[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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will now resume 
consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 41, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 41) proposing an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced 
     budget.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution.
  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1471, in the nature of a substitute.

  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when we 
return to a quorum call that the time spent in that quorum call be 
divided equally among Senators Reid, Simon, and Hatch.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask my good friend from West Virginia if I may use 
part of his time?
  Mr. BYRD. How much would the distinguished Senator like?
  Mr. STEVENS. I should say about 45 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. 
Stevens] 45 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I thank my good friend from West 
Virginia. I am grateful to him for his leadership on this issue.
  Madam President, I can recall the days when I have looked at the 
balanced budget concept and supported the concept of a balanced budget 
amendment. I do not think we have ever really seen both Houses of 
Congress vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget 
during the same session. But now that we have reached the point where 
it is fairly certain that we will vote on this and there is a good 
possibility that the version before this body, Senate Joint Resolution 
41 could become part of the Constitution, I have spent a lot of time 
researching and thinking about the consequences of this legislation.
  I have listened to and studied what the Senator from Nevada [Mr. 
Reid] is doing in proposing his amendment to Senate Joint Resolution 
41. In my judgment, he is right. Although I am not certain if I support 
all of the provisions his amendment includes, he makes some important 
points. Madam President I have a vision, of some time at the turn of 
the century talking to a new President and having that President ask 
me--as a matter of fact, ``she'' might ask me--how the Congress came to 
the judgment to put such a corset around the economy of the United 
States.
  Let me first start off by saying that my research indicates that--and 
the CRS confirms this in a 1992 study--there are five nations of the 
world that have balanced budget requirements. Germany has one. It is 
the only industrialized nation in the world that has one. But if you 
look at their constitution, they permit borrowing funds in times of 
recession. In addition, their budget functions differently than ours 
because they can include borrowing as a revenue in some instances, 
similar to the way many States count borrowing as revenue.
  The others are Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Israel.
  The United States is the largest industrial nation in the world. We 
have had larger ups and downs than any nation in the world. Today, we 
have a very large debt, and we run budget deficits that are very 
worrisome; but has the Senate stopped to think that the interest that 
we are charged to borrow money for our debt is probably the lowest in 
the world today? Why is that? It is because our own people and the 
people of the world have confidence in our system. Notwithstanding this 
debt and notwithstanding the deficits we run, we continue to have the 
ability to function, and we will have the ability to function if we 
exercise good judgment and can continue to believe in the Constitution 
as it exists now.
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Not until I am finished. Then I will be happy to yield 
to the Senator.
  Madam President, if we look at what we have now, we have very 
difficult circumstances. I wonder if the Senate realizes that Britain 
adopted a balanced budget concept in the late eighties and, by 1992 had 
abandoned it. Let me repeat that. Britain, with all its problems; 
adopted during the heyday of the ``Iron Lady,'' for whom I have great 
respect, a balanced budget concept and, by 1992, abandoned it. The 
reason they abandoned it is because it became a straitjacket on their 
economy. The changes that British Government wanted to pursue could not 
be pursued while abiding by a balanced budget target as the British 
call it.
  What would we do if we add the balanced budget amendment to our 
Constitution? How do we get rid of it if we find that it is a mistake? 
We live with a very rigid constitutional system that is very difficult 
to amend, thank God. But in my opinion, it ought to be much more 
difficult than it appears to be right now. I do not think a lot of 
people are thinking about the history of the United States and what we 
have done in the past to right our ship of state or cure the defects of 
our economy because of the freedom and flexibility of the Constitution 
as it was devised by our forefathers. It is a good Constitution.
  I do not believe that we ought to saddle our people with a concept 
that is so inflexible that it would not permit us to meet the economic 
difficulties we may face in the future without having to go through the 
process, the constitutional process, of waiving or even eliminating a 
constitutional balanced budget amendment.
  I have a few charts, not many, and I really do not have a prepared 
statement. I am sort of wandering around here to explain myself. The 
real problem we have right now is not that we have not known what we 
are doing, but that we have in fact put into effect a series of 
programs which are known as entitlements--mandatory costs, costs that 
cannot be controlled annually by the Congress. And this balanced budget 
amendment does nothing to address entitlements. Nothing is mandated, 
nothing is directed. We have the same power now to address entitlements 
that we would have if the balanced budget amendment were adopted.
  The entitlements have grown apace, as we all know. They include: 
Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, farm price supports, 
and other entitlements such as food stamps, supplemental security 
income, family support, veterans' pensions, child nutrition, extended 
tax credits, student loans, Federal and civilian military retirement 
obligations, veterans' benefits, and social services.
  On the right-hand bottom corner of the chart is the list of what 
``other'' includes.
  We all know that those entitlements are there. Most of us have voted 
for them. Problems have developed in almost every one of them that have 
needed correction in the past or may in the future. The welfare program 
we all know needs revision. It is time now to find a way to prevent the 
cheating that is going on in welfare. It is time to find a way to help 
people get off of welfare without locking them and their children into 
welfare for a lifetime. We can do that without a balanced budget 
amendment.
  We know there are problems with Social Security, but they are not 
really problems that are incurable. They are problems about making 
certain that it is fully funded, that it will continue into the next 
century with the support it must have from the people of this country. 
And there has to be a fair balance between the cost to those who are 
going to receive Social Security in the future and the cost to the 
coming generations.
  At one time, over 10 years ago, the former Senator and former 
Governor of Oklahoma, Henry Bellmon, who was chairman of the Budget 
Committee, came to my office and sat down and talked to me. He said, 
``You know we have a problem out in the next century, by about 2015''--
you have to think this is at least 15 years ago. He is saying, ``We 
have a problem out at 2015. Let me tell you what it is. Of the total 
population, about one-third are too young to work, one-third are 
working, and one-third are retired. Those people working are obviously 
going to be taking care of children--those too young to work--but they 
are not going to be willing to take care of those who are retired. What 
we have to do is work on a Social Security System that is self-
sustaining and requires no contribution from next generation to support 
those of the people in the generation ahead of them.''
  We have worked toward that goal. I think we have done a good job. We 
still have corrections to make in the Social Security System, and that 
