[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1736-S1755]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced 
     budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are happy at this point to have Senate 
Joint Resolution 1, the Hatch-Simon balanced budget constitutional 
amendment brought up. It is in the form of the House-passed amendment 
which is absolutely identical to the amendment that the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois and I and Members of the House, including Charles 
Stenholm, from Texas, and, at that time, Larry Craig back in the early 
days over in the House, who is now one of the leaders on the Senate 
floor, have been working on for years, ever since the 1982 balanced 
budget fight.
  When I was chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, we brought it 
to the floor and then to the leadership of Senator Thurmond, Senator 
Dole, and Senator Baker at that time. We were able to pass it through 
the Senate.
  This is slightly changed from then, but the basic principles are the 
same. Basically, there are three things that the general public needs 
to know are very worthy reasons for passing this balanced budget 
amendment that is now in the form of the House resolution that was 
passed by 300 votes to 132 last Thursday evening.
  No. 1 is that if this amendment is passed by the requisite two-thirds 
vote of the Senate and is ratified by the requisite three-quarters of 
the States, then from that point on, it will take three-fifths of both 
bodies in order to increase the deficit.
  That is a supermajority vote, and the reason we have done that on the 
deficit is because the deficit is going out of control and we would 
have to have a supermajority vote in order to have real considerations 
as to whether or not we want to continue to expand the deficit.
  So, No. 1, you would have to have a three-fifths vote if you want to 
increase deficit spending. No. 2, if you want to increase taxes to pay 
for the costs of Government, then you no longer can do it by a simple 
majority vote.
  Some of the media in this country have had the idea that this 
amendment just has a simple majority vote. It is not true. It has what 
is called--and we put it into the 1982 amendment that passed the Senate 
by 60 percent but died in the House, then led by Tip O'Neill; he beat 
us over there--but we came up with the idea of a constitutional 
majority requisite vote in order to increase taxes.
  Let me just explain that a little bit more. If this amendment becomes 
the 28th amendment to the Constitution, then in order to increase 
taxes, you are going to have to have 51 percent--a majority of the 
whole body of both the House and the Senate. So to put that in 
perspective, we could pass anything in this body as a general rule by a 
majority vote if we have a quorum of 51 Senators. We can pass anything 
by a vote of 26 to 25, if that is how close it was.
  Under a constitutional majority, we cannot increase taxes without, 
No. 1, a vote and, No. 2, without getting at least, no less, than 51 
U.S. Senators to vote for it and in the House at least no less than 218 
Members of the House.
  So those are two very important reasons for voting for this: No. 1, 
in order to increase the deficit, this amendment says you are going to 
have to have a three-fifths vote of both bodies, the Senate and the 
House. No. 2, if you want to increase taxes, you are going to have to 
have a constitutional majority to do so. And No. 3, you have to vote.
  Right now, many times when we increase the deficit in this country, 
we do not vote at all. We just have a voice vote. Nobody knows who are 
the people that have put us into debt or put us into further debt. From 
here on in, in both cases, that of increasing the debt or increasing 
taxes, we are going to have to have rollcall votes. Those are the three 
pivotal and most important aspects of this amendment.
  Let me just put it in further perspective, with regard to the 
constitutional majority necessary to raise taxes. If the President's 
fiscal stimulus bill had come up, as it came up last year, was passed 
the way it was, the Senate was equally divided 50-50. There were 50 who 
voted for it and 50 who voted against it. It took the Vice President to 
break the tie, and it passed 51 to 50.
  If this amendment passes, my contention is it will take at least 51 
Senators, regardless of the way the Vice President votes, in order to 
increase taxes.
  So it will not be easy to increase taxes, although we have had many 
votes in the history of this body where we have had 51 votes for taxes.
  I believe it will become the focal point from that point on. I 
believe the three-fifths vote will become the focal point on increasing 
the deficit.
  Why are we even talking about a balanced budget amendment? I have 
talked to many of my constituents and there was more than one person 
who came to me and who said: ``What kind of a legacy are we leaving to 
our children? How can I and my generation continue to spend us into 
bankruptcy and leave our children high and dry?''
  I have had a number of people on Social Security all over my State 
come to me and say, ``Look, Senator, if you don't get spending under 
control, our Social Security isn't going to be worth anything. We won't 
be able to survive because that is all we have to live on.''
  If we do not get spending under control, they say, they are going to 
not get many benefits out of Social Security.
  These people put the correct issue first: Are we going to live within 
our means so that our dollar is worth something, so that we do not 
ultimately have to monetize the debt, devalue the dollar, and make even 
Social Security less worthwhile for people? And they are the first to 
admit that we need a balanced budget constitutional amendment to make 
it necessary for Congress to choose among competing programs.
  I have had people in the military say, ``What are we going to do? 
Military spending keeps going down.'' If we start getting into a range 
of inflation, because interest against the national debt is now over 
$300 billion a year and going up exponentially and will be over $400 
billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, after the first 
of the year, how are we going to keep our country safe and clear? And 
that is based on current interest rates. Will inflation not go up even 
more?
 The answer to that is probably so.

  They said to me, as much as we want the military to be strong and our 
Nation to be secure, you are going to have to pass the balanced budget 
amendment.
  The average person out there understands this. They do not get all 
caught up in the special interest concerns of the day. People who think 
clearly 
[[Page S1737]] know that we have to do something about this profligate 
Federal spending.
  So I rise today with a very strong feeling that this is one of the 
most important debates in this country's history that has ever taken 
place in the Senate.
  The subject matter goes to the heart of our Founding Fathers' hope 
for our constitutional system, a system that has and will protect 
individual freedoms to the maxim of limited Government.
  In the latter half of this century, however, the intention of the 
Framers of the Constitution has been betrayed by Congress' inability to 
control its own spending habits. The size of the Federal leviathan has 
grown to such an extent that the very liberties of our American people 
are threatened.
  History has already been made in the House of Representatives; 300 of 
our courageous colleagues in the House, both Democrats and Republicans, 
approved this balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which 
parallels word for word Senate Joint Resolution 1, the Hatch-Simon-
Thurmond-Heflin-Craig balanced budget amendment, under the leadership 
of the distinguished majority leader, Robert Dole.
  The eyes of the people, 85 percent of whom favor a balanced budget 
amendment, now turn to us in the Senate. They know this is the 
battleground. They know this is where the real battle is going to 
occur. We need to follow the example of the House and pass this 
balanced budget amendment.
  This amendment has broad support in the country, and among Democrats 
and Republicans who believe we need to get this Nation's fiscal house 
in order so that we can leave a legacy of strong national economy and a 
responsible national Government to our children and our grandchildren.


                 The Problem: The Worsening Debt Crisis

  We have a tremendous debt problem, and it is worsening. Mr. 
President, our Nation is faced with a $4.8 trillion national debt that 
gets worse and worse every year that we run a budget deficit. The 
Government is using capital that would otherwise be available to the 
private sector to create jobs and to invest in our future. Increased 
amounts of capital are being wasted on merely financing the debt 
because of spiraling interest costs. This problem presents risks to our 
long-term economic growth and endangers the well-being of our elderly, 
our working people, and especially our children and grandchildren. The 
debt burden is a mortgage on our children and grandchildren's future.
  The trend is clear and uninterrupted. The magnitude of the annual 
deficits has increased enormously and continues to do so. During the 
1960's, deficits averaged $6 billion per year. In the 1970's, the 
deficits averaged $38 billion per year. In the 1980's, the deficits 
averaged $156 billion per year, and in the 1990's so far deficits have 
averaged $259 billion per year.
  The total national debt now stands at almost $5 trillion. That means 
that every man, woman and child in America has an individual debt 
burden of $18,500. We each owe that much money. Well, it took us over 
200 years to acquire our first trillion dollars of debt, 200 years of 
history before we got to $1 trillion. We have recently been adding 
another trillion dollars of debt about every 5 years and will continue 
to do so under current projections at a slightly faster rate as we 
approach the end of the decade--$18,500 each of us owes. Back in 1975, 
we thought it was outrageous that we each owed $2,500.
  When I ran for the Senate in 1976, it was a little higher than 
$2,500, and we just thought that was unbelievable. Here it is $18,500, 
caused by both parties, caused by Presidents, whether Republican or 
Democrat, caused by a profligate Congress mainly that has not been 
willing to get spending under control.
  Well, it comes as no surprise that these increases in our national 
debt are mirrored by increases in Federal spending. The first $100 
billion budget in the history of our Nation occurred as recently as 
fiscal year 1962. It took us until then to spend the first $100 billion 
a year. That was more than 179 years after the founding of the 
Republic.
  The first $200 billion budget, however, followed only 9 years later 
in fiscal year 1971. The first $300 billion budget occurred only 4 
years later in fiscal year 1975, the first $400 billion budget 2 years 
later in fiscal 1977, the first $500 billion budget in fiscal year 
1981, the first $700 billion budget in fiscal 1982, $800 billion in 
1983, $900 billion in 1985, and the first $1 trillion budget in fiscal 
year 1987. The budget for fiscal year 1995 has been projected to exceed 
$1.5 trillion.
  And yet, Mr. President, opponents of the balanced budget amendment 
claim there is no problem. They repeatedly point to the marginal 
slowdown in the growth of the debt last year as though all of our 
problems are solved. They say that President Clinton has dealt with 
this problem.
  But they are dead wrong. Only inside the beltway can people claim 
that with a debt approaching $5 trillion we are on the right track. 
Everyone on Capitol Hill knows that starting in 1996, President 
Clinton's budget leads us on a path of steadily increasing deficits, 
beyond anything that we have ever seen before. The simple fact is that 
with every additional dollar we borrow, we throw more coal into the 
fire of the runaway train on which we are all riding.


                   Interest On The Debt: A Time Bomb

  Mr. President, one of the most pernicious effects of the enormous 
deficit beast is the interest costs required to feed it. Interest on 
the national debt in 1993, the last year for which we have a full 
actual set of budget figures, amounted to nearly $293 billion.
  Now, that is more than the total revenues to the Federal Government 
were back in 1975--just interest against the debt. In 1993, interest 
took 26 percent of all Federal revenues and 57 percent of all 
individual income tax revenues.
  The Office of Management and Budget projected last year that interest 
on the debt will rise substantially over the next 5 years. It is now 
going up exponentially. OMB projected that interest costs will pass the 
$300 billion mark in 1995 and reach $373 billion in 1999.
  Opponents of the balanced budget amendment suggest that we cannot 
afford to cut the deficit because decreased social spending will have 
severe adverse effects on our economy. But think of how much we could 
do in crime control, disaster relief, health, science and education if 
we had that $300 billion available that we are spending on interest 
each year.
  I do not understand the logic of continuing to waste over 20 percent 
of our entire budget on interest on the rationale that we cannot afford 
to cut spending. What we cannot afford to do is to continue to throw 
away one-fifth of our national budget on interest payments.
  Now, my colleagues, to put this in even better perspective, gross 
interest on the debt in 1993 amounted to more than the entire defense 
budget, which was $292.4 billion. It was 97 percent of Social Security 
payments, which were $302 billion--it will probably be more than Social 
Security this year--55 percent of all discretionary outlays, which were 
$542.5 billion; and 44 percent of all mandatory programs, which 
amounted to $666.9 billion.
  The nearly $293 billion of gross interest costs in 1993 could have 
covered our entire health spending, including Medicare and Medicaid, 
$207.6 billion; all veterans' benefits and services, $19.3 billion; 
unemployment compensation, $35.5 billion; our entire international 
discretionary spending, $21.6 billion; and also covered the costs of 
the earned income tax credit, $8.8 billion. All of that could have been 
paid for just out of the interest on the national debt we have been 
paying.
  Without the gross interest on the debt, we would not have even had a 
deficit last year; in fact, we would have run a budget surplus of $93 
billion.
  Interest on the debt is wasted money. Over the 5 years of so-called 
deficit reduction under President Clinton's plan, OMB's own calculation 
last year was that interest on the public debt will total roughly $1.7 
trillion. This amount could have fully funded the entire 1994 budget, 
with money left over.
  Interest compounds and gets larger by itself, even without new 
deficits. And, if interest rates go back up, the problem will be 
increased exponentially. Self-propelled interest costs will continue to 
eat a larger share of our national treasury, destroying our choices to 
fund new programs and eroding our ability to keep the commitments we 
have already made.
  [[Page S1738]] You can see how interest on the Federal debt through 
the year 2005 from 1994, which is a little less than $300 billion, will 
go up because of the exponential increase of compounded interest. Look 
at how it just shoots up in the air until, in 2005 it is somewhere over 
$520 billion. It is really a problem. And we have to face it. The only 
way I know to face it is to enact this balanced budget amendment. I do 
not know of anybody who has a better idea.


                     the need for a balanced budget

  Mr. President, if one thing is crystal clear, it is that we need to 
move toward a balanced budget. During this debate, both sides will cite 
lots of numbers and figures. One such figure is our current $4.8 
trillion national debt. But how does one communicate the implications 
of our staggering debt?
  In 1975, before this recent borrowing spree, the Federal debt 
amounted to approximately $2,500 per person, and the annual interest 
charges were roughly $250 per taxpayer. At the present, the Federal 
debt
 amounts to about $18,500 per person, with annual interest charges 
exceeding $2,575 per taxpayer. And that is at today's interest rates, 
which could go even higher.

