has a chance of passing is the Reid amendment, and that 
all of us who want to see something done should come over and support 
the Reid amendment.
  The reason, again I say to my colleagues, I believe the Reid 
amendment is the only one that has any chance of passing is because it 
does not loot the Social Security trust funds to balance the budget. It 
does not do that.
  It has a provision for dealing with the problem of using estimates. 
It has an exclusion for a time of recession. It has a provision for a 
capital budget just like over 40 of the States do that have a balanced 
budget provision. That makes simple economic sense.
  Finally, Mr. President, it excludes the courts so we do not find 
ourselves in an absurd situation of having the Federal courts deciding 
the budget of the United States. No one ever elected a judge. No judge 
in this country, no Federal judge is elected by the people. The House 
of Representatives, the Senate of the United States, the President of 
the United States were elected by the people to make those decisions, 
and we should make them. The buck stops here.
  Mr. President, I have thought long and hard about this question. I 
have enormous respect for the Senator from Illinois. I have worked 
closely with him on the Budget Committee. I have grown not only to 
respect his efforts in this regard but to admire him as a person. I 
also have affection and high regard for the Senator from Idaho. He is 
sincere about what he is doing. I, too, am sincere. I have reached a 
conclusion that may be different from the conclusion they have reached. 
My conclusion is that the only chance to pass a balanced budget 
amendment is the Reid amendment that is before us on Tuesday next.
  I hope those who really do want a balanced budget amendment will 
think over the weekend. Are they going to make what they view as the 
best the enemy of the good, or are they going to support an amendment 
that might actually pass? Are we going to have an issue, or are we 
going to have an amendment? That is the question.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield just for a 
moment, someone has handed me a quotation from Leon Panetta. I do not 
ascribe to this. But Leon Panetta said, ``There are going to be some 
Members who are going to have an alternative proposal in order to give 
them cover to come out against the Simon proposal.'' This is the 
Seattle Post Intelligencer, February 18.
  Two questions to my colleague.
  Mr. CONRAD. Maybe if I could just answer on the first one----
  Mr. REID. This is on Senator Simon's time, right?
  Mr. SIMON. This is on my time, right.
  Mr. CONRAD. I can only speak for myself. I think there are those who 
have that agenda. It is not mine. I am persuaded that the amendment 
that is before us on the Senator's side cannot win. It is going to fall 
three to five votes short. It is going to fail, I believe, because of 
the reasons I outlined. Virtually all of those are addressed in the 
Reid amendment. I say to you, I implore you to think about passing that 
Reid amendment. It is the only one, I believe, that now has a chance.
  I understand the stalking-horse. Frankly, there are those who have 
that agenda. I think we should be quick to acknowledge there are some. 
Not Senator Reid, I can tell you that. Not Senator Ford, I can tell you 
that. They want a balanced budget amendment as much as I do. I think 
they have reached the same conclusion. There are fatal defects. And, 
again, I am not sure why the decision was made to foreclose amendments. 
I understand there is a difference of opinion on that side. But I think 
once that decision was made, the only balanced budget amendment that 
has a chance is the Reid amendment.
  Mr. SIMON. Two questions. One is those estimates that the Senator 
has, is it not true where they are way off, those are multiyear 
estimates?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. SIMON. The reality is particularly if we fail with three-fifths 
to extend the debt ceiling, those estimates are going to be very, very 
tight.
  Then on the recession, is the Senator from North Dakota aware that 
since 1962 we passed 11 economic stimulus programs, each one of which 
has received over 60 votes?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes. Let me say, if I can respond first on the question 
of estimates; were these actual multiyear estimates? Yes. Were they 
flawed? Yes. We have seen in every year the estimates flawed. Yes. If 
we have this balanced budget amendment as outlined by the Senator from 
Illinois pass, do I believe there will be games played? Absolutely. I 
saw it every year of Gramm-Rudman, every year the administration came 
up here with ``old rosy scenario'' in which they overestimated the 
receipts. They underestimated the expenses in order just to meet the 
Gramm-Rudman restriction.
  Mr. SIMON. The Reid amendment relies on estimates infinitely more 
than our amendment, because we have the discipline, the teeth, of 
saying if you want to raise the debt, you have to have a three-fifths 
vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let me be very clear. I tried to be clear in my 
statement. The Reid amendment also has estimates. I argued against 
that. I think the use of estimates is a mistake in the one amendment of 
the Senator from Illinois, as well as his. When I looked at the rest of 
the Reid proposal, I think it is far superior, and it is the only one 
that has a chance of passing.
  In addition, Senator Reid does have the provision to address the 
question if estimates are wrong. It is not as much as I might like to 
have, but I say to the Senator on these other grounds that the only one 
that has a chance of passing at this point, I believe, is the Reid 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Illinois leaves----
  Mr. CRAIG. I have a person waiting who has been here now for a time 
ready to speak. I will yield 1 minute of my time, and 1 minute only. 
Let us move.
  Mr. REID. I ask Senator Simon: Are you saying that your estimates are 
better than mine?
  Mr. SIMON. No. What I am saying is, we provide that estimates can be 
used. But we also provide that revenue has to match outlays, which the 
one of the Senator from Nevada does not provide; and, second, we 
provide that if you want to increase the Federal debt, it requires a 
three-fifths vote. That means that there is real teeth. Those teeth are 
not in the version of the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. We will discuss this later, Mr. President.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from Alaska, 
let me make one brief comment about the figures in the Social Security 
trust funds that the Senator from North Dakota has talked about.
  Mr. President, those trust fund dollars are not here today. They are 
borrowed out and used to fund current activities of the Government. The 
reason he chose the year 2003 is that is when he and I are ready, or 
getting very close to being ready, for our Social Security checks, what 
happens at that time? The actuarials say some very real things happen 
at that time. Taxes have to go up to pay for it or budgets have to be 
cut.
  So let us not use the straw or the stalking-horse, whichever one must 
call it, about the Social Security issue. It is false to in any way 
argue that either one of these proposals puts the Social Security trust 
fund in jeopardy. If in the year 2003 this Congress does not choose to 
raise taxes to fund the checks at that time, those trust funds are in 
jeopardy. The Senator from North Dakota serves on the Budget Committee, 
and he knows that. So let us not play games with the Social Security 
issue.
  I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we would all agree we have the deepest respect with 
regard to the efforts of Senator Reid and those that are supportive of 
the Reid substitute amendment.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, I think we have to recognize that some 
say we should learn by history, some say in reality we do not learn 
much. We have heard explanations given of Gramm-Rudman 1, Gramm-Rudman 
2, the 1990 budget agreement. But the American people are absolutely 
bewildered by this witchcraft of budgeteering that is occurring.
  The American public looks at their lifestyle in relationship to their 
checkbook, the reality that they will write a check, and they have 
enough money to cover that check. And the fact that the Government 
somehow, through this witchcraft, carries on and accumulates debt.
  Now the American public is being told that the interest on that debt 
is having to be borrowed, and they are asking, where is Congress? And 
it appears Congress puts forth a convoluted effort to address any 
alternative other than reducing spending. We have seen the 
administration's efforts to increase taxes but not reduce spending. But 
we are faced with an extraordinary opportunity here for the first time 
to do something that would mandate self-discipline.
  My colleagues suggest that we should have the self discipline. We 
certainly should. But we do not. Otherwise, we would not have 
accumulated $4.5 trillion worth of debt.
  I come from a banking background. I know that interest goes on, night 
and day. I have said this time and time again. It is like having a 
horse that eats while you sleep. Now we are borrowing money to pay the 
interest on the debt, which is 14 percent of our total budget and 
growing.
  Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the substitute offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada, and I urge my colleagues to reject 
this transparently flawed substitute. It will never bring us even close 
to achieving a balanced budget. I will tell you why.
  The reason is that it exempts capital investments. I will tell you 
what those capital investments are, because they are truly staggering, 
and that is an extraordinary loophole. But first, I would like to draw 
a picture of today's reality.
  I have said it before. The Government is broke. The reason that we 
have that $4.5 trillion debt, the reason we are today borrowing more 
than $200 billion just to cover the cost of interest on the debt, is 
that Congress has always, always, always, found loopholes to avoid the 
hard decisions needed to balance the budget. We all agree on that. How 
long can it last? Tomorrow? The next day?
  Well, we have seen what has happened to some of the South American 
countries. We have seen what double-digit inflation did in this country 
in the seventies. Remember December of 1980. Remember what the prime 
rate was, Mr. President? The rate at that time, the prime rate, 20.5 
percent, inflation running at 11 percent. So for those who say it 
cannot happen, it has happened. It could happen again.
  We have seen the disintegration of the monetary system of many South 
American countries as a consequence of too much debt, and the inability 
to pay that debt.
  Some of the opponents of the balanced budget amendment contend that 
it would make it impossible for the Government to respond to an 
emergency or crisis because outlays and receipts will always have to be 
in balance. But our amendment, the amendment of the Senators from Idaho 
and Illinois, is not inflexible.
  My colleagues should not generalize about it. They know that in any 
economic emergency, Congress, by three-fifths majority, can waive the 
balanced budget requirement.
  Mr. President, in the past 5 years, Congress has provided emergency 
funding in response to numerous natural disasters--earthquake, 
hurricanes, and floods. Three weeks ago, we passed the largest disaster 
relief bill in our history--more than $7 billion--to help the victims 
of the California earthquake.
  In every instance where we have provided emergency benefits, some of 
us supported using offsetting spending cuts, which I think was the 
responsible thing to do to ensure that the emergency spending would not 
increase the deficit. And in every case, every single case, Congress 
rejected these offsets.
  Where is the self-discipline? We face emergencies, but we are not 
willing to make offsetting spending cuts. What do we do? We simply add 
it to the deficit because it is very convenient to pass the cost on to 
future generations.
  But the American public is starting to wake up and say, hey, how 
long, how far? They are becoming very concerned.
  I maintain that if you left this question to the public, they would 
say take the medicine now, drop the budgetary witchcraft that is going 
on. The public understands the revenue stream that comes in. They 
understand the expenditures. But they do not understand how you can 
keep spending, because they know if they try that, their checks are 
going to bounce.
  The constitutional amendment that we are debating now would allow 
Congress to meet any emergency. I am confident that Members of future 
Congresses will not allow this amendment to prevent us from providing 
emergency assistance. However, it may put a greater degree of pressure 
on some Members to find offsetting ways to pay for those emergencies 
instead of always putting such spending aside and outside the scope of 
the budget.
  Mr. President, during the recent debate on aiding the victims of the 
California earthquake, I proposed, as an alternative to public funding 
of Presidential elections, that we have a checkoff on our IRS return. 
The checkoff would provide the individual American taxpayer with the 
opportunity of simply checking $3 to go for disaster relief instead of 
public taxpayer funding for Presidential elections. Well, we had a bit 
of a bipartisan debate on that and ultimately we failed in that effort. 
But the point is, Mr. President, that was a way to offset some of the 
efforts and tribulations associated with disasters such as we have with 
earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes.
  Mr. President, I have heard it said that operating a Government with 
a balanced budget amendment would somehow harm citizens of the Western 
States. It is true moving from a $200 billion a year deficit to a zero 
deficit is not going to be easily done. East, west, north, south, I do 
not care where you come from. We are all going to feel the pain of 
withdrawal from our 33 years of addiction. For 33 years we have been 
running a deficit, out of the last 34.
  The American people understand tough medicine. They would rather take 
it sooner than later. People are ready to make the sacrifice. I have 
served as chairman of the Veterans Committee, and ranking on that 
committee.
  The veterans have told me they will take an equitable cut, as long as 
it is equitable--across the board, fair, and equal. I think most 
Americans are willing to make that kind of a sacrifice. The only way to 
reduce spending will be to set priorities, saving the most important 
programs, and cutting the least important ones.
  My greatest concern for the West is not the specter of a balanced 
budget amendment kicking in in the year 2001, but the budget that was 
delivered to Congress just a few weeks ago. Under this administration, 
some say the West may not have anything to worry about by 2001, because 
much that has been taken away from us under the current system has 
occurred. The only difference is that under a balanced budget 
amendment, maybe we would not see the same rise in funding for 
regulatory programs such as the increase for the EPA, which we cannot 
afford now. It is amazing to me that the majority of the Members cannot 
understand the merits of having some balance in that Environmental 
Protection Agency. We should be considering a cost benefit or risk 
analysis in the process of decisionmaking, but we cannot seem to come 
to that.
  Without a balanced budget amendment, programs important to the West 
are being cut right and left. We borrow money to pay for the creation 
and enforcement of new regulations. The Department of Interior is 
letting Park Service personnel go by the hundreds and hiring hundreds 
of lawyers.
  Mr. President, I think we can maintain a strong defense under a 
balanced budget. We can implement a strong resource development policy 
under a balanced budget, and we can take care of core Government 
functions like aviation and the Postal Service. Those of us who care 
about these core functions believe the only way to protect it for our 
children is to reduce deficit spending now. We must address the 
realities associated with the increased interest costs we are going to 
face in a few years, when our interest costs are going to be more than 
our current military budget.
  Mr. President, it is mandatory that we have a healthy country to meet 
our obligations. It is mandatory that we tell our environmental friends 
that we need a healthy economy to meet our environmental obligations. I 
have said the country is broke. If we do not get our finances in line 
by addressing entitlements, mandatory spending, and distinguish low-
priority programs from crucial Government programs, we are going to be 
looking at cutting the Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation 
Administration, and Defense.
  Mr. President, I want to return to the primary issue before us today: 
Why we need to change the Constitution to address the deficit crisis. I 
will run through three charts briefly, because they show the history of 
the budget agreement failures in the last 10 years. It is interesting 
to note that every genuine effort made here has failed. During that 
period, we have had budget summits, reconciliation bills, tax 
increases, sequesters, minisequesters, and all of those efforts failed 
to achieve their intended goal--a zero deficit--for the simple reason 
that we held entitlements off the table and found more loopholes and 
excuses for not doing the one thing that actually would have worked: 
Cutting Federal spending.
  Chart one shows the promise. Remember Gramm-Rudman 1, which was 
adopted in 1985? As you can see, Gramm-Rudman was supposed to bring us 
down to a zero deficit over this 6-year period from 1985 to 1991. From 
a projected high of $172 billion, the deficit was supposed to come down 
by $36 billion a year to zero in 1991.
  In reality, by 1991, instead of a zero deficit, we had a $269 billion 
deficit. That is history lesson No. 1.
  History lesson No. 2: In the second chart, I have shown the revisions 
we made in Gramm-Rudman in 1987. We were all enthusiastic about it. In 
that year, we revised the original target. Quite frankly, this 
agreement was an even more astounding failure than the original Gramm-
Rudman, which certainly was not the fault of the Senators involved but 
of the Congress. We found enough ways to get around the law. When the 
deficit was supposed to be $100 billion in the year 1990, in reality, 
it turned out to be double that. It was supposed to be $100 billion 
but, in reality, it was $221 billion. Then we move over to 1991. The 
deficit was supposed to be $64 billion. Instead, there was over a 400-
percent increase, and it was up to $269 billion. In 1992, the deficit 
was supposed to only be $28 billion, and headed down. But, in reality, 
it was up 1,000 percent to over $290 billion.
  Of course, by 1990, it was clear that none of the targets would be 
even remotely met. So at that time, President Bush entered into a 
summit agreement and made the mistake of breaking his no-tax pledge. I 
happened to be down at the White House at the time he made that 
decision. He was genuinely convinced that if he allowed the tax 
increase, Congress would respond and reduce spending. It did not work.
  The third chart shows how the deficit was supposed to come down by 
that agreement in 1990. Unlike the earlier budget agreements, this time 
the deficit targets were allowed to be adjusted and the deficit targets 
did not include off-budget trust fund balances. This chart shows that, 
by 1995, the on-budget deficit was expected to be only $83 billion. In 
fact, the chart shows the actual deficit is nearly 270 percent higher, 
at $225 billion, over here. Here is the actual deficit, and here was 
the projected deficit.
  Why did all these agreements fail? Because we allowed spending to 
increase by more than 53 percent, from $990 billion to more than $1.5 
trillion. I would also note that these agreements failed because we, in 
Congress, decided to create budget exemptions for more than 135 
different programs. We simply exempted them. We exempted the economic 
development revolving fund, the check forgery insurance fund, and the 
Higher Education Facilities Loan and Insurance Program--and that is 
just 3 of 135 programs we exempted from the cuts.
  Mr. President, that is Congress' sorry budget control track record 
for the past 10 years. The bottom line: Interest payments increased 57 
percent, from $136 billion to $213 billion; and the national debt, in 
10 years, more than doubled, from $2.1 trillion to more than $4.5 
trillion.
  If these trends are not reversed, interest will consume upward of 
$365 billion--$1 billion for each day--and the national debt will more 
than double to $9 billion in 10 years. That is our past record of 
trying to correct this problem. This is why the only solution to the 
problem is to change the Constitution. It is evident that history 
speaks for itself.
  Mr. President, let me talk very briefly about the Reid 
substitute. When I first read the language of this amendment I was 
reminded of the Potemkin villages that the Russian Tsars used to allow 
foreign guests to visit. These villages gave the visitor the false 
impression that Russian peasant life was rich and bountiful when, in 
fact, they were merely facades for show like a Hollywood set. These 
villages were designed for one and only purpose--to deceive the foreign 
visitor.

