[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 19 (Monday, February 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 28, 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 assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution.

       Pending:
       Reid Amendment No. 1471, in the nature of a substitute.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum equally 
divided three ways.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the time will be 
divided four ways.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to be 
equally charged to three Members, excluding Senator Byrd.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. In my capacity as a Senator from 
the State of Nevada, I object.
  Who yields time?
  (Mr. DODD assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HATCH. I yield such time as I may need.
  Mr. President, I am here not to find personal fault with anybody, but 
I do want to talk about the Reid amendment because it is merely a 
figleaf. The Reid amendment is simply a sham, a cover vote to allow 
Members to say to their constituents, the vast majority of whom want a 
balanced budget amendment and to whom they have been saying they will 
get a balanced budget amendment, that they supported something by that 
name.
  Proponents of the Simon-Hatch amendment are not alone in this 
assessment. The New York Times reported last Friday that ``the 
substitute 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 have supported a balanced budget amendment.'' That is 
an article entitled ``Option May Doom Budget Amendment (for Now).'' 
That is in the New York Times of this last  Friday, February 25.

  Indeed, although the Reid amendment was unveiled just last Thursday, 
the possibility of such an alternative was signaled a week earlier by a 
key administration official. On February 18, Leon Panetta, President 
Clinton's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and a long-
time foe of the balanced budget amendment, had this to say:

       If you allow people to say, ``Are you for or against a 
     balanced budget,'' you'll lose it.

  Mr. Panetta explained:

       There are going to be some Members who are going to have to 
     have an alternative proposal that they can vote for in order 
     to give them cover to come out against the Simon proposal.

  Describing the process of developing sufficient cover for Senators, 
Mr. Panetta further explained that ``you're basically counting votes 
and you're basically saying to Members, `What do you need?' To the 
extent that a Member says, `I need a constitutional amendment' * * * 
you probably have to design an alternative amendment to the 
Constitution that would in some way protect them.''
  So there is nothing that we have not understood here. Leon Panetta 
made it very clear they were going to come up with a sham amendment 
that would get some people off the hook so they could say they voted 
for a balanced budget amendment when, in fact, it is nothing but a 
sham.
  Mr. President, I do not believe the Reid amendment has any chance of 
passing in the Senate with the requisite 67 votes, and neither does the 
leadership. Even if it did, a substantial change of this nature to the 
balanced budget amendment will kill its chance of passage in the House 
of Representatives. In 1992, the Gephardt amendment which had similar 
exemptions lost handily. It got only 104 votes for it and over 300 
votes against it.
  Make no mistake, this is a killer amendment, and its purpose is to 
undermine a true balanced budget amendment called the Simon-Hatch-
Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig amendment.
  The ironies of offering the Reid amendment are very interesting to 
me. The real case against the Reid amendment, however, is not based on 
motive, it is based on merit.
  On its merits, Mr. President, this alternative is simply not 
acceptable. In fact, it is quite ironic that Senate Joint Resolution 
41, the product of years of hearings and public and congressional 
debate, has been criticized as trivializing the Constitution. Talk 
about trivializing the Constitution. The Senate will vote tomorrow on 
the Reid balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a proposal 
unveiled just 4 days ago. Not 1 day of hearings, not one constitutional 
expert, not any backing from anybody. It is merely a facade so some 
people can cover their back sides and then vote against the real 
amendment, the Simon-Hatch-Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig amendment.
  It is quite ironic as well that Senate Joint Resolution 41 has been 
criticized as being undemocratic. Talk about undemocratic. The Reid 
alternative, No. 1, cedes authority to suspend the operation of a 
constitutional requirement to balance the budget to the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, an unelected official whose appointment is 
not even subject to congressional confirmation and, No. 2, says the 
Congress may delegate the power to order uniform cuts in the budget to 
some unnamed ``officer of Congress.'' We have all heard the expression 
``a player to be named later.'' If this alternative passes, we will 
have a similar provision in the U.S. Constitution.
  Mr. President, it is ironic as well that opponents of the Simon-Hatch 
amendment have incorrectly criticized it as a gimmick which can be 
easily circumvented. It is the Reid alternative, however, that has 
mammoth loopholes, such as exemptions for everything outside of 
undefined ``operating funds'' of the United States, or what it refers 
to as ``capital investments.'' Talk about loopholes, that could include 
anything in the budget.
  No. 3, The Reid amendment is unacceptable as a balanced budget 
amendment. It is a pure and simple sham. The Reid amendment is simply 
not an acceptable alternative to the Simon-Hatch balanced budget 
amendment for four reasons:
  First, the Reid amendment has no functional enforcement provision. 
What good is a balanced budget amendment if there is no incentive to 
enforce it?
  Second, it allows deficit spending through so many loopholes that 
under it we would never get the debt under control.
  Third, the Reid amendment constitutionalizes questionable economic 
policies.
  And, fourth, the Reid amendment conflicts with the philosophy 
underlying the Constitution in two ways: It explicitly cedes broad 
constitutional authority to unelected officials in a way wholly 
inconsistent with traditional constitutional law and principles, and it 
denies fundamental norms of due process by denying access to any court 
to vindicate any private rights.