  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that in 1999, total Federal 
debt will be nearly $6.4 trillion. That means $23,700 of debt per 
person, with annual interest costs projected to be over $3,500 per 
taxpayer. We would each owe that much in annual costs.
  These last figures would mean a tenfold increase in per-capita debt, 
and a nearly fourteenfold increase in annual interest charges per 
taxpayer, since 1975.
  Over time, the disproportionate burdens imposed on today's children 
and their children by a continuing pattern of deficits could include 
some combination of the following: Increased taxes; reduced public 
welfare benefits; reduced public pensions; reduced expenditures on 
infrastructure and other public investments; diminished capital 
formation, job creation, productivity enhancement, and real wage growth 
in the private economy; higher interest rates; higher inflation; 
increased indebtedness to and economic dependence on foreign creditors; 
and increased risk of default on the Federal debt.
  Mr. President, this is fiscal child abuse, and it must end. We have 
to end it. We have to end it.
  This sociopathic economic policy is continued under the Clinton so-
called deficit reduction plan, which does not really reduce the deficit 
in an absolute sense and does not reduce our staggering $4.8 trillion 
national debt one penny. It only slows the growth in the national debt; 
it does not reverse its upward climb. And, it reduces annual deficits 
only in the sense that deficits are smaller than what were previously 
projected. It still has substantial annual deficits which get bigger as 
time goes on. Even OMB's estimates from last year's budget, which 
predict lower debt totals than CBO, projects that gross Federal debt 
will top $6.3 trillion, exceeding 72 percent of our gross domestic 
product, by 1999. That is only 4 years away.
  In other words, the so-called Clinton deficit reduction plan only 
cuts the deficit in the Washington sense of not going as far into the 
red as we earlier expected. I do not believe that kind of math works 
outside the beltway. As one commentator suggested, try explaining to 
your bank after your check bounces that you saved $300 by buying a $200 
suit instead of a $500 television. Put another way, it is like putting 
a 400-pound man on diet and claiming he lost weight when he only goes 
up to 500 pounds instead of the 600 that was contemplated.
  What's more, even under the current plan, the Congressional Budget 
Office's 10-year projections show that after an initial relative 
slowdown in its growth, the deficit roars back up. As I mentioned, the 
deficit in 1994 was $203 billion. It dips to $176 billion in 1995. But 
that is as low as it goes. Starting in 1996, it shoots up again, 
topping $253 billion in 1999 and hitting all time highs of $351 billion 
in 2003, $383 billion in 2004, and $421 billion in 2005.
  Think about it. That is what is happening even if we give all of the 
benefit of the doubt to what President Clinton has tried to do. And he 
has tried.
  A milestone of sorts will be passed in 2004 when we will rack up over 
$1 billion in debt every day. Personally, I do not think that this is a 
milestone any one of us should be too proud of.
  That means the Clinton deficit reduction plan will add over $1 
trillion to the national debt in the next 5 years and over $2.7 
trillion in the next 10 years.
  Look, who is to blame for this? Why, we all are, every last one of 
us. If I had to lay real blame why it be on the Congress more than any 
other group, because this is where the money bills originate. This is 
where the decisions are made. This is where we have allowed 
entitlements to run out of control.
  I do not particularly blame any of the Presidents and I certainly am 
not blaming President Clinton who is trying his best within the 
framework of his political philosophy to do his best. I do not blame 
President Bush or President Reagan or President Carter either. The fact 
is, a lot of the buck stops right here in Congress.
  Really can you blame Congress, too? The polls showed that 85 percent 
of the American people were for the balanced budget amendment. They 
want us to pass it. They believe it is critical to this country. They 
understand deep down. Viscerally, people know we are going to have to 
do this kind of fiscal restraint. But when you go and ask questions on 
individual programs, while they want us to pass a balanced budget 
amendment they want us to reduce taxes and they want us to increase 
spending on special interest programs.
  So all of us have faults in this area. How do you overcome it? It 
seems to me you overcome it by putting a fiscal restraint into the 
Constitution that was implied by the Founding Fathers but was not put 
there. Jefferson thought it should have been in there and I think 
Jefferson was right. But, really, he was wrong through most of this 
country's history until the 1960's. Whenever we ran a deficit it was 
generally during time of war or depression. The minute we got back on 
top of things they would get the budget balanced. But in the last 30 
years the Congress has run us into the ground and it is very difficult, 
unless we are forced to make priority choices among competing programs. 
It is very, very difficult to get this under control.


                 Benefits Of A Constitutional Amendment

  I might add that I think it is time for the Congress to pass this 
joint resolution, this constitutional amendment to permanently restore 
the linkage between Federal spending and taxing decisions. My friend 
from Illinois, the prime sponsor of this amendment, probably believes 
that taxes will be increased to help pay for these things. I do not. I 
think it will be tougher to increase taxes than it will be to increase 
the deficit. But I think both will be more difficult, and there will be 
votes so the American people know who voted which way.
  I probably would prefer to cut spending. We are from two opposite 
poles--the two leaders in the Senate. We care a great deal for each 
other. And I have tremendous respect for Senator Simon for being 
willing to lead the fight. He is much more liberal than I in leading 
this fight for a balanced budget amendment. He is doing it for the 
right reason. He believes that we will have to be more fiscally 
responsible. I believe that. That is why we are fighting side by side 
as we have for a number of items, but certainly on this amendment. I 
respect him for it.
  On the proposed amendment that we have here--the House-passed 
amendment, which is identical to the Senate one we have been pushing--
we have worked together on both sides of this Hill. We have done it for 
years. We have massaged this thing, and worked on it. It is a true 
bipartisan consensus amendment. It is a Democrat-Republican amendment. 
It is a Republican-Democrat amendment. We have worked together. Any one 
of us thinks we could write it better. This is the consensus amendment. 
That is the only one that has a chance of being passed. I could write a 
much tougher constitutional amendment than this. So could the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois. But this is what we have been able 
to negotiate, and as you can see by the first time in history, the only 
one that could pass the House of Representatives. Now we have the job 
of trying to get it through the important U.S. Senate.
  I believe we can, if the people out there will speak to their 
Senators. But 
[[Page S1739]] it is going to be very close. There is no giving here. 
This is something we have to earn on the floor. We are going to do 
everything we can do. But the proposed amendment that we have before us 
does not propose to read any specific level of spending or taxing 
forever into the Constitution, and it does not propose to insert the 
Constitution into the day-to-day spending and taxing decisions of the 
representative branch of the Government. It merely proposes to create a 
fiscal environment in which the competition between the tax spenders 
and the taxpayers is a more equal one--one in which spending decisions 
will once more be constrained by available revenues.
  Mr. President, the time has come for a solution strong enough that it 
cannot be evaded in the short term. We need a constitutional 
requirement to balance our budget. Mr. President, Senate Joint 
Resolution 1, and the House resolution which is before us, the Dole-
Hatch-Simon consensus balanced budget amendment, is that solution. It 
is reasonable. It is enforceable, and necessary to force us to get our 
fiscal house in order.
  There are those who oppose the balanced budget amendment because they 
say we can balance the budget right now. As a matter of law, that is 
true. But as a matter of real life, real-world politics, it is clear 
that Congress does not possess the courage to do it. They have been 
saying this for 30 years without any avail, without any success. Even 
if one extraordinary Congress does come along and manages to stop 
deficit spending, there would be nothing to prevent the next Congress 
from spending irresponsibly once again. We need a constitutional 
amendment if we are truly interested in solving this problem.


               Restoration Of The Constitutional Balance

  Mr. President, the proposed constitutional amendment will help us end 
this dangerous deficit habit in a way that past efforts have not. It 
will do this by correcting a bias in the present political process 
which favors ever-increasing levels of Federal Government spending.
  In seeking to reduce the spending bias in our present system--fueled 
largely by the unlimited availability of deficit spending --the major 
purpose of this constitutional balanced budget amendment is to ensure 
that, under normal circumstances, votes by Congress for increased 
spending will be accompanied either by votes to reduce other spending 
programs or to increase taxes to pay for such programs. For the first 
time since the abandonment of our historical norm of the balanced 
budgets, Congress will be required to cast a politically difficult vote 
as a precondition to a politically attractive vote to increase 
spending. We will be forced to do it so the American people will know, 
and it is about time.


                             Accountability

  While it is true that much of the enormous growth in Federal 
Government spending over the past two decades may be a response to 
evolving notions that the role of the public sector on the part of the 
American citizenry--that is, a genuine shift in the will and desire of 
the people--it is my contention that a substantial part of this growth 
stems from far less benign factors.
  In short, the American political process is defective insofar as it 
is skewed toward artificially high levels of spending, that is, levels 
of spending that do not result from a genuine will and desire on the 
part of the people. It is skewed in part because the people often do 
not have complete information about the cost of programs or about the 
potential for cost growth of many programs. It is skewed in this 
direction because Members of Congress have every political incentive to 
spend money and almost no incentive to forego such spending. It is a 
fiscal order in which spending decisions have become increasingly 
divorced from the availability of revenues.
  In fact, when I was on the Budget Committee I was shocked that we 
never began with how much we had in revenues available to spend. We 
always began with what we want to spend, and then we would massage the 
revenues to try to get them up to where we were spending. I just 
thought it was a backward way of going toward the budget.
  The balanced budget amendment seeks to restore Government 
accountability for spending and taxing decisions by forcing Congress to 
prioritize spending projects within the available resources and by 
requiring tax increases to be done on the record. In this way, Congress 
will be accountable to the people who pay for the programs and the 
American people--including the future generations who must pay for our 
debts--will be represented in a way they are not now. Congress will be 
forced to justify its spending and taxing decisions as the Framers 
intended, but as Congress no longer does.


               the solution: a balanced budget amendment

  Mr. President, Senate Joint Resolution 1 represents both responsible 
fiscal policy and responsible constitutional policy. Passage of this 
resolution would constitute an appropriate response by Congress to the 
pending applications by nearly two-thirds of the States for a 
constitutional convention on this issue.
  Mr. President, the Senate must approve Senate Joint Resolution 1, the 
balanced budget amendment. It is the right thing to do for ourselves, 
our children, and our grandchildren, and it will give us back 
responsible and accountable constitutional government. The faithful 
stewardship of public funds that was so prized by our Founding Fathers 
can be restored for 21st century Americans. The virtues of thrift and 
accountability can be rekindled by this very 104th Congress.
  Mr. President, we have to do something about our irresponsible debt 
approaches--the runaway spending that is eating this country alive; 
destructive welfare which is really not doing any good for the average 
citizen; our antisaving Tax Code that really destroys savings in this 
country; the Washington bureaucracy that is eating us alive by 
mandating more and more on the States and on small business. We have to 
eliminate these things. We have to send Washington back home. We have 
to restore the American dream. We have to give our children a future 
that, and if we keep going the way we are going they will not have.
  We have to put Government on a diet. At least that is my belief. We 
have to make the Federal Government afford to live within its means. 
Frankly, I think the Federal Government could afford to be anorexic for 
a while. It is far too fat, and it needs to be brought down to a more 
diet-conscious methodology. We have to cut the waste, cut the fat, and 
get people to work instead of depending upon the Government. And I 
think we have to just get together as a group and call our Senators to 
tell them they need to support this; create a groundswell of force for 
this balanced budget amendment. And, if we do, we will save our country 
for generations to come; for your children, my children, your 
grandchildren, my grandchildren.
  In talking about that, I have thought very often. Elaine and I have 
six children, and our 15th grandchild is on its way. It will be here in 
another few months. I have to tell you, I just pity these kids and what 
they have to face if we do not make this decision now. We can no longer 
afford to listen to those who say we should have the will to do what we 
have to do. It just is not happening and is not going to happen. The 
will is not there. We have not had a President who is willing to say: 
This is what we have to do, and blame me if we cannot get it done, but 
this is what we have to do to help put our fiscal house in order.
  Pass this balanced budget amendment and you will find there will be a 
renewed effort to try to get us to live within our means. Your 
grandchildren and my grandchildren will have a future like we had when 
we were raised.
  When I was born in 1934, my folks had just lost their home in the 
Depression. My dad built our home out of a torn-down building. In fact, 
I thought for years afterwards that all homes should be brown like ours 
was, with burned lumber, and that one side should have a Pillsbury 
Flour sign on it. We did not have indoor facilities, but we were happy 
people. We raised our own chickens, eggs, and we had our own little 
garden that kept us alive. We did not have a lot, but we were able to 
survive. I have to tell you that those were tough days, but I would not 
trade them for anything.
  My future was a sure future. There was no question that I was going 
to go to school and have the opportunity to grow. My dad taught me his 
trade. I worked in the building construction 
[[Page S1740]] trade union for 10 years, with my bare hands, and I was 
proud of it. I could do that work today if I had to. We used to hang 
suspended ceilings and build partitions, and other things. I did all of 
that, and I can still do it.
  There was no limit to our future. We were able to do it. This 
Government was living within its means. At least, it was just at the 
throes of starting to not live within its means. Today you have to say, 
with interest exponentially rising, with the debt rising so fast, in 
the future we might have to monetize the debt and devalue the American 
dollar in order to pay off debts with worthless money--which could be 
done, by the way, but the United States will never recover from it. We 
would never again have the recognition financially that we have 
throughout the world, nor would we be as powerful again, or be as great 
again, if we have to go to that methodology--which we will do if we do 
not pass this amendment.
  I want the future of your children and my children, your 
grandchildren and my grandchildren, to be secure. That is what we are 
fighting for here today. There is no question that there are many 
wonderful programs all of us would like to have. But there still is a 
necessity to live within our means, which we are not doing.
  Mr. President, we are going to do everything we can, the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois, myself, and others, and I urge 
Senators to join with us--Senators Dole, Simon, Thurmond, Heflin, 
Craig, and so many others--in supporting this resolution, the balanced 
budget constitutional amendment, this bicameral, bipartisan consensus 
balanced budget amendment. If we do, this country will be much better 
off in 5 years, 7 years, 10 years from today, and our children will 
have the future we would like them to have.
  I yield the floor.
  [Applause in the galleries]
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises all in the galleries to 
refrain from any form of approval or disapproval.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. [Kennedy] 
is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the so-called balanced 
budget constitutional amendment. I strongly support deficit reduction 
to achieve the goal of a balanced budget. But it is unnecessary, 
unwise, and destructive of principles at the core of our constitutional 
democracy to adopt this proposed constitutional amendment.
  As the Senate begins this debate, let us consider some recent 
history. For 12 years, during the Reagan and Bush administrations, the 
deficit soared out of control--largely because of the excessive 1981 
tax cut, which was described at the time by Senate Republican majority 
leader Howard Baker as a ``riverboat gamble.''
  Not every Senator supported that riverboat gamble. I am proud to be 
among 11 Senators who voted against it.
  The budget deficit we face today is the result of that failed gamble. 
The entire deficit for the current fiscal year represents the interest 
ownedon the $2.4 trillion of debt run up during the Reagan-Bush years. 
The rest of the budget is already balanced, and it did not require a 
constitutional amendment to do it.
  What it did require was the courage to make tough decisions. In 1993, 
under President Clinton's leadership, Congress passed a reconciliation 
bill that will reduce the debt by approximately $600 billion for fiscal 
years 1994 through 1998. For the first time since the Truman 
administration, deficits will fall 3 years in a row.
  That landmark deficit reduction package was passed by Congress 
without a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate. 
Indeed, Democrats in the House and Senate were attacked for supporting 
the deficit reduction bill.
  For years, we heard charges from the Republican party that Democrats 
in control of Congress were responsible for the Federal budget deficit. 
For years, Republican Presidents refused to make the tough decisions 
necessary to reduce the Federal deficit, choosing instead to blame 
Congress. ``Give us a Republican Congress,'' they said, ``and we will 
reduce the budget deficit.''
  In November, the voters gave the Republican Party the majority it 
sought. And now, without even so much as presenting a single budget 
bill before either House of Congress, the Republican Party is saying to 
the American people that the Republican Congress lacks the political 
will to make the tough decisions necessary to continue the deficit 
reduction achieved during the past 2 years. Before offering a single 
piece of legislation to reduce the deficit, the Republican majority in 
Congress is saying that they need a constitutional amendment to get the 
job done.
  We do not need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. All 
we need is leadership. If Congress is not willing to balance the 
budget, the Constitution can not do it for us.
  The refusal of the Republican Party to spell out for the American 
people the specific changes needed to balance the budget is a failure 
of leadership. The American people have a right to know what this 
proposed constitutional amendment would require.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a total of $1.2 
trillion in deficit reduction will be required to balance the budget by 
the year 2002. And that is not including the defense increases called 
for by the Republicans' Contract With America.
  If Social Security, defense, and interest on the national debt are 
excluded from the calculations, all other Federal programs will have to 
be cut by 22 percent to achieve a balanced budget in 2002. That is a 22 
percent cut in spending on Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, 
student loans, farm benefits, and all of the other Federal programs. If 
the tax cuts called for in the Republicans' Contract With
 America are also included, the across-the-board cut needed to balance 
the budget will be 30 percent.