is a problem Congress must attack. That is something the people of the 
country and particularly those at my age who are in the senior citizens 
category must address. We must be fair to not only our children but our 
children's children and their children and not set up a situation where 
there is a burden on future working taxpayers to not only support their 
children but to support us. I think we are going in that direction.
  A balanced budget does not do anything to solve that problem. That is 
a basic legislative problem that Congress must face and Congress 
already faced partially in the past. We will face this problem again 
before the turn of the century.
  So what is really the problem? The problem comes down to the fact 
that we have a basic growth in those entitlements that remains 
unchecked, and this chart shows it as well as anything that I could 
devise. It shows that in 1962 defense accounted for almost 50 percent 
of our Federal expenditures; mandatory costs were 23 percent. If you 
compare that to 1992, defense spending has decreased to 21 percent of 
our Federal budget--21 percent from 50 percent. But mandatory 
expenditures are now twice what they were in 1962. Interest on the 
national debt has more than doubled. In 1992, we have a very different 
skew in terms of what we do with Federal funds.
  The question is, how can a balanced budget amendment deal with that? 
It can only deal with that if we make up our mind we are going to deal 
with entitlements and we are going to decrease the rate of growth of 
our national debt.
  Again, Congress has the legislative powers necessary to make these 
changes, a constitutional amendment is not necessary. We do not need a 
constitutional amendment to give Congress the authority to do the 
things that must be done to correct our economic imbalance. Powers that 
the Congress already possesses.
  I think that one of the things we have to do is look at what we are 
doing and try to understand what the problems will be if we have a 
balanced budget amendment.
  Let me take you back just briefly to the period just before World War 
I. It may interest you to know--and, incidentally, I was not in the 
Senate then, in spite of what some people may think --but at the time 
prior to the time we entered World War I, we had an increase in our 
defense spending. As a matter of fact, it increased steadily in 1913, 
1914, 1915, and 1916.
  If you examine this balanced budget amendment, what it says is if you 
have declared war or if you are engaged in a conflict, then you will 
have a right to waive the balanced budget amendment. Let me repeat 
that. Only if the United States is at war under a declaration of war or 
involved in a conflict could we exceed the balanced budget limitations 
in terms of our annual expenditures for defense.
  Before World War I we did it, and we were barely ready in 1916. As a 
matter of fact, I think the record would show we lost a lot of people 
because we were not ready. In my lifetime, in World War II everyone at 
that time knew we were going to go to war. It was just a question of 
time. And yet, although we did start our expenditures increasing, we 
had a steady increase in expenditures in 1937, 1938, 1939, and 1940, by 
the time we entered the war, of course, the expenditures exploded. They 
had increased by about 60 percent. That was up to $1.6 billion in 1940, 
a monstrous amount for that period of our history, and we were not at 
war. We were not involved in a conflict, but we had started to prepare 
to protect this country.
  That is not possible under this amendment without a resolution 
adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House.
  It may interest you to note that the vote on lend-lease was 60 to 31. 
We had a series of votes at the time. I tried to find some record, but 
my memory is that we had a series of votes at that time where the 
margin was very thin. I can only believe that a vote to waive the 
Constitution would be even closer.
  Let us leave defense and let us think about other things in terms of 
our current situation in the world and particularly here at home. 
Disasters. We have had a series of disasters recently.
  One of the ones where I went through a simulation a year ago was the 
problem of what the country will face if it has an earthquake along the 
Madrid fault. We think of earthquakes in terms of Alaska, my home. We 
have them almost every few days. And California, of course, has had a 
great many earthquakes. But the Madrid fault when it went off in the 
19th century, when the earthquake occurred along the Madrid fault, 
which goes down past Tennessee and then goes into the southland of our 
country, it changed the direction, as I recall, of the Mississippi 
River. When that earthquake occurred in the southern part of the United 
States the bells in the churches of Boston rang.
  The estimates of what it will cost if we have an earthquake in this 
century or early in the next century--it has been more than 100 years 
and most people are telling you about every 100 years those fault lines 
are going to adjust--will be catastrophic. The cost to the United 
States if the Madrid fault earthquake happens in this day and age will 
be worse than a nuclear war, and we will have to find some way to deal 
with the problems of that type of disaster.
  Of course, you could waive the balanced budget amendment. But are we 
sure that the Congress is going to be willing to react immediately? Are 
we really going to be willing to go totally in debt for one part of the 
country?
  The occupant of the chair knows that Alaska and California worry 
seriously about the increasing attitude toward disaster assistance. It 
is changing. The country is changing. There have been so many 
disasters. There has been so much expense associated with disasters, 
even this small, and I say that respectfully, the small disaster in 
California recently--a very short fault line--has cost billions of 
dollars.
  I say we do not need to live in a straitjacket in this country to 
deal with the problems of the country. Yet, that is what is going to 
happen if this occurs.
  I say to you, Madam President, and I think those of us particularly 
from the West ought to think about what is happening also. The bulk of 
our land is federally owned land. We now have a series of changes being 
made in our national budget, and if you wanted to look at them, the 
bulk of them are hitting the West because that is where the basic 
governmental functions--the Departments of our Government--the 
Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the 
Department of Commerce, and even the Coast Guard are being cut back. 
That is because we are reacting and Congress is trying to cut the 
controllable domestic expenditures in an effort to reduce the deficit. 
They have to do this because the entitlement programs, the 
uncontrollable spending has been escalating. The controllable 
expenditures--domestic spending--have over the past 30 years hardly 
changed. In 1962, the United States spent 15.7 percent of its budget on 
domestic programs including all of the expenditures for the Departments 
of the United States including Commerce, Interior, Justice, and 
Agriculture. In 1992, we spent only 15.47 percent of our budget on 
those programs, a slight decrease.
  But what has the Congress been doing as it tried to balance the 
budget? It has started to cut discretionary spending. The bulk of the 
discretionary spending means more to the West than it does to any other 
part of the country because that is where the Federal Government 
maintains its responsibility since it owns most of the land.
  Now, I will tell you, the net result of a balanced budget amendment 
is going to be that the West will suffer. Already in my State this 
year, the administration wants to close the Bureau of Mines, it wants 
to shut down the U.S. Geological Survey, it is reducing the manpower in 
the Minerals Management Service and reducing the Forest Service and 
people in the Department of Agriculture in the U.S. Forest Service. 
Why? Because the gun of the Congress can reduce funding. It can reduce 
discretionary spending.
  I am surprised to see that so many people from the West are rushing 
pell-mell, as Margaret Thatcher did, to the concept of a balanced 
budget amendment. The only difference is that Margaret Thatcher's 