  Each of these flaws opens the amendment to abuse and creates a vent 
through which the pressure to make the hard choices escapes, along with 
the possibility of a balanced budget. The Reid amendment allows 
numerous avenues for deficit spending through which Congress can 
continue its current profligacy. It contains numerous abdications of 
congressional responsibility and accountability for taxing and spending 
decisions. And finally, it supports continued congressional 
irresponsibility.
  In contrast, the Simon-Hatch amendment requires Congress to take 
responsibility for all Federal spending and taxing decisions. It forces 
Congress to set priorities and make spending decisions within the 
limits of the available revenues. It requires Congress to spend for the 
things the American taxpayers are willing to pay for and no more. It 
stops the further abdication of congressional responsibility encouraged 
in the Reid amendment and requires Congress to once again take its 
constitutional duty seriously and in the way the framers intended.
  Let me discuss the reasons I have referred to one at a time.
  Mr. President, the Reid amendment has no effective enforcement 
provision to help assure that a budget actually be balanced. Sections 1 
and 2 of the Reid amendment require that the ``estimated outlays of the 
operating funds of the United States do not exceed the estimated 
receipts of those funds.'' However, what is noticeably absent from the 
amendment is a backup enforcement provision to ensure a balanced budget 
if those estimates are wrong.
  Furthermore, section 5 of the Reid amendment allows enforcement only 
in accordance with some possible future legislation, ensuring that 
Congress can control how much or how little enforcement is available. 
As a consequence, the Reid amendment really is an unenforceable gimmick 
because there is no absolute institutional enforcement mechanism to 
limit the amount of debt if the estimates are wrong.
  By contrast, the Simon-Hatch amendment requires that actual outlays 
and receipts be in balance, not just the estimates. Most importantly, 
to ensure this, the Simon-Hatch-Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig amendment has 
a critical backup provision. It requires that there be no increase in 
the national debt limit unless there is a three-fifths vote to waive 
the debt ceiling. Thus, while the Simon-Hatch amendment allows for 
pragmatic reliance on estimates, it does not allow the uncertainty of 
estimates to increase the national debt as a matter, of course. If the 
estimates are wrong, under the Simon-Hatch-Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig 
amendment, Congress must fix it. Congress must balance the actual 
receipts and outlays or it bumps into the debt ceiling.
  The Simon-Hatch amendment's debt ceiling provision cannot be changed 
by later legislation. And it is this provision in the amendment, a 
provision noticeably absent from the Reid alternative, that provides a 
significant and permanent enforcement mechanism to ensure that mistakes 
in estimates--and they will occur--do not mean increases in debt.
  Mr. President, the Reid amendment does not require that the whole 
budget be balanced, and it contains a number of loopholes through which 
large deficits could be run.
  Sections 1 and 2 of the Reid amendment only require the balancing of 
the estimated receipts and outlays of Federal ``operating funds.'' 
Operating funds is not defined in the amendment and could be defined by 
legislation in any way to avoid operation of the balanced budget 
requirement. The Reid amendment allows everything other than operating 
funds to be paid for by deficit spending.
  According to section 3 of the Reid amendment, even this weak 