  The Treasury Department has estimated the impact of these cuts on the 
States. It predicts that that an across-the-board deficit reduction 
package that excluded Social Security and Defense would require cuts in 
Federal grants to States of $71 billion, and cuts of an additional $176 
billion in other Federal spending that directly benefits States in 
programs such as Medicaid, highway funds, aid to families with 
dependent children, education, job training, environment, housing, and 
other areas.
  The Treasury Department also estimated how much each State's taxes 
would have to be raised for the State to offset the reduction in 
Federal grants under the proposed constitutional amendment. State taxes 
would have to increase an average of 12 percent just to offset the loss 
of Federal grants.
  The American people have a right to know if that is how the 
Republican majority will balance the budget. Why will they not tell us? 
What have they got to hide. They are using the smokescreen of this 
constitutional amendment as a trick to hide the scheme of deep cuts in 
basic social programs that the country will not accept if the reality 
is known.
  Amending the Constitution could well make all our problems worse. 
Adopting this proposed amendment could jeopardize our economy, diminish 
the Constitution, distort its system of checks and balances, and 
undermine the principle of majority rule that is at the core of our 
democracy.
  The proposed constitutional amendment could jeopardize our economy by 
requiring that the Federal budget be balanced each fiscal year, 
regardless of the state of the economy, unless three-fifths of the 
Senate and House vote to approve a specific deficit.
  All of us know that when the economy is in a recession, revenues 
fall, and outlays increase. Fewer people hold jobs and pay taxes, so 
revenues go down.
  Costs for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and public assistance 
go up.
  These so-called countercylical actions maintain demand for goods and 
services during recessionary times. They help to prevent mild downturns 
from becoming recessions, and they help prevent recessions from turning 
into depressions. We have not had a depression in over 50 years.
  This proposed constitutional amendment could well prevent the 
operation of the countercylical effects needed to help keep the economy 
on an even keel. Supporters of the amendment argue that the existing 
budget deficit has made countercylical deficit spending 
[[Page S1741]] ineffective as a way to stimulate demand and avoid 
recessions, because the deficit is already so large. But they neglect 
to mention that the constitutional amendment would require the 
Government to engage in fiscal practices that will make any recession 
worse.
  Section 1 of the amendment prohibits total outlays from exceeding 
total receipts unless three-fifths of the House and Senate vote to 
authorize a specific deficit. When a recession causes revenues to fall 
below estimates during a fiscal year, the proposed constitutional 
amendment would require the Government to reduce outlays to avoid an 
unauthorized deficit.
  This fundamental point was stated by Alice Rivlin, Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, during her testimony before the 
Judiciary Committee.

       [E]nforcing a rule that we must balance the budget every 
     year, regardless of the state of the economy, would be a big 
     economic mistake. Now one can think that, and still think 
     that budget deficits ought to be much smaller than they are 
     now, and I do believe that.
       But if we were living in a world in which the budget had to 
     be balanced every year, when a recession threatened * * *, 
     and people were laid off, they would naturally be paying less 
     taxes. So there would be an automatic deficit in the Federal 
     budget. Now, if the Congress were then required to rectify 
     that by either cutting spending, or raising taxes, the 
     recession would be worse. People would have less income. More 
     people would be laid off. The Congress might have to cut back 
     on unemployment benefits, and things like that.
       So you would have exactly the wrong kind of fiscal policy 
     in a recession. Now, you might say three-fifths of the 
     Congress could be wise enough to foresee that, and do 
     something about it, even if the amendment were in place.
       But forecasting is very uncertain. Even people who do it 
     professionally, full time, are not very good at it, and the 
     Congress of the United States is unlikely to be very good at 
     it.
       So I think we would have worse recessions, and it would 
     just exaggerate the boom/bust cycle if we had to balance 
     every year.

  The proposed constitutional amendment is unwise economic policy for 
another reason--because it would prohibit capital budgeting. Capital 
budgeting is the commonsense practice of paying for the cost of capital 
assets over their useful lives. If Congress intends to require a 
balanced budget, at least the calculation of the balance should be made 
sensibly, not irrationally.
  American families engage in capital budgeting when they borrow money 
to pay the cost of purchasing a home. They spread the payments over 
many years. This same logic applies to paying for college education or 
purchasing a car. Millions of American businesses use capital budgets 
as well. They depreciate the cost of buildings over many years. They do 
the same for many other types of long-term assets.
  We also hear a lot of Republican rhetoric about how States are able 
to live under balanced budget requirements in their State 
constitutions. But 42 States rely on capital budgets to calculate the 
balance.
  Supporters of the proposed Federal constitutional amendment say that 
a future Congress will be able to pass implementing legislation that 
allows capital budgeting to be used in meeting the balanced-budget 
requirement. They should read their own amendment.
  Section 7 of the amendment states that:

       Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United 
     States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total 
     outlays shall include all outlays of the United States 
     Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

  ``All'' means ``all.'' If the balanced budget constitutional 
amendment is adopted, Congress cannot pass legislation exempting 
capital budgets.
  The language of section 1 also means Congress cannot pass legislation 
exempting Social Security. Adopting this proposed constitutional 
amendment would force Congress to include the Social Security trust 
fund in its balanced-budget calculations.
  As many observers have pointed out, the amendment would enable 
Congress to use the existing surplus in the Social Security trust fund 
to avoid the tough decisions needed to achieve a balanced budget in the 
near term. The Social Security trust fund will essentially be raided to 
achieve a phony budget balance. As a result, the solemn commitment 
between the American people and their Government to keep the Social 
Security trust fund separate from the operating expenses of the Federal 
Government would be broken.
  The proposed amendment is also unwise as a matter of basic 
constitutional principle in our federal system.
  First, the amendment would embroil State and Federal courts in 
complex, endless litigation. It would require them to resolve sensitive 
budget issues that should be left to the elected branches of 
Government. It would empower them to cut spending and raise taxes in 
order to achieve a balanced budget.
  In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary 
as ``the least dangerous branch'' because it ``has no influence over 
either the sword or the purse.'' He then warned ``that there is no 
liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative 
and executive powers.''
  Yet the proposed constitutional amendment would do exactly that--
place the power of the purse in the hands of unelected judges. 
Supporters of the amendment argue that judges would only rarely have 
occasion to use these powers. That view is not shared by legal scholars 
from across the philosophical spectrum. Former Judge Robert Bork 
predicted:

       The result * * * would likely be hundreds, if not 
     thousands, of lawsuits around the country, many of them on 
     inconsistent theories and providing inconsistent results. By 
     the time the Supreme Court straightened the whole matter out, 
     the budget in question would be at least four years out of 
     date, and lawsuits involving the next three fiscal years 
     would be slowly climbing toward the Supreme Court.

  Supporters argue that few people would have standing in court to 
assert claims under the amendment. But the Supreme Court has upheld 
taxpayer standing to challenge Government action that violates specific 
constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the 
congressional taxing and spending power.
  Even if taxpayers are not given standing to sue, it is easy to 
imagine numerous situations where individuals will suffer actual injury 
as a result of violations of the proposed amendment.
  If a President impounds Social Security benefits to avoid an 
unauthorized deficit, Social Security recipients will have standing to 
sue.
  If a President withholds a pay increase due Federal workers in order 
to avoid an unauthorized deficit, the workers will have standing to 
sue.
  When courts do hear cases under this constitutional amendment, they 
will be forced to resolve complex issues in trials that could take 
months or even years. What are the total outlays by the entire Federal 
Government for a particular year? Are loan guarantees included in those 
outlays? How many home mortgages and student loans did the Government 
insure? For how much? How may defaulted?
  Even in the markup in the past week, we inquired of the proponents 
whether the loan for Mexico, for example, would be included, whether 
that would be covered or not covered by the proposed constitutional 
amendment. And the response we got from the proponents was, ``Well, it 
depends whether there is a default or not.''
  Well, with the proposed loan, $40 billion, are we supposed to say 
that $40 billion loan guarantee must be authorized by a three-fifths 
vote of each House of Congress under the terms of the balanced budget 
amendment? How are we going to be able to make those kinds of judgments 
now that kind of emergency loan guarantee--of which both the 
administration and a bipartisan group have indicated support--how would 
that affect all of these deficit calculations? Clearly that has not 
been thought through.
  Just one of the cases that will arise under the proposed amendment 
would make the O.J. Simpson case look simple.
  And when a court finds that a constitutional violation has occurred, 
what relief should it order? Five years ago, in Missouri versus 
Jenkins, the Supreme Court ruled that a Federal court could order a 
local government to raise taxes to pay for court-ordered desegregation. 
Will Federal courts order Congress to raise taxes to cure an 
unauthorized deficit? Will they order the Treasury to stop paying 
interest on Treasury bonds? Will they order the President to stop 
spending Federal 
[[Page S1742]] funds? What future constitutional crises will we face 
because of this foolish constitutional amendment.
  Last year, the supporters of this amendment accepted a proposal 
offered by Senator Danforth that would have prevented the courts from 
raising taxes or cutting spending. The failure to include a similar 
limitation in this year's amendment means that Federal courts will sit 
as super budget committees under the amendment.
  The proposed amendment would also give the President unprecedented 
authority to impound appropriated funds when a deficit occurs. The 
President has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. When an 
unauthorized deficit takes place, the President will have a duty to 
take action, including impounding appropriated funds, to prevent a 
constitutional violation.
  That is not just my opinion. That is the option of the President's 
own legal advisor, Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger. And it 
is the opinion of a wide range of constitutional scholars from Reagan 
administration Solicitor General Charles Fried to Johnson 
administration Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and many, many 
others.
  So, basically, this is the second key area of concern, Mr. President, 
and that is the question of enforcement. Who will have the powers of 
enforcement? We had during the course certainly of the hearings that 
were held last year by Senator Byrd and others, the direct testimony 
about whether the President would have the power to impound. The 
overwhelming constitutional authority was that the President would have 
that kind of power under this amendment. Which means that if the 
President made the judgment that the receipts and revenues were out of 
balance, that they probably have a responsibility to impound funds to 
avoid the deficit.
  Is that what we are saying, that we want the President of the United 
States to make those judgments, without any instruction as to what 
particular area we want them to impound? Do we want to give him all of 
that authority and all of that power? Well, we tried to address that in 
the Judiciary Committee. I offered an amendment to say that we do not 
want to do that. We do not want to grant that kind of a power to the 
executive. That amendment was defeated. That was defeated in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Then we come back and say are we going to leave enforcement up to the 
courts and give them the authority and the power? Under the Missouri 
versus Jenkins case, we have seen the consternation that was raised 
about that order that required the raising of certain funds in order to 
move ahead to enforce the court's desegregation orders. We heard the 
roar that came from across the country that we do not want our courts 
to be making the judgments about raising taxes.
  Quite clearly that outcome would be in complete conflict with what 
our Founding Fathers said ought to be the responsibility of the courts.
  Are we prepared to say, well, all right, we will not let the 
President of the United States move ahead on impoundment? We will not 
let our courts move ahead on enforcement. Who does that leave? What it 
leaves is the legislative branch. That leaves us, which goes just back 
to our point from the very beginning: ultimately the question comes 
back to us. If it ultimately comes back to us, why go through the whole 
amendment process? If we believe ultimately that we must deal with 
these tough issues, why are we not prepared to deal with them now? Why 
go through these kind of gymnastics and say, ``OK, maybe we will give 
enforcement authority to the President.'' The supporters say, ``We do 
not want to give it to the President so we will leave it indefinite.'' 
Do we say we will give it to the courts, or say we will not give it to 
the courts. If the President and the courts are excluded, the only 
other enforcement is the Members of the Congress and the Senate.
  That is what our Founding Fathers intended. That is what the 
Constitution points out. That is what the principal constitutional 
authorities from Republican and Democratic administrations and 
thoughtful men and women who have not been a part of administrations 
have felt. And that, I think, raises some the very, very, important 
weaknesses of this amendment--that there is no certainty on 
enforcement. We do not know.
  Those proposing are not prepared to tell the American people where 
the necessary cuts would come. They are not prepared to lay that out 
before them prior to the time of the passage of this amendment. They 
are not prepared to tell them how the amendment will be enforced. And 
that is against a background where the Congress had taken action to see 
important reductions in the Federal deficit in the recent times. And 
where there certainly can be additional attention to the deficit in the 
future.
  But we are being denied, and the American people are being denied, 
the right to know what they really intend. What expenditures they 
intend to reduce, what taxes they intend to impose, and they are 
unwilling to state what their position is in terms of the enforcement 
mechanism. Wait down the road, wait another several years. Well, what 
will happen in the meantime? The problem is that the deficit will be 
going up again. Why have we not gotten the balanced budgets coming 
forward from the Budget Committee in the House and the Senate to let 
the American people understand where they are going, to challenge us to 
take responsible positions on this deficit? But they are not even 
prepared to do that. They are not prepared to wait and see whether 
there will be some action in that area. They are just saying go ahead 
and pass this and send it out to the States.
  I support giving the President statutory line-item veto authority. 
But the impoundment authority given the President by the balanced 
budget amendment is far broader. As Professor Dellinger testified, it 
would enable the President to order across-the-board cuts, or specific 
cuts affecting specific programs or specific areas of the country.
  The amendment could also be read to give future Presidents power to 
impose taxes, duties, or fees to avoid an unconstititional deficit.
  Supporters of the amendment deny any intention to give the President 
authority to impound funds or raise taxes. But they rejected the 
straightforward amendment I offered in the Judiciary Committee to 
prevent it.
  Supporters of the amendment argue that all questions on enforcement 
of the amendment will be answered when Congress passes the enforcement 
legislation required by section 6. But although balanced budget 
constitutional amendments have been before the Judiciary Committee and 
the Congress for many years, year after year, we will hear the 
proponents of that balanced budget talk about how they have supported 
this for 10, 15 years, and still we do not have any recommendation on 
how we are going to achieve it. The only one that had the courage to do 
it was Republican Congressman Gerald Solomon, from the State of New 
York, and that was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of 
Representatives a year ago. And many of those who are talking about the 
balanced budget voted against it and said, well, we can wait. It is not 
necessary to address that issue at that time.
  Where is it? We have written budget laws for years in the Congress--
Gramm-Rudman, the 1990 and 1993 budget deficit laws. Why won't the 
proponents of this amendment show us the enforcement legisaltion.
  Finally, the proposed constitutional amendment will severely 
undermine the principle of majority rule enshrined in our Constitution. 
By requiring a three-fifths vote to authorize a deficit or raise the 
debt limit, the amendment would give unprecedented power to a minority 
in either House of Congress.
  Alexander Hamilton painted an alarming picture in The Federalist No. 
22 of the destructive consequences of these supermajority voting 
requirements:

       [W]hat at first sight may seem a remedy, is in reality a 
     poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority 
     (which is always the case where more than a majority is 
     requisite to a decision) is, in its tendency, to subject the 
     sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number. * * 
     * This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an 
     effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. * * 
     * The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of 
     something approaching 
     [[Page S1743]] towards it, has been founded upon a 
     supposition that it would contribute to security. But its 
     real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy 
     the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, 
     caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or 
     corrupt junta to the regular deliberations and decisions of a 
     respectable majority.