government adopted a balanced budget target during a time of budget 
surplus.
  Incidentally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
following my remarks a Sunday London Times story of 1992 which was 
headlined ``Goodbye to a Balanced Budget.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Having lived with a balanced budget for 5 years, from 
1987 to 1992, the London Times joined everybody and said goodbye; it 
was not good for their country. A private enterprise country trying to 
revise its system, trying to stimulate its economy could not deal with 
the problem of the restrictions of the balanced budget concept.
  I come back, really, in terms of my basic interest here, to defense, 
Madam President. I remember so well the problem of preparation for 
World War II. I left college in 1942 and went to war. Those of us at 
that time knew we were not prepared. We had seen the movie reels of 
Patton and his people in Kansas practicing tank tactics with Ford 
automobiles, with pieces of plywood attached to them saying ``this is a 
tank'' or ``this is a truck.'' They did not have the ability to train.
  As a matter of fact, many of our people, when they went in the Army, 
did not even have guns. They were trained with wooden guns or with 
World War I guns. We were manufacturing them fast. And by the time we 
really got to the main battles in Europe we had the equipment we 
needed, thank God.
  But the only reason we had even the preparation we had at the time 
was we had the ability, through Congress and through a strong 
executive, to commit the country to the course of rearmament, to the 
course of expenditures, to the course of World War II production to 
making those Liberty ships, to building our bombers, to building our 
fighters, building the tanks.
  We provided the material that won World War II. There is no question 
about it. And it was because of our basic economic capability to 
respond under the existing Constitution. I do not believe that would be 
possible.
  Let me point out, by the way--my gracious assistant, Christine, just 
pointed out to me that the moneys that we approved to fund the 
supplemental required for the Los Angeles riots and the Chicago floods 
passed this Congress last year, 2 years ago, 61 to 36. A slim margin to 
meet the three-fifth requirement that Senate Joint Resolution 41 would 
require. How many times have we waived the Budget Act? Not very many.
  But every time we have a disaster, every time we get ready to prevent 
war--mind you, Madam President, if we want to take action to prevent 
war, we are not under that category that says you can waive this by 
virtue of being at war or being involved in a conflict.
  I have tried to dedicate my career here in trying to be able to have 
a military that had the capability to prevent war. I really think that 
we ought to listen now, we ought to listen to the Department of 
Defense. The Department of Defense responded to those of us in the 
Appropriations Committee--and this was not a debate; they told us as a 
matter of fact. Keep this in mind. We have steadily decreased the share 
of defense money in our Federal spending from 6.3 percent of the gross 
national product in 1987 to 2.8 percent in 1994. By the time we get to 
1995, our percentage of the gross national product spent for defense 
will be less than it was in 1940--less.
  And we are supposed to be keeping our country ready to meet the 
contingencies and to carry out the agreements we have made throughout 
the world for a mutual defense. No other area of Federal activity has 
had the pressure as much as national security. And, again, look at the 
chart. From 1962 to 1992, reduced from 49 percent of Federal outlays to 
21 percent of Federal outlays. It is even down more now.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for a correction?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. In article 1 of our amendment, it requires a three-fifths 
vote, or 60, for extraordinary spending. So in the case of the 
earthquakes, in the case of the riots in Los Angeles, those passed by a 
three-fifths vote. So in the case of an extraordinary threat, you only 
have to ask yourself: Will this Congress respond to an extraordinary 
problem with a three-fifths vote? The answer has historically been yes.
  (Mr. DORGAN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. STEVENS. I stand corrected.
  But I still take the position that, as a matter of fact, it is a 
straitjacket we do not have to live with. We already have that in terms 
of the Budget Act. We already have that same restriction today.
  I really think, when we talk in terms of how effective it is going to 
be, the effect of this is going to be whether we get into entitlements, 
not whether we waive the Budget Act or the balanced budget amendment 
for the purpose of having discretionary spending.
  I do not believe you have to waive the Budget Act to deal with 
entitlements. That is the real point of my statement to the Senate. We 
do not need a restriction in the Constitution as far as a balanced 
budget amendment to deal with this in order to prevent and cure the 
problems that exist in the economy today.
  I think the worst case that we can face, in terms of defense, is not 
going to be related to conflict or declaration of war at all. It is 
going to be faced with the realization on the part of some of us in the 
Congress that we need to have changes in the defense structure and we 
have to commit ourselves to spending more than is currently planned.
  The administration has told us--and these are the Department of 
Treasury's estimates, not mine--that if the balanced budget goes into 
effect, defense could face nationwide cuts up to $270 billion between 
1995 and 1999.
  What they are saying is that in order to achieve a balanced budget by 
the year 2000 defense's share of the budget cuts would be $270 billion.
  Mind you, between now and 1996 we will close--I do not know if the 
Senate knows this, we will close two bases out of three that exist in 
the country today. That is what we have already planned. When we get 
down to it, we will have 10 divisions, we will have 11 or maybe 12 
aircraft carriers. We will be down to 18 wings of fighters. That is 
what is planned already.
  I would like the Members of the Senate to consider what it would be 
like to be in the Senate in the 1999 and suddenly realize we do not 
have the defense that is necessary to protect our country. I think that 
will happen before then, but I do not think it will settle in until 
about 1998 or 1999. And then we are going to have to start rebuilding 
this defense structure as we did in 1981.
  Let me remind the Senate, some of my colleagues did not do what I did 
in 1980. I went to Norfolk in 1980 and saw ships tied up there. They 
could not get away from the dock because they did not have the 
personnel. We visited Air Force installations and we found row after 
row of airplanes red lined. They were short of parts. We were down to 
the point, Senator Hollings and I went into Germany to visit our 
defense personnel there and I distinctly remember him walking up to 
about a third or fourth floor--we call it a cold water flat in Germany 
where some of the dependents of our young soldiers were living. They 
did not have the allowances, they did not have the housing. We had 
skimped defense so badly by 1979 and 1980 that they were living 
literally in poverty in Germany.
  We had people in this country in the Defense Department that were 
using food stamps for their families.
  We changed that through a period of votes in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984. 
If you went back and looked at them Mr. President, you would find a 
series of one-vote margins. Those changes we brought about in the 
Department of Defense in those days were by one vote. We were not at 
war. We did not have a declaration of war. We were not involved in a 
conflict. There were just some of us who said this has gone too far. 
This has gone too far. We have to restore our capability in the 
Department of Defense, and we did it in the Senate by one-vote margins, 
several times.
  What would happen if we had the balanced budget amendment and we 
decided on deficit spending to restore the Department of Defense? How 
do we get there? We just do not.
  I think this is wrong. I think it is basically wrong.