  The same can be said of this proposed substitute except in this case 
it is not the foreign guest, but the American public that is being 
misled. If this amendment is adopted, we will effectively have 
abandoned any hope that our Nation's debt and deficit will ever be 
controlled. For this amendment is so transparently flawed, that it is 
impossible to believe that it is being offered as a serious alternative 
to our amendment. If this substitute is adopted, it will be proof 
positive that this institution will stop at nothing to avoid facing our 
fiscal responsibilities.
  The central element of this substitute is the requirement, and I 
quote: ``the operating funds of the United States for any fiscal year 
shall not exceed total estimated receipts to those funds for that 
fiscal year * * *.'' And in defining operating funds, the substitute 
excludes so-called capital investments.
  What are capital investments, Mr. President? Providing a Federal 
grant for constructing a bridge would surely qualify. And so would a 
new aircraft carrier. But the Federal Government makes many more 
investments that yield long-term benefits to our Nation. In a section 
of the President's budget, the administration provides its definition 
of investment outlays. Let me quote from the President's budget:

       Investment outlays are outlays that yield long-term 
     benefit. They take several forms and are made for many 
     purposes. They can be direct Federal outlays or grants to 
     State and local governments. They may be aimed at improving 
     the efficiency of internal Federal agency operations or at 
     increasing the Nation's overall stock of capital for economic 
     growth. They can be for physical capital, which yields a 
     stream of services over a period of years, or for research, 
     development, education, and training, which are less tangible 
     but also increase income in the future or provide other long-
     term benefits.
  Here is the crunch, Mr. President. Capital investments are outlays 
that yield long-term benefits. They take several forms. They are made 
for many purposes. They can be direct Federal outlays or grants to 
States and local governments. They may be aimed at improving the 
efficiency of internal Federal agency operations. It is wide open. It 
means just about anything the Government can justify.
  So, as anyone can see, the capital investment exception contained in 
this substitute could be used to effectively take all Government 
spending off the table for balanced budget purposes. Would anyone in 
this body disagree that the Head Start program should be considered an 
investment in our human capital? Of course, it should.
  Mr. President, we are down to a time where we must start making the 
tough decisions. If we do not make them now, the medicine is going to 
be worse later.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the balanced budget amendment 
because I am absolutely convinced this is almost the last chance we 
have. If we do not take it now, it is simply going to elude us. The 
fact is that we have amended the Constitution only 17 times, out of 
necessity. This is another necessity. The survival of our economic 
system is at stake here because nothing else has worked.
  Thank you. I thank my colleagues and particularly my friend from 
South Carolina who has been so patient.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Alaska for 
his outstanding statement.
  I now yield to the great Senator who is the original sponsor of this 
issue, this very important constitutional amendment, Senator Strom 
Thurmond, such time as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend all Senators who have 
joined in on the underlying resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 41. I 
especially commend Senator Simon, Senator Hatch, and Senator Craig for 
their great work and tireless efforts on this important issue.
  Mr. President, I am compelled to rise in reply to the earlier remarks 
against the balanced budget amendment by various distinguished 
Senators.
  As everyone in this Chamber and the Nation realizes, there is no 
greater supporter of a strong national defense than I am. I have 
supported our military forces in war and peace, while in uniform, and 
as a civilian for over 70 years. I am always vitally concerned about 
threats to our defense capability and our defense budget. In my 
judgment, one of the greatest threats to the long-term security of this 
Nation is an ever-growing budget deficit. We must have the capability 
to meet military and economic threats in the 21st century and we may 
not be able to do so if we bankrupt ourselves now.
  It is obvious we will not discipline ourselves without a balanced 
budget amendment. Therefore, we must ensure the essential discipline 
through this amendment.
  Let me quote from yesterday's edition of Roll Call, where 250 
economists endorsed the balanced budget amendment. I repeat, 250 
economists--professionals who closely study economic trends, who know 
budgets up and down--endorsed the balanced budget amendment.
  I want to quote from their brief remarks:

       Why do we need the Balanced Budget Amendment now, when no 
     such constitutional provision existed for two centuries? The 
     answer is clear. Up until recent decades, the principle that 
     government should balance its budget in peacetime was, 
     indeed, a part of our effective constitution, even if not 
     formally written down. Before the Keynesian-inspired shift in 
     thinking about fiscal matters, it was universally considered 
     immoral to incur debts, except in periods of emergency (wars 
     or major depressions). We have lost the moral sense of fiscal 
     responsibility that served to make formal constitutional 
     constraints unnecessary. We cannot legislate a change in 
     political morality; we can put formal constitutional 
     constraints into place.

  Mr. President, there should be no doubt that we must structure the 
amendment so that national defense will not be disproportionally hit 
and that all elements of the Federal budget, including entitlements, be 
subject to fiscal discipline and responsibility.
  Our long-term security is based upon the overall strength of this 
Nation--moral, economic, and military. In order to sustain our 
greatness and continue global leadership, these elements must be 
balanced.
  I wish there were another way, but it appears that only with the 
balanced budget amendment can we sustain the greatness of this Nation.
  We have not balanced the Federal budget in 31 years--I repeat, in 31 
years, 31 long years. This is proof of the necessity to mandate a 
balanced budget. The only way to effectively accomplish this is through 
a constitutional amendment.
  Mr. President, the big spending has to stop. How are you going to 
stop it? We can mandate it. That is the way to stop it. We can compel 
it. That is the way to stop it. We can require it. That is the way to 
stop it.
  I remember years ago Senator Harry Byrd successfully shepherded a 
bill through the Congress to achieve a balanced budget, and before the 
year was out, it was nullified by subsequent legislation which pushed 
appropriations above the budget.
  You just heard the remarks by the distinguished Senator from Alaska, 
Senator Murkowski, about the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment. One thing 
has been tried after another. Nothing has worked. You cannot stop it. 
You have to compel the Congress to do it. They have been spending, 
spending, spending for years and years.
  How are you going to stop it? There is no way to stop it unless you 
compel them to do it. That is what this amendment does. This 
constitutional amendment makes the Congress stop spending more than 
they take in.
  I say now is the time, now is the year to adopt a balanced budget 
amendment. Do it now and not put it off. And do not give excuses. Other 
proposal have too many loopholes which would swallow up the requirement 
of a balanced budget. That is hogwash. It will not do it. Our 
underlying proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 41, is the effective way 
to balance the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, will my colleague from South Carolina yield 
for one question?
  Mr. THURMOND. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. SIMON. The Senator from South Carolina made the point about our 
defenses in his opening remarks. As the ranking member on the Armed 
Services Committee, is it not true that it is impossible to be strong 
militarily if you are weak economically?
  Mr. THURMOND. Absolutely. If we are going to keep a strong defense, 
we have to provide for it through the economy. We have to stop spending 
more than we take in or we cannot continue to provide for defense. If 
we want to protect this country, we have to stop spending more than we 
take in so we can provide for defense.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague and I appreciate his leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from South 
Carolina for a truly outstanding statement from his years of experience 
here. It was spoken very clearly that this Congress cannot demonstrate 
its fiscal will unless it is compelled to do so.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to speak now. How much time do I 
have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 53 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Thank you very much. I would ask my two colleagues to agree 
that Senator Byrd can speak at 4:10 and use his time.
  Mr. SIMON. No objection.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Reid amendment, the amendment that was 
offered yesterday on my behalf, Senator Ford's behalf, and that of 
Senator Feinstein, is a balanced budget amendment, but it is one that 
is not balanced on the shoulders and backs of senior citizens around 
the United States. It is a balanced budget amendment that is realistic. 
If a State were asked to live by the Simon amendment, they would all be 
bankrupt. They could not live the way that the Simon amendment 
proponents are asking this Government to live.

  I mentioned and I mention again that the States have, as Governors 
have long acknowledged, capital operating budgets. It is a system that 
works well.
  My amendment wants to treat the Federal Government like States are 
treated. That is not unrealistic. And that includes Social Security 
being off budget. States have their pension liabilities generally off 
budget. The State of Illinois, if they were asked to live by the Simon 
amendment, would be bankrupt before anybody else because they have the 
largest unfunded pension liability of any State in the Union, I have 
been so advised.
  If we asked an individual family to live by the Simon amendment, only 
the very wealthy in this country could have a home, unless they wanted 
to rent it, or could have a car, because you would have to pay cash for 
it.
  Mr. President, the Federal Government over the years has not done a 
good job of matching expenditures with income. And that is too bad.
  This is no better illustrated than by what happened during the years 
of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Now, they tried an 
experiment--and they were supported most of the time by the Congress--
and it was a dismal failure.
  We have done pretty well this past year, not great; we have a long 
way to go. But we have the lowest percentage of deficit to gross 
national product since 1979; the best in 15 years. Not great, but OK.
  There are other good things happening, too. The President has 
appointed the Kerrey-Danforth Commission. This is a bipartisan 
commission. Senator Kerrey is a Democrat from Nebraska; Senator 
Danforth a Republican from Missouri. They have a significant number of 
people on this panel that the President has selected, people who are 
from the private sector.
  This is not going to be a quick Government fix that is being 
contemplated but, quite the contrary, this Kerrey-Danforth Commission 
is going to review entitlement programs and other mandatory programs 
and look at alternative approaches to the current tax system. I think 
that is a laudatory goal.
  Some of the people on the commission from the private sector are Bob 
Denham, chairman and CEO of Salomon Brothers; Ms. Karen Horn, chairman 
and CEO of Bank One out of Cleveland; Mr. Pete Peterson, chairman of 
the Blackstone Group; Mr. Richard Trumka, president of the United Mine 
Workers. There are people from State and local government, like the 
mayor of Tampa, FL, Sandra Freedman, and the Governor of the State of 
Colorado, Ray Romer.
  I think what is being done is great. We are trying to do something 
about having this Government meet its financial responsibilities.
  Health care: We all know we have to do something about health care. 
Health care is bankrupting our country. This year, health care costs in 
America will go up over $100 billion; not $100 million--over $100 
billion. We will not get health care that is one bit better, but it 
will cost us $100 billion. Total health care costs in our country will 
exceed $1 trillion this year. Now, if we did something about health 
care costs, we would do a great deal about bringing spending under 
control.
  So, we are doing some good things. But we are not doing enough, and I 
acknowledge that. That is why I have offered my amendment--an amendment 
that is realistic; one that, if passed, we could charge down this slope 
and do a good job. It is not something that is so unrealistic that it 
is only to give people cover. Many people who are supporting the 
balanced budget amendment know that it will never happen, know that it 
will not help. They have drafted something so difficult, so 
unrealistic, that they can just say, ``Well, it did not pass, but I am 
for a balanced budget amendment.''
  I cannot believe that the sponsors of the Simon amendment would not 
have a Social Security exclusion. Sometimes you lose the ability to 
understand why things happen.
  In 1990, there was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution here that said 
that Social Security should be off budget. Ninety-eight Senators voted 
to take it off budget. It is off budget. But yet, we know that now the 
Simon people are thinking, ``Well, we will do it by legislation.'' 
Unrealistic again.
  So we need to proceed with a realistic budget amendment. As so 
clearly stated by my friend from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, we need 
to do more than have budget by sound bites. Little, quick, catchy tunes 
that the TV stations love and the newspapers pick up. We need to have a 
realistic amendment, and that is what we have, a balanced budget 
amendment.
  I am very disappointed. I frankly thought that my friends on the 
other side of the aisle would like my amendment. But I was disappointed 
to read an AP wire story by David Espo that quotes my friend from 
Idaho, the senior Senator from Idaho, that he and other Republicans 
would vote against Reid's amendment.
  Let us have my amendment. It is realistic. If it passed, we could do 
something to balance the budget. It would happen quickly. But we do not 
need to balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens.
  I had here a chart yesterday talking about my amendment and Senator 
Simon's amendment. I will talk about it again today.
  First, my amendment excludes Social Security. We have heard a lot 
here that the Senators who were sponsoring the Simon amendment say they 
are going to take care of Social Security; if you do not believe it, we 
will give you a quote from a man by the name of Myers.
  Well, let me give you a quote by a man by the name of Ball. There is 
nobody in the country--and I say no one without any reservation--that 
knows more about Social Security than Mr. Robert Ball. He served as 
Commissioner of the Social Security System under three Presidents, 
under President Kennedy, President Johnson, and President Nixon. Here 
is what Mr. Ball said about Mr. Myers and of the promises of those that 
are seeking the Simon balanced budget amendment that they will somehow 
save the senior citizens through legislation. During hearings last week 
he said:

       In fact, I do not think any of us has a reasonable way of 
     knowing what future Congresses would do. And we are talking 
     about a constitutional amendment which will stand perhaps 
     forever, at least a long, long time. And to judge that they 
     will not take actions that are permitted and quite with great 
     pleasure to take them because of what Mr. Myers characterizes 
     as reasons for not moving, I think he is really quite naive.
       He says, this will not happen, that they will not touch 
     Social Security after a budget balancing amendment is passed, 
     because it would be against integrity, logic, and fair play. 
     It would, but the pressures would be extraordinary. I believe 
     it would put at great risk the monthly benefits of 42 million 
     people who are currently receiving benefits and the benefits 
     of millions more who are working and building credits for 
     future benefits.
       In 1993 alone, 134 million earners worked under Social 
     Security. Practically every American family has a major stake 
     in the program.