  We should heed Hamilton's warning. The filibuster is bad enough as a 
rule of the Senate. Enacting a supermajority requirement as part of 
this amendment will enshrine gridlock in the Constitution. It will 
enable a willful minority to prevent any action they wish in connection 
with the deficit, or to demand unacceptable conditions from the 
majority as the price of their agreement.
  For over 200 years, the principle of majority rule established in the 
Constitution has served this Nation well in wars, depressions, and a 
vast range of domestic and international crises. We should not abandon 
it now, simply because the elected Members of Congress at this moment 
lack the political courage to balance the budget.
  There is nothing wrong with the Constitution. Let us act responsibly 
to deal with the deficit, not irresponsibly by tampering with the 
Constitution. This proposal is a sham and a gimmick, and it deserves no 
place in the Constitution.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to respond to certain 
arguments presented by Senator Kennedy. These include issues involving: 
First, implementation and enforcement; second, judicial taxation; and 
third, Presidential impoundment.


                i. implementation and enforcement issues

  Mr. President, opponents of the balanced budget amendment, including 
Senator Kennedy, have over the past decade carefully crafted 
Machiavellian arguments designed to place opponents of the amendment 
between, what Abraham Lincoln termed, ``the devil and the deep blue 
sea.'' One of the most pernicious is the contention that on the one 
hand the balanced budget amendment is a sham because it is 
unenforceable, and on the other hand that there will be too much 
enforcement--particularly that courts will themselves balance the 
budget by ordering the cutting of spending programs, by placing the 
budgetary process into judicial receivership, or by ordering that taxes 
be raised. This contention is, of course, so exaggerated, so 
contradictory, that it almost refutes itself. Yet it has become so 
pervasive that it gives new life to Shakespeare's aphorism that, 
``foolery, sir, does walk about the orb like the sun; it shines 
everywhere.''


                     implementation and enforcement

  I want to first address the false notion advanced by opponents of the 
balanced budget amendment that it is a paper tiger--that Congress will 
flout its constitutional authority to balance the budget. These notions 
are simply wrong. First, the amendment has sharp teeth. It is self-
enforcing. Because, historically, it has been easier for Congress to 
raise the debt ceiling, rather than reduce spending or raise taxes, the 
primary enforcement mechanism of House Joint Resolution 1 is section 2, 
which requires a three-fifths vote to increase the debt ceiling. This 
provision is a steel curtain that will shield the American public from 
an ill-disciplined and profligate Congress.
  Furthermore, Members of Congress overwhelmingly conform their actions 
to constitutional precepts out of fidelity to the Constitution itself. 
We are bound by article VI of the Constitution to ``support this 
Constitution.'' I fully expect fidelity by Members of Congress to the 
oath to uphold the Constitution. Honoring this pledge requires 
respecting the provisions of the proposed amendment. Flagrant disregard 
of the proposed amendment's clear and simple provisions would 
constitute nothing less than a betrayal of the public trust. In their 
campaigns for reelection, elected officials who flout their 
responsibilities under this amendment will find that the political 
process will provide the ultimate enforcement mechanism.


                          judicial enforcement

  I would like at this point to address the contention of opponents of 
the balanced budget amendment like Senator Kennedy that there will be 
too much enforcement--specifically by the courts. They march out a
 veritable judicial parade of horribles where courts strike down 
spending measures, put the budgetary process under judicial 
receivership, and like Charles I of England, raise taxes without the 
consent of the people's representatives. All of this is a gross 
exaggeration. This parade has no permit.

  I believe that House Joint Resolution 1 strikes the right balance in 
terms of judicial review. By remaining silent about judicial review in 
the amendment itself, its authors have refused to establish 
congressional sanction for the Federal courts to involve themselves in 
fundamental macroeconomic and budgetary questions, while not 
undermining their equally fundamental obligation to say what the law 
is, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). I also strongly agree 
with former Attorney General William P. Barr who stated that there is:

       * * * little risk that the amendment will become the basis 
     for judicial micromanagement or superintendence of the 
     Federal budget process. Furthermore, to the extent such 
     judicial intrusion does arise, the amendment itself equips 
     Congress to correct the problem by statute. On balance, 
     moreover, whatever remote risk there may be that courts will 
     play an overly intrusive role in enforcing the amendment, 
     that risk is, in my opinion, vastly outweighed by the 
     benefits of such an amendment.

  There exists three basic constraints that prevents the courts from 
becoming unduly involved in the budgetary process: First, limitations 
on Federal courts contained in article III of the Constitution, 
primarily the doctrine of ``standing,'' particularly as enunciated by 
the Supreme Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S.Ct. 2130 
(1992); second, the deference courts owe to Congress under both the 
political question doctrine and section 6 of the amendment itself, 
which confers enforcement authority in Congress; and third, the limits 
on judicial remedies to be imposed on a coordinate branch of 
government--limitations on remedies that are self-imposed by courts and 
that, in appropriate circumstances, may be imposed on the courts by 
Congress. These limitations, such as separation of power concerns, 
prohibit courts from raising taxes, a power exclusively delegated to 
Congress by the Constitution and not altered by the balanced budget 
amendment. Consequently, contrary to the contention of opponents of the 
balanced budget amendment, separation of power concerns further the 
purpose of the amendment in that it assures that the burden to balance 
the budget falls squarely on the shoulders of Congress--which is 
consistent with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution that all 
budgetary matters be placed in the hands of Congress.
  Concerning the doctrine of ``standing,'' it is beyond dispute that to 
succeed in any lawsuit, a litigant must demonstrate standing to sue. To 
demonstrate article III standing, a litigant
 at a minimum must meet three requirements: First, injury in fact--that 
the litigant suffered some concrete and particularized injury; second, 
traceability--that the concrete injury was both caused by and is 
traceable to the unlawful conduct; and third, redressibility--that the 
relief sought will redress the alleged injury. This is the test 
enunciated by the Supreme Court in the fairly recent and seminal case 
of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S.CT. 2130, 2136, (1992). (See, 
e.g., Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation 
of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 482-83 (1982)). In challenging 
measures enacted by Congress under a balanced budget regime, it would 
be an extremely difficult hurdle for a litigant to demonstrate 
something more concrete than a generalized grievance and burden shared 
by all citizens and taxpayers, the injury in fact requirement. I want 
to emphasize that this is hardly a new concept. (See Frothingham v. 
Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 487 (1923)). Furthermore, courts are extremely 
unlikely to overrule this doctrine since standing has been held to be 
an article III requirement. (See Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights 
Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41 n.22 (1976)).

  Even in the vastly improbable case where an injury in fact was 
established, a litigant would find it near impossible to establish the 
traceability and redressibility requirements of the article III 
standing test. Litigants would have a difficult time in showing that 
any alleged unlawful conduct--the unbalancing of the budget or the 
shattering of the debt ceiling--caused or is traceable to a particular 
spending 
[[Page S1744]] measure that harmed them. Furthermore, because the 
Congress would have numerous options to achieve balanced budget 
compliance, there would be no legitimate basis for a court to nullify 
the specific spending measure objected to by the litigant.
  As to the redressibility prong, this requirement would be difficult 
to meet simply because courts are wary of becoming involved in the 
budget process--which is legislative in nature--and separation of power 
concerns will prevent courts from specifying adjustments to any Federal 
program or expenditures. Thus, for this reason, Missouri v. Jenkins, 
495 U.S. 33 (1990), where the Supreme Court upheld the district court's 
power to order a local school district to levy taxes to support a 
desegregation plan, is inapposite because it is a 14th amendment case 
not involving, as the Court noted, an instance of one branch of the 
Federal Government invading the province of another. Jenkins at 67. 
Plainly put, the Jenkins case is not applicable to the balanced budget 
amendment because the 14th amendment--from which the judiciary derives 
its power to rule against the States in equal protection claims--does 
not apply to the Federal Government and because the separation of 
powers doctrine prevents judicial encroachments on
 Congress' bailiwick. Courts simply will not have the authority to 
order Congress to raise taxes.

  Furthermore, the well-established political question and 
justiciability doctrines will mandate that courts give the greatest 
deference to congressional budgetary measures, particularly since 
section 6 of House Joint Resolution 1 explicitly confers on Congress 
the responsibility of enforcing the amendment, and the amendment allows 
Congress to rely on estimates of outlays and receipts. (See Baker v. 
Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962)). Under these circumstances, it is 
unlikely that a court would substitute its judgment for that of 
Congress.
  Moreover, despite the argument of some opponents of the balanced 
budget amendment, the taxpayer standing case, Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 
83 (1968), is not applicable to enforcement of the balanced budget 
amendment. First, the Flast case has been limited by the Supreme Court 
to Establishment Clause cases. This has been made clear by the Supreme 
Court in Valley Forge Christian College, 454 U.S. at 480. Second, by 
its terms, Flast is limited to cases challenging legislation 
promulgated under Congress' constitutional tax and spend powers when 
the expenditure of the tax was made for an illicit purpose. Sections 1 
and 2 of House Joint Resolution 1, limit Congress' borrowing power and 
the amendment contains no restriction on the purposes of the 
expenditures. Finally, in subsequent cases, particularly the Lujan 
case, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the need for a litigant to 
demonstrate particularized injury, thus casting doubt on the vitality 
of Flast. (See Lujan, 112 S. Ct. at 2136.)
  I also believe that there would be no so-called congressional 
standing for Members of Congress to commence actions under the balanced 
budget amendment. Although the Supreme Court has never addressed the 
question of congressional standing, the D.C. Circuit has recognized 
congressional standing, but only in the following circumstances: First, 
the traditional standing tests of the Supreme Court are met; second, 
there must be a deprivation within the zone of interest protected by 
the Constitution or a statute--generally, the right to vote on a given 
issue or the protection of the efficacy of a vote; and third, 
substantial relief cannot be obtained from fellow legislators through 
the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a statute--the so-called 
equitable discretion doctrine. (See Melcher v. Open Market Comm., 836 
F.2d 561 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Reigle v. Federal Open Market Committee, 656 
F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 (1981)). Because 
Members of Congress would not be able to demonstrate that they were 
harmed in fact by any dilution or nullification of their vote--and 
because under the doctrine of equitable discretion, Members would not 
be able to show that substantial relief could not otherwise be obtained 
from fellow legislators through the enactment, repeal, or amendment of 
a statute--it is hardly likely that Members of Congress would have 
standing to challenge actions under the balanced budget amendment.
  Finally, a further limitation on judicial interference is section 6 
of House Joint Resolution 1 itself. Under this section, Congress must 
adopt statutory remedies and mechanisms for any purported budgetary 
shortfall, such as sequestration, rescission, or the establishment of a 
contingency fund. Pursuant to section 6, it is clear that Congress, if 
it finds it necessary, could limit the type of remedies a court may 
grant or limit courts' jurisdiction in some other manner to proscribe 
judicial overreaching. This is nothing new. Congress has adopted such 
limitations in other circumstances pursuant to its article III 
authority. Here are a few: First, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. 
secs. 101-115, where the courts were denied the use of injunctive 
powers to restrain labor disputes; second, the Federal Tax Injunction 
Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 2283, where a prohibition on State court 
proceedings by Federal courts was legislated; and third, the Tax 
Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. sec. 7421(a), where Federal courts were 
prohibited from enjoining the collection of taxes.
  In fact, Congress may also limit judicial review to particular 
special tribunals with limited authority to grant relief. For instance, 
the Supreme Court in Yakus v. United States, 319 U.S. 182 (1943), 
upheld the constitutionality of a special Emergency Court of Appeals 
vested with exclusive authority to determine the validity of claims 
under the World War II Emergency Price Control Act. In more recent 
times, the Supreme Court, in Dames & Moore v. Reagan, 453 U.S. 654 
(1981), upheld the legality of the Iranian-United States Claims 
Tribunal as the exclusive forum to settle claims to Iranian assets.
  Mr. President, it is clear from the above discussion that the 
enforcement issues propounded by our opponents do not amount to a hill 
of beans.
                         ii. judicial taxation

  The contention that the balanced budget amendment would allow Federal 
courts to order the raising of taxes is absolutely without merit. This 
belief is based on a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's opinion in 
Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1990).
  In this case, the Supreme Court in essence approved of a lower court 
remedial remedy of ordering local State or county political 
subdivisions to raise taxes to support a court ordered school 
desegregation order. Intentional segregation, in violation of the 14th 
amendment's equal protection clause, had been found by the lower court 
in a prior case against the school district.
  The concern that the balanced budget amendment would allow a Federal 
court to order Congress to raise taxes to reduce the budget is without 
merit. This is true for the following reasons: First, Jenkins is a 14th 
amendment case. Under 14th amendment jurisprudence, Federal courts may 
perhaps issue this type of remedial relief against the States, but not 
against Congress--a coequal branch of Government. The 14th amendment, 
of course, does not apply to the Federal Government; second, separation 
of powers concerns would prohibit the judiciary from interfering with 
budgetary taxing, borrowing, and spending powers that are exclusively 
delegated to Congress by the Constitution; and third, Congress cannot 
simply be made a party defendant. To order taxes to be raised, Congress 
must be named defendant. Presumably, suits to enforce the balanced 
budget amendment would arise when an official or agency of the 
executive branch seeks to enforce or administer a statute whose funding 
is in question in light of the amendment. Thus, the court in Reigle v. 
Federal Open Market Committee, 656 F.2d 873, 879 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1981), 
noted that ``[w]hen a plaintiff alleges injury by unconstitutional 
action taken pursuant to a statute, his proper defendants are those 
acting under the law * * * and not the legislature which enacted the 
statute.''