  Incidentally, the Department of Defense tells us the most likely 
scenario to cut the $270 billion between 1996 and 2000 would require a 
reduction of 275,000 military people, one out of five. We would lay off 
170,000 National Guard, one out of three. We would discharge 125,000 
civilian workers. We would close--in addition to those we were already 
going to close by 1996--we would close half of the remaining 22 major 
bases in the United States. We would close nine logistics depots, 
terminate the F-18, terminate the C-17. And after the turn of the 
century we will have no other transport but the C-17. The 141's are 
wearing out, the 130's are wearing out. There is nothing left. But we 
would have to terminate it because it is too large an expenditure. We 
would have to cancel the nuclear aircraft carriers. We would have to 
cancel the next submarine, SSN-23, cancel the attack submarine, cancel 
the M-1 tank upgrades. We would have to eliminate theater missile 
defense. And even then, it may equal $270 billion.
   If you are in the Senate at that time and that eventuality comes and 
you are not at war and you are not involved in a conflict, how do you 
get the changes necessary?
  I remember--and I was whip of the Senate at the time--there were many 
of us who felt the same way in 1981. And I brought to the floor of the 
Senate President Reagan's budget for defense. It was very 
controversial, extremely controversial. We knew it was deficit 
spending. Anyone who says we did not is wrong. We knew it was deficit 
spending, but we also knew the Russians, the Soviets, were pulling 
ahead of us so quickly, they were committing so much, we had to find a 
way to restore our defenses, and we did.
  We went through a period of buildup, and it was substantial. But 
there was no question about it, we were superior, we had the 
capability, we made expenditures that caused the Soviets to increase 
their expenditures beyond their capability to survive, and their system 
imploded.
  Are we going to go into a process that we set up our own implosion? 
We have a massive debt. We have massive deficits. But, again, I tell 
you, our country has not suffered because of that yet. And the question 
is, will we attack entitlements--not will we attack defense, will we 
attack the Coast Guard, will we attack the USGS, will we attack the 
Forest Service? That is what this balanced budget amendment will 
attack, discretionary spending, because it mandates action in a very 
short period of time. I know the Senator from Illinois has changed that 
now to 2001, he intends to do that. But it is still too soon. It is 
still too soon. And this is the wrong amendment at the wrong time to 
address the wrong problem.
  Many of my colleagues have complained about Secretary Aspin's Bottom-
Up Review. Over the years I had a great many meetings with Secretary 
Aspin when he was in the House and when he was Secretary of Defense. 
Let me tell you, his Bottom-Up Review, while I do not agree with it 
because it went too far, was a sound proposition compared to where we 
are going now if the balanced budget amendment becomes effective and we 
have to cut another $270 billion from defense. I have already told my 
colleagues what that will cause.
  But one thing Secretary Aspin was right about was that the Bottom-Up 
Review contemplated will cost $50 billion more in the projected budget 
for defense. Where are we going to be if we say we want at least the 
Bottom-Up Review numbers to be the basis, the bottom line for defense? 
We are going to have to have some deficit spending to get there, and 
that is just to maintain the absolute minimum. Let me remind the 
Senate, that will be expenditures at the rate we expended money in 
1940.
  We must reduce our Federal deficit. We have to pay down the national 
debt. But we have to keep our system going and maintain the confidence 
that the world has now in our system. That confidence is maintained 
primarily because we have had the sense to present to the public and to 
the world an economy that does maintain its defense, it does stimulate 
expansion economically, and it does meet its requirements.
  I want to talk about what will happen to a particular State if this 
balanced budget amendment passes. Let me just mention Alaska for a 
little bit. We have four major bases in Alaska. Each one of those bases 
is the equivalent of two bases in what we call the south 48 because the 
people there are forward deployed and our people from our four major 
bases can either go to Europe in 8 hours or go to the Far East in 8 
hours. It is the same as having two bases, one on the east coast and 
one on the west coast in the south 48.
  But as we look at the $270 billion the Department of Defense has 
estimated that the balanced budget amendment would require as a 
reduction in defense spending, in order to achieve that we will lose at 
least Fort Richardson and Eielson Air Force Base, and maybe one other. 
They say it would be two out of three bases. It would have a dramatic 
impact on my State if it happens in a short period of time. We are an 
area that is owned by the Federal Government. About 80 percent of our 
land mass now is owned by the Federal Government. Eventually, when we 
have our grants to the Native people in the State perfected, the 
Federal Government will still own 60 percent of the land mass in 
Alaska. The Federal Government plays a massive role in our State.
  We missed the period of the building of superhighways. The decision 
was made that Alaska would use airways. And guess what is suffering 
some of the cuts now: the FAA system. There will be no chance Alaska 
would, like everyone else, come into the 21st century having 
superhighways. One of my predecessors, Senator Gruening, presented to 
the Senate a program to build highways in Alaska, and the environmental 
movement just came in and shot that down.
  We did not build any of those highways because they said we had 
airways.
  FAA is part of the discretionary spending that will have to be cut. 
As I said, it is already being cut. If the balanced budget amendment 
passes further dramatic cuts will be required. We already have to shut 
down almost all of the flight service stations in Alaska. One of these 
days, you will be landing in Unalakleet, AK, and someone in Denver will 
say, ``It's all right, the runway is clear.'' But they will not be 
there. We are remoting everything in the system and losing the safety 
requirement.
  Let me point out the impact on my State because we do not have 
highways. We rely on mail carried by air. The Postal Service, which is 
independent almost from the Federal Government--it does have some 
ties--but it says, ``Look, it is costing us more money in Alaska to 
ship because we ship everything by air.'' We cannot ship by truck or 
train or boat, and rivers are frozen in the winter time. They said we 
have to find some way to cut down.
  They want to cut $50 million out of the current cost of shipping mail 
in Alaska. I said to them, you cannot ship it on any ground means 
during the winter. It is not possible. They said, ``That is not our 
problem. We are going to increase the rates in Alaska. You are going to 
have to pay special rates because you ship only by air. In South 
Dakota, North Dakota, we can ship some of them by air, but most of it 
will go by ground.''
  I said, ``Wait a minute, if we built highways, that would cost the 
Federal Government money.'' They said, ``That is not our problem. We 
are running the Postal Service. We are not running the highway 
system.''
  All I am telling you is, if you look at the impact of a balanced 
budget amendment, it is going to discriminate against particular 
States. The impact of this is going to be, how will I ever get a waiver 
of the balanced budget amendment to try and get special money to meet 
special problems in Alaska? Do you think I can do that, Mr. President? 
We had the largest earthquake that has hit the United States in this 
century. God forbid we have another one. But will I be able to get a 
waiver for one State? Will we get a waiver if we have another great 
flood in Alaska? Oh, you would get one in the Midwest, I know, because 
you have several States in demand.
  Or, how about essential air service? Actually, I was the author of 
the essential air service because at the time of deregulation, I was 
afraid some of the small carriers might stop serving small villages, 