  You see, Mr. President, this is not just a program for people with 
white hair. This is a program for every American family. It is hardly a 
special interest group to be defending Social Security.
  Mr. Ball continues:

       The program today keeps 15 million people out of poverty 
     and millions more from falling into near poverty. But what is 
     frequently overlooked is it is much more than a poverty 
     program. It is the only retirement program for 6 out of 10 
     workers--

60 percent--

     in private industry and the base on which private pensions 
     are built for the other 4 out of 10.

  The other 40 percent.

       Social Security is family insurance as well as a retirement 
     plan, life insurance protection under Social Security.
       It pays nearly 3 million children each month. And, of 
     course, there is also protection against loss of income 
     because of disability.
       The protection of young families is very significant. All 
     this protection; retirement, survivors, and disability 
     insurance, would be put at risk, if this constitutional 
     amendment were passed, in my judgment.
       The amendment provides a great opportunity for those who 
     favor cutting Social Security and radically restructuring it. 
     Social Security is self-financed and responsibly financed. It 
     has had no part in creating the deficit and the staggering 
     debt. It has always paid its own way.

  Now, anybody come here and tell me this amendment is a stalking-horse 
for the leadership. I am offended that people would say that. This is 
an amendment that protects the Social Security system of our country, 
and my friends on the other side of the aisle, rather than spitting it 
to the New York Times, should be spitting it to the senior citizens of 
this country and work to pass this amendment.
  Second, this amendment that I am sponsoring with Senators Ford and 
Feinstein has a separate capital budget, as I mentioned. It would treat 
our budget like the very successful programs we hear the Governors brag 
about all the time. Should we have less? Our implementing legislation 
says if we do not do it, we will assign an officer of this branch of 
Government to make across-the-board cuts.
  Third, we have a recession exemption that is also reasonable. If 
there are two quarters of less than 1 percent growth, then we can spend 
and/or reduce taxes and keep us out of the depressions that faced this 
country all last century and the first part of this century. Since 
1929, we have avoided depressions because of the ability of the 
Government to help in times of crisis. Where we went wrong is we did 
not save our money during the eighties when we had economic times so 
good and there was not a war.
  Also, I want to talk about another very important difference between 
my amendment and that of Senator Simon. I have not called their 
amendment a phony, I have not called it a sham and the other words that 
they have tried to spin on the people who have offered this amendment 
and the people who support this amendment. But I will just tell you the 
facts without any illustration of what term of art could describe it.
  The amendment offered by my friend from Illinois and others, everyone 
should understand, has in it the words ``fiscal year'' without any 
definition. What does that mean? Can you change it legislatively 1 day 
each year, 1 month each year? This amendment is worthless because the 
legislative body could change it, as has been done around here with 
paying people their retirement benefits, you can stall it off for a 
quarter, a month, a year, a couple days. My amendment does not allow 
that. We define the starting date. We say the first Monday in February. 
You cannot change that by legislation. It is a defined time. It is not 
broad and generalized like fiscal year.
  Mr. President, I talked a little bit yesterday about newspapers. I 
want to do a little more today. I want to do it because I ran out of 
time and did not have time to cover all of the articles regarding the 
Simon amendment. It is best illustrated I guess by the cartoonist Walt 
Kelly who does Pogo. They quote him in the Las Vegas Sunday newspaper 
on the 20th of February of this year by saying: ``We have met the enemy 
and he is us''--talking about the fact that the amendment is not what 
it is supposed to be.
  Dr. Albert Johns, a former professor at UNLV and other institutions 
around the country, who writes a column called ``Action Seniors,'' 
wrote a column on the 13th day of February that said this:

       Many Members of Congress today nurture the idea that by 
     supporting a balanced budget they can change Social Security 
     from an entitlement program to a welfare benefit program.

  Everyone listening, everyone who is so dead set to vote for Simon in 
spite of the damage to the seniors, should listen to what Dr. Johns 
says. Not only is he a newspaperman, but he is a scholar.

       This would enable them to use Social Security funds to 
     balance the budget by taking benefits away.

  U.S. News & World Report on the 28th day of this month says, among 
other things, talking about the Simon amendment:

       The appreciation of Keynesian fiscal flexibility is 
     commendable, but it hardly disguises the amendment's enormous 
     shortcomings. Advocates point to the States, 49 of which 
     require balanced budgets.

  We have talked about that. U.S. News understands a State's balanced 
budget is not the Simon amendment balanced budget.

       Legal challenges would inevitably follow every House and 
     Senate vote, turning the judicial branch of Government into 
     an adjunct of the legislative branch. Many scholars on the 
     left (Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School) and right 
     (former Appeals Court Judge Robert H. Bork) seem to think a 
     balanced budget amendment is positively wacky.

  Talking about the Simon balanced budget amendment:

       * * * however, [the amendment] lets those boys and girls in 
     Washington off the hook. Its principal Senate sponsor, Paul 
     Simon of Illinois, admits as much. ``In politics,'' Simon 
     says, ``it is easier to duck a difficult decision than to 
     face it.''

  The article goes on:

       Did you elect your Congressman and your Senators to make 
     the easy calls? If you did not vote, vote against anyone who 
     supports this larcenous abdication of congressional 
     responsibility?

  These are not my words, these are from Michael Ruby of the U.S. News 
& World Report.
  The Nevada Appeal in its July 15 edition says:

       In a scant half page, an impressive collection of the 
     Nation's top legal scholars from universities like Harvard, 
     Yale, Stanford and Chicago sum up the case against the 
     balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. From Laurence 
     Tribe and Archibald Cox on the left to Robert Bork and 
     Charles Fried on the right, the 17 jurists blast the 
     amendment * * * as a serious mistake.

  It goes on to say:

       Yet another form of false compliance, the jurists' letter 
     cites the amendment would create ``a permanent incentive to 
     accomplish national objectives through mandates and 
     regulatory burdens on State and local governments and the 
     private sector * * * Despite the superficial appeal, the 
     balanced budget amendment would exacerbate distortions 
     already present in the political system without curing the 
     Federal Government of overcommitment. For that, the only 
     antidote is political will.

  That is what the Reid amendment is about.
  The Washington Post, on February 22 of this year says the people that 
are sponsoring this amendment, the Simon amendment:

       * * * resisted even the most modest proposal by the 
     President last year to cut Social Security costs by 
     subjecting the larger share of benefits to the income tax.

  They claim to be shocked by the proposal the President and others 
have now made to curb health care costs, what the indignant critics say 
would be tantamount to rationing.

  It goes on to say that this is just a bad idea.
  We have, from the San Francisco Chronicle, dated February 13:

       The balanced budget vote in the Senate will probably be 
     another squeaker. Senators Feinstein and Boxer can vote for 
     democratic government and economic responsibility by helping 
     to put a stake through the heart of this brain-dead proposal.

  The Salt Lake Tribune, February 18, 1994:

       Conservatives could beat their gums for it without having 
     to vote against a single appropriation dear to the special 
     interests of their State. A liberal could protect his seat 
     from attack by the usual forces calling him a tax-and-spend 
     liberal.

  And in any event, the amendment and its true meaning would be 
litigated to the outer limits of the Supreme Court's competence and 
desire to set fiscal policy.
  Now, we know the nightmare that this amendment which Senator Simon 
has offered would create in the courts. They have attempted to 
alleviate it by the amendment they offered. They claim one of the 
merits of this amendment is that it has been around so long. It is 
interesting they would wait until the last minute to amend it.
  Of course, they had to amend it because of the way it is written, 
litigation would be the byword of the day. I would also suggest that 
the amendment they have offered does not solve those problems.
  The Baltimore Sun has also editorialized on the 6th of February, 
saying a number of things about the Simon amendment.

       The proposed amendment is a phony.

  That is a quote from the Baltimore Sun.

       It presents to legislators a chance to propose procedures 
     for cutting the deficit while offering them ample opportunity 
     to slip-slide away when it comes to actually raising taxes or 
     cutting spending.
       It is somewhat ironic that the latest effort to pass this 
     unsavory amendment comes just after the release of a Clinton 
     budget that shows some progress in holding down the size of 
     the deficit. More, much more, needs to be done about the 
     deficit, especially in the entitlement area. But one would 
     think this is not the moment to change the Constitution.

  The Seattle Post Intelligencer, in its edition of the 9th of February 
of this year, said about the Simon amendment:

       Two thousand years ago, as Senate Appropriations Committee 
     Chairman Robert Byrd tells it, the Roman Empire fell because 
     the Senate transferred its control of the purse strings to 
     Rome's imperial rulers, and thus lost its power to prevent 
     dictatorial errors and excesses.
       But Byrd has made a crusade of protecting the American 
     political system against what he sees as a similar fatal 
     Senatorial mistake, in the modern form of a constitutional 
     amendment to mandate a balanced budget.
       Byrd stands alone, like Horatius defending the bridge over 
     the River Tiber against the Etruscan army, holding back an 
     enemy that marches inexorably onward.
       Perhaps we can draw hope from the fact that Horatius was 
     victorious against great odds. He held the invaders at bay 
     long enough for the Romans to destroy the piling holding up 
     the bridge into the city. When the bridge collapsed, he dived 
     into the river and swam to safety. Or so legend has it.

  Mr. President, I hope we defeat the Simon amendment and support the 
Reid amendment, an amendment that is reasonable, an amendment that is 
logical, an amendment that they have lived by. An amendment that would 
allow our citizens, if it were given to them, to live by. That is what 
this is all about.
  The Reading Eagle, Reading, PA, last year, in November said:

       Bright-eyed liberals and bushy-tailed conservatives may 
     like the sound----

  Talking about the Simon amendment--

     of their well-meaning oratory on the matter. But theirs is 
     not the way America is going to choose.
       The balanced budget amendment looks to us like an 
     unnecessary, undesirable impossibility--a tiger by the tail 
     dressed up to look like a wise old owl.

  Now, we have heard comments, facetious in nature, that our amendment 
relies on estimates. Of course; so does theirs. The difference between 
theirs and ours is that ours has a mechanism for enforcement; theirs 
does not. Capital budget? Yes, we have a capital budget. They do not. 
And I am proud of the fact that the sponsors of this amendment have a 
provision for an operating and a capital expenditure budget. States do 
it. They do it well. We can do it well.
  I guess they want more--maybe I have put not enough in my amendment. 
Maybe it needs more. Well, I think we have to be very careful what we 
put in the Constitution, and I have been very, very careful what I have 
proposed to put in the Constitution. I followed the admonition and 
advice given by Justice John Marshall in the famous McCulloch versus 
Maryland case, where he said:

       A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the 
     subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all 
     the means by which they may be carried into execution, would 
     partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely 
     be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be 
     understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires 
     that only its great outlines should be marked, its important 
     objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose 
     those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects 
     themselves * * *  [W]e must never forget that it is a 
     constitution we are expounding.