                       iii. impoundment response

  Mr. President, I also wish to respond to the impoundment argument. In 
each of the years the balanced budget amendment has been debated, I 
have noticed that one spacious argument is presented as a scarce tactic 
by the opponents of the amendment. This year the vampire rising from 
the grave is Presidential impoundment. Supposedly, a President, doing 
his best Charles I of England impersonation, when faced with the 
possibility of budgetary shortfalls after ratification 
     [[Page S1745]] of the balanced budget amendment, will somehow 
     have the constitutional authority--nay duty--to arbitrarily 
     cut social spending programs or even raise taxes. Well, 
     Charles Stuart literally lost his head when he claimed as a 
     prerogative the powers of the Commons. So too, a President 
     may not claim authority delegated by the Constitution to the 
     people's representatives. The law is our Cromwell that will 
     prevent impoundment.
  I want to emphasize that there is nothing in House Joint Resolution 1 
that allows for impoundment. It is not the intent of the amendment to 
grant the President any impoundment authority under House Joint 
Resolution 1. In fact, there is a ripeness problem to any attempted 
impoundment: indeed up to the end of the fiscal year the President has 
nothing to impound because Congress in the amendment has the power to 
ameliorate any budget shortfalls or ratify or specify the amount of 
deficit spending that may occur in that fiscal year.
  Moreover, under section 6 of the amendment, Congress must--and I 
emphasize must--mandate exactly what type of enforcement mechanism it 
wants, whether it be sequestration, rescission, or the establishment of 
a contingency fund. The President, as Chief Executive, is duty bound to 
enforce a particular requisite congressional scheme to the exclusion of 
impoundment. That the President must enforce a mandatory congressional 
budgetary measure has been the established law since the 19th century 
case of Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 542 
(1838). In Kendall, Congress had passed a private act ordering the 
Postmaster General to pay Kendall for services rendered. The Supreme 
Court rejected the argument that Kendall could not sue in mandamus 
because the Postmaster General was subject only to the orders of the 
President and not to the directives of Congress. The Court held that 
the President must enforce any mandated--as opposed to discretionary--
congressional spending measure pursuant to his duty to faithfully 
execute the law pursuant to article II, section 3 of the Constitution. 
The Kendall case was given new vitality in the 1970's, when lower 
Federal courts, as a matter of statutory construction, rejected 
attempts by President Nixon to impound funds where Congress did not 
give the President discretion to withhold funding, E.g., State Highway 
Commission v. Volpe, 479 F.2d 1099 (8th Cir. 1973).
  The position that section 6 implementing legislation would preclude 
Presidential impoundment was seconded by Attorney General Barr at the 
recent Judiciary Committee hearing on the balanced budget amendment. 
Testifying that the impoundment issue was in reality incomprehensible, 
General Barr concluded that ``the whip hand is in Congress' hand, so to 
speak; under section 6 [the] Congress can provide the enforcement 
mechanism that the courts will defer to and that the President will be 
bound by.''
  What we have here then, is an argument based on a mere possibility. 
Under the mere possibility scenario of an impoundment we would have to 
include any possibility, however remote, in the amendment. The 
amendment would look like an insurance policy. Why place something in 
the Constitution that in all probability could never happen, especially 
if Congress could preclude impoundment by legislation?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon, the issue that brings 
Senators to the floor is the beginning of what I believe will be a 
historic debate in this Chamber, as it has been in the House the last 
several days of last week, and that is to debate and consider House 
Joint Resolution 1, a balanced budget resolution to the Constitution of 
our country.
  If I could, for a few brief moments, read to you, Mr. President, and 
to those who might be listening, the actual resolution. The reason I 
believe it is so fundamentally important that the American people and 
my colleagues in the Senate hear and understand what the resolution 
itself says is because a great deal will be said over the course of the 
next 3 weeks about this single 2-page document that will simply not be 
true.
  By the time we are through debating it, it will appear to some who 
might listen to be an overburdening action that this Government should 
not take. I think what is important in the processes of our 
constitutional requirement is for all of the Senate, and certainly for 
the American people, to understand that the Congress of the United 
States is only proposing--is only proposing--to the American people and 
to the 50 States a resolution that would establish a process to cause 
this Congress to begin to construct a budget for our country that would 
come into balance.
  Let me read:

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within 7 years after the 
     date of its submission to the States for ratification:

  Therein itself is a very clear statement, Mr. President, that this 
Senate begins today only the debate that would cause us to agree by a 
two-thirds vote to send forth to the States this simple document for 
them to consider, and by three-fourths to ratify, for it to become the 
28th amendment to the Constitution of this country.

       Article--

  One article, not article I, not article II, not article III, but one 
article with eight sections, 1\1/2\ pages in total.

       Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.
       Section 2. The limit of the debt of the United States held 
     by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of 
     the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such 
     an increase by a rollcall vote.
       Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays 
     do not exceed receipts.
       Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the 
     United States Government except those derived from borrowing. 
     Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States 
     Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
       Section 8.

  And the last section.

       This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 
     2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its 
     ratification, whichever is later.
       Passed by the U.S. House of Representatives January 26, 
     1995.

  And, of course, introduced into the Senate and brought to this floor 
today for the purposes of beginning the debate.
  Mr. President, the reason I read this document and the reason it is 
important that the Record show that it is but 1\1/2\ pages in length, 
it is 8 sections and only 1 article, as proposed as the 28th amendment 
to the Constitution of our country, is because if the average citizen 
just listened to the debate, they would think that the magnitude of 
this statement, so defined and so articulated by the opposition to it, 
surely must be 1,000 pages in length, or it must be one of those 1,700- 
or 2,000-page bills, like the health care bill of a year ago. If it is 
to cause for this country all of the dire predictions that the Senator 
from Massachusetts just proposed, how could a document so simple cause 
so much problem? In fact, how could a document so simple even suggest 
after it were ratified by the States that the Congress shall enforce 
and implement this article by appropriate legislation?
  In fact, what we are hearing and what we will hear for 3 or 4 weeks, 
and potentially hundreds of amendments later, is that the Congress 
itself has the cart before the horse; that we, the Senators, must see 
in great detail every item that will be cut, every 
[[Page S1746]] change in the budget that will be proposed over the next 
7-year period, and yet the constitutional amendment itself, as 
proposed, says that:

       The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by 
     appropriate legislation--

  And that will come logically, at least, only after we find out if 
three-fourths of the States of our Nation are willing to ratify it.
  I think myself and the Senator from Utah and the Senator from 
Illinois know that we will try to do better than that. We will work at 
explaining and trying to articulate what we believe this process, this 
procedure would require as it relates to changes in budget and changes 
in budgetary practices.
  But I think for all of us who will become involved in this debate 
over the next several weeks, it is constantly important that we 
remember that it is but a simple document proposed to the States and, 
yes, out of that simplicity will probably come one of the most 
significant changes in the way the central Government of this country 
operates than ever in the history of its central Government since the 
Constitutional Convention and the proposed Constitution that this would 
become an amendment of as it was proposed some 208 years ago.
  The Senator from Utah, who leads the debate on this side, has clearly 
spelled out the efforts and the work that has gone into the crafting of 
this amendment. Certainly, the Senator from Illinois, who is here in 
the Chamber this afternoon, and the Senator from South Carolina know, 
because they have been involved in this issue for a good many years, as 
have I, that it is not a partisan issue, that it cannot be a partisan 
issue. By the very nature of the two-thirds vote that is required in 
this body, it is uniquely bipartisan. And over the years we have worked 
hard to accomplish that.
  The vote in the House of last week demonstrates very clearly that it 
was again a uniquely bipartisan debate and vote, with many members of 
both parties voting for it, to acquire that two-thirds vote.
  The gravity and the magnitude of changing the Constitution of this 
country must be something that a majority, a very large majority, of 
the American people agree with, two-thirds in the Senate and the three-
fourths of the States. It is so critically necessary.
  I have mentioned Paul Simon of Illinois, former chairman of the 
Constitution Subcommittee, leader on the Democrat side on this issue. 
Strom Thurmond, who is here to speak this afternoon, from South 
Carolina, President pro tempore of the Senate and former Judiciary 
chairman who introduced this issue in the 1950's; Orrin Hatch, who now 
chairs the Judiciary Committee, who spoke and opened up this debate as 
he brought the House resolution to the floor; and Howell Heflin, Carol 
Moseley-Braun, Pete Domenici, and many other Senators including myself 
have been involved in this issue for well over a decade now.
  The reason I mentioned breadth of time and all of those from a 
bipartisan point of view that have been involved in this issue is 
because, as attitude and ideas change here in this body or in the other 
about how we govern our country, one idea that has been around now for 
well over two decades has been this idea. I think it has met the test 
of change and time. And I think all of us recognize that, if we truly 
are going to bring about the kind of changes in the central Government 
of this country that many of us believe the American people spoke to on 
November 8, this is the issue, this is the resolution, that can bring 
that change because while all of those ideas change about how we change 
our Government and how we look at it, this one has not changed.
  Interestingly enough, it was not just one of those items in the 
Contract With America that Republican candidates for the House of 
Representatives ran on last year and now work on as Members of the 
Congress. It was the centerpiece. The reason it was the centerpiece, 
and the reason we know why it should be, was the importance it plays in 
what it will cause this Congress and this Senate to do differently.
  The Senator from Massachusetts was talking about a variety of very 
important programs. Many of us call them Great Society welfare 
programs, ideas of the past, ideas that appeared to be good in their 
day, ideas that would have solved a great many problems for our 
country. But when you look at the breadth of time that they have been 
funded and have been operating, have they addressed our problems? Have 
they solved the problems they set out to solve?
  The answer is quite simply no, because if they had and had there have 
been no more poverty and been no more people on welfare, if the budget 
had been balanced, I doubt that the election last November would have 
been the way it was, that our American people would have spoken so 
strongly to this issue and to other issues and would have demanded the 
change.
  So it is not in spite of them; it is largely because of a variety of 
ideas that have transformed our Government that have caused us to have 
a $4.6 trillion debt and on average $200 billion deficit and a $300 
billion annualized interest payment. The American people are saying in 
a very loud way and in a very clear way, Congress, pass a balanced 
budget amendment and in so doing transform our Government for us and do 
as you will to change it. Be kind. Use good priority. Recognize those 
in need. But do not continue to fund it by deficit in the manner that 
you have.
  This year in a Wirthlin poll, 70 percent of the American people said 
that, or said some form of what I have just said, and 19 percent 
disagreed. A Washington Post-ABC poll beginning this year showed that 
80 percent of the American people agreed or said something like that 
when asked the question. Even when the question was asked, well, what 
about, or if, or this might be changed, they said, we want a balanced 
budget because we fear that the Government and those who govern us have 
lost sight of the impact of a debt and a deficit of the kind we have as 
a country and its potential impact on future generations.
  Well, those polls were taken in 1994 and 1995, just this year. But in 
September 1992, again, 81 percent of the American people spoke out and 
said change, balance the budget, pass a balanced budget amendment, 
begin to restrict yourselves, begin to control yourselves as a 
government.
  So it is an issue that has withstood the test of time. It is not 
something new, nor is it unique or different. You will hear in the 
course of this debate quotes from our Founding Fathers. You have heard 
the Senator from Massachusetts refer to the Federalist papers.
  Let the new Federalist papers of 1995 be crafted by this Congress to 
speak to the States of our Nation and to tell them the virtues of a 
balanced budget amendment and what it will do to change the powerful 
central Government and what it will do to bring back the 10th amendment 
and the 14th amendment and the power to the States and the power to the 
citizens to once again control themselves. Yes, this is a most critical 
time in our Nation's history, and, yes, I believe this is a most 
historic debate we begin this afternoon.
  Coincidentally, as we meet here in the Chamber of the Senate today, 
Governors from all 50 States are meeting in this Capital City, and they 
are gathered around preparing to convene a national conference of 
Governors in the coming months to develop a dialog and a presentation 
to the central Government, to the Congress of the United States, 
cajoling, arguing, emphatically stating that it is time the States 
began to reclaim some of their power under the 10th and 14th 
amendments.
  A Democrat Governor this morning from Indiana said on national 
television: And if the Congress does not listen, then maybe we will 
have to do what States did when they brought about a Constitutional 
Convention as a result of a meeting in Annapolis, as a result of a 
failing document called the Articles of Confederation. That was a 
Democrat Governor that said that this morning in a mild but direct way.
  A Republican Governor sitting right beside him said, yes; it is 
absolutely true. If the arrogance of power today in the central 
Government and here in this Senate and in the House is to say to our 
States, we do not hear you and we do not care; we will continue to put 
down upon you one Federal law after another that will erode your power 
and your ability to govern under a Constitution that puts States in a 
preeminent power position and put the 
[[Page S1747]] central Government second in almost all, if you do not 
do that--and that is what those Governors were saying this morning--we 
will speak even louder to transform our Government once again like the 
States over 200 years ago had to do because of a central Government 
that was not working.
  If we pass this resolution, if we send to the States the 28th 
amendment to the Constitution of this country, and if it is ratified, 
then we will begin a historic dialog with those Governors and State 
legislatures to decide what of these programs that make up this huge 
Federal budget have priority to the States and to the citizens of those 
States,
 which should be paid for by the State legislatures and the taxpayers 
of States and which should be funded by the Federal Government. And I 
sincerely believe until we pass this amendment, that kind of debate, 
that kind of dialog, that kind of cooperative relationship between the 
States and their central Government will really never begin.