requirement of balancing Federal operating funds, however defined, can 
be avoided for a full 2 years if there is ever an economic slowdown for 
two quarters as estimated by, guess what, the Congressional Budget 
Office. Thus, if the economy slows down for two quarters, or the 
Congressional Budget Office determines that it has or will in its own 
estimation, Congress has free rein to run up deficits for 2 full years 
under this amendment.
  Mr. President, it is unbelievable that anybody would argue this is a 
balanced budget amendment.
  Furthermore, the Reid amendment also exempts a number of potentially 
mammoth accounts from the balanced budget requirement under section 4 
including--get this--``capital investments.'' Capital investments is 
not defined and its meaning is not agreed upon at the Federal level. 
Who knows how broadly that is going to be construed? It could cover 
everything from education to transportation expenditures. Would welfare 
payments be considered investment in human capital? Virtually 
everything could be excluded by this loophole.
  In stark contrast, the Simon-Hatch amendment requires that all 
Federal outlays and receipts be balanced. This means that there will 
not be a false requirement to balance a small part of the budget while 
numerous other accounts are still stacking up mountains of debt. And 
there is no automatic copout that allows deficit spending in the Simon-
Hatch amendment. If there is going to be deficit spending under Simon-
Hatch, it will require a broad consensus in Congress to go on record as 
approving it.
  Mr. President, the Reid amendment constitutionalizes questionable 
economic policies. Section 3 of the Reid amendment allows deficit 
spending in times of recession or economic slowdown. More precisely, it 
allows 2 years of deficit spending if the director of the Congressional 
Budget Office estimates that economic growth has been or will be 1 
percent or less for 2 consecutive quarters.
  Now, this is a distorted version of Keynesianism, and it is not clear 
that it would work to stimulate our current economy. In fact, our 
recent history seems to refute such an expectation. We had record 
deficits and zero or low growth over the last 3 years. This sort of 
stimulus mechanism obviously is not working.
  Moreover, we have been running deficits for three decades. Have we 
been in a recession requiring this stimulus for three decades? Because 
of deficit stimulus has the economy avoided the business cycle for 
three decades? No. The correlation between deficits and prosperity is 
far from clear, based on our history.
  Furthermore, I have not heard any evidence suggesting that the 
definition of recession embodied in the Reid amendment is the right 
one. Why is it 1 percent growth or less for two quarters as provided by 
the Reid amendment? Why should that then enable Congress to run up 
deficits for 2 succeeding years? Come on. This is not even a serious 
effort if you really look at it.
  I have other questions about this provision. At the level we are now 
spending, that is, about $1.5 trillion each year, just how big of a 
deficit will we have to run to stimulate the economy? We already have 
our foot to the floor on the debt accelerator. We cannot seriously 
argue that pushing our debts further will be helpful.
  With all these questions about the economic assumptions underlying 
the amendment, I think this is precisely the wrong kind of narrow 
economic policy to staple into the timeless Constitution.
  The Simon-Hatch amendment avoids this morass by simply requiring 
balanced budgets as a rule unless a supermajority of Congress agrees 
otherwise.
  A balanced budget norm is an unassailable principle. Under the Reid 
alternative, however, it is a rule swallowed by exceptions.