and we had to have some way to assure that service. It now has expanded 
to the whole country. But we are dependent upon essential air service 
because we have been unable to build those roads I talked about, and 
the cost of flying passengers and mail is increasing.
  Now the Postal Service says it is going to decrease what it pays the 
people to fly the mail. So that means we have to increase the cost to 
passengers. I foresee the time when almost every small area in Alaska 
is really going to be under essential air service, and this Senate is 
going to explode and say, ``Why should we subsidize those small areas 
for air service?'' They will forget that we built the Federal highway 
system to every town and village in the south part of the United 
States. We have built the super highways to connect all those States. 
We built neither in Alaska--neither. So we do have to have special 
systems to survive in Alaska, and essential air service is one.
  Another thing is, if you want to look at Alaska, we cannot even get 
the authority to drill in the area that is known as the last--last--
surviving great reservoir of oil in the United States. Seismic studies 
show that there is a tremendous reservoir on the North Slope. An 
amendment of my late, good friend, Scoop Jackson, preserved a 1.5 
million acres at the very top of our State for continued exploration. 
It is not within the wildlife refuge closed area wilderness. It should 
be drilled.
  About 85 percent of the money that goes to support schools in our 
rural areas come from State revenue. Guess what, at the time of the 
Persian Gulf war we were putting through the Alaska pipeline 2.1 
million barrels a day. The last time I checked we were putting through 
1.3 million. We have already lost one-third of our State income from 
Prudhoe Bay. As the years go by that will continue to shrink down; we 
believe somewhere down below 900,000 barrels. When it gets down there 
we will have the problem of trying to figure out how to support our 
State.
  Why do we need to do that? Because this Congress will not give us the 
authority to drill in the area that was set aside to drill to prove up 
oil for the United States.
  Again, almost 80 percent of our land is controlled by this Congress, 
not by the State legislature. We are totally controlled by the Federal 
Government, despite the fact that we have been a State for more than 35 
years. We have worked and worked and worked to get out from under the 
yoke of Uncle Sam, and we cannot do it. We are economically dependent 
upon the Federal Government, and as we get into the era of a balanced 
budget, what is going to change? Do you think it is going to be 
Medicare and farm price supports that change, Mr. President? 
Discretionary spending will be the first target of all those budgeteers 
who want to cut back.
  They will cut everything from search and rescue in our State, to 
Coast Guard protection for our fisheries, to those who outline the 
areas of the national forest that we can cut--and even that is 
shrinking every year. I think it will be a total, total disaster for a 
State such as mine to come under a balanced budget amendment.
  I will tell you, whether it is weather service, whether it is FAA, 
whether it is Coast Guard, look at what has been done already as we 
have tried to control the budget. What has changed? Has it been the 
escalating cost of Medicare? Has it been the escalating costs of all 
these entitlements? No, what has been restricted already--even this 
year the President of the United States reduces the money for public 
radio and television. We have literally hundreds of small communities 
and that is their only source of news. Their only source of programming 
of any kind is through the public television-public radio.
  We have throughout the State small, small radio stations and 
television stations. Our State actually pays for what we call Radnet. 
Using some of the money we get from the oil revenues, we have connected 
together and put out once a day part of the national broadcast to those 
small television and radio stations.
  We estimate under this balanced budget amendment that--and this is 
the Coalition for Budget Integrity which gave us the figures 
extrapolating them to Alaska--by the year 2000 if the budget is 
balanced by raising $1 in taxes and $2 of spending cuts, Alaska will 
lose 94,000 jobs; there will be 24 percent less personal income in 
Alaska; the rate of unemployment, which is already the Nation's 
highest, will increase by 6.4 percent; and our Alaska economy will be 
negatively impacted for at least 10 years.
  If this balanced budget amendment is adopted; 44,000 elderly people 
in our State will see their average Social Security benefits cut by 
$1,259 a year.
  Native Alaskans in remote villages could see their community health 
aid cut; the Indian Health Service, which provides their health 
delivery service, will be cut; fishermen in coastal villages will see 
driftnet monitoring by the North Pacific Council cut, and the coverage 
to prevent illegal fishing on the high seas; we will see our fish stock 
assessment money--two of these are in this budget right now--fish stock 
assessments and ocean research are already slated for cuts; Federal 
loans to fishermen to help them modernize their vessels will be gone; 
5,000 Federal and private sector timber jobs will be lost; and the 
education programs that are provided to our Indian people, our native 
people and to the military schools will go down; public works projects 
such as the Bethel seawall that I have been working on now for 10 years 
and finally got on the schedule, it will go. The Dillingham erosion 
control project, the Ketchikan Visitor Center, where people who come 
into the State on ferry or cruise ship, come and see what they want to 
see; harbor maintenance for Nome, Seward, Sitka, and Kodiak we feel 
will be eliminated; the $25 million Federal match of State matching 
money to provide water and sewer projects for those 176 villages I told 
you about, would be cut or eliminated. The State puts up half, the 
Federal Government puts up half, it will have to go.
  Spending will be gone for needy places in areas like Alaska that are 
not under an entitlement program but are beneficiaries of discretionary 
spending.
  Now, I think it is time to think. It is time to recognize that this 
does not address the problem of the massive deficits and the massive 
debt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 45 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I just ask for 2 more minutes of the Senate's time. I 
wish to close out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.
  Mr. SIMON. Senator Byrd--he is speaking on Senator Byrd's time--would 
agree to that.
  Mr. STEVENS. He said I could take more or less. Let me finish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor as one who 
voted to put some caps on entitlements twice. Not many people who are 
here proposing this constitutional amendment did that. We could have 
the courage right now, in this session of Congress, to start putting on 
caps progressively, and we would have the same impact on the deficit 
and debt by the year 2001, if we did that, without putting people out 
of work, without putting the United States in a straitjacket, and 
particularly without setting up a series of conditions that will make 
it more difficult for us to prevent war.
  Above all, I wish to try to make the Senate think about the things we 
must do in the future to restore our capability to provide our defense 
function. The money it needs to prove that we can defend ourselves and 
carry out our commitments to our friends around the world.
  I believe that we have reached the point now where we must do that 
even before 1996. The Department of Defense tells me that if we pass 
this resolution, what will happen is that there will be another cut of 
up to $270 billion between 1996 and the year 2001.
  That to me is absolute disaster. If for no other reason than that, I 
will not vote for this amendment. I do want to close by congratulating 
the Senator from Nevada, and I urge all Senators who have any questions 
about this to at least look at Senator Reid's amendment because he sees 
some of the problems that I believe will be caused by this resolution.
  I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