  Last Friday night we passed another historic piece of legislation, 
the unfunded mandates legislation. My colleague from Idaho authored 
that and brought it to the floor of the U.S. Senate. There is no doubt 
that was a phenomenally important step. But, still, there is adequate 
room for the Federal Government to create great havoc with State 
governments and their ability to control. That unfunded mandates bill, 
coupled with a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal 
Government's budget would for the first time in the life and the 
history of this Government under this Constitution create a dialog and 
debate that will go on for a long, long while as we begin the process I 
have just outlined: A sorting out of our differences and deciding what 
we can do and what we cannot do and what is within the fiscal means of 
our country to do.
  Yes, to the Senator from Massachusetts, we would establish a lot of 
unique and new priorities. You see what he was saying a few moments ago 
when he talked about all those cuts, is that his vision of America is a 
Government like the one we currently have, only bigger and bigger and 
bigger. Not changed, not rejuvenated, not redistributed, not redesigned 
and reenvisioned and recreated. But that is what the American people 
are saying. And that is why we began this debate this afternoon.
  Over the course of the next several weeks I am sure all of my 
colleagues who are joined in this debate in favor of a balanced budget 
amendment will work overtime to explain to our colleagues here in the 
Senate and to the American people how the processes will work. But one 
thing we know is clear. We must pass a clean amendment, because it is 
nothing but a prescription, a process, a procedure placed in the 
Constitution which mandates to the Congress of the United States that 
they will bring their receipts and expenditures into balance on an 
annual basis and they will do so in a certain manner.
  And if they find it impossible to do they will offer it up in another 
different manner under a different prescription. But it will be so 
required and the American people will know why we are spending in 
deficit if we must. But more important, that in the good years we will 
pay it off. We will get back in balance. We will do what our Founding 
Fathers did for well over 100 years during the history of this country, 
the first 100 years, when a balanced budget was an ethic. It was 
believed to be the responsibility of a central Government. Slowly but 
surely we have walked away from that. Slowly but surely our debt began 
to mount. Slowly but surely we began to lose control of our Government 
to an autopilot that now many will argue we must retain. I do not 
believe that is what our Governors are saying. It is most certainly not 
what the citizens are speaking to. And it is something this Congress 
should never agree to again.
  So we begin this debate with the recognition that House Joint 
Resolution 1 that is before us as a resolution proposed to the States 
to provide a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution can bring 
about profound change. But it will bring about change so designed in 
the image of the citizens of this country, as they envision their 
central Government.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, we begin consideration of a 
proposed constitutional amendment to require the Federal Government to 
achieve and maintain a balanced budget. We are pleased that the House 
acted with wide bipartisan support as it adopted the balanced budget 
amendment by a vote of 300 to 132.
  Also, before we have extended debate on this proposed amendment in 
the Senate, I want to commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Hatch. He is to be congratulated on the manner in which he 
handled this matter in the Judiciary Committee and bringing it to the 
floor for consideration. I have worked over the years with Senator 
Hatch on the balanced budget amendment and due in large part to his 
tireless efforts we are close to sending this proposal to the American 
people for ratification. I also wish to commend Senator Larry Craig of 
Idaho for his fine leadership on this matter. He has been a stalwart in 
this fight. Also, I wish to commend Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, who 
has been a leader in this cause for a number of years.
  Mandating balanced Federal budgets is not a new idea. The first 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget was proposed in 1936 by 
Minnesota Representative Harold Knutson. Then came World War II and 
attention was distracted from efforts to secure annual balanced 
budgets, although Senator Tydings and Representative Disney introduced 
several balanced budget amendments during that period.
  Following World War II, a Senate joint resolution on balanced budgets 
was introduced by Senators Tydings of Maryland and Bridges and reported 
out by the Committee on Appropriations in 1947 but received no further 
action. During the 1950's, an increasing number of constitutional 
initiatives for balanced budgets came to be introduced regularly in 
Congress. It was during that time that I supported legislation such as 
that offered by Senators Bridges, Curtis, and Harry Byrd to require the 
submission by the President of an annual balanced budget and to prevent 
Congress from adjourning without having enacted such a budget. No 
action was taken on these measures. Yet, since the beginning of the 
84th Congress in 1955, an average of four constitutional amendments to 
require a balanced Federal budget have been proposed during each 
Congress. There was little substantive action in the 1960's and 1970's 
on our proposals. But finally, in 1982 while I was chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, the Senate passed a balanced budget amendment 
which I authored. Our victory was short-lived, however, because the 
Speaker and the majority leader at that time led the movement to kill 
it in the House of Representatives. That was our high water mark as we 
fell one vote short in 1986 and four votes short last year. With the 
recent action in the House of Representatives and wide bipartisan 
support in the Senate, I am ever optimistic that this is the year the 
Congress will deliver to the American people a balanced budget 
amendment.
  Simply stated, this legislation calls for a constitutional amendment 
requiring that outlays not exceed receipts during any fiscal year. 
Also, the Congress would be allowed by a three-fifths vote to adopt a 
specific level of deficit spending. Further, there is language to allow 
the Congress to waive the amendment during time of war or imminent 
military threat. Finally, the amendment requires that any bill to 
increase taxes be approved by a majority of the whole number of both 
Houses.
  This legislation would provide an important step to reduce and 
ultimately eliminate the Federal deficit. The American people have 
expressed their strong opinion that we focus our efforts on reducing 
the deficit. Making a balanced budget amendment part of the 
Constitution is appropriate action for addressing our Nation's runaway 
fiscal policy.
  Over the past half-century, the Federal Government has become 
jeopardized by an irrational and irresponsible pattern of spending. As 
a result, this firmly entrenched fiscal policy is a threat to the 
liberties and opportunities of our present and future citizens.
  [[Page S1748]] The national debt as of December 30, 1994 was $4.65 
trillion. The Federal deficit in fiscal year 1993 was $225 billion. Mr. 
President, in 1957, my third year in the Senate, the entire national 
debt was less than $275 billion and there was not a deficit, but rather 
a $3 billion surplus.
  Today, the payment of interest on the debt is the second largest item 
in the budget. That accounts for the estimate that this year it will 
take over 40 percent of all personal income tax receipts to pay the 
interest on the debt.
  The tax dollars that go to pay interest on the debt are purely to 
service a voracious congressional appetite for spending. Payment of 
interest on the debt does not build roads, it does not fund medical 
research, it does not provide educational opportunities, it does not 
provide job opportunities, and it does not speak well for the Federal 
Government. Payment of interest on the debt merely allows the Federal 
Government to carry a debt which has been growing at an alarming rate. 
It is deficit spending which has brought us to these crossroads. 
Congress has balanced the Federal budget only once in the last 32 years 
and only 8 times in the last 64 years. A balanced budget amendment as 
part of the Constitution will mandate the Congress to adhere to a 
responsible fiscal policy.
  The American businessmen and businesswomen have become incredulous as 
they witness year in and year out the spending habits of the Congress. 
Anyone who runs a business clearly understands that they cannot survive 
by continuing to spend more money than they take in. It is time the 
Congress understands this simple yet compelling principle.
  For many years, I have believed, as have many Members of Congress, 
that the way to reverse this misguided direction of the Federal 
Government's fiscal policy is by amending the Constitution to mandate, 
except in extraordinary circumstances, balanced Federal budgets. The 
Congress should adopt this proposal and send it to the American people 
for ratification. The balanced budget amendment is a much needed 
addition to the Constitution and it would establish balanced budgets as 
a fiscal norm, rather than a fiscal abnormality.
  The tax burdens which today's deficits will place on future 
generations of American workers is staggering. Future American workers 
are our children and our children's children. We are mortgaging the 
future for generations yet unborn. This is a terrible injustice we are 
imposing on America's future and it has been appropriately referred to 
as fiscal child abuse.

       Our third President, Thomas Jefferson, stated: The question 
     whether one generation has the right to bind another by the 
     deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to 
     place it among the fundamental principles of government. We 
     should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity 
     with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves.

  It is time we show the fiscal discipline advocated by Thomas 
Jefferson and adopt a balanced budget amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the Senate begins to debate the 
resolution to send to the States a proposed constitutional amendment to 
require a balanced budget, I am hopeful it can also be an educational 
experience for both participants and spectators. Like the gulf war 
debate, I hope it will lead to an informed judgment for all of us. For 
it has been a debate that has gone on for centuries.
  The words of Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson have always made 
sense to me. They did not believe in permanent debt. Jackson said,

       I am one of those who do not believe a national debt is a 
     national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch 
     as it is calculated to raise around the administration a 
     moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the 
     country.