  Justice John Marshall, the most famous Supreme Court Justice ever in 
the history of the United States.
  There have also been comments that this amendment is political cover. 
Political cover was invented by the proponents of the Simon amendment, 
according to a few of the newspapers I have presented from around the 
country. My amendment, offered by the Senator from Nevada, the Senator 
from Kentucky, and the Senator from California, is a fair amendment. It 
allows us to carry on with the affairs of this country and to balance 
the budget the way the States balance their budgets, and not on the 
backs of senior citizens and others who depend on Social Security. So 
that is where the political cover is. They are in the wrong bedroom, 
Mr. President.
  There has been some criticism, especially with the press, as to why 
we would have CBO make the estimates. Who is going to make their 
estimates? The same CBO worked pretty good when they came out critical 
in certain areas of the President's health care package. My friends 
from the other side of the aisle jumped for joy.
  Well, we know CBO. Reischauer and all the directors we have had, 
whether there has been a Democratic President or a Republican 
President, have been fair and honest. That is why they are in my 
amendment.
  My amendment retains the integrity of the Constitution of the United 
States but, as the Framers of our Constitution intended, reserves 
fiscal policy to those who are elected by the people to carry out 
fiscal policy. It retains a requirement that three-fifths of the 
Congress must approve deficit spending.
  But we have an additional burden in the Simon amendment that I think 
is quite interesting. On the debts we have incurred, even debts that 
this Government already owes, they want a three-fifths vote. That is 
wrong.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle said, well, that is easy. 
It is not easy to get 60 votes to do something in the Senate. For 
example, last year alone there were 30 attempts to waive the budget 
act. Waiving the budget act requires 60 votes. Of those 30 waivers, two 
succeeded. Of course, you now not only have three-fifths here, you have 
three-fifths in the other body. A 60-percent requirement is a serious 
enforcement. That is why my amendment does the possible. It requires 
three-fifths to deficit spend, but not three-fifths to extend debt this 
country has already incurred.
  I ask unanimous consent that those budget act waivers be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               1993 BUDGET WAIVERS                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Congressional 
No. and date of action     Object of waiver     Section of 1974 Budget     Result (and vote)    Record Page Nos.
                                                          Act                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Mar. 3, 1993......  S. 382 (H.R. 920),      Section 306...........  Rejected (44-55)......  S2294-S2295     
                         ``Emergency                                                                            
                         Unemployment                                                                           
                         Compensation                                                                           
                         Amendments of 1993''                                                                   
                         Domenici et al.                                                                        
                         Amendment No. 67.                                                                      
(2) Mar. 10, 1993.....  S. 460 (H.R. 2)         .....do...............  Rejected (45-52)......  S2601-S2602     
                         ``National Voter                                                                       
                         Registration Act of                                                                    
                         1993,'' McCain et al.                                                                  
                         Amendment No. 73.                                                                      
(3) Mar. 31, 1993.....  H.R. 1335 ``Emergency   .....do...............  Rejected (52-48)......  S4083           
                         Supplemental                                                                           
                         Appropriations Act of                                                                  
                         1993,'' Kohl/Shelby                                                                    
                         Amendment No. 287.                                                                     
(4) May 14, 1993......  S. 714 ``Thrift         .....do...............  Rejected (43-53)......  S5908           
                         Depositor Protection                                                                   
                         Act of 1993'' (Gramm/                                                                  
                         Mack/Brown),                                                                           
                         Amendment No. 365.                                                                     
(5) June 22, 1993.....  H.R. 2118               Section 311...........  Rejected (39-59)......  S7568           
                         ``Supplemental                                                                         
                         Appropriations Act of                                                                  
                         1993'' (Roth et al.)                                                                   
                         Amendment No. 487.                                                                     
(6) June 23, 1993.....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 305(b)(2).....  Rejected (54-44)......  S7702-S7720     
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993''                                                                          
                         (Mitchell/Bumpers),                                                                    
                         Amendment No. 502.                                                                     
(7) June 23, 1993.....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 410...........  Rejected (43-55)......  S7721-S7736     
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993'' (Dole                                                                    
                         et al.) Amendment No.                                                                  
                         506.                                                                                   
(8) June 24, 1993.....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Title III.............  Rejected (54-43)......  S7830           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993'' (Sasser/                                                                 
                         Mitchell/Dodd)                                                                         
                         Amendment No. 510.                                                                     
(9) June 24, 1993.....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 310(d)(2).....  Rejected (56-42)......  S7874           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993'' (Roth                                                                    
                         et al.) Amendment No.                                                                  
                         525.                                                                                   
(10) June 24, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 310(G)........  Rejected (48-50)......  S7892           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993'' (Dole                                                                    
                         et al.) Amendment No.                                                                  
                         536.                                                                                   
(11) June 24, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 305(b)(2).....  Rejected (52-45)......  S7913-S7919     
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993'' (Bryan                                                                   
                         et al.) Amendment No.                                                                  
                         543.                                                                                   
(12) June 24, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 313(b)(1)(A)..  Rejected (53-45)......  S7920           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993''                                                                          
                         (Domenici/Nunn)                                                                        
                         Amendment No. 544.                                                                     
(13) June 24, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 313(b)(1)(A)..  Rejected (53-45)......  S7920           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993''                                                                          
                         Amendment No. 542.                                                                     
(14) June 24, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 310(d)(2).....  Rejected (15-83)......  S7921           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993'' (Graham/                                                                 
                         Moseley-Braun/Harkin)                                                                  
                         Amendment No. 548.                                                                     
(15) June 24, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 313(b)(1)(A)..  Rejected (38-60)......  S7922           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993''                                                                          
                         (Agriculture                                                                           
                         Committee).                                                                            
(16) June 24, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 936...........  Rejected (20-78)......  S7922           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993'' (Bryan                                                                   
                         Amendment No. 551).                                                                    
(17) June 25, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 305(B)........  Agreed (69-29)........  S7923           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993''                                                                          
                         (Bumpers Amendment                                                                     
                         No. 545).                                                                              
(18) June 25, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 305(b)(2).....  Rejected (55-43)......  S7923           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993''                                                                          
                         (DeConcini/Sasser/Fei                                                                  
                         ngold) Amendment No.                                                                   
                         555.                                                                                   
(19) June 25, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 313(b)(1)(A)..  Rejected (55-43)......  S7924           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993'' (Gramm                                                                   
                         Amendment No. 557).                                                                    
(20) June 25, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 310(d)(2).....  Rejected (46-52)......  S7925-S7927     
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993'' (Burns                                                                   
                         et al.) Amendment No.                                                                  
                         558.                                                                                   
(21) June 25, 1993....  S. 1134 ``Omnibus       Section 305(b)........  Rejected (58-40)......  S7930           
                         Budget Reconciliation                                                                  
                         Act of 1993''                                                                          
                         (Hutchison Amendment                                                                   
                         No. 513).                                                                              
(22) Aug. 4, 1993.....  H.R. 2267 ``Emergency   Section 306...........  Rejected (35-64)......  S10327-S10341   
                         Supplemental                                                                           
                         Appropriations for                                                                     
                         Relief from the Major                                                                  
                         Widespread Flooding                                                                    
                         in the Midwest                                                                         
                         (Durenberger                                                                           
                         Amendment No. 764).                                                                    
(23) Aug. 6, 1993.....  H.R. 2264 (S. 1134)     Section...............  Rejected (44-56)......  S10655-S10681   
                         Omnibus Budget                                                                         
                         Reconciliation Act of                                                                  
                         1993'' (McCain                                                                         
                         constitutional pt. of                                                                  
                         order).                                                                                
(24) Oct. 5, 1993.....  H.R. 2750 ``Department  Section 602(b)........  Rejected (35-63)......  S12917-S13044   
                         of Transportation and                                                                  
                         Related Agencies                                                                       
                         Appropriations Act,                                                                    
                         1994'' (Warner                                                                         
                         Amendment No. 1015).                                                                   
(25) Oct. 26, 1993....  H.R. 3167               Section 311(a)........  Rejected (50-44)......  S14319          
                         ``Unemployment                                                                         
                         Compensation                                                                           
                         Amendments of 1993''                                                                   
                         (Hutchison/Shelby et                                                                   
                         al.), Amendment No.                                                                    
                         1081.                                                                                  
(26) Oct. 26, 1993....  H.R. 3167               Section 12............  Rejected (59-38)......  S14326          
                         ``Unemployment                                                                         
                         Compensation                                                                           
                         Amendments of 1993''                                                                   
                         (Moynihan).                                                                            
(27) Oct. 27, 1993....  H.R. 3167               Section 311...........  Agreed (61-39)........  S14487          
                         ``Unemployment                                                                         
                         Compensation                                                                           
                         Amendments of 1993''.                                                                  
(28) Oct. 27, 1993....  H.R. 3167               Section 311...........  Rejected (36-61)......  S14496          
                         ``Unemployment                                                                         
                         Compensation                                                                           
                         Amendments of 1993''                                                                   
                         (Bumpers Amendment                                                                     
                         No. 1084).                                                                             
(29) Oct. 27, 1993....  H.R. 3167               Section...............  Rejected (58-39)......  S14515          
                         ``Unemployment                                                                         
                         Compensation                                                                           
                         Amendments of 1993''                                                                   
                         (Gramm Amendment No.                                                                   
                         1087).                                                                                 
(30) Oct. 27, 1993....  H.R. 3167               Section 302(f)........  Rejected (46-51)......  S14515          
                         ``Unemployment                                                                         
                         Compensation                                                                           
                         Amendments of 1993''                                                                   
                         (McCain Amendment No.                                                                  
                         1088).                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also want to talk for a little bit about 
statements that have been made: Well, the Reid amendment, I cannot 
believe anybody would ever carry it out. I do not think we are serious 
about it. I do not think they would really go through on what they say 
they would do if the amendment passes. And it is only wishful thinking.
  We can go back to one of the sponsors of the Simon amendment, Senator 
Hatch, who yesterday made the following statement:

        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.

  It is interesting. I am sure Senator Hatch does not mean that his 
glidepath is more moral than our glidepath or that his glidepath is 
somehow more genuine than our glidepath. I think, if you submitted this 
to the American public, they would overwhelmingly support the Reid-
Ford-Feinstein balanced budget amendment. Why? Because it is not a 
game. We are exempting, as the Senate said we should in a 98-to-2 vote, 
Social Security. It treats us like their own States are treated.
  Senator Hatch went on to say:

       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.

  He is talking about his amendment. Does he think any less of ours if 
it passed? I hope not.
  He said:

       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 * * *.

  So I will not belabor the point other than to say we believe that the 
amendment that we have offered is realistic, it is doable, and my 
friends on the other side of the aisle, rather than carping about this 
amendment, should be glad that it is offered and should join the 
supporters.
  As Senator Conrad has indicated, the Simon amendment is not going to 
pass. The amendment is doomed. Why not join in this amendment? With 
their support, this amendment would pass. It would march us down the 
road to economic recovery more quickly.
  There has also been a statement made: How could the unanimous-consent 
agreement ever have been reached that would require 67 votes to pass my 
amendment? Well, Mr. President, this particular amendment, if adopted 
by a majority vote, would ultimately require 67 votes to pass. So as 
the advertisement says, you can pay me now or you can pay me later. I 
have to get 67 votes to pass my amendment. The Senator from Illinois, 
who is so well respected in this body, wanted a vote on his amendment. 
I believe he is entitled to a vote on his amendment. I did not feel 
that, through parliamentary maneuvers, I should somehow think to take 
away an up-or-down vote on the Simon amendment. Perhaps that could have 
been done. I do not think that would have been fair, for lack of a 
better term. So what we have here is an up-or-down vote on the Reid 
amendment and an up-or-down vote on the Simon amendment.
  The point I am making, Mr. President, is that, as Senator Simon's 
staff said to my staff yesterday, may the best amendment win. I believe 
the best amendment should win. If the Simon amendment is not going to 
pass, that leaves the possibility of only one amendment to prevail. I 
think they should join and support this amendment.
  Like the Simon amendment, this amendment requires the Federal 
Government annually to balance operating expenses with its revenues. It 
allows flexibility during time of war or threat to the national 
security. It must take effect by the year 2001.
  Where my amendment differs is in areas that I believe are truly 
justified.
  It allows the creation of a separate capital budget. It allows 
flexibility during times of economic recession. It preserves Social 
Security as a separate trust fund.
  And, this amendment specifically protects the fundamental 
constitutional policy of the balance of powers.
  In short, Mr. President, this amendment is pragmatic while being 
proactive, enforceable but not unworkable, and it is responsible 
without being reckless.
  Mr. President, I, like everyone in this Chamber, have watched and 
listened to the senior Senator from Illinois. He was a Lieutenant 
Governor of his State. I was a Lieutenant Governor of mine. He was 
elected first. I came later. He was then elected to the House. He came 
first. I came later. He was elected to the Senate. He came first. I 
came later. I have followed Senator Simon on many, many things. I have 
the greatest respect and admiration for him and his family, his 
integrity, and however we decide on this amendment, it is not going to 
change that. His record is already written in the history books of this 
country.
  But in spite of the great integrity that he has and the reputation he 
has, and as much as I would like to support him on this issue. I 
cannot. I have tried. I have searched my conscience. I have searched my 
mind separate and apart from my conscience. I have delved as much as I 
can into my heart.
  I cannot support the Simon amendment because it is flawed. I think 
that over this weekend the supporters of the Simon amendment should, in 
unison, join in the Reid-Ford-Feinstein amendment and make a balanced 
budget a reality. This would go to the House and pass like corn flakes 
early in the morning.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that we can pass this amendment. I 
believe that it is the right thing to do for the Senate of the United 
States and the right thing to do for this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, as I said yesterday on the floor of the Senate--and I 
do not think the Senator was here when I mentioned it--I have great 
respect for my colleague from Nevada. He is one of the best Members of 
this body. But I think he is offering, in the words of USA Today, his 
amendment as a weak substitute.
  I think that is in fact what it is. It has so many loopholes that it 
is not going to get us where we have to go.
  Let me deal specifically with the criticisms that he makes of my 
amendment. No. 1, on the courts. It is interesting that we get 
criticized no matter what we do on this one. If you have the 
possibility of the courts intervening, people say the courts are going 
to get enmeshed. If we adopt the Danforth amendment, as we have done, 
to severely limit court involvement, they say it is meaningless. The 
reality is that even without the Danforth amendment, court involvement 
would be minimal, because the courts have made clear that they do not 
get involved in what are called ``political questions.''
  The concern has arisen because of the Jenkins case in Missouri, where 
the courts said to a school district: In order to comply with an 
integration order, we are going to impose a tax here. That arose under 
the 14th amendment. There is no such likelihood here, even without the 
Danforth amendment. And the best illustration was when our former 
colleague, Senator Barry Goldwater, and several Members of this body, 
went to the U.S. Supreme Court on the agreement that President Carter 
made with the People's Republic of China and in effect abrogated a 
treaty that we had with the Republic of China, with Taiwan. Senator 
Barry Goldwater said that you cannot do this, this is illegal. 
Candidly, I think Barry Goldwater had a very good legal point. But the 
Supreme Court said that we are not going to get involved in a case that 
is between the executive and the legislative; that is a political 
question. And that is, of course, what we have here. If there was any 
question, that has been clarified by the Danforth amendment.
  My friend from Nevada says we have the lowest deficit to GDP we have 
had since 1979. That is true, but you look at those projections, and 
they go up and up and up and up from here on out. And that spells 
trouble with a capital ``T''. As you look at other countries, countries 
that have had high deficits relative to GDP have ended up monetizing 
their debt--just printing money. You can take a gamble that we will be 
the first country in history not to do that, but it is a huge gamble 
with the future of our country.
  On Social Security. In the Budget Committee, I have been the champion 
of Medicare, which is the part of Social Security that comes before the 
Budget Committee. Retirement does not come before the Budget Committee 
because it is automatic. I have been the champion of that. I do not 
believe we should be attacking Social Security retirement. That is not 
the cause of our deficit. But to pretend that the Reid amendment will 
protect Social Security is simply not a reality.
  If, under the Reid amendment, you were to come in and say, OK, let us 
reduce Social Security taxes 1 percent and increase income tax 1 
percent, that would be perfectly possible. You know, there are all 
kinds of ways of evading that, or increasing the income tax paid on 
Social Security. There are all kinds of things that could be done. The 
reality is that the protection for Social Security rests in this body, 
with the Members here, who will do what we can --and I think we will--
to protect Social Security. I have made clear that I prefer not using 
that surplus in determining the balance. I am willing to say that in a 
sense-of-the-Senate or in a statute, but not in the Constitution, for 
one reason, this provision recognizes a surplus right now. But that 
surplus is not a permanent thing. Starting in the year 2024, the Social 
Security trust fund goes into deficit, and that means anyone under the 
age of 35 would not be protected.
  At the invitation of my friend from Nevada, I met with the University 
of Virginia soccer team, and one of the stellar members of that team is 
his son. I was pleased to meet his son, as well as the coach. And, 
obviously, next to his son, the most outstanding member of the team, I 
discovered, was from the State of Illinois. But every one of those 
members----
  Mr. REID. His name is Mike Fisher.
  Mr. SIMON. From Batavia, IL.
  Mr. REID. He started every game this year.
  Mr. SIMON. Before we know it, we are going to have a discussion on 
the University of Virginia soccer team.
  Mr. REID. It would be a lot more fun than this, would it not?
  Mr. SIMON. Every one of those bright young men on that team will not 
be protected by this Reid amendment, because of the deficit situation. 
We cannot adopt a constitutional amendment that anticipates we are 
going to have a surplus into the indefinite future. Clearly, we ought 
to do what we can to protect Social Security.
  Finally--and I saw Senator Byrd on the floor a moment ago, and I know 
he wants to take the floor--I point out that we simply have to stop 
borrowing from our children and our grandchildren. When Senator Paul 
Tsongas testified last week before my subcommittee, he said, ``This is 
a moral issue. What right do we have to borrow from our children in 
order to satisfy our present desires?''
  In terms of the media that he quoted, it is interesting there is a 
gradual movement--slow, I admit--but a gradual movement of economists 
and media over to the side that we have to do something here. Senator 
Tsongas testified last week that if someone is against this, they are 
either part of the media or in academia. Well, that is not quite true, 
but it has kind of been historically true. But there is gradual 
movement in what I think is the right direction.
  Finally, my friend from Nevada says that his resolution has a 
mechanism for enforcement.
  I will read this:

       The Congress may by appropriate legislation delegate to an 
     officer of Congress the power to order uniform cuts.