                               Exhibit 1

     [From the Times Newspapers Limited Sunday Times, Feb. 2, 1992]

                      Goodbye to a Balanced Budget

                            (By David Smith)

       With just over five weeks to go to the budget, two things 
     are clear. The economy's failure to recover means that 
     government borrowing, both in the current fiscal year and 
     next, will exceed official forecasts. This will not, however, 
     stand in the way of tax cuts on March 10.
       Why, I wondered aloud recently, is there all this talk of 
     tax cuts when we are faced with a sharply rising budget 
     deficit? The stated aim of the Tories is, after all, to 
     achieve a balanced budget a zero public-sector borrowing 
     requirement (PSBR) over the course of the economic cycle. Is 
     all this being forgotten in the mad scramble to the ballot 
     box? The response, from someone who was in a position to 
     know, was in three parts. First, the Tories do indeed need 
     all the help they can get, including any from tax cuts. 
     Second, there is a strong economic case for boosting the 
     economy by fiscal means, particularly if interest-rate cuts 
     are constrained by the Bundesbank's hold over the European 
     exchange-rate mechanism.
       The third reason, and I think the most interesting, was 
     that the policy of balancing the budget over the cycle will 
     be quietly dropped after the election, assuming the Tories 
     win, as it would be openly abandoned by Labour.
       Norman Lamnt will pay lip-service to the balanced-budget 
     goal on March 10. It will also be used by the Tories during 
     the election campaign to distinguish between the government's 
     responsible attitude to borrowing and that of Labour. But it 
     will not last into the next parliament.
       The argument for a balanced budget has never been very 
     convincing. It was preceded, readers may recall, by a 
     Treasury target of running a PSBR of 1% of gross domestic 
     product, around Pounds 6 billion currently. A 1% rule, as the 
     Treasury said at the time (1987), would allow a comfortable 
     reduction in the national debt as a proportion of GDP.
       Then, when the great budget surpluses came along in the 
     boom of the late 1980s, the Tory party and the Treasury saw 
     the attractions of a balanced budget. As a medium-term rule 
     it was simple, and it appealed to Margaret Thatcher's habit 
     of equating the nation's budget with that of a middle-class 
     family of four (``neither a borrower nor a lender be'').
       The old argument, that it was right to balance current 
     revenues and expenditure, but that it was appropriate to 
     borrow for public investment purposes, went out of the window 
     in the Government's attempt to be more Victorian than the 
     Victorians.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska yields the floor. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Illinois 
[Mr. Simon].
  Mr. SIMON. This is on my time. If the Senator will keep the chart 
up--not that one; the one behind it.
  Mr. STEVENS. The pie chart.
  Mr. SIMON. Yes, the pie chart. I would point out to my colleague and 
friend from Alaska--incidentally, I sympathize when you talk about 
Alaska. When I was in the House, our family drove up the Alaska Highway 
when it was 1,100 miles of gravel road. I made some speeches about the 
need to develop transportation in Alaska.
  Mr. President, if you take a look at that interest that the Senator 
has already pointed out has grown from 6 to 14 percent, GAO says by the 
year 2020 that is going to grow to 37 percent. You can imagine the 
squeeze on defense spending. And that is why GAO says if we do not 
change things, defense spending is really going to get the squeeze. And 
we are trying to change things.
  I would point out, second, when you talk about interest, the Wharton 
School of Economics last Thursday, a week ago yesterday, pointed out 
that if this were to pass, their projection is that 30-year bonds would 
drop from 6.5 percent to 2.5 percent.
  That is going to have an impact on that pie that the Senator has 
there in terms of interest. So that defense spending really, long-
term--I do not suggest for a moment that short term there are not going 
to be some squeezes, though nothing like the devastation that the 
Senator has heard from the administration. I see the Presiding Officer 
is Senator Dorgan, who has followed the economic field very closely and 
has contributed a great deal. He described the administration figures 
in terms of what is going to happen to North Dakota and Alaska and 
Illinois and elsewhere as ``hot air,'' and I think that is a generous 
appraisal.
  I would simply point out to the Senator from Alaska that the budget 
this year in round numbers is $1.5 trillion. The revenue this year is 
$1.3 trillion. The revenue projected for the year 2001, when this is to 
go into effect, is $1.8 trillion. So what we are talking about is a 
growth in revenue and that everything has to absorb some cuts in that 
growth in revenue.
  One projection is that if you were to exempt Social Security and 
permit growth of 2 percent in everything else--I recognize that is not 
as much as inflation--of the $600 billion, $542 billion would come from 
just a limitation of 2 percent in growth.
  That is not going to be hurting anyone. And in terms of jobs in 
Alaska, let me point out the New York Federal Reserve Bank study 
suggests that between 1978 and 1988, we lost 5 percent growth in GNP 
because of our deficit. CBO says 1 percent is 650,000 jobs. That means 
3.75 million jobs. As I calculate it very roughly, Alaska has about 
one-half of 1 percent of the Nation's population. That would mean 
16,000 jobs in Alaska.
  Now, obviously, no one knows how that would be distributed. But just 
as we have lost in the past, we are going to lose in the future.
  Then, finally, when my friend and colleague talks about a vote of 61 
to 36 in May of 1992 on an emergency appropriation, that is three-
fifths, so it would pass. But this last one for California was 85 to 
10; August of 1993, 86 to 14; June of 1993, voice vote; August 1992, 
voice vote; April 1992, 84 to 16; September 1992, 84 to 10; November 
1991, 95 to 17; May 1991, voice vote; March 1991, 98 to 1; March 1991, 
92 to 8. We have not been restrictive in terms of responding. And if we 
have a balanced budget amendment, we are going to have the resources 
and the ability to respond more generously to areas like Alaska or any 
other area that has a problem.
  I am sure I am not persuading the Senator from Alaska to support the 
balanced budget amendment, but I do suggest to him that the horror 
scenario the Senator outlined for Alaska and the Defense Department 
just is not valid.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do not know if I can still use Senator Byrd's time, 
but in any event, if I can respond----
  Mr. SIMON. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator address Great Britain? Will the Senator 
address the fact that no other European industrialized nation has done 
what the Senator proposes? Will the Senator address the fact that if 
you want to look at the history of the world, no nation has survived 
under this kind of restriction?
  Mr. SIMON. I will respond in two ways. As far as I am concerned, Mr. 
President, this can come out of my time, so this is no problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This will be charged to the time of the 
Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. I respond in two ways. First, no nation has gone into 
where we are projected to go.
  Mr. STEVENS. Not true. Germany was in worse shape after World War I 
and World War II.
  Mr. SIMON. This is my time. I wish to answer the question.
  No nation has gone into where we are projected to go in terms of 
deficit versus GDP without monetizing the debt, without printing money.
  Second, all the other industrial nations without exception that I 
know of have a parliamentary system. So that when the Government 
decides something--some of us, for example, were meeting with Margaret 
Thatcher, I remember, and she said, ``Why don't you get ahold of your 
deficit? I can't believe you are not getting ahold of your deficit.'' 
And we had to explain to her--and she knows a lot about our system, but 
we had to explain--``We just cannot get rid of a deficit as easily as 
you can in the United Kingdom.'' And they faced this problem. We have 
not faced this problem. What this amendment is trying to tell us to do 
is let us face this problem.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will let me make one last 
comment--I have lived through the years that we have increased in our 
debt and our deficit. The majority of the years involved were when 
there was a Democratic Congress and a Republican President. The 
Republican President wanted more defense spending and wanted more 
action that would stimulate investment, stimulate expansion, and so 
forth. The Democratic Members wanted things, as Wayne Hayes did, an 
increase in Social Security--increases in welfare programs, increases 
in the entitlements in general. They worked out a balance. We had both 
guns and butter, as Lyndon would have said. All right.
  Mr. SIMON. That is precisely right.
  Mr. STEVENS. We increased our spending for defense, but we also 
increased massive entitlements. And we put into effect the one concept, 
we indexed them so they automatically went up. We did not have to have 
an act of Congress everytime to raise them. They went up with the 
inflation rate. You remember some of those inflationary rates. At one 
time we had double-digit interest, and double-digit inflation. When you 
look at that, that is where this debt came from.
  But as I said before, we did not back into that. We knew what we were 
doing. It was the compromise worked out. We wanted the defense. You all 
wanted changes in the welfare entitlement structure, and we both had 
our way. That debt represents that. It is not Republican, not Democrat. 
It is both.
  But that debt represents the decision of free people. It represents 
the decision of a majority of the House and the Senate. It does not 
represent 60 percent.
  My last comment is look at the Constitution of the United States. Do 
you find any other place where the Congress can waive a provision in 
the Constitution? Do you? Do you find any other time in history where 
we have said, ``Listen, we want this in the Constitution. Oh, by the 
way, 60 percent, or three-fifths can waive the Constitution?'' I want 
you to know I think this amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States is wrong. It has never been done. It was proposed in the 
Constitutional Convention and defeated. I think it was wrong then. It 
is wrong now.
  Mr. SIMON. I would respond to my friend from Alaska who just 
reinforces my point. First of all, there are eight different provisions 
in the Constitution where with a supermajority we can do certain 
things. Second, the point is----
  Mr. STEVENS. Not waiving it like this.
  Mr. SIMON. I want to reclaim my time here. The Senator from Alaska 
makes precisely the point. How do we compromise around here? We 
compromise by doing everything because there is no restraint. We have a 
blank check. We are saying we cannot have a blank check and do the 
right thing by the future of this country.
  I yield my time. I do not yield my time, but I am not going to speak 
anymore.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me inquire of the Senator from New 
Hampshire. How much time does he choose to use?
  Mr. SMITH. Fifteen or twenty minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, thank you. I would like to, first of all, 
commend my colleagues from Illinois and Idaho for their leadership on 
this amendment.
  There has been a lot of debate about the amendment, and whether or 
not it is necessary. The fact of the matter is if Congress had taken on 
the fiscal responsibility that it has the constitutional right and 
obligation to do, we would not need the amendment. That has been said. 
That is true. But we have been hearing that now year after year after 
year. The debt continues to go up year after year after year.
  So I think we ought to realize that we are now in a crisis session. 
Anyone who does not believe that the situation with our debt, our 
national debt, which is rising daily, is not a crisis is simply wrong. 
When you have a crisis, you have to act accordingly.
  The constitutional amendment is a drastic action. There is no 
question about it. The question is, though, Are we in a crisis? The 
answer is yes. Because we have a crisis, we need an amendment. It is a 
sad commentary upon this body and the Congress of the United States 
that they have steadfastly refused to respond to the wishes of the 
American people, which is to exercise fiscal restraint and to balance 
the budget, and to move on to buy down the debt. They have not done it. 
That is why the American people overwhelmingly support this amendment.
  Amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. I do not take 
it lightly. It has only been done 27 times since the Constitution was 
first ratified in 1789.
  But it is a testimony frankly to the genius of our Founding Fathers 
that we have so rarely felt compelled to modify this extraordinary 
document. And when there has been a problem that needed to be 
addressed, we amended the Constitution.
  So when we do that, we should do it with caution. I think this issue 
has been debated for long enough, and as we have watched the debates 
year after year, we have watched the debt continue to rise.
  If Thomas Jefferson had had his way, Federal borrowing would have 
already been restricted because that is what he said in 1798. He said:

       I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our 
     Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for 
     the reduction of the administration of our government to the 
     genuine principles of the Constitution. I mean an additional 
     article taking from the government the power of borrowing.

  We look back on that quote, and we certainly can see how right he was 
about that.
  We can argue on any amendment as to whether or not it is critical 
enough to have an amendment to the Constitution. We could have used the 
same argument on the Bill of Rights. But obviously, we did not.
  Most Americans I am sure would agree that we are glad to have those 
who said we should not have an amendment added to the Constitution. 
Those first 10 amendments, I am sure most of us would agree that those 
were certainly worthwhile, and that those who are argued otherwise were 
wrong. With all due respect to those who are arguing against the 
amendment today, they are wrong. We are in a crisis situation. We need 
it.
  Why do we need the balanced budget amendment? The Federal Government 
has not balanced its budget since 1969. That is 25 years without a 
balanced budget. Let us look at some of the figures.
  The national debt today is over $4.6 trillion. Every American's share 
of that debt, Members of the Senate, members of the general public, any 
American child born as we speak, at this very moment his or her share 
of that debt is $17,000.
  The average national debt as a percentage of GNP was 50 percent in 
1981 to 1992. It is projected from 1993 to 1998 to be 70 percent.
  Foreign holdings of U.S. debt are over $500 billion. Over 70 percent 
of the outstanding Federal marketable securities mature within the next 
5 years.
  This year the Government will spend over $200 billion on interest 
payments, over $200 billion on interest alone. That is over $500 
million in interest every single day. By the year 2004 we will be 
spending, if we continue along the current lines, $334 billion a year 
in interest on the debt.
  So the Federal Government by that time will be spending more on 
interest on the debt than on national defense. The Federal Government 
spends more on interest on the debt than on the combined budgets of 
Commerce, Justice, State, Education, Labor, Interior, Transportation, 
NASA, and EPA. By 1996 interest payments are expected to surpass Social 
Security as the single largest Government expense. That is a crisis. 
And it continues to get worse because as long as we are deficit 
spending and adding to the debt, and as long as we carry the debt, we 
continue to add to that debt with interest. And until we begin to buy 
the debt down, get the balanced budget, and begin to buy that debt 
down, we continue to increase the debt.
  Yes; it is a crisis. Yes; it is. By the year, we could be looking at 
a $6 to $7 trillion debt, and if we begin to project this out 
exponentially, we can see that we are headed for disaster. Anybody can 
see that. It is not that complicated.
  For example, when the national debt gets to $15 trillion, which it 
could very well do within the next 15 to 20 years, very easily $15 
trillion, if we borrow at 7 percent--and it could be much higher, 
doubtful it will be much lower, but it could be much higher--that is $1 
trillion a year in interest on the national debt every year. A trillion 
dollars. We throw around figures of millions, billions, and trillions 
around here. I asked a couple of people if anybody knew what comes 
after trillion. Is it quadrillion? I do not know. Does anybody know? It 
is unbelievable the way we throw these numbers around. It is not just 
those of us debating on the floor of the Senate today that recognize 
that this is a crisis. The American people recognize it.

  Harry Figgie recognizes it in his book, ``Bankruptcy 1995.'' It is a 
little bit early; it is not going to happen in 1995. But it is going to 
happen pretty quickly if we do not do something about it. Let me just 
quote a couple of lines from the Figgie book. He compares the debt to a 
hockey stick, and we see the toe of the hockey stick and we go straight 
up the shaft. Well, in the first 200 years of America, we are down here 
on the hockey stick. But in the next 20, we are going to go right up 
the hockey stick shaft, straight up with the debt, to projecting as 
high as $15 trillion to $20 trillion in the next 20 years.
  We have a problem in here. We heard it from many of the speakers who 
preceded me. The question is: Do we have the guts to say no to the 
special interests and make the necessary decisions to balance the 
budget? The point is that we are not doing that. We can argue--and 
Senator Stevens was eloquent in his comments about defense, and I agree 
with what he said about defense. We have gone too far in the defense 
budget. We have to set the priorities within the limits of a balanced 
budget. What are we going to spend it on? Environment, Social Security, 
defense? We have not made the decision. Are we going to do it within 
the confines of a balanced budget like the rest of us do in our 
families and our businesses? Here is what confronts the people in here 
when they try to make their decision. They use it as an excuse. Quoting 
from Figgie's book:

       Easy enough to say, critics counter. Tell that to doctors, 
     farmers, Social Security recipients, single mothers, defense 
     contractors, and Amtrak riders--all of the interest groups 
     who may have good cause to resist sacrificing their own 
     benefits for the greater good.