  I am sensitive to the significance of amending our Constitution and 
the care we should exercise when we propose to do so. In more than 200 
years, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. Two of those 
occasions reflect the effort to annul with the 21st amendment the 
problems created by the 18th, prohibition.
  Passage of the repeal amendment could no more undo the damaged caused 
by Prohibition than it could turn back the clock.
  Throughout most of our history, the discipline of balanced budgets 
was part of our tradition. It was so much a part of the culture of 
government that no external discipline was necessary to enforce it.
  That has not been true for the last quarter century. The discipline 
of strong political parties has eroded. In the last quarter-century, 
self-styled conservatives got tired of preaching fiscal austerity. The 
free lunch theory of politics was born. It proved successful, and we 
are its heirs.
  History is unforgiving. What has been done changes the world, whether 
or not, in hindsight, we think it should have been done. We are forced 
to deal with the changed world. We can no more return to the tradition-
inspired fiscal discipline that ruled our Nation's first 150 years than 
we could undo the damage of Prohibition by repealing it.
  In this changed world, proponents argue that the only institution in 
American life that still commands the respect necessary to impose 
discipline in the face of competing demands is the Constitution.
  So I have supported the idea of amending the Constitution. I have 
done so in the hope that it would have a salutary effect on smoke-and-
mirrors budgeting that has won all too many of the battles while the 
Nation is steadily losing the war.
  From the beginning of the American constitutional system in 1789, the 
Federal budget was in rough balance in most of its first 150 years.
  Following the end of the Second World War, that has not been the 
case. Until the end of the 1960's, deficits were small, relative to the 
gross national product, and some fiscal years showed small surpluses. 
The oil price shocks of the 1970's and other factors began to fuel the 
ominous upward drift of deficits.
  Even then, despite the efforts by some to rewrite history, the growth 
of the national debt was not exponential. Deficits reflected economic 
stress, not an out-of-control budget.
  That changed dramatically in 1981.
  Fourteen years ago, with the first Reagan budget, deficits exploded 
and the national debt began its upward spiral.
  The combination of supply-side economics in the form of a massive tax 
cut and a trillion-dollar defense buildup led to record-setting 
deficits.
  In the 12 years of Reagan-Bush economics, a national debt that had 
taken two centuries to reach $1 trillion was quadrupled.
  If your family built up a $9,000 debt over 5 years and your feckless 
brother-in-law ran up $27,000 on your credit card in 45 days, you'd be 
facing the equivalent of what happened at the Federal level. Your 
monthly interest charges would go sky high. That happened to Federal 
interest charges, too.
  Today the interest payment on our debt is $212 billion. If it were 
not for the Reagan-Bush portion of the debt, our budget would be 
virtually in balance today.
  High deficits that persist in good economic times as well as bad 
damage our economy. They sap economic growth by diverting resources 
from productive investments. They add to the debt burden and its 
servicing cost, the interest we pay on the debt each year. That diverts 
resources from longer range investment in infrastructure and education.
  Everyone knows what must be done to balance the budget. Revenues have 
to equal or exceed outlays. you can reach that result by increasing 
revenues or reducing outlays or both.
  But you can't do it with mirrors.
  Despite three versions of the Gramm-Rudman Act since 1985, each of 
which was supposed to produce a balanced budget, the budget, as we all 
know, is far from balanced.
  The first real action to get the deficits under control occurred in 
1990, when Congress and President Bush agreed on $500 billion in 
deficit reduction.
  Again in 1993, Congress and President Clinton agreed on another $500 
billion in deficit reduction that has given us the first 3 consecutive 
years of declining deficits in half a century. Yet the 1993 action, 
which has been enormously beneficial to our economy, was fiercely 
resisted on a partisan basis. Not one Republican voted for that deficit 
reduction package.
  We were warned that passing the President's budget would throw the 
[[Page S1749]] country into recession, cost countless jobs, put 
Americans into the poorhouse through tax hikes, and make the deficit go 
through the roof.
  Exactly the opposite happened. The economy grew stronger and 
expanded; more than 5 million new jobs were created; 20 million working 
Americans were taken off the tax rolls; and the deficit has come down 
for 3 years in succession.
  The dire warnings in 1993 weren't qualified. They were presented as 
factual conclusions, predictions so sound they were without possibility 
of error. So supremely confident was the partisan opposition that the 
President's plan passed by just a single-vote margin in the House and 
the Senate.
  Today, the same people whose confident predictions of economic 
disaster have been proven so totally wrong are making confident 
assertions about how easy it will be to balance the budget.
  We are hearing with increased frequency that nothing but a freeze is 
needed to balance the budget by the year 2002, so States and cities 
need not worry that programs that target funds for them will be 
seriously affected.
  The same people who so confidently predicted in 1993 that the 
President's budget plan would lead to economic disaster, and who have 
been proven so totally wrong, are now asking us to have confidence in 
their claims that balancing the budget won't be difficult because it 
can be done by freezing spending.
  The same people who want Americans to believe this are hoping no one 
will notice that they're using the exact opposite argument about 
defense spending.
  The defense budget has been frozen since 1987. It has been about $280 
billion a year. According to the logic of those who say balancing the 
budget will be painless if you just freeze all spending, we should 
expect defense resources to be what they were in 1987.
  But that is not what you are hearing. What you are hearing is that 
defense has suffered deep cuts, that spending reductions have done all 
sorts of damage, and, to the contrary, that we must increase spending 
for the military if we are to avert imminent disaster.
  But in freeze terms, there haven't been any spending reductions. 
There just hasn't been inflation-adjusted growth. That, we are told, 
isn't a cut--it's a freeze.
  Since 1987, the dollar amounts available to the Pentagon have 
remained steady in nominal dollars--and that's exactly what a freeze 
is.
  Since 1987, the number of Army divisions has fallen from 28 to 20, 
Air Force fighter wings have fallen from 36 to 22, the Navy fleet has 
been trimmed from 568 ships to 387, and the number of men and women in 
uniform has fallen from 2.2 million to 1.6 million.
  The military has discovered that a freeze is not a freeze because 
resources do not stay frozen. Instead, divisions and fighter wings melt 
away. That is because $280 billion just does not go as far in 1995 as 
it did in 1987.
  It does not take a mathematical genius to figure this out.
  I do not think anyone in America would have much trouble figuring out 
that living in 1995 on what they earned in 1987 would mean some 
cutbacks. I do not think most Americans have trouble figuring out that 
if they had exactly the same dollar amounts to spend on rent and food 
and clothing today that they spent in 1987, they would be buying a lot 
less of everything.
  This is why our city mayors and our Governors are wondering what will 
happen to their budgets and the services they are responsible for under 
this freeze theory. No wonder they are concerned. They should be.
  The proposed balanced budget amendment sets very strong conditions 
and standards to be applied to the budget.
  It would require a three-fifths majority, not a simple majority, to 
raise the debt ceiling or adopt a budget that is out of balance.
  This so-called supermajority is the Senate's filibuster rule. All of 
America had a good taste of how the filibuster rule worked in the 103d 
Congress. It brought work to a full stop. It put into the hands of a 
minority the power to bargain for, hold hostage, blackmail, or simply 
block anything they wanted.
  The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which 
more than a majority of the Congress must vote: A veto override, a 
treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every 
other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote.
  The Founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority to 
approve legislation. They concluded that putting such immense power 
into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic 
principle. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock.
  Even the Senate, with its veneration for the filibuster rule, limits 
its reach when it comes to the budget. The Senate has specifically 
protected the reconciliation process against manipulation by a 
minority. You cannot filibuster a reconciliation bill.
  When we seek to override a veto or ratify a treaty, two-thirds of 
those present and voting decide the issue. If 10 Senators are absent, a 
veto can be overridden by 60 votes instead of the 67 needed when 
there's full attendance. If 15 Senators are absent, we can ratify a 
treaty with 57 votes.
  But when an absolute number of 60 ``yes'' votes is needed, absent 
Members--Senators who don't even show up to vote--have the same power 
to affect the outcome as if they were present to cast a ``no'' vote.
  In addition, the proposal before us requires that a majority of the 
entire body, not of those present and voting, is required for the 
approval of any revenue increase and that such approval shall require a 
rollcall vote.
  I do not understand why we would permit 47 of 88 Senators on the 
floor to vote the country into war--as we would, if that were the issue 
and 12 Senators were absent--but we should never allow fewer than 51 
Senators to vote for the smallest revenue increase.
  This means accelerated gridlock. The Senate could not act on anything 
that involved revenues, no matter how trivial, if the outcome were 
close, if just one Senator were absent--not an uncommon occurrence. If 
one Senator is absent, and the body is evenly split on an issue, a 50-
vote win would not suffice. I need not remind anyone how often we 
legislate with more than one absentee.
  The proposal requires that this vote be taken by a rollcall. That 
means the end of any voice-voted conference reports that include any 
revenues, no matter how trivial, and no matter how broadly supported.
  These will strike some as minimal objections to a grand scheme, but 
it is often over the most trivial things that grand schemes come to an 
unhappy end.
  A failure to observe the requirement would open any law to challenge 
in the courts, as having been enacted unconstitutionally.
  There are already many Americans, including well-respected economists 
and nonpartisan political observers, who think the effect of a 
constitutional commandment to balance the budget will be a series of 
ever-more-ingenious evasions by the Congress.
  They believe that as the difficulties and inconveniences of living up 
to the promise are encountered in the real world, Congress will create 
loopholes just as it has changed other budgeting laws when they became 
inconvenient in past years.
  But it is one thing to change statutory budget law. It is quite 
another to play fix-up games with the Constitution.
  I support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget because 
only the Constitution commands universal respect. But I am seriously 
concerned that the amendment must be crafted carefully. Otherwise, it 
will invite tampering with a constitutional requirement that will 
undermine that universal respect which we all now recognize.
  Perhaps we should consider adopting, as a Senate rule, the 
requirements on voting that are now embodied in the measure.
  Let us see on a practical basis whether it makes sense to give a 
minority the right to block this year's budget resolution.
  If this is a good idea to impose on a Congress in which many of 
today's Members will not serve, let us consider imposing it on this 
Congress, in which we are all serving. And if not, let us at least 
consider modifying this language to more closely conform to the 
constitutional standards for voting on other important legislation.
   [[Page S1750]] In the present climate of contract-induced hysteria, 
I suppose many are ready to pledge their lives and sacred honor on 
their willingness to be present and vote for each and every cent of 
revenue that may ever be raised in the unknowable future.
  But how strongly will new Congresses, not in the grip of hysteria, 
feel about this provision?
  I note that the House does not intend to apply this requirement as a 
House rule when it considers the contract's tax cut bill. I wonder if 
that is because it is expected that bill will contain some revenue-
raising offsets as well as spending cuts?
  The proposal before us has little in the way of interpretative 
language. It is unclear what constitutes a revenue increase. If a tax 
benefit expires, for example, does that constitute a revenue increase 
within the meaning of this language? Does it mean we cannot simply 
allow it to expire but must take affirmative action to vote in favor of 
doing what an earlier Congress already determined should be done? Would 
a taxpayer have standing to sue if a tax benefit expired without an 
affirmative vote?
  I hope this facet of the proposal can be clarified. I think Americans 
have a right to know what this language means.
  We are often told that if the average family can balance its budget, 
we ought to be able to balance the Federal budget. I do not know how 
many American families pay for their houses with a single cash payment 
or buy their cars cash down. I know that is not too common in South 
Dakota.
  Likewise, we are told the States balance their budgets each year, and 
so the Federal Government should balance its budget each year.
  But this is not true, either. States balance their books each year. 
They do not balance their budgets. State debt has, in fact, been 
rising. State debt rose by $26 billion from 1991 to 1992--8 percent. 
State debt has been rising because States are not balancing their 
budgets. They are balancing their books.
  That is what families with mortgages, car payments, and credit card 
debt to. It is what every business in the country does.
  Today, the only entity for which investment and operating costs are 
considered interchangeable is the Federal Government. That is something 
that deserves more attention than it has received so far.
  Another popular idea floating about is that the Consumer Price Index 
so greatly overstates the inflation rate that it could be taken at a 
third of its value, thus saving enormous amounts of money.
  The only thing wrong with this is that is not true. It is wishful 
thinking. The measurement of all economic statistics undergoes a 
continuous process of refinement, regardless of which political party 
is in power. The Consumer Price Index is in the process of being 
reviewed in this fashion, and the process ought to be left alone. We do 
not need hopeful economic statistics. We need accurate ones.
  The thing supporters of this convenient theory do not want Americans 
to remember is that if the value of the consumer price index were 
halved, the indexing of tax deductions would also be halved.
  Today, because of the 1986 tax reform bill, the amount of income that 
is excluded from taxes rises along with the cost of living each year.
  If the Consumer Price Index is devalued, what you get is a backdoor 
tax hike. It will cause taxes to rise significantly, compared to 
inflation. No surprise, the people paying the bulk of the increased 
taxes will be working, middle-class people whose income comes from 
salaries and wages, not interest earnings and investments.
  I said at the outset that there is no magic to balancing the budget. 
You do it by cutting spending or increasing revenues. Those who are 
relying on spending freezes or understated consumer price indexes plan 
to use revenues. They just do not want to admit it.
  The reality is that, if we are going to balance the budget by 2002, 
we ought to face up to the fact that it will be a difficult process. It 
will be difficult, because it will mean asking people to give up 
services and benefits they are used to receiving.
  That is why I so strongly believe that if we're going to do this, 
people deserve to find out what is involved.
  The State officers who deal with State budgets have produced 
estimates of the cost to every State of a balanced Federal budget, 
based on the funds that States receive today from the Federal 
Government. Although the degree of dependence on Federal benefits 
varies, on average, at least one-fifth of State budgets is now 
comprised of Federal funds.
  These are the so-called ``discretionary domestic spending'' funds 
that are the target of the freeze idea. They are the programs directly 
at risk if we decide to balance the budget by not taking inflation into 
account and simply keeping all programs level in nominal dollars for 
the next 7 years.
  Some say the success of the President's budget plan of 1993 means 
there is no need to amend the Constitution. I would like to be able to 
agree. But the razor-thin, one-vote margins by which we succeeded in 
1993 are a slender reed on which to rest our prosperity in the next 
century.
  At the same time, the deficit of today and the politics of today are 
not what they were in 1979, when I first proposed a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget.
  In the intervening years, we have been subjected to free-lunch 
promises, to tax hikes called ``revenue enhancements'' and ``user 
fees,'' to budgets with magical asterisks that stand for spending cuts 
that cannot be outlined, and prophecies of one disaster after another. 
We reinvented our Tax Code with the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The 1986 
reform is not even a decade old, and it's already being denounced by 
some who voted for it. The Speaker of the House says we must now scrap 
the income tax and turn instead to a national sales tax.
  It is not surprising that Americans don't know what to think or whom 
to trust. I doubt that anyone casting a ballot last November thought he 
or she had just voted to impose a national sales tax on themselves. 
Because of the speed with which these ideas flash in and out of the 
political spotlight, and because each reappearance of an old 
discredited idea tricked out in brand-new slogans adds to the general 
confusion, I have concluded that it is no longer enough to establish a 
simple constitutional command to balance the budget.
  This time, I believe the American people have a right to know what it 
is that we are proposing to do. So I have introduced and, with the 
support of over 40 of my colleagues, will be fighting for, the Right to 
know Act, a resolution whose adoption should precede passage of the 
constitutional balanced budget amendment.
  I had always hoped that if the Senate ever were to undertake a debate 
on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, our debate would 
be characterized by seriousness and honesty, not slogans and sound 
bites.
  I hoped that because it seems to me that what the elected officials 
of Government say and do about the taxes that citizens pay to 
Government is as important as anything we do. People work hard for 
their wages. Families in my State of South Dakota do not earn the kinds 
of salaries that the aristocracy of wealth here in Washington considers 
normal. They deserve to have their taxes taken seriously.
  That is why I am concerned about the freeze hoax and the other 
issue--dodging that is going on around here. It sounds too much like 
the stuff we have been hearing for years.
  It does not matter whether you quote David Stockman, Reagan's first 
Budget Director, who concluded, ``After 4 years, I'm convinced a large 
share of the problem is us. By that I mean Republicans,'' or you quote 
Ronald Reagan, who said, ``This administration is committed to a 
balanced budget and we will fight to the last blow to achieve it in 
1984.''
  The bottom line is that, when they had the power, they did not fight 
to cut the deficit. When President Clinton proposed to cut the deficit, 
they fought, all right. They fought him.
  I have tried to play by the rules. That is why I began with a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget when I was first elected 
to Congress. But it seems that the rules keep changing.
  [[Page S1751]] When the President offers real cuts, fight him, 
misrepresent his program, predict disaster, obstruct, vote no. Then, 
when you are proven wrong, stick to your guns. When you are asked to be 
specific, duck the question. Say it will not be too tough. Talk about a 
national sales tax. Change the subject.
  That is not my idea of responsible legislating.
  This year--again, no surprise--we have the new House majority leader 
announcing that he is not about to present an honest accounting of what 
you have to cut to balance the budget, because, and I quote him 
directly, ``The fact of the matter is that once Members of Congress 
know exactly, chapter and verse, the pain that the Government must live 
with in order to get a balanced budget, their knees will buckle.''
  He knows his membership better than I do. But none of us, including 
House Republicans, were sent here to do the easy stuff. We were sent 
here to do the work. We are being paid to do it, and it is about time 
we buckled down and did it.
  I have listened to much talk, on and off the Senate floor, for many 
years now about the balanced budget. The longer I am here, the more 
obvious it is that those who talk the most act the least.
  That is why this year I say, no more. I have had enough. We have 
heard the evasions, the hypocrisies, the half-truths and all the rest.
  I sincerely believe that people on both sides of the aisle truly want 
to achieve a meaningful way with which to accomplish a balance Federal 
budget by the year 2002. This year, I say Americans cannot accept 
simply our promise to do so. They cannot accept simply our version of 
Trust us. Americans have the right to know what this means. They have a 
right to know how we will spell it out, how we will set it out, how we 
will let the people share in our decisionmaking. That is now up to us.
  What I propose is that we trigger the reconciliation process, the 
process that does not let a minority hold us hostage, and start now on 
how we might go about reducing the deficit for the next 7 years. Let 
Members set the budget path to a balanced Federal budget by the year 
2002. That is the heart of the right-to-know amendment. It is not just 
hot air or empty talk about people's knees buckling.
  I want to know and the American people ought to know what all this 
talk means. If they cannot answer that question for the American 
people, they cannot answer it for me or anyone else. So today, let the 
Senate begin this debate with high expectations, with a realization 
that we cannot fail, with appreciation of what we must do to make this 
an honest debate. Let Senators make an informed judgment, and let 
Senators let the American people be a part of it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Laurence 
Block, Victor Cabral, Michael O'Neill, Steven Schlesinger, and 
Elizabeth Kessler, detailees, be granted floor privileges for the 
remainder of this calendar year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to advocate passage of 
the balanced budget amendment, a measure which will fundamentally 
change the direction our Government has taken in the last 25 years.
  Mr. President, if the people of this country said anything last 
November, it is that we should change the course of this country. The 
most important thing we can do to show the American people that we 
heard their call and that we are acting on it is to pass this balanced 
budget amendment.
  During the last 25 years, Congress has become desensitized to the 
enormity of the fiscal and moral harm its habitual deficit spending is 
causing this country. Those of us who support the balanced budget 
amendment believe that, contrary to the thrust of many arguments that 
we will be hearing in the next few days, weeks, or even months, budget 
deficits of this magnitude are not the norm. With the exception of 
deficit spending during wartime, this country grew to be the most 
powerful on Earth while enjoying increasingly high standards of living 
without spending excessively.
  But during the last few decades, we have accumulated a national debt 
of $4.4 trillion, nearly $18,000 for every man, woman, and child in 
this country. In fact, every child that is born today owes $18,000. 
That is not a birthright; that is a birth-wrong. Our per capita debt 
has increased more than sevenfold in the last 18 years. I do not think 
it is coincidence that at the same time there has arisen a crisis of 
confidence in the Government among many segments of our society.
  We have now become the largest debtor nation in history, and a large 
portion of that debt is held by foreign interests. We have mortgaged 
our children's future in the very way Thomas Jefferson feared and 
warned us about 200 years ago.
  He said:

       The question whether one generation has the right to bind 
     another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such 
     consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles 
     of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to 
     saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them 
     ourselves.

  Since the beginning of our slide down the slippery slope of deficit 
spending 25 years ago, it has become more and more evident that the 
problem is due in part to an inherent weakness in the way Congress goes 
about its business. The deficit is a result of the fact that it has 
become harder and harder to raise taxes but all too easy to increase 
spending.
  The voters made themselves perfectly clear on this matter last 
November. To them, the deficit is not a result of the Government taxing 
too little. It is the result of Government spending too much. That is a 
simple concept instinctively grasped by our people but until now has 
seemed beyond the reach of Congress.
  It is at this critical juncture that a balanced budget amendment 
would inject the element of accountability into the process. It should 
be just as hard for the Government to borrow as it is for the 
Government to raise taxes.
  The balanced budget amendment would set up a tension in Congress when 
we deliberate over borrowing, taxing, and spending. And we need that 
tension, Mr. President. Other less drastic attempts to accomplish this 
change in attitude have failed. Gramm-Rudman was not allowed to 
function as its authors had planned. Too much was exempted from it. And 
every time its mandatory sequester treatment came into play, Congress 
backed down. The 1990 budget agreement did not hold water. We raised 
taxes, but real budget cuts never followed.
  Budget deficits are doing enormous harm. Aside from the selfishly 
shortsighted way in which we are treating future generations, the 
impact of deficit spending already has begun to sap our economy. The 
Government is borrowing and spending money that would otherwise serve 
as capital needed for economic growth and job creation. Our standard of 
living no longer continues to rise in this country.
  Our parents used to think that it was a matter of course that their 
children would have a better standard of living than they did. That is 
no longer the case. We are crippling the productive engine of our 
society and cheating those who make it run. Wealth that should be 
available as seed corn for the creation of new wealth and jobs is 
instead being consumed.
  Opponents of the balanced budget amendment are now demanding that its 
supporters first reveal exactly how they plan to balance the budget. I 
would ask instead, when were the American people ever told precisely 
how they would be driven into a $4.4 trillion debt?
  Did we ask the American people every time we forced them into this 
drastic debt? Was it explained to them that the Government was imposing 
such a burden on their children and grandchildren? How does every other 
government entity in America except Congress manage to write a balanced 
budget?
  They determine what they have to spend, and then they set their 
spending priorities. That is how they do it. They set a balanced budget 
and then they say, OK, that is what we have to spend. 
[[Page S1752]] Here is how we are going to do it. They figure it out.
  Every business, every household, every city, every county, and every 
State government in America does it. There is only one entity in this 
country that does not have a balanced budget and continues to function, 
and that has been the Congress of the United States.
  Mr. President, this is the budget of Henderson, TX. It is a lot of 
computer pages. Henderson is a town of 11,000 people. They are very 
proud that they have a balanced budget. That is why they put this sign 
on the front of their budget.
  The balanced budget for Henderson, TX, is $8 million; one-quarter of 
this budget is from unfunded Federal mandates. So 11,139 people in the 
city of Henderson, TX, have to split $2 million of unfunded mandates to 
pay for it--$2 million extra over 11,000 people.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that this Congress has made some progress 
on unfunded mandates. But as we proceed to give relief to the people of 
Henderson, TX, and cities like it all across America, I hope we are 
also going to learn a lesson from cities that know how to balance their 
budget. The city council says to itself, we have $8 million in revenue, 
and we are going to spend no more than $8 million.
  Many of the strongest voices being raised in opposition to this 
measure are the very ones, Mr. President, who are afraid that the 
balanced budget will work. They are unwilling to make the hard choices 
it will force on those in Congress. I can understand their reluctance 
even if I do not sympathize with it. In fact, the harm we are causing 
with continued deficit spending is precisely the kind of Government 
folly which the Constitution ought to prevent. We ought to prevent it 
in the Constitution, and that is what we are trying to do today.
  I would like to close my remarks with another warning from Thomas 
Jefferson. He saw all too well the potential for tragedy if the young 
Republic were to taste the forbidden fruit of borrowing against its 
future. He said:

       There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the 
     Government and so demoralizing of the Nation as a public 
     debt. It will bring us more ruin at home than all the enemies 
     from abroad.