  We can do that now.
  We do not need a constitutional amendment to do that. The mechanism 
of enforcement that we have in our amendment, which the Presiding 
Officer, Senator Mathews, is a cosponsor of, the mechanism that we have 
in our amendment says if you want to raise the debt ceiling of the 
Federal Government you need a three-fifths vote. That has muscle. That 
has teeth. What we need is something that is meaningful.
  There is no question that if my amendment passes we are going to have 
a little pain. Senator Tsongas described our situation as a debt 
addiction. I think that is correct. And just like a drug addiction or 
alcohol addiction, to get rid of the addiction is going to take a 
little bit of pain. It is going to pinch us a little bit. But not 
getting rid of the addiction is going to cause us infinitely more pain, 
and to suggest that we ought to do something that looks like we are 
doing something but really is not substantial, I do not think we ought 
to play those kinds of games with the public or with ourselves.
  I hope we can pass my amendment. I hope the Reid amendment is 
defeated and that we can do what we ought to do for future generations 
of this country.
  Mr. President, I do not know if Senator Byrd is going to address the 
Senate.
  Mr. REID. Perhaps we should suggest the absence of a quorum. He said 
he would return shortly. I do not think he decided for sure if he is 
going to speak.
  Mr. SIMON. If it is all right with Senator Reid we will divide the 
quorum call three ways.
  Mr. REID. Excluding Senator Byrd.
  Mr. SIMON. Senator Reid and myself, but not on Senator Byrd's time, 
and I so ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know that some of my colleagues are very 
troubled about this constitutional amendment--and I am directing my 
comments toward the amendment that is authored by Senator Simon and 
several other Senators.
  As I talk with some of my colleagues, I know they are wrestling with 
the decision, and some say to me that they are very concerned about the 
debt and the deficit and the interest on the debt. And, of course, I 
understand that. I think we can handle that problem. It will take some 
time.
  We did not get into this mess exactly overnight. A little less than 
one-fourth of the total debt accumulated over a period of 192 years, 
dating from the beginning of the Republic in 1789 and continuing 
through 39 administrations, up until Ronald Reagan, the beginning of 
his Presidency in 1981.
  And, of course, that was a period of time in which we paid off the 
debts of the Revolutionary War--remember, we had to go into debt in 
fighting that war--paid off the debts of the Revolutionary War; fought 
the War of 1812 against the British; the war with Mexico, 1846 to 1848; 
the Civil War, 1861 to 1865; the Spanish-American War, 1898; World War 
I, during which I was born; World War II, the Korean war; the Vietnam 
war; all of these wars, the panics and recessions throughout the 19th 
century, and the Great Depression in the early thirties, throughout all 
of these events, costly as they were, we had accumulated a debt 
amounting to a little under $1 trillion when Mr. Reagan became 
President and was sworn into office in January 1981.
  During those next 12 years, under the Reagan and Bush 
administrations, the debt increased three times; in other words, it had 
quadrupled from, let us say, $1 trillion to $4 trillion.
  How much is $1 trillion? Counting at the rate of $1 per second, it 
would take me--I say me, because I learned under the old math, not the 
new math--so it would take me 32,000 years to count $1 trillion. A lot 
of money.
  And so, it took a long, long time to accumulate this debt of now 
roughly $4.5 trillion. It is not going to be easy. We cannot wipe out 
the deficits in one single year without imposing upon our country a 
terrible trauma, which would be counterproductive, which would turn the 
economy on its head and put millions of people out of work. It would 
also create reverberations throughout the world.
  So we have to go about it in an orderly, careful, thoughtful way. I 
think that President Clinton and the Congress started down that road, 
took up where the 1990 summit left off, the 1990 summit, which was held 
during the Bush administration. And we injected into the budget, into 
budget policy, some real discipline--real discipline. At the 1990 
summit we said we have to have pay-as-you-go, pay-as-you-go. If the 
committees of the Congress create new entitlement programs, they are 
going to have to find some way to pay for them. If they are going to 
increase this program they are going to have to decrease something 
else. That is what we meant by pay-as-you-go. If they are going to cut 
taxes on the one hand, they are going to have to increase taxes on 
something else, or they are going to have to pay for that in one way or 
another. So that was discipline. I insisted on that at the budget 
summit.

  I also insisted on 60-vote points of order in this Senate on certain 
budgetary, fiscal, appropriations matters, and that has been an 
excellent disciplinary tool which has forced us to avoid breaching the 
allocations, breaching the caps, and I perceive this as the right way 
to go. We will have to take similar actions in the future. We will have 
to do more.
  Therefore, I say, let us continue down that road and we will 
eventually get control of the deficits. That is what we are seeking to 
do. And at the same time we will do it in a way that will not throw our 
economy into a tailspin.
  There is not a Senator, not one Senator who opposes the Simon 
amendment, who does not believe as fervently as any other Senator 
believes that we should get our deficits under control and bring down 
that interest on the debt and ultimately bring down the debt itself. We 
are told by our friends here that the way to do this is by 
constitutional amendment. No such amendment has ever been adopted by 
Congress and ratified by the States.
  The Simon constitutional amendment--and when I say Simon amendment, 
he is the chief sponsor but, of course, I include the other Senators as 
well who are cosponsoring that amendment and who will support it. My 
friends who are troubled, who are wrestling with this matter, speak 
about how concerned they are about the deficits and say we have to do 
something. We have to do something. We have to force ourselves to do 
something. We have to have something that will discipline us. We have 
to force ourselves. So, they say, they do not want to continue down the 
road we are going, in which we are trying to methodically and 
systematically and in an orderly way deal with these deficits. I have 
confidence that we will deal with them.
  So they do not want to pass that legacy on to their children. I am 
concerned about our children and our grandchildren as well. I also do 
not want to pass on to our grandchildren the legacy of a Constitution 
that is not what it was, a Constitution that is torn and rent. And I 
say to them, think about the Constitution you are passing on to your 
children. You will not be passing on the same Constitution to them that 
has come down to us after more than 200 years. It will not be the same 
Constitution and it will not be, in time, a representative democracy.
  Why? Because this constitutional amendment takes away that 
majoritarian principle that undergirds our democracy and which 
undergirds any other democracy, that principle being: The majority 
rules.
  This is a prescription for minority rule. A small minority in one 
House can thwart the efforts of the entire other body and the great 
majority in the body in which that particular minority may exercise its 
powers under this constitutional amendment. That small minority can 
exact from the majority and exact from the President of the United 
States whatever it wants to extract. It can get its pound of flesh. 
And, unless the majority, the overwhelming majority in both Houses 
knuckles under, yields, in order to placate that minority, then we will 
be unable to get the three-fifths majority to waive the Constitution in 
circumstances that may be exceedingly serious; unable to get the three-
fifths necessary to raise the debt limit.
  There are only five instances in the--I refer to the Constitution as 
the original Constitution that our Framers gave us--there are only five 
instances in which there is a supermajority requirement. I have named 
those already before: Overriding the President's veto, the expulsion of 
a Member in either body, approving the ratification of treaties, 
convicting a President or other Federal officer who has been impeached, 
and amending the Constitution.
  There are three other instances, somewhat curious if you study them, 
in the amendments. I believe it is the 12th amendment, and the 14th 
amendment, and possibly the 25th amendment. Some of these have to do 
with quorums, and on another day I will deal with them in particular.
  But the point here is we only have amended our Constitution 27 times; 
10 of those times being referred to as the Bill of Rights, the first 10 
amendments, and the remaining 17. Among the remaining 17, two have 
wiped each other out, the 18th amendment, the prohibition amendment, 
and the 21st amendment, which wiped it out, so there are two that wash 
each other. Or at least the second amendment washed out the first one. 
So actually we have only amended that Constitution 15 times, what 
amounts in essence to 15 times, following the first 10 amendments, the 
Bill of Rights.
  Here we are about to amend it again and this time it is going to deal 
with fiscal policy. None of the others did it. No other constitutional 
amendment has dealt with fiscal policy.

  So this is an extremely serious matter, and I will not go into the 
amendment in any further depth than I have today, which has not been 
very much. But I will say this: This amendment has great appeal out 
there in the country, a great appeal. Ask the American people if they 
favor a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Yes, they favor 
it by a whopping majority--by a whopping majority.
  Ask them if they want to cut Social Security payments? Oh, no, they 
do not want to do that in the main, or if they were to be asked whether 
or not they want to pay higher taxes, you will get a mixed answer on 
that one.
  Or do they want to cut defense? There, again, it would be divided, 
and we will not see the great majority that we see who support a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  Of course, people just are not aware as to what is really in this 
amendment. They do not have the time to study the Federalist Papers. 
The average American has to be concerned about the bread and butter on 
his table, sending his children to college, putting a new roof on the 
house, paying a mortgage off on the farm. They do not have time to go 
back and read the Constitution and the history of England and 
Montesquieu's history of the Romans, the Federalist Papers or Madison's 
notes at the convention. They do not have the time to do those things. 
And so it is understandable as to how they would feel.
  Many of our Senators during campaigns promise to vote for a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, in the heat of the 
campaign. Senators do that thoughtlessly, undoubtedly. Many of them 
have come to me and have stated to me that they do not like this 
amendment. They do not think it is a good amendment. They think it is 
terrible, but they say that they committed themselves during the 
campaign to vote for a constitutional amendment on the balanced budget, 
therefore, they do not feel they can vote against this.
  It seems to me that one needs to ask himself: Am I being truthful to 
my own conscience? Am I being faithful to the trust that is reposed in 
me? This is not to say that all Senators who support this amendment are 
not sincere. Some of them sincerely believe this is the only way to do 
it. I can understand their frustration. I am frustrated also. The 
American people are frustrated.
  So I do not say this with disrespect for any Senator, but I do know 
in talking with a good many Senators around here, several times I have 
encountered Senators who have said, ``I promised in a campaign I would 
vote for a constitutional amendment.''
  We go up to that desk, hold up our hand before God and man and swear 
to support and defend that Constitution. Montesquieu said that when it 
comes to an oath, the Romans are the most religious people in the 
world. The Romans believed in keeping an oath and, during my several 
speeches last year on the history of the Romans, I talked about the 
keeping of the oath and how serious the Romans were about it, how 
Regulus, who was captured by the Carthaginians--I told the story of 
Regulus, the consul, who, even though he knew he was going to his doom 
upon his return to Carthage, told the Roman Senate that he would keep 
his oath with the Carthaginians they exacted from him when they sent 
him to Rome with other Carthaginians in the interest of having a 
peaceful cessation to the hostilities. And it seems Regulus took the 
position, he told the Roman Senate, when he gave his oath whether it 
was to a friend or to an enemy, he was going to keep his oath. So he 
knew he was going to be tortured to death and that is what happened.
  So the Romans kept their oath. Therefore, it occurs to me that 
although I may make a commitment in the heat of a campaign, not having 
studied the matter sufficiently and later having the opportunity to 
study, to read history, to ponder over that Constitution and the oath 
that we take to support and defend it, then I should be able to look in 
that mirror and say: ``I'm keeping my oath to the Constitution.''
  I have found that people--if one has to break a promise, if he will 
explain why he broke it, how the facts had changed or the facts were 
different from what he knew when he made the promise and the facts are 
these--I have found that the people are fair, they are reasonable, they 
are understanding, and I would say nine times out of 10, they will have 
more respect for that person for having done what he thought was best 
for his country rather than merely keep a promise that was an ill-
spoken promise and one that was made without all of the facts at one's 
disposal.
  I was opposed to the Panama Canal Treaty and so stated it in West 
Virginia. I wrote columns that appeared in my papers in which I said I 
was opposed to the Panama Canal Treaty. But when I studied the 1903 
treaty and the subsequent treaties, when I studied the history and when 
I read every possible thing that I could get my hands on to read--I 
read ``The Path Between the Seas'' by McCullough. What a book--I came 
to the conclusion that it was in the best interest of the United States 
to ratify those treaties.
  Consequently, as leader of my party in the Senate, and at that time 
majority leader in the Senate, I led the effort to approve the 
ratification of the treaties. Howard Baker was the minority leader. 
Without Howard Baker, without the support of the minority leader--on 
that occasion it was the minority leader and several Republican 
Senators--without their support, we could never have mustered the two-
thirds vote that was required to approve the ratification of the 
treaties. We could not have done it. That was an act of sheer 
statesmanship.
  If ever there comes a time when another one of those panels out in 
the reception room in the direction towards which I am pointing my 
finger--there are five great Senators who have their pictures out there 
on the panels--if ever there comes a time when another Senator's face 
is painted on those panels, I hope it will be Howard Baker's portrait, 
because he demonstrated real statesmanship--statesmanship. He went 
against the grain of his own party, I think, but he stood for what was 
best for America.
  So there came times when I had to break what I had made as a promise, 
but I did it because I concluded after much study that it was the right 
thing to do, that it was in the best interest of my country, and today 
my conscience is clear. There are a good many people in my State of 
West Virginia who have never forgiven me for that, and they remind me 
of it every now and then. But that is the price we have to pay. We have 
to pay a price to be a Senator, to take the right stand.
  And so, on the great issues that come before this country, truly 
great issues, it seems to me that we have an obligation to be 
intellectually honest with ourselves and with others and that we should 
think not so much of what is best for my political career or my being 
reelected but what is best for my country.
  In 1982, I voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget--in 1982. In 1986, I voted against a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget, because I had studied it more. I came to the 
conclusion that it was the wrong thing to do. And that constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget in 1986 was defeated by one vote, and 
my vote changed. I have never regretted it.
  We have to live with ourselves, and mainly we have to think of this 
country. This is--as I say, it is kind of an alluring, an attractive 
amendment. It is easy to vote for. It does not cost anybody anything. 
It does not create one dime in revenue. It does not raise anyone's 
taxes one thin dime. It does not cost any program.
  We do not have to balance the budget until 2001. And as a matter of 
fact, in 2001 we do not have to balance the budget. We do not have to 
ever balance the budget under this amendment because it says we do not 
in section 6:

       Congress shall enforce this amendment by appropriate 
     legislation which may take into consideration estimates of 
     outlays and estimates of receipts.