  I think that is an excuse, because I believe all of those people 
understand that if we lose this country economically, they lose. They 
understand it. You know what they want us to do? Tell them the truth, 
be honest about it. It is easy to say how much money I can give my 
constituents. It is a little more difficult to say how much I cannot 
give them. A good, old-fashioned dose of honesty and integrity and 
candor is what the American people want, and they are not getting it.
  Now, Bobby Kennedy is one I do not normally quote, and I am sure 
Senator Craig does not normally quote him. I am sure many of my 
colleagues who oppose this amendment will quote and have often quoted 
him in this body. He said, paraphrasing: ``If not now, when? If not us, 
who?'' Who is going to do it? Who is going to make the decision, and 
when are we going to do it? It is always tomorrow. It is always ``we 
can do it tomorrow.'' We do not need an amendment. But that is not good 
enough. It is not good enough.
  Figgie also says:

       One thing is certain in these troubled time: What we do now 
     will determine what happens to us later--both as individuals 
     and as a Nation.
       Little time remains for us to act, and, even then, our 
     actions must be decisive, bold, and radical if they are to be 
     proven effective.
       Forestalling the demise of our country requires the 
     commitment and participation of all of us--now.

  That is what the constitutional amendment is: now. We need it now. 
That is how bad the situation is.
  Is the balanced budget amendment a cure-all? No. It will not solve 
our fiscal problems overnight. But it will force us under the 
Constitution to make decisions that we now refuse to make because we do 
not have to. It will inject a healthy dose of responsibility and 
accountability into the budget process. It will force every Member of 
Congress to cast a rollcall vote to waive the balanced budget 
requirement so that he or she is on record; it will force every Member 
to cast a rollcall vote to increase the debt so they can be on record; 
and it will force Members of Congress to stand up and say they think 
this program or that program is so important that we should make future 
generations pay for it. It will compel us to do what we should have 
done for the last 25 years, which is to cut wasteful Federal spending.
  See, that is the problem. It is a selfish act that we commit around 
here almost daily, with the spending that we do, because it is not our 
money that we are spending. It is our future generation's money, our 
kids' money. Most of us, I think, if we were honest, would look in the 
mirror in the morning and say: I would certainly like to leave the 
things I have been able to gain in life--my home, my property, personal 
effects--to my children. But do we really want to leave them our debt? 
Is that what you dream about? Do you want to leave them the mortgage on 
your home, the debts you owe, or would it not be better to leave them 
debt-free and leave them your home? I think it is the latter. But that 
is not what we are doing.
  It is a crisis. It is a crisis. There are going to be those who are 
going to use the argument that we are going to raise taxes if this 
amendment passes. That is possible, but that is possible now. The 
question is: Do we have to raise taxes to cut spending, or do we have 
to cut spending to encourage economic growth? We have taxed this 
economy into stagnation. More taxes will only cost jobs and worsen the 
deficit. It is time for both parties to face the facts and reduce the 
size of Government.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 54 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SMITH. Will the Senator yield me another 5 minutes?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, let me again, one last time, quote from 
Harry Figgie, who spent a great deal of time studying this problem. 
Frankly, it ought to scare all of the people in this country. But it 
sums up, I think, in a very specific way, the way I feel about the 
crisis we are now in. This is what he says, and, again, I am 
paraphrasing here a bit from his book:

       They are killing our country, and by now you know who I 
     mean. You understand how serious our plight is and that we 
     have very little time--a few months, a year at the most--to 
     mobilize the citizens and the leaders of our country to take 
     up the fight against deficit spending and the mounting debt 
     that otherwise will destroy the United States as we know it.

  I emphasize the word ``destroy,'' because that is exactly what we are 
doing.
  Again, he says:

       Get it out of your mind that economic and political 
     collapse can't happen in this country, or that we can deal 
     with it once it happens. It can and * * * will happen here 
     unless we stop it now. You can't beat cancer once you've died 
     * * *
       The one point I have tried to stress more than any other in 
     this book is that the responsibility for raising the alarm 
     and goading public officials into action is ours--yours and 
     mine.

  My emphasis here is that the American people are goading us to this 
amendment, and rightfully so. They want this amendment. They want it 
because we are not exercising fiscal restraint.
  Again, Figgie says:

       What price are you willing to pay to save your country? 
     Middle-class Americans have a choice. They can pay a modest 
     price now or they can wait a few more years and lose 
     everything they've ever had.
  ``We should be ashamed,'' Figgie says.

       Probably speaking, debt isn't even our problem. Our 
     deficits and debt are simply tools that our ever-eager-to-
     please politicians use to provide their constituents with 
     what we say we want. By piling borrowing upon borrowing, 
     we've been able to spend money that we don't have on projects 
     and programs that most of us wouldn't condone if we had to 
     pay for them with real tax dollars.

  And, in conclusion, he says:

       I am also saddened when I see what has happened to politics 
     in the United States. Many people--nearly half of us, to 
     judge by recent voter turnouts--have opted out of the 
     process.

  Have opted out.

       In the face of interest group and corporate lobbying, too 
     many people think the single citizen has no voice. But a 
     single citizen does have a voice. Senators and Congresspeople 
     tell me that as few as 200 calls or letters from constituents 
     for or against a particular bill will often influence their 
     votes.

  I am not sure I agree with him there. But the point is if you do not 
think it is your responsibility to get involved in putting pressure on 
people in Government to change this system, then you are going to lose 
your country.
  There is debate as this debate continues, and you heard it before and 
you will hear it again over and over and over again, people will say we 
do not need this amendment. It is not necessary. We need fiscal 
restraint. We are going to cut everything that is of any importance or 
significance to us. We are going to lose everything.
  On the contrary. We will lose everything without it. Without fiscal 
restraint when this country goes totally bankrupt, which has to happen, 
either that or hyperinflation--they are the only two options--what do 
we have then? Where do we get the money for Social Security, for 
defense, for Medicare, for Medicaid, for the environment, for 
education? Where do we get it when the country goes down the tubes 
economically?
  Well, the answer is we will not have it to get.
  Mr. President, this is a good amendment. It is a necessary amendment. 
I regret that it is necessary, but it is. And it needs to be passed by 
this Senate, hopefully by the House, signed by the President, and sent 
on to the States for ratification. I sincerely hope that happens. And I 
commend again my colleagues for their leadership in bringing this 
amendment to the floor and engineering it through the process.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire yields the 
remainder of his time.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Reid]. The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan 
be allowed to address the Senate for a period of no greater than 5 
minutes and that it not be taken from anyone's time under the 
unanimous-consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________