d. the reid amendment is at odds with constitutional principles in that 
  it cedes broad power to unelected officials and conflicts with due 
                             process norms

  Mr. President, the Reid amendment, if passed, would radically alter 
fundamental principles of our Constitution. It does not simply amend 
Senate Joint Resolution 41. It works a revolution in the constitutional 
balance of power between the President and the Congress, tilting the 
equilibrium in favor of the legislature. It violates fundamental norms 
of due process by altogether denying a potential litigant even the 
possibility of seeking redress for harms committed by those violating 
the amendment. And it overturns specific precedents of the Supreme 
Court of the United States upholding the doctrine of separation of 
powers and protecting rights under the fifth amendment.
  Once again, section 3 provides, in part, that the amendment ``shall 
be suspended'' for 2 consecutive fiscal years ``if the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, or any successor, estimates that real 
economic growth has been or will be less than 1 percent for two 
consecutive quarters during the period of those 2 fiscal years.''
  Talk about loopholes. Talk about a ridiculous provision. Talk about 
control of the budget by unelected officials. Talk about something that 
should never be written into the Constitution.
  Section 5 states that the amendment ``shall be enforced only in 
accordance with appropriate legislation enacted by Congress. The 
Congress may, by appropriate legislation, delegate to an officer of 
Congress the power to order uniform cuts.''
  You talk about violations of separation of powers. Talk about 
unconstitutional thinking. Talk about lack of due process. Talk about 
turning over our destiny to somebody who is not elected for anything. 
That is what this amendment does.
  The naming of these two officials in a constitutional amendment is 
strange indeed, and, I believe, unprecedented. It is unequivocally 
clear that the delegation to the Director of the CBO to suspend the 
operation of the amendment upon the estimation that a ``recession'' 
exists or will exist violates the principle of separation of powers--so 
too does the delegation to some yet unnamed ``officer of Congress'' to 
order uniform budget cuts.
  The proponents can argue, well, this is a constitutional amendment. 
Therefore, it will be constitutional if it passes. We all know it is 
not going to pass. Let me just say this: If it did, it would fly in the 
face of more than 200 years of constitutional law and theory and 
practice. It would undermine the very Constitution that we have all 
believed in all these years.
  In Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986), the Supreme Court, declared 
unconstitutional a section of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. Section 
251 of the act mandated that the Directors of the OMB and the CBO 
submit deficit estimates and program-by-program budget reduction 
calculations to the Comptroller General.
  The Supreme Court was right in making that decision. We warned the 
budgeteers at that time. They came to me as chairman of the 
constitutional subcommittee, and said, ``What should we do?'' I said, 
``That will be unconstitutional.'' It was. But they had to satisfy the 
House. So they went ahead and put the Comptroller General in anyway, 
and they were knocked down in the Bowsher case.
  The Comptroller General had to review the Directors' joint report and 
report his conclusions to the President. The President, in turn, was 
required by the act to issue a sequestration order mandating the 
spending reductions specified by the Comptroller General--unless 
Congress through legislation obviated the need for the sequestration 
order.
  In holding section 251 of the act unconstitutional, the Court noted 
that the Comptroller General--a congressional officer subject to 
removal by Congress--in determining exactly what the President had to 
sequester, was performing an act ``executive in nature.''
  That is very important, Mr. President. This amendment is just going 
to ignore all our constitutional history and allow appointed people in 
Congress to make these fundamental decisions--nonelected people.
  Congress may determine by law the existence and scope of executive 
duty. However, once Congress makes its choice through the enactment of 
legislation, ``its participation ends'' as the Court stated in Bowsher:

       Congress can thereafter control the execution of its 
     enactment only indirectly--by passing new legislation. By 
     placing the responsibility for execution of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act in the hands of an 
     officer who is subject to removal only by itself, Congress in 
     effect has retained control over the execution of the Act and 
     has intruded into the executive functions.

  And it will be violating standard constitutional norms involving the 
separation of powers. The Constitution simply does not permit such 
intrusion. If this passes, it would be a constitutional amendment and 
it would be part of the Constitution. But it would be very unwise, very 
unwarranted, and would fly in the face of 200 years of constitutional 
history.
  Mr. President, the Reid amendment does permit such intrusion. It 
allows two congressional officers to retain control over the 
administration of the amendment: The Director of the CBO, who is only 
removable by Congress, is delegated authority to determine the 
existence of a recession and suspend the operation of the amendment; 
and an unnamed congressional figure is delegated the authority to make 
budget cuts--the very act the Bowsher Court found to violate separation 
of powers. Not only would the Reid amendment overturn Bowsher, it would 
eviscerate the constitutional cornerstone doctrine of separation of 
powers. We must heed, Mr. President, the warning of James Madison, 
called by many the ``Father of the Constitution,'' not to do what the 
Reid amendment does--commingle legislative and executive powers. As 
Madison admonished in the Federalist No. 47: ``There can be no liberty 
where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same 
person, or body. * * * '' The Federalist No. 47, page 325 (J. Cooke ed. 
1961).
  Yet that is not the only problem the Reid amendment has with the 
fundamental principles of the Constitution; it also violates 
fundamental norms of due process of law. Section 5 of the amendment 
provides for enforcement only by Congress through implementing 
legislation. Thus, if Congress does not provide for judicial review, a 
potential litigant is denied his day in court. Compare that with the 
Simon-Hatch amendment, which is silent as to judicial review but limits 
the relief that courts may grant to declaratory relief to prevent the 
undue intrusion of the judiciary into the budget process. If standing 
and justiciability can be demonstrated by a litigant, and if the claim 
does not amount to a noncognizable political question--a possibility 
which I suggest is remote--Simon-Hatch would allow for a vindication of 
a private right. Not so with the Reid proposal. Even the opportunity to 
demonstrate the legitimacy of a claim is denied.