  We will never balance the budget on that basis. The sixth section 
says do not believe what you see in the first section because you 
really do not have to balance it.
  So it is a very attractive approach, and I can understand the appeal 
that it has out there in the country. But if we adopt that amendment, 
we are going to be sorry.
  I say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, I am sure that he has 
read about the Pied Piper of Hamelin, who on July 22, 1376, according 
to Robert Browning, appeared at a meeting of the town council, in the 
town of Hamelin on the Weser River, and the mayor and the town council 
were very much troubled about the rats in the town. The rats are 
killing the cats and chewing on the babies in cradles and getting into 
the cheese vats.
  And so the mayor and the town council were about to be run out of 
town by the populace, and they were beside themselves as to how they 
might deal with this situation. And as they sat there, they heard a 
knock on the door, and who walked in but this tall, thin man dressed in 
a red and yellow coat with a scarf around his neck, red with yellow 
stripes. He had small blue eyes and a sharp nose and sharp face. He had 
a pipe tied onto his scarf. And all the time he was talking with the 
town council his fingers were, as it were, playing on that pipe. And he 
told them that he could get rid of these rats.
  They said, ``How much would it cost?'' ``1,000 gilders.'' ``1,000 
gilders? We will give you 50, 50,000 gilders if you can rid this town 
of these rats.'' And he told how he had rid other kingdoms of lice and 
various other vermin. ``Oh, we will give you 50,000.''
  Out into the street he went. He started playing on that magic pipe, 
and the rats poured out of the buildings into the street--great rats, 
small rats, lean rats, brawny rats, brown rats, black rats, gray rats, 
tawny rats. They poured out into the street, and the Pied Piper just 
went right on down the street to the River Weser, and into the river 
all the rats plunged, except one old rat who was strong as Julius 
Caesar, and he lived to tell the tale.
  So the Pied Piper came back to the meeting of the mayor and the town 
council. He said, ``I want my money, 1,000 gilders.'' ``A thousand? Oh, 
come on. Take 50''--I mean not 50,000 but 50--``gilders.'' He said, 
``I'm a busy man. I've got another job to do.''
  So out he walked. This time he played a different tune on that pipe, 
and all the little feet came pattering, pouring into the streets--the 
children of the city. So down the road he went playing his tune, and he 
headed in the direction of Koppelberg Hill. And the mayor and the city 
council said, ``Oh, he'll never get those children over that hill. That 
will stop them.''
  Well, Robert Browning tells us in his poem:

       When, lo, as they reached the mountain-side,
       A wondrous portal opened wide.
       And when all were in, to the very last,
       The door in the mountain-side shut fast.
       Did I say, all? No. One was lame,
       And could not dance the whole of the way.
       And in after years, if you would blame
       His sadness, he was used to say, -
       ``It's dull in our town since my playmates left.
       I can't forget that I'm bereft.
       Of all the pleasant sights they see,
       Which the Pied Piper also promised me.

  The moral of the story was if you have promised ought, keep your 
promise.
  We are promising a great deal, more than we can keep in this 
amendment. It is going to be very disappointing if this amendment ever 
becomes a part of our Constitution. We, most of us here at least, will 
live to see that it was a terrible, terrible blunder. And what a legacy 
we will pass on to our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, there is not a man or woman in this body who is not a 
politician. And everybody in here had to be a politician unless they 
were appointed. But politicians are naughty. We all play politics in 
here. There are times when we will vote one way or another on a matter 
that we think will help politically. I think I will vote this way about 
50-50, or I am going to vote this way. Or I will vote with Mr. Clinton 
on this one or I will vote against Mr. Clinton on this one.
  But when it comes to matters of this kind, a matter that goes to the 
very heart of the Constitution, to the heart of this Republic, then we 
wrestle and we are tormented at times in reaching a decision. This is 
not an ordinary vote. We cast this kind of vote very seldom.
  As I said to a Senator yesterday, you are going to pass on a legacy 
to your children and grandchildren. And it will not be the same 
Constitution that the Framers wrote. And it is going to undermine that 
principle of majority rule. That is the underlying principle that tells 
us whether it is a democracy or not. Also, if you vote for this, you 
will be voting for something that is very destructive to the 
constitutional system of checks and balances and separation of powers.
  I cannot speak for any other Senator. I can be no judge of any other 
Senator. I cannot get inside any other Senator's mind or heart. I can 
only deal with myself. And I am very concerned about this amendment.
  ``Oh, he is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and so and 
so is on his committee.'' Now, that is kind of tawdry to ascribe to 
another Senator who is on my committee the lack of willpower on his 
own. Milton speaks of Gods giving man the freedom of the will to 
exercise his will.
  It is rather amazing. They used to tell ghost stories when I was a 
boy. And I was fascinated with those ghost stories. I speak about some 
of the ghost stories in connection with this Capitol in my books in the 
history of the Senate.
  So I am hearing ghost stories when I hear these stories about, 
``Well, Senator Byrd is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and 
Senators have to go to him to get things they want for their States,'' 
as though I would approach a Senator or even think of approaching a 
Senator in that way. It is demeaning to other Senators to ascribe to 
them a weakness such as that, that they would cast their vote on this 
amendment simply because they are on my committee and I am chairman of 
the committee, and therefore that they might be expected to suffer some 
retaliation. That is a joke. Those people are seeing ghosts. They are 
looking for something. They are seeing ghosts.
  I am concerned because I love this Senate. I love the Constitution. I 
might support a particular amendment to the Constitution if it dealt 
with a prayer in schools. I believe in prayer. I believe in having 
prayer in schools. I believe in having prayer certainly at 
commencement, voluntary prayer by a student, and the majority of the 
students want to have a prayer. I see nothing wrong with that. As a 
matter of fact, I see a lot of good in it. I see a lot that has 
happened to our country that is bad since the Supreme Court decision 
dealing with prayer in schools. Whatever we take out of our schools 
today in another generation will be out of the country.
  So I would amend the Constitution in one particular or another, but 
never, never would I again. As I say, I voted for a constitutional 
amendment in 1982 and against one in 1986. And I would never vote for 
it again, never because I believe in the constitutional system of 
checks and balances. I know too much about the history of the English 
people, about the history of the Romans, and about the history of our 
own country, about the Framers, about the Constitution. I know a lot 
more than I knew in 1982.
  I believe, I am convinced, that if this amendment were to become a 
part of the Constitution, the power of the purse that has been vested 
by the Framers in the legislative branch would be gone. No longer would 
we have a tripartite government in which the three branches are 
coordinate and equal. The power would flow to the executive, or would 
flow to the judiciary, and as a consequence, in the final analysis, all 
three departments of power would be severely damaged.
  I am reminded, may I say to my friend from Idaho, he is a fine 
debater, and he is a very dedicated Senator, dedicated to his 
convictions. He and I differ on this particular matter.
  But I expect he read years ago Chaucer's ``Canterbury Tales.''
  He nods his head in the affirmative.
  Senator Reid will remember that Chaucer was born around 1340 and died 
in 1400. He lived, therefore, during the remains of Edward III, who 
reigned from 1327 to 1377. He was followed by Richard II, who reigned 
from 1377 to 1399, and who was deposed by Parliament. Well, Chaucer, in 
the ``Canterbury Tales,'' demonstrates a keen knowledge of England in 
the Middle Ages.
  His story was a theme in which several persons who had gathered at 
the Tabard Inn, South Wark, would, on their way to the shrine of St. 
Thomas at Canterbury, each tell two stories. Chaucer died before he was 
able to finish what he had set out upon. But his ``Canterbury Tales'' 
aptly described life in England and the kinds of people. It included a 
cross-section of the people of England. There was the squire and the 
friar and the monk and the cook and the sailor, the knight, the wife of 
Bath, and the pardoner and the merchants and the physician.
  I just want to refer to one tale this afternoon: The Pardoner's Tale. 
The pardoner was one of those preachers who was assigned to raising 
funds for a particular religious program or cause, and he would render 
indulgences in exchange for a contribution or financial gift. So he was 
a pardoner. Well, the pardoner told this tale, and it is apt here.
  The pardoner told the story of three young men who were sitting in a 
tavern, and they were drinking, feeling their oats, making a good deal 
of noise, like some people do these days when they get too much in 
their cups--some when they do not get their cups. They heard a carriage 
go by with a bell, and it was bearing a corpse. So one of them said, 
``Knave, who is this who has died?'' The knave responded, and so did 
the innkeeper, and said, ``This is so and so. He was killed by an enemy 
called `Debt,' and this enemy has been killing a good many people in 
the countryside. A thousand people have died in the last little 
while.''
  These three roisterers got up and said, ``Let us go out into the 
streets and find this enemy called ``Debt,'' who has been taking the 
lives of our friends. They came upon an old man with a cane. They asked 
the old man where they could find this enemy called ``Debt,'' and he 
responded that if they go over there on the hill beneath that oak, they 
would find the enemy called ``Debt.'' They went to the hill, and under 
the big oak tree there they found a pile of gold. They sat down by the 
pile of gold and they talked among themselves. They decided that they 
ought to take this gold home, but they ought to wait until nightfall, 
lest some thief fall upon them and take the gold and take their lives 
at the same time.
  One said to the other two, ``Let us draw straws.'' They called them 
``cuts.'' They did not call them straws. I take it they were straws or 
some such. So they drew straws. The idea was that the one who drew the 
shortest straw would go into the nearby town and buy some bread and 
wine and they would have lunch, until night came on when they would 
take the gold away.
  So the one who had drawn the particular straw went into town. After 
he had gone, the other two got together and they said, ``Why should we 
divide this gold among the three? Why should it not be ours? We will 
just divide it two ways. When he comes back, I will embrace him as 
though in jest, and I will rive him with my dagger, and you do the same 
and we will just divide this gold between the two of us.''
  Meanwhile, on his way into town, the one ruffian was thinking to 
himself: ``Why should that gold have to be divided among three? Why 
could I just not have it all?''
  He, therefore, went to the nearest apothecary and said, ``Give me 
your strongest poison, I have rats that are eating my capons, and there 
is also a certain polecat, and I want to kill them.'' He was told that 
there was a poison that just a grain of it would kill instantly. He 
bought some of the poison and went out into the street, and from a wine 
seller bought three bottles of wine. He opened the wine, and in two of 
the bottles he put the poison.
  He made his way back to the tree. As they had said they would do, one 
embraced him and rived him with his dagger. The other did the same, and 
he fell dead on the pile of gold. The other two sat down to have the 
bread and wine. They opened the wine. They drank the wine, and they 
died with excruciating pain. They fell on the pile of gold. So all 
three died. They killed themselves.
  I see in this amendment the poison which in the end will be 
destructive of all three branches of the Government. Courts will enter 
into the situation and the people will resent being taxed by the 
courts. They will resent the order of the courts, that the legislative 
branch raise the taxes, or they will resent the President of the United 
States using impoundment powers, using the line-item veto, using 
rescission powers to cut their Social Security, veterans compensation, 
military pay, military retirement, whatever; and the legislative 
branch, of course, will have its powers swept to the other two 
branches. So we end up with all three branches damaged.
  Mr. President:

     I saw them tearing a building down,
     A group of men in a busy town;
     With a ``Ho, heave, ho'' and a lusty yell,
     They swung a beam and the sidewall fell.
     I said to the foreman, ``Are these men skilled
     The type you'd hire if you had to build?''
     He laughed, and then he said, ``No, indeed,
     Just common labor is all I need;
     I can easily wreck in a day or two,
     That which takes builders years to do.''
     I said to myself as I walked away,
     ``Which of these roles am I trying to play?
     Am I a builder who works with care,
     Building my life by the rule and square?
     Am I shaping my deeds by a well-laid plan,
     Patiently building the best I can?
     Or am I a fellow who walks the town,
     Content with the labor of tearing down?''

  We are going to tear down something that is sacred to the memories of 
Americans, sacred to the memories of our forefathers. We are going to 
destroy it. It has taken years to build. Those Framers underwent 
sufferance, threats to their lives. They paid dearly--Washington at 
Valley Forge. It was not easy, and it took years for this Republic to 
grow, to become strong, to become the light of the world, the beacon to 
every heart who cherishes liberty.
  But with one stroke, I can easily wreck in a day or two that which 
took builders years to do. We better think about what we are doing. We 
will be tearing down something that it took years to build.
  Mr. President, on Monday, we will resume our discussions. On Monday, 
I hope that I will have an opportunity to trace in a somewhat cursory 
way the power of the purse. I would like to talk about how the English 
Parliament developed, and how over a period of centuries of struggle, 
the power of the purse was lodged in the hands of the people's elected 
representatives in Commons. That is important, in my view, to the 
discussion here.
  I want to lay in the Record a bit of history because, after all, that 
is what influenced Montesquieu in great measure, the history of the 
Romans, the history of the English. And these two histories, it is my 
understanding, had the greatest influence on Montesquieu as he 
developed his political philosophy and system, political system, 
separation of powers, and checks and balances.
  So I hope to do that on Monday. I do not know how this is going to 
come out in the end. We may prevail against the amendment; we may not.
  It is a decision that could well affect every man, woman, boy, and 
girl in this country today, and the lives of millions who will come 
after us.
  I want that record to show the history that brought us where we are, 
the history of this Republic, the history of the English struggle, the 
colonial experience, and how the Framers who knew Plutarch, who knew 
Polybius, who knew Tacitus, and who knew Cicero, who knew about 
classical Rome and knew about the English, I want the history of this 
debate to have that background because those who read that history a 
hundred years from today, and if we prevail they will be thankful. If 
we do not, they will know that we tried.
  I thank my colleagues for being patient. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have no more requests for time on my side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have no further requests for time on my 
side. But by unanimous consent, I would like to enter into the Record 
an editorial by David Gergen, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter signed by 
several Senators, an editorial by George Will of the Washington Post, a 
statement in behalf of Senate Joint Resolution 41 by the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, and also a statement by the Balanced Budget Amendment 
Coalition, a broad cross-section of American interest groups 
representing our citizens, from the small farmer to the blue-collar 
worker.
  I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From U.S. News & World Report, June 1, 1992]

                      Balance the Budget--by Force

                           (By David Gergen)