  Article III of the Constitution grants to Congress broad powers to 
limit the jurisdiction of lower Federal courts and even the appellate 
jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court. This proposition was settled by 
the post-Civil War case of Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 
(1869). However, Mr. President, it has also been settled that in 
limiting the jurisdiction of courts, Congress may not deprive a party 
of a right vested in the Constitution. United States v. Bitty, 298 U.S. 
393, 399-400 (1908). This the Reid amendment would accomplish. By 
denying access to any court--State or Federal--the amendment could in 
effect read out of the Constitution the fifth amendment's guarantee of 
due process of law.
  How can anybody who wants a balanced budget amendment do that to the 
Constitution? That right is a fundamental right deriving from, as Mr. 
Jefferson so elegantly stated, ``Nature and nature's God''--and not 
from any political process.
  Mr. President, there are other issues arising from these provisions 
that suggest they are inconsistent with our constitutional system of 
Government. Section 5 of the Reid amendment allows a delegation to ``an 
officer of Congress the power to order uniform cuts.'' There is no 
indication that the officer of Congress must be an elected official. 
Who will it be? It is simply unprecedented to have a constitutional 
delegation of power to impose across the board cuts in the budget of 
the United States to a single Member of Congress or, potentially, any 
minor unelected congressional employee.
  Mr. President, what does the term ``uniform cuts' mean? The Reid 
proponents have been implying they are across-the-board cuts, but that 
is not clear. If this new budget czar only makes across-the-board cuts, 
Congress again avoids making hard decisions about budget priorities. If 
the cuts are not across the board, we potentially have impoundment 
authority under the Constitution of the United States given to 
unelected officials.

  It does not take any brains to figure this out from reading that 
amendment.
  Most amazing is the fact that this alternative amendment provides 
that the constitutional requirement of a balanced budget can be 
suspended by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Can you 
imagine? What we have is a proposed amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States referring to the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office and authorizing this unelected official, whose appointment is 
not even subject to Senate confirmation, to suspend the operation of 
the Constitution. And they call our amendment undemocratic.
  Give me a break.
  Mr. President, for all these reasons and more the Reid amendment, 
this political figleaf, this caricature of a constitutional amendment, 
must be rejected.
  The American people must not--and will not--be fooled.
  Mr. President, the only serious balanced budget amendment is the one 
that has been going through the process and has endured for the last 12 
years, the Simon-Hatch-Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig amendment. It is the 
only one that will move this Nation to a balanced budget and the only 
one that will restore congressional responsibility and accountability 
to the Federal budget process. The Congress knows it, and the American 
people deserve, and will not accept anything less than their Senators' 
support for the Simon-Hatch balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. President, I happen to revere the Constitution of the United 
States. I know that it is subject to conflicting evaluations from time 
to time. I understand we can differ on some constitutional 
interpretations, but there are some basic things you cannot differ on, 
and I have tried to enumerate them here today.
  If this type of amendment passes--it will not--but if it does pass, 
we are jeopardizing our constitutional way of life and the fundamental 
values that have made this country the greatest country in the world.
  We are causing the Constitution to lose its value with this type of 
an amendment. We are causing the Constitution to be treated as though 
it is not the most fundamentally good political document in the history 
of the world. And frankly we are in danger of losing our freedom if we 
enact something like this. But nobody believes it is going to be 
enacted. We all know it is a fig leaf to provide cover for those who 
have promised the folks back home they are going to vote for a balanced 
budget amendment so they can go home and say they voted for a balanced 
budget amendment, and we better put that in quotes a ``balanced budget 
amendment.'' They will not put it that way, but that is the way it 
should be put so they can then slide by and not have to face the wrath 
of the voters. Let it be known right here and now that the wrath of the 
voters is going to be there. It may not be in the next few weeks or the 
next month, but it is going to be there when people start to look and 
understand what is being done here today and tomorrow in that vote at 3 
o'clock in the afternoon.
  I hope nobody is going to be deceived by this amendment, and I hope 
that we will have those who are truly undecided look at these facts and 
these problems and help us on this Simon-Hatch-Thurmond-DeConcini-Craig 
amendment and help us get it passed to see if we can get 
this country under control.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] and his amendment that is 
being debated now and will be voted on, I believe, tomorrow around 3 
o'clock.
  I have worked with the Senator from Nevada, and he knows my deep 
respect for him and friendship for him. He has been a strong supporter 
of the balanced budget amendment.
  So I understand the Senator's concern with the present Simon-Hatch 
amendment that is before us and now this substitute.
  But the provisions in the Reid amendment, in my judgment, would turn 
the balanced budget amendment into the very gimmick that some opponents 
of the Simon-Hatch amendment say it is. They argue that it is not well 
thought out, that it has loopholes, and that it is not going to work.
  The Reid amendment would create two large loopholes in the balanced 
budget amendment by eliminating Social Security trust funds and outlays 
for capital investments from the balanced budget requirements. The 
Federal budget would be divided into capital expenses and operating 
expenses similar to many State budgets. I can just imagine all types of 
expenditures being classified as ``capital expenses'' in order to avoid 
the requirements for a balanced budget.
  Congress could--and would--as we have, in the past, unfortunately 
engage in all sorts of budgeting gimmickry. The balanced budget 
amendment would truly be meaningless. The amendment of the Senator from 
Nevada does not require a vote to raise the debt ceiling. Those of us 
who have debated raising the debt ceiling realize how significant it is 
that this country and this Congress continuously raises the debt 
ceiling without regard to the consequences of our actions. We do not 
truly address the problem because we are afraid that a check will not 
go out, that the Federal Government will come to a close. The American 
public needs to know that this Nation is broke and we are living on 
future generations' money. We cannot continue to do this. This 
provision in the Reid amendment gives Congress the power to add to our 
$4.7 trillion debt with the same ease we can currently. The requirement 
for a supermajority vote to raise the debt ceiling under the Simon-
Hatch amendment was the subject of much discussion. The consensus was 
that it was necessary if we were ever going to stop the endless 
borrowing and actually get to a position where we could reduce the 
Federal debt itself, not just the growth of the Federal debt but the 
actual Federal debt.
  Clearly, if the Reid amendment passes Congress will have a back door 
to continue down the path of fiscal irresponsibility.
  Our Constitution has survived for over 200 years because it embodies 
broad principles that are timeless in their application. The Reid 
amendment, I think, violates the spirit of the Constitution 
by including details of a process better left to implementing 
legislation, for example, the Reid amendment provides that Congress can 
suspend the balanced budget requirement if the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, a nonelected person, not even appointed by 
the President, estimates that the economy is in a recess. It is totally 
unprecedented for a Government official, one that is not 
constitutionally created and subject to change by the will of the 
Congress, to be named in the Constitution. This is really a flaw that 
should be addressed even if we should, and I do not think we will, pass 
the Reid amendment.