       In one of his pithier observations, Winston Churchill once 
     said that ``Americans can be counted on to do the right 
     thing, after they have exhausted all other options.'' The 
     politicians of this country have now exhausted a raft of 
     different options to bring our federal finances under 
     control--deficit limits, tax increases, caps on domestic 
     spending, cuts in defense spending--but the nation's budget 
     remains shamefully out of whack. The time has come to 
     recognize that the right thing to do is something we have 
     long resisted: Amend the Constitution so that Congress and 
     the president are required to balance the budget.
       A balanced-budget amendment has always represented an 
     indictment of our democratic system. It openly confesses that 
     our elected representatives are incapable of making rational, 
     tough-minded decisions on their own and must be strapped into 
     a straitjacket by force of law. It says that as citizens, we 
     are so unwilling to curb our appetites for more services and 
     fewer taxes that we penalize any politician who demands self-
     discipline. As Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas says, ``Everybody 
     wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to do what it takes 
     to get there.''
       Yet for all inherent flaws and dangers of an amendment, an 
     honest look at our past behavior and the future burdens we 
     are imposing on our children makes a compelling case for its 
     adoption. Isn't it better to accept a forced diet than to 
     gorge ourselves to death? Consider: In the first 175 years of 
     our republic, we balanced the budget or recorded a surplus 60 
     percent of the time. But since then, as government has 
     exploded in size and scope, we have balanced the books less 
     than 4 percent of the time. In the first 20 decades of the 
     republic, we accumulated a total national debt of $1 
     trillion; in the past decade, we more than tripled that 
     amount. From 1950 to 1980, Washington's borrowing soaked up 
     less than 10 percent of our national savings pool; since 
     1980, federal deficits have sucked in roughly two thirds of 
     our private savings. As a result, our rate of gross 
     investment has been too low (in recent years, half of Japan's 
     as a percentage of gross domestic product), our interest 
     rates too high, and now our job creation is too slow. Total 
     interest payments on the national debt will climb in the next 
     fiscal year to $315 billion, the largest single item in 
     the budget; of that, Washington will send some $40 billion 
     to foreign creditors, more than it will spend on educating 
     our children.
       Momentum is now building in Congress to pass Sen. Paul 
     Simon's budget amendment before the July recess and send it 
     forward to the states, where more than 30 have signaled an 
     eagerness to embrace it. Opponents rightly charge that many 
     in Congress are acting out of desperation, anxiously trying 
     to appease voters with something--anything--before the anti-
     incumbent mood sweeps them from power. The true test to apply 
     to a candidate this fall is not whether he favors an 
     amendment but whether he also shows constituents what 
     services he will cut and what taxes he will raise.
       To reach balance will require wrenching changes, especially 
     in federal services. Since 1979, contrary to popular myth, 
     federal spending has shot up from 20 percent to 25 percent of 
     GDP, a level we haven't seen since the aftermath of World War 
     II. Double-digit inflation has pushed the cost of Medicaid 
     and Medicare to $200 billion this year; these costs will 
     escalate to $600 billion in a decade. A balanced-budget 
     amendment will clearly bring a crunch in Medicare and 
     Medicaid, prompting the biggest overhaul of health care in 
     this century. As it decides where to cut, Washington must 
     also decide what priorities may demand more resources. How, 
     for example, will we become a more productive, cohesive 
     nation unless we fully fund Head Start? Inevitably, we must 
     face up to the prospect of higher taxes.
       But we can no longer flinch from reality; we can no longer 
     afford the illusion that we can borrow our way to prosperity. 
     President Bush, who shares responsibility with the Democratic 
     Congress for the dreadful state of our finances, should now 
     work with Capitol Hill to ensure that an amendment to the 
     Constitution is carefully and wisely drawn, that the country 
     is fully informed of the consequences and that we move 
     forward immediately--no more mananas--to restore our 
     financial solvency. Somehow 49 out of our 50 states have 
     learned to live within laws requiring balanced books; surely 
     Washington can do the same.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, February 24, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: During floor consideration of the Balanced 
     Budget Amendment, Senators Simon and Hatch will modify S.J. 
     Res. 41 to incorporate language clarifying the role of the 
     judiciary of its enforcement. This modification will make 
     absolutely no substantive change in the operation of S.J. 
     Res. 41 but simply will provide an explicit assurance that 
     the role of the courts will go no further than permitted 
     under existing legal precedents.
       We disagree with those who argue that passage of S.J. Res. 
     41 will result in the courts setting budget policy, but we 
     have agreed that it would be beneficial to clarify the issue. 
     The language that we plan to add to the amendment reflects 
     our longstanding understanding of the role of the courts in 
     enforcing the amendment. Courts would be limited to reviewing 
     the actions of Congress and the executive and determining 
     whether the amendment has been violated, leaving the policy 
     decisions regarding what actions should be taken to the 
     political branches.
       This language responds to the concern expressed by Senators 
     Danforth, Cohen, Domenici and Nunn that the courts will 
     become too involved in budget policy, as well as the opposite 
     concern that S.J. Res. 41 will be entirely unenforceable.
       S.J. Res. 41 preserves the ability of Congress through 
     implementing legislation, to further regulate the role of the 
     courts in enforcing the amendment. Under Article III of the 
     Constitution, Congress possesses authority to establish 
     federal court jurisdiction and remedies. Thus, Congress can 
     confer, deny, or limit court jurisdiction over cases arising 
     under this amendment through statue. Congress can also pass 
     legislation to provide for expedited adjudication.
       The text of S.J. Res. 41 is reprinted on the back of this 
     letter. If you have any questions, you may contact any one of 
     us or Aaron Rappaport (Simon 4-5573), Larry Block (Hatch 4-
     7703), Damon Tobias (Craig 4-2752), Janis Long (DeConcini 4-
     8178), Thad Strom (Thurmond 4-9494) or Ed Lorenzen (Stenholm 
     5-6605).
           Sincerely,
     Paul Simon,
     Dennis DeConcini,
     Orrin Hatch,
     Charles Stenholm,
     Larry Craig,
     Strom Thurmond.
                                  ____


                       S.J. Res. 41 (as Modified)

                        (New language in italic)


                               article--

       ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States 
     held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law 
     for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year, in which total 
     outlays do not exceed total receipts.
       ``Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. 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 is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       ``Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts. The power of any court to 
     order relief pursuant to any case or controversy arising 
     under this article shall not extend to ordering any remedies 
     other than a declaratory judgment or such remedies as are 
     specifically authorized in implementing legislation pursuant 
     to this section.
       ``Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except for those for repayment of 
     debt principal.
       ``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     fiscal year [1999] 2001 or with the second fiscal year 
     beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.''.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 24, 1994]

                        Arguments Out of Balance

                          (By George F. Will)

       Opponents of the constitutional amendment that would 
     encourage--no more than that--balanced budgets rely on 
     arguments that devour one another. They say the amendment is 
     an inconsequential gimmick--and they say it would eviscerate 
     government. They say the amendment is unnecessary because 
     Congress can be trusted to act responsibly--and they say 
     Congress cannot be trusted to respect the amendment if it is 
     put into the Constitution.
       The wizards in the White House, tightly in the grip of the 
     conceit that the future is to them an open book, say the 
     amendment would force grim choices costing the average Social 
     Security or perhaps Medicare recipient at least $1,000 a 
     year, and they have listed the annual cost of the amendment 
     to each state. Vermont? $418 million. How does the White 
     House know so much about choices the nation would make under 
     a constitutional requirement to align revenues and outlays?
       Besides, another argument made against the amendment is 
     that instead of making grim choices, Congress would make a 
     mockery of the Constitution. This argument, coming from 
     members of Congress incapable of blushing, is: Trust us, not 
     the amendment, to achieve fiscal discipline, because we are 
     so untrustworthy we would treat the amendment as more 
     loophole than bridle. ``Emergencies'' would be declared 
     promiscuously, programs would be put ``off budget,'' receipts 
     and outlays would be redefined, cost and revenue projections 
     would be cooked--in short, there would be even more of the 
     trickery that now goes on.
       Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat opposed to the 
     amendment, notes that it ``relies on statutory definitions 
     that can easily be changed,'' such as the definition of 
     ``fiscal year.'' He warns that Congress might redefine 
     ``fiscal year'' to mean ``eleven months or three years.'' Oh. 
     Congress is so cynical, don't bother trying to bind it with 
     constitutional fetters? Does Levin have such a low opinion of 
     his colleagues that he thinks it would be easier to fiddle 
     the meaning of ``fiscal year'' than to get 60 percent of both 
     houses of Congress honestly to authorize a deficit, as the 
     amendment allows?
       The word ``crisis'' has become another classification used 
     so casually that it no longer classifies. Even so, it is 
     peculiar to say (as does Lloyd Cutler, who was counsel to 
     President Carter) that there would be a ``constitutional 
     crisis'' if an ``emergency''--say, many hurricanes and 
     earthquakes--necessitated spending that required a 
     constitutional super-majority to authorize a deficit. If the 
     ``emergency'' could not catalyze 60 percent of Congress, 
     would it really be much of an emergency?
       Opponents of the amendment warn that it deprives the 
     government of ``flexibility'' needed to adjust fiscal policy 
     to stages of business cycles. Of course this argument cannot 
     be used by opponents who say the amendment would be too 
     porous to inhibit the government. And this argument requires 
     faith in the government's aptitude for fine-tuning fiscal 
     policy to ``manage'' the economy. And the people making this 
     argument must explain this: Flexible government, 
     unconstrained by a balanced budget requirement, has run 
     deficits at every stage of every business cycle since the 
     last balanced budget, in 1969, and President Clinton, who 
     opposes the amendment, projects deficits far into the future.
       When the deficit was around $300 billion, critics said the 
     balanced budget requirement was ruinously Draconian. Now that 
     the deficit has temporarily dipped below $200 billion, 
     opponents say the requirement is unnecessary. And opponents 
     say the projections of rising deficits by the end of the 
     decade mean that the requirement soon would be ruinously 
     Draconian.
       Yes, if Congress passes the amendment, the states, which 
     get about 20 percent of their money from Washington, might 
     reject it. (Thirteen states can stop an amendment. That limit 
     on majoritarianism is more substantial than the mild 
     requirement of a 60 percent vote to run a deficit.) Yes, 
     Congress might respond to a balanced budget requirement by 
     stepping up its ``spending by indirection''--imposing 
     unfunded mandates on the states, regulating business, and so 
     on. (Last year the Clinton administration regulations filled 
     69,688 pages of the Federal Register, the third highest total 
     in history, behind only the last two Carter years.)
       Which is to say, the balanced budget amendment can 
     inconvenience legislative careerists but cannot make them 
     virtuous. Which brings us to the source of the real passion 
     against the amendment: deficit spending is, in effect, public 
     financing for the campaigns of incumbents, enabling them to 
     charge only 75 to 85 cents for every dollar of government 
     they dispense. So the vote on the amendment is a referendum 
     on a political style: borrow and borrow, spend and spend, 
     elect and elect.
                                  ____


            Balanced Budget Amendment: Constitutional Issues

       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business 
     federation, has endorsed S.J. Res. 41, the Balanced Budget 
     Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Chamber believes that 
     this measure, sponsored by Sens. Simon (D-IL), Hatch (R-UT) 
     and Craig (R-ID), will help move the federal government 
     toward fiscal responsibility. This paper discusses the most 
     significant constitutional and legal questions raised by this 
     landmark legislation, along with some of the conclusions 
     reached by the U.S. Chamber.


  Is a Balanced Budget requirement appropriate subject matter for the 
                             constitution?

       Some commentators have argued that a balanced budget 
     requirement is a mere rule of accounting, incompatible with 
     the broad principles embodied in the Constitution. It is 
     worth noting that the Constitution already contains several 
     narrowly-focused economic and fiscal provisions, including 
     the requirement of ``a regular statement and account of the 
     receipts and expenditures of all public money'' (Article I, 
     Section 9), and the requirement that ``duties, imposts and 
     excises . . .[be] uniform throughout the United States 
     (Article I, Section 8).
       Moreover, the Balanced Budget Amendment embodies two 
     principle themes of the constitution: limitation on federal 
     power, and protection of politically under-represented groups 
     against majoritarian abuse. Thomas Jefferson, who perceived 
     the inherent tendency of central government to expand, 
     supported a constitutional prohibition of federal borrowing 
     as a means of protecting individual liberty. For most of the 
     nation's history, the growth of the federal government was 
     held in check by an implicit policy against deficits, except 
     during war or recession. In recent times, the erosion of this 
     principle has created persistent structural deficits, removed 
     the need to limit and prioritize programs, and led to an 
     excessively large federal sector. The BBA requirement that 
     federal operations be funded from current revenues restores 
     an important principle of fiscal responsibility and limited 
     government.
       Likewise, the protection of groups with limited access to 
     the political process has emerged as a major theme of 
     Constitutional law.\1\ Limitations have been placed on 
     governmental actions which unfairly impact racial minorities, 
     aliens and other ``discreet and insular'' groups.\2\ Because 
     future generations who will bear much of the burden of 
     current policy lack input into the electoral process, it may 
     be that their interests are undervalued in federal budget 
     decisions. The Balanced Budget Amendment seeks to ensure that 
     the vital interests of young and future Americans are 
     reflected in the decisions of Congress, embodying a principle 
     of fairness and political inclusion consistent with the best 
     provisions of the Constitution.
     Footnotes at end of article.


 can the deficit problem be solved short of amending the constitution?

       Statutory attempts to impose fiscal discipline upon the 
     federal government have failed, largely because Congress was 
     able to change the rules in mid-game. The ambitious deficit 
     reduction targets of the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law were 
     repeatedly modified when they conflicted with Congress' 
     spending ambitions. Likewise, big-ticket items such as 
     unemployment compensation payments and disaster relief are 
     customarily designated as ``emergency'' spending, which 
     exempts them from spending caps. Between 1980 and 1990, each 
     year's actual spending exceeded the targets of that year's 
     budget resolution by an average of $30 billion (the excess 
     was $85 billion in 1990).\3\
       Each statutory response to the deficit has shown the same 
     vulnerability: hard-won budget rules can be waived or 
     modified by a simple majority vote. Not surprisingly, a 
     majority can usually be assembled to support more spending. 
     The key advantage of a Constitutional amendment is that tough 
     budgetary rules can be placed beyond the reach of simple 
     Congressional majorities. The Simon/Hatch proposal requires 
     yearly enactment of a balanced budget, unless Congress 
     approves a specific deficit for that fiscal year by a three-
     fifths vote of each house. (A simple majority of each house 
     can waive the balanced budget requirement during a time of 
     war.) The supermajority requirement reflects the view that 
     incurring a deficit should be an exceptional even that 
     requires clear consensus. The Simon/Hatch Amendment commits 
     future Congresses to avoid structural deficits, while 
     providing them the flexibility to respond to true 
     emergencies.


              is there any place for statutory solutions?

       While the Balanced Budget Amendment mandates a zero deficit 
     by FY 99 (or the second fiscal year after enactment), it does 
     not specify how to get there. The Chamber believes that 
     enactment of a BBA will force Congress to take a close look 
     at statutory mechanisms designed to reach that goal, and this 
     will probably begin well in advance of final ratification by 
     the states. In approving S.J. Res. 41, the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee contemplated enactment of ``legislation that will 
     better enable the Congress and the President to comply with 
     the language and intent of the amendment.''\4\ Additional 
     budget process reforms may include tax and spending 
     limitations, line-item veto authority, and the creation of an 
     independent commission to recommend spending cuts. The BBA 
     will thus lay the groundwork for further budget process 
     reforms at the statutory level.


 will congress and the president still have the flexibility to respond 
                        to national emergencies?

       The Simon/Hatch Amendment does not prohibit Congress from 
     running a deficit in a given year; it merely requires that 
     this decision be approved by three fifths of each house. This 
     degree of consensus is required for many important decisions, 
     including the approval of a treaty, and override of a 
     Presidential veto. In the BBA, the three-fifths requirement 
     reflects the view that incurring a deficit should be an 
     exceptional event that is carefully scrutinized. At the same 
     time, this provision allows Congress and the President the 
     flexibility to respond to genuine emergencies. Should large-
     scale domestic problems such as recessions or natural 
     disasters alter budget needs, it will be possible to assemble 
     a three-fifths consensus that recognizes this. In the case of 
     foreign aggression, the balanced budget requirement can be 
     suspended by a simple majority vote of each house.


  will the amendment thrust the courts into an inappropriate role of 
                  cutting programs and raising taxes?

       Some commentators have raised questions about the 
     enforcement of a Balanced Budget Amendment. A primary concern 
     is that Congressional efforts to meet the balanced budget 
     requirement would be challenged in the courts, and the 
     judiciary would be thrust into the role of weighing policy 
     demands, slashing programs and increasing taxes. On the other 
     hand, there is a legitimate and necessary role for the courts 
     in ensuring technical compliance with the amendment. The 
     Chamber believes that these concerns can be reconciled in 
     implementing legislation, which draws upon existing legal 
     principles.
       In general, the courts have shown an unwillingness to 
     interject themselves into the fray of budgetary politics. The 
     New Jersey Supreme Court observed that ``it is a rare case . 
     . . in which the judiciary has any proper constitutional role 
     in making budget allocation decisions.''\5\ The judiciary has 
     remained clear of most budget controversies through doctrines 
     of ``non-judiciability,'' including ``mootness,'' 
     ``standing,'' and the ``political question'' doctrine.
       A case is considered moot, and can be rejected by the 
     court, if the matter in controversy is no longer current 
     (this will be a factor in many budgetary controversies, such 
     as those based on unplanned expenditures or flawed revenue 
     estimates which become apparent near the end of the fiscal 
     year). The doctrine of standing limits judicial access to 
     parties who can show a direct injury over and above that 
     incurred by the general public. The logic is that the 
     grievances of the public (or substantial segments thereof) 
     are the proper domain of the legislature.\6\ The U.S. Supreme 
     Court has held that status as a taxpayer does not 
     automatically confer standing to challenge federal 
     actions,\7\ and has barred taxpayer challenges of budget and 
     revenue policies in the absence of special injuries to the 
     plaintiffs.\8\ The political question doctrine is a related 
     principle that the courts should remain out of matters which 
     the Constitution has committed to another branch of 
     government. The Supreme Court has held that a ``political 
     question'' exists when a case would require ``nonjudicial 
     discretion.''\9\ This would be the case with many budgetary 
     controversies, such as the choice to cut particular programs, 
     which by their nature require ideological choices and the 
     balancing of competing needs.
       In contrast, courts have asserted jurisdiction over 
     politically tinged controversies where they find 
     ``discoverable and manageable standards'' for resolving them. 
     In Baker v. Carr,\10\ the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that 
     objective criteria guide judicial decisionmaking and limit 
     the opportunity for overreaching. In the balanced budget 
     context, the ``discoverable and manageable standards'' 
     principle can help demarcate lines between impermissible 
     judicial policymaking, and the needed enforcement of 
     accounting rules and budget procedures.
       In all likelihood, a strong framework of accounting 
     guidelines will emerge from implementing legislation. The 
     Senate Judiciary Committee has interpreted Section 6 of the 
     bill to impose ``a positive obligation on the part of 
     Congress to enact appropriate legislation'' regarding this 
     complex issue.\11\ Judiciary Committee staff on both the 
     House and Senate side have indicated their intention that 
     implementing legislation embrace stringent accounting 
     standards that will minimize the potential for litigation. 
     Should legitimate questions arise concerning the methods by 
     which Congress balances the budget, these standards will also 
     provide objective criteria which meet constitutional 
     standards for judicial intervention.
       The implementing package is also likely to establish 
     guidelines for judicial involvement, defining what issues are 
     judiciable and which parties have standing to challenge 
     Congressional decisions. State budget officers, for example, 
     could be given standing to contest unfunded federal mandates. 
     These enforcement procedures, coupled with budget process and 
     accounting guidelines, will operate against a backdrop of 
     traditional legal principles to rationally limit judicial 
     action. The effect should be to prevent judicial overreaching 
     into legislative functions, while providing a check on 
     Congressional attempts to evade the requirements of the BBA 
     through procedural and numerical gimmickry.


                               footnotes

     \1\See John Hart Ely, Toward A Representation-Reinforcing 
     Mode of Judicial Review, 37 Md. Law Review 451 (1978).
     \2\United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 
     (1938), footnote 4.
     \3\Source: The Economic and Budget Outlook. Congressional 
     Budget Office (January 1993), p. 108.
     \4\S. Rpt. 103-163, 103rd Congress, 1st Session (1993), p. 6.
     \5\Board of Education v. Kean, 457 A.2d 59 (1982).
     \6\Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) (Harlan, J., 
     dissenting).
     \7\Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923).
     \8\United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) 
     (plaintiffs challenged a statute allowing the CIA to avoid 
     public reporting of its budget); Simon v. Eastern Kentucky 
     Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26 (1976) (plaintiffs 
     challenged a Revenue Ruling granting favorable tax treatment 
     to certain hospitals as inconsistent with the Internal 
     Revenue Code).
     \9\Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
     \10\Id.
     \11\S. Rpt. 103-163, 103rd Congress, 1st Session (1993).
                                  ____


             [From the Balanced Budget Amendment Coalition]

              An Open Letter to Members of the U.S. Senate

       The undersigned organizations urge you to vote for and 
     support the Balanced Budget Amendment, S.J. Res. 41, 
     introduced by Senators Simon, Hatch, DeConcini, Thurmond, 
     Craig and Heflin. This bipartisan proposal (with 55 total 
     Senate cosponsors) has already passed the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee on a 15 to 3 vote, the strongest committee action 
     ever in support of this legislation. Senate floor 
     consideration of S.J. Res. 41 is expected shortly.
       The Framers of the U.S. Constitution assumed each 
     generation of Americans would pay its own bills--and that the 
     federal budget would, over time, remain roughly in balance. 
     According to Thomas Jefferson, ``we should consider ourselves 
     unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally 
     bound to pay them ourselves.''
       In today's era of mass media, special interest politics, 
     and expensive and sophisticated election campaigns, the 
     checks and balances established 200 years ago are not up to 
     the job of controlling the federal deficit. Recent Congresses 
     and presidents have proven themselves incapable of acting in 
     the broader national interest on fiscal matters. Whenever 
     Congress considers spending cuts that could help balance the 
     budget, only a few Americans are aware of it, and fewer still 
     express their views about it. By contrast, those who stand to 
     lose from budget restraint--typically the beneficiaries and 
     administrators of spending programs--are well aware of what 
     they stand to lose. They mount intensive lobbying campaigns 
     to stop fiscal restraint.
       This pro-spending and pro-debt bias has led to 24 straight 
     unbalanced budgets. It took our nation 205 years--from 1776 
     to 1981--to reach a $1 trillion debt. Now, just 12 years 
     later the debt is $4.4 trillion. Each year, interest payments 
     rise as the overall debt grows. These payments are one of the 
     fastest-rising items in the federal budget--they now account 
     for virtually the entire deficit, all by themselves. A 
     succession of statutory remedies has failed to stem this 
     historic and highly dangerous turn of events.
       S.J. Res. 41 is a sound amendment that has evolved through 
     years of work by the principal sponsors. It provides the 
     Constitutional discipline needed to make balanced federal 
     budgets the norm, rather than the rare exception (once in the 
     past 31 years), and it offers the proper flexibility to deal 
     with national emergencies.
       In addition to requiring a three-fifths majority vote to 
     deficit spend or increase the federal debt limit, S.J. Res. 
     41 is designed to make raising federal taxes more difficult. 
     It would require the approval of a majority of the whole 
     number of both House and Senate--by roll call votes--in order 
     to pass any tax increase. This adds accountability as well as 
     an appropriate focus on spending restraint.
       Unless action is taken now, federal debt and deficits will 
     continue to cripple our economy and mortgage our children's 
     future. We urge you to support S.J. Res. 41, the Balanced 
     Budget Amendment.
           Sincerely,
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.
       International Mass Retail Association.
       National American Wholesale Grocers' Association.
       The Seniors Coalition.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
       National Taxpayers Union.
       Citizens for a Sound Economy.
       American Legislative Exchange Council.
       National Association of Home Builders.
       National Cattlemen's Association.
       Associated Builders and Contractors.
       U.S. Business and Industrial Council.
       Precision Metalforming Association.
       Concerned Women for America.
       National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
       National Truck Equipment Association.
       Dairy and Food Industries Supply.
       Steel Service Center Institute.
       Truck Renting and Leasing Association.
       Door & Hardware Institute.
       Independent Bakers Association.
       American Machine Tool Distributors.
       National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling 
     Contractors.
       U.S. Federation of Small Businesses.
       National Independent Dairy Foods Association.
       National Roofing Contractors Association.
       Southern Forest Products Association.
       Nebraska Motor Carriers Association.
       Iowans for Tax Relief.
       National Taxpayers Union of Ohio.
       Nebraska Taxpayers Association.
       Arizona Federation of Taxpayers.
       The Lincoln Caucus (AZ).
       United Taxpayers of New Jersey.
       Kansas Libertarian Party.
       North Dakotans for Good Government.
       The Christian Coalition.
       Americans for a Balanced Budget.
       The Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association.
       Associated Equipment Distributors.
       American Subcontractors Association.
       American Association of Boomers.
       American Tax Reduction Movement.
       Motorcycle Industry Council.
       National Association of Brick Distributors.
       Automotive Service Association.
       Lead or Leave.
       American Supply Association.
       American Bakers Association.
       National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
       The Bankers Institute.
       Tennessee Grocers Association.
       Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (CA).
       National Taxpayers United of Illinois.
       North Valley Taxpayers Association (AZ).
       It's Time (AZ).
       Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters (CA).
       Connecticut Taxpayers Committee.
       Kansas Taxpayers Network.
       Citizens Against Higher Taxes (PA).
       Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, Inc. (FL).
       Tax Accountability '93 (IL).
       Landlords United for Tax Relief (IL).
       New Jersey Citizens for a Sound Economy.
       Virginia Citizens for a Sound Economy.
       Citizens for Limited Taxation (MA).
       Protect Oregon Property Society.
       Sacramento County Taxpayers' League (CA).
       Orleans County Taxpayers Association, Inc. (NY).
       Warwick Taxpayers Association (NY).
       South Carolina Policy Council.
       Kendall County Taxpayers League (TX).
       Federation of Wisconsin Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
       Macomb County Taxpayers Association (MI).
       St. Clair County Taxpayers Association (MI).
       Tax Cap Committee (FL).
       Homeowner-Taxpayer Association, Bexeter County (TX).
       Taxpayer's Action Network of Sarasota County (FL).
       Taxpayer's Action Network of Cook County (IL).
       Central Florida Taxpayer's Action Network.
       Routte County Taxpayer's Action Network (CO).
       Berkley County Taxpayers Association (WV).
       Citizens for Political Reform (WV).
       Free Market Committee (TX).
       Taxpayers United, Inc. (MI).
       Angry Taxpayers Action Committee (IL).
       Committee for Good Government (FL).
       New York Citizens for a Sound Economy.
       Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility (ME).
       Florida Tax Watch, Inc.
       Minnesota Taxpayers United.
       Tucson Business Coalition (AZ).
       Westchester Taxpayers Alliance (NY).
       Voice of South Dakota Taxpayers.
       United Taxpayers of Monroe County and Greater New York 
     State.
       Utah Taxpayers Association.
       Citizens for Sensible Taxation (VA).
       Committee to Eliminate Government Waste (MI).
       Idaho State Property Owners Association.
       Lampasas County Taxpayers Association (TX).
       San Francisco Taxpayer's Action Network.
       Waste Watchers, Inc. (CA).
       Taxpayer's Action Group of Naples (FL).
       Metairie Taxpayer's Action Network (LA).
       Leasburg Taxpayer's Action Network (MO).
       West Virginia Citizens Against Government Waste.
       Concerned Citizens for West Virginia.
       Tax Accountability Committee (NV).
       Del Norte Taxpayers League (CA).
       Napa City/County Taxpayers Association (CA).
       Marin United Taxpayers Association (AL).
       Taxpayers Education Association (CA).
       Taxpayer's Action Network of Rochester (NY).
       Association of Glenn County Taxpayers (CA).
       Hands Across New Jersey.
       United Taxpayers of San Diego (CA).
       Florida Taxpayers Association (NY).
       Greenwood Lake Taxpayers Association (NY).
       Valley Central Taxpayers Association (NY).
       Town Taxpayers Association (NY).
       Pine Bush Taxpayers Association (NY).
       Cornwall Citizens Alliance (NY).
       Newburgh School District Taxpayers Association (NY).
       Taxpayer's Action Network of Western New York (NY).
       Taxpayers Association of Fort Worth and Parent County (TX)
       Pennslvania Leadership Council.
       Granite State Taxpayers, Inc. (NH).
       Concerned Taxpayers of Manchester (NH).
       Humboldt Taxpayers League (CA).
       Taxpayer Association of El Dorado County (CA).
       Shasta County Taxpayers Association (CA).
       Union Beach Taxpayer's Action Network (NJ).
       Taxpayer's Action Network of St. Louis (MO)
       Canton Taxpayer's Action Network (OH).
       Paul Gann's Citizens Committee (CA).
       Taxpayers Watchdog Committee (IN).
       Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters (Santa 
     Cruz).
       Minisink Valley Taxpayers Association (NY).
       Mt. Hope Taxpayers Association (NY).
       Chester Taxpayers Association (NY).
       Middletown Taxpayers Association (NY).
       Taxpayers Action Group (NY).
       Concerned Citizens of Greenville (NY).
       Goshen Taxpayers Association (NY).
       Council for Cincinnatians Against Government Waste (OH)
       Cochella Valley Taxpayer's Action Network (CA).
       Conservative Coalition (AR).
       Nevada Taxpayers Association.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Charged to the Senator from Idaho?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the remainder of his 
time.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. I think it would be permissible that we yield back the 
remainder of Senator Simon's time.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois had left me with 
his time. I did not ask unanimous consent for it and do not think we 
will need it. I think that would be appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time of the Senator 
from Illinois is yielded back.
  All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining to be charged, 
except the time of the Senator from West Virginia. The Senator from 
West Virginia has 7 minutes remaining. I would not want the time 
charged against his time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yield back.
  The absence of a quorum has been suggested. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________