  Furthermore this ``recession exemption'' will allow Congress to 
suspend a constitutional requirement at the first sign of economic 
downturn. All you have to do is convince the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office to say ``I estimate that the economy is in 
recession'' and the requirement for a balanced budget can be waived. 
That does not make sense.
  If we continue to deficit spend and add to the debt at the first sign 
of a rocky economy we are never going to have a balanced budget.
  I understand the concern that many have about including Social 
Security funds in a balanced budget amendment. This Senator has stood 
on this floor for many years and voted to preserve the Social Security 
Program and keep the Social Security funds safe. I know that many of my 
colleagues are worried about this issue but this is another red 
herring. Although Social Security is running a surplus today, that may 
not always be the case. In 1978, when I first came here, it was 
projected it was going to be broke and run a deficit, and we corrected 
that. We are all aware of the probability that sometime in the future 
Social Security trust funds could be in trouble. Congress has been at 
the forefront of providing the funds necessary thus, that has not 
happened.

  But, what would happen if Social Security ran out of money? Including 
them within the parameters of the balanced budget amendment will 
guarantee that funds will be available to meet the obligations to 
future retirees.
  Entitlement spending constitutes 47 percent of the Federal budget. If 
we are going to balance the budget we need to look at all spending, 
including Social Security. Those individuals who depend on Social 
Security, Medicaid, and other Government programs should not fear being 
cut off. These programs are an important priority of our Government and 
there is no way they will be dismantled. I think that has been proven 
time and time again. We saw an effort to wipe out cost of living 
increases in the early eighties under the Reagan administration. That 
is this Congress, this Senate, and the House of Representatives, that 
said, ``No, Mr. President, we are not going to do that.''
  The most serious threat to Social Security is our $4.7 trillion 
national debt. Net interest on the debt now consumes 16 percent of the 
Federal budget. If the debt remains unchecked by the year 2015 interest 
on the debt will devour more than 10 percent of the gross domestic 
product. This is equal to about 40 percent of anticipated Federal 
spending. This interest obligation will begin to crowd out Social 
Security while the continued buildup of debt will impair the ability of 
future taxpayers to refund moneys borrowed from the trust fund. This 
will endanger the welfare of Social Security far more than a balanced 
budget amendment. Quite frankly, a balanced budget amendment will 
protect Social Security.
  The Simon amendment has been the subject of numerous hearings and 
countless hours of debate. it reflects a broad consensus within 
Congress and outside groups. The proposed Reid amendment has had the 
benefit of none of this debate or hearings.
  Voting for the Reid alternative is not a vote for fiscal 
responsibility. It is a vote for business as usual.
  We do it all the time, and we are likely to do it again, although I 
do not believe it is going to pass, because I think enough of us 
understand that the Reid amendment truly will not work. It has not been 
well thought out and will not result in a balanced Federal budget that 
the Simon-Hatch amendment will do.
  If some of my colleagues feel they must vote for the Reid amendment--
and I respect that--then go ahead and do so. But, please, do not leave 
it there and then walk away and think that you have taken care of the 
balanced budget issue. Go on and vote for the Simon-Hatch amendment. 
Have the courage to vote for a true constitutional amendment. There is 
no reason that you need to vote just for one, to so-call cover 
yourself. Vote for both.
  Take a chance that a balanced budget amendment will change the course 
of this country's fiscal deficit and put it on the right road for a 
change. Otherwise, all will be for naught in this effort to pass a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget and this great country 
will suffer.
  Once again, we will be sending a message that we cannot rise above 
special interest politics and act in the national interest. This, in 
turn, will feed the very doubts that have spawned distrust not only of 
congressional incumbents but of the political parties that are 
represented in this body.
  I encourage every Member to think seriously about their vote and to 
think seriously about the nature of what we are debating here and the 
importance of passing a constitutional amendment that would do the job.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from 
Maine wishes to take 3 minutes on something not related to this debate. 
I have a few minutes under the time I have reserved to me, and then 
Senator Byrd, the President pro tempore of the Senate, wishes to take 
his 2 hours and 14 minutes, or whatever time he wishes.
  I am wondering if we could have a unanimous-consent agreement that 
the Senator from Maine be recognized for 3 minutes as if in morning 
business; that his time not be charged against any of the proponents of 
the various amendments before the Senate; then I be recognized; and 
then Senator Byrd be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator make that request?
  Mr. REID. I do make that unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank my colleague from Nevada and also my colleague 
from West Virginia for their agreeing to allow me to proceed very 
briefly.

                          ____________________