  Mr. President, he could say those words today, and it would be even 
more fitting.
  Now, I do not think that Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding 
Fathers could ever have dreamed of a $4.4 trillion debt, but I will say 
this. Had they known that this was possible, I think they would have 
taken steps to prevent it in the Constitution.
  I think it is incumbent upon us to say to the future generations of 
our country we are going to take the steps that will assure that every 
child born in this country will not be born with an $18,000 debt 
hanging over his or her head.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah, who is leading the 
charge for this balanced budget amendment. We must pass this 
constitutional amendment so that Congress can no longer, by majority 
vote, encumber our children and future generations with what we want to 
spend today as a matter of convenience.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Texas for her excellent remarks and for her valiant efforts in trying 
to pass a balanced budget amendment. Without people like Senator 
Hutchison, I do not think we would be as far along as we are.
  I have to say, when she arrived in the Congress, it gave a lot of us 
hope that we might be able to get this far. Now we have to see that we 
get far enough to pass the balanced budget amendment by the requisite, 
at least 67, votes in the Senate. That is not easy to do, but we are 
going to be about doing it and going to do everything we can.
  Thanks to our distinguished friend from Texas for the work she is 
doing in trying to help bring this about.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to compliment the 
distinguished Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, and, of course, our 
friend and colleague, the President pro tempore of the Senate, Senator 
Thurmond, for the excellent remarks they made earlier in the day.
  When I think of Senator Thurmond, I think of 40 years here in the 
U.S. Senate, 38 of which have been spent trying to pass a balanced 
budget amendment. If we do finally pass this amendment through the 
Senate in the exact form that the House sent it over, I think Senator 
Thurmond will deserve a great deal of credit for all of his work 
through all of those years.
  I also would like to praise Senator Craig for his excellent work. He 
is one of the leaders on this bill. He has been ever since he was the 
leader in the House. He does an awful lot of the coordination and the 
work behind the scenes to see that we all get where we want to be.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my distinguished friend and 
colleague from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are, of course, at the outset of a 
debate on a profound and important issue to the future of the United 
States, a debate on the Constitution itself and on whether or not it 
should be amended to require or to encourage balanced budgets and, if 
so, how.
  I hope to have a number of occasions on which to speak on this 
amendment, but in this first try, rather than to outline what is in it 
or even to deal with the important reasons for its passage which have 
already been explained with considerable eloquence by previous speakers 
this afternoon, I would like to share a few observations on the nature 
of the debate on which we are embarking.
  First, we will be faced with a demand during the course of this 
debate that its proponents outline precisely and specifically, perhaps 
even to the extent of a specific bill with various mandatory 
requirements included in it how a balanced budget will be reached by 
the year 2002. And during the course of that debate, what is likely to 
be obscured will be the alternatives to this constitutional amendment.
  It seems to me--and I stand to be corrected by my good friend from 
Utah if he has any addition to this group--that Members of the Senate 
will be divided essentially into three groups during the course of this 
debate.
  First is that group represented by the Senator from Utah himself and 
the other sponsors, which will include those Members who feel that it 
is vitally important for the future of this country that the budget of 
the United States, in most years, absent emergencies, be balanced; that 
a continuation of the fiscal policies of the past, not just the recent 
past but almost the entire past since the end of World War II, of 
increasing budget deficits, of passing on a greater and greater debt to 
our children and grandchildren must be brought to an end and are 
unlikely to be brought to an end by any course of action less drastic 
than certain constitutional requirements. I believe, and I am sure my 
friend from Utah joins me in this belief, that a significant majority 
of the Members of this body hold to that belief.
  The other two groups are less likely, it seems to me, to speak 
candidly and directly to their fundamental philosophies, but I suspect 
that there are some Members of this body who believe that it is 
important to reach a balanced budget but that we should try some method 
other than a constitutional amendment by which to attain that goal. I 
can speak rather fervently with respect to that group because 10 years 
ago that was the group to which I belonged. I voted against predecessor 
proposals of this nature on the basis that the Congress itself should 
act responsibly enough to balance the budget without the constraints of 
a constitutional amendment. And in fact, I played some minor role in 
the passage of the Gramm-Rudman Act in the mid 1980's, which was a 
statutory attempt to reach the goal now sought by this constitutional 
amendment. And in fact, Gramm-Rudman for 2 or 3 years was effective, at 
least in leading to smaller deficits.
   [[Page S1753]] But once the requirements of Gramm-Rudman required 
real sacrifice, real spending cuts, Gramm-Rudman was effectively 
abandoned by the Congress and budget deficits once again increased. As 
a consequence, it is my perspective, at least, that a statutory 
approach, a year-by-year approach simply will not result in our 
reaching a goal of a balanced budget.
  I hope, however, that if there are Members of this body who stand for 
a balanced budget but against this constitutional amendment, they will 
clearly and emphatically say this is their goal, and since they are 
asking for a particular, specific blueprint of how we should reach that 
goal under the constitutional amendment, those Members should share 
with us their viewpoint of when and how they believe we should balance 
the budget without the constraints of this amendment.
  To this point, Mr. President, while I have heard many pious 
statements about the necessity for fiscal responsibility on the part of 
opponents to this amendment, not one, to the best of my ability to 
judge, either inside this body or outside this body, has told us how we 
reach that goal without this constraint.
  The third group, and I believe firmly that this group of Members will 
embody the great bulk of those who will vote against the constitutional 
amendment in any event and the great bulk of those who will set up the 
smokescreen that we must set out exactly the road by which we are going 
to reach this constitutional amendment, Mr. President, I believe the 
great bulk of those Members do not believe a balanced budget either to 
be a desirable goal for the United States of America or at least, if it 
is a goal, it is only a secondary or tertiary one that does not amount 
to much and is not nearly as important as the spending programs which 
they advocate increasing or protecting from reductions.
 And, as far as I can tell, the debate, at least in this body among its 
100 Members, will divide all of us among those three groups and among 
no others.

  I predict that the great majority--not all, the great majority of 
those who want this blueprint want this blueprint not to guide us to a 
balanced budget but to buttress their arguments that we never should 
balance the budget under any circumstances, that the pain is simply too 
great and that for one reason or another, at least during our careers, 
we can continue to put on the cuff $150 billion, $200 billion, $400 
billion a year.
  We have in this liberal administration great pride expressed as 
recently as last week in the State of the Union Address, over the 
reduction in budget deficits during the course of the last 2 or 3 
years. We are rarely told, and then only in footnotes or in the back 
pages of long dusty dry documents, that current policies will result in 
a turnaround of those budgeted deficit reductions and increases in the 
deficit to $200, $250, $300, $350, $400 billion a year by and after the 
turn of the century.
  So there really are no easy answers. You either believe that a 
balanced budget is a socially desirable goal, a goal worth sacrificing 
for, or you do not. If you do not, you ought to be willing to say, 
expressly, that you do not, that it simply is not as important. That it 
is more important to carry on with present spending policies than it is 
to balance the budget.
  I believe that this grouping of three even applies to those who 
believe in a balanced budget but believe that it should be attained not 
primarily or exclusively by cutting spending but primarily or 
exclusively by increasing tax rates. It is certainly appropriate for a 
Member here to vote for this constitutional amendment on the basis that 
he or she will increase taxes to reach those goals in the year 2002 as 
it is to hold the opposite point of view, that the goal should be 
reached by reductions in spending, if those Members are willing to 
stand up and say this is the way, if my ideas are in power, I will 
reach that goal.
  In fact, I believe that to be the best argument, the overwhelming 
argument, against anyone attempting to provide a 7- or 8-year blueprint 
today on the way in which a balanced budget will be reached. This 
Congress can bind this Congress, that is the next 2 years. It cannot 
bind the Congress which will take office in 1997 or in 1999 or in the 
year 2001. In fact, if we were to pass an express blueprint it would 
undoubtedly be changed by each of those Congresses. If those of a 
liberal persuasion who are today in the minority once again take over a 
majority and operate under the constraints of this constitutional 
amendment, they may very well decide to reach its goals by increasing 
taxes on the American people over the objection of those of us who do 
not believe that is the way to go. If so, let them say so. Let them 
give us their blueprint for reaching the goals which are set by this 
constitutional amendment itself.
  It seems to me, therefore, that this is the argument. Does one 
believe, against all history, that a balanced budget is a desirable 
goal, a vitally important goal, but that we can do it by engaging in 
business as usual? Does one believe that it is not a goal at all? Does 
one, as many will on the liberal side of this body, believe that 
business as usual is just fine and we should go on in the future in 
exactly the way we have gone on in the past, spending more money than 
we take in, passing new programs that are not paid for? Let them stand 
up eloquently and firmly for the status quo. But I do not believe the 
status quo, either with respect to the Constitution or promises that 
Congress will somehow automatically act differently in the future than 
it has in the past, are what the people of this country want. I think 
they want us to change the very way in which we are doing business. I 
believe they want imposed on us constraints that are, by their very 
nature, imposed on them in their daily lives, on their families, on 
them as individuals, and are imposed by the very fact we control the 
money supply on our local governments and on our State governments, 
which now must balance their budgets.
  I am convinced that the vast majority of the American people want 
imposed on us those individual and local and State government 
constraints which have been a part of their lives as long as any of 
them or us have been around, and that the real debate here is between 
the status quo and a different way of doing business. I believe that 
those who are promoting this constitutional amendment are not satisfied 
with the record of Congress for years, for decades, and want a new and 
different way of doing business.
  One point which I think is often overlooked is to a certain extent 
even the title balanced budget amendment is in part a misnomer. This 
constitutional amendment, when it is in full force and effect, will not 
mandate a balanced budget in any given year or over a period of years. 
It will, however, make unbalanced budgets much more difficult to pass 
in the future. It will require, to pass an unbalanced budget, that the 
affirmative votes of 60 percent of the Members of this body and of the 
House of Representatives must be secured. That is to say under most 
circumstances--under all circumstances, for the better part of the last 
two decades--it will require a bipartisan majority to create an 
unbalanced budget. It will not be something which takes place as a 
result of a narrow partisan party-line vote. It will require the 
thoughts and the assent of Members of both major political parties in 
the country and, therefore, almost automatically will be accomplished 
in a more thoughtful and broadminded fashion when it is accomplished.
  It will also, however, greatly constrain the ability of Members to 
begin new, unfunded spending programs. And that is its goal. When there 
is a crisis, however, it will be possible by that 60 percent majority 
vote to make an exception and not to balance the budget. It is a 
flexible and not a rigid constitutional amendment.
  My final thought in these opening remarks is that I firmly believe 
that the men who wrote our Constitution in 1787 would have included a 
supermajority requirement themselves if they had been able to foresee 
the dynamics of politics in the late 20th century.
  How many people asking for action by the Government who come into 
your office come into that office asking for financial restraint, for 
general responsibility? How many in comparison with those who come into 
your office asking for a favor from the Federal Government, an 
appropriation, the protection of an existing program, an increase in an 
existing program, or the creation of a new one?
 One to two? 
[[Page S1754]] Probably not that many. This is not to criticize those 
who come to us asking us to support one of the thousands of programs 
financed by the Federal Government. In many cases, in almost all cases, 
these are sincere, hardworking, and dedicated citizens to a certain end 
and the programs for which they ask, the program they support, has 
genuine positive social ends. They may not be well administered, but 
the goal which they seek is a good one. Therefore, it is easier for 
Members to say yes than it is to say no, and infinitely easier when we 
can put the costs on the cut, when we do not have to cut something 
else, when we do not have to increase taxes, when we can just borrow 
for that program.
  This supermajority requirement will make that decision on our part 
somewhat more difficult because we will be unable to say yes unless we 
are willing to vote for more taxes at the same time or find a better 
program which can be cut at the same time. And it will provide a 
balance between the special interests, the specific interests of the 
individuals who lobby us and the general interests in a responsible and 
fiscally sound Federal Government which is I believe exactly the 
balance that the Founding Fathers wished when they created the 
Constitution in the first place without any ability to predict the way 
in which we communicate and deal with issues like this today.
  So in the finest sense of the word this constitutional amendment is a 
conservative move. It desires to conserve what is best in our country 
and in its Government and its governmental programs. It will make us 
more responsible. It will require us to weigh one desirable program 
against another in a far better and more evenhanded fashion than we 
were able to do in the past.
  As we go through this debate, Mr. President, I hope those who are 
watching it across the country will remember that there are really only 
three points of view being expressed here no matter how eloquent or how 
well those views are given. One is a balanced budget is not a 
particularly good idea. We do not need it. The status quo is just fine. 
The way this country has been run in the past is just fine, and we just 
need more of the same thing.
  No. 2 is, yes, a balanced budget is a good idea but there are easier 
ways to get to it, less painful ways to get to it than to do it through 
the Constitution of the United States. Those people need to explain to 
us how it is they can do in the future what they have been unable or 
unwilling to do in the past.
  The third is we need to do things differently. We need to make 
changes in this country. We need to require the Congress of the United 
States to act in a fiscally responsible fashion. Those who hold that 
point of view will be supporting this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
            a balanced budget amendment to the constitution

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor and 
strong supporter of the resolution calling for a constitutional 
amendment mandating a balanced budget. It appears that in the next few 
days, the Senate will get still another opportunity to demonstrate to 
the American public that we are serious about deficit reduction and 
economic stability. The 300 to 132 bipartisan vote in the House of 
Representatives on January 26--12 more than what was needed--gives this 
resolution momentum that we cannot ignore.
  I think that the momentum is also given by the selection of this 
resolution to be labeled--No. 1. It shows that this is a top priority 
of this Congress. Additional momentum has been given to the 
consideration of this resolution by the fact that the Judiciary 
Committee has moved rapidly and in an unprecedented manner to bring 
this resolution to the floor of the Senate. Additional momentum was 
given in that the staff worked diligently to report this bill with a 
written report in just a matter of a few short days.
  I congratulate Chairman Hatch for his leadership in giving this 
momentum to bring forward to the Senate this very important resolution.
  When Congress passed the largest deficit-reduction package in history 
in August 1993, It was a clear signal that most Members have finally 
come to terms with the reality that something must be done to bring our 
national debt and yearly deficits under control. While this legislation 
was an important first step in the long road toward a balanced budget, 
it was just that: a first step.
  We know that reducing the deficit is important in the short term. But 
if we are going to ensure a stable economic future for our children and 
grandchildren, these deficits must be completely eliminated in the long 
term. That is precisely the goal of this resolution to add a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution.
  I do not take amending the Constitution lightly. I wish that the U.S. 
Congress had the discipline as an institution to take the steps 
necessary on our own to eliminate the deficit without having to resort 
to such drastic action. But as we all know, that fiscal discipline and 
will power simply are not there. We tried it with the Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings approach and we had to give in, at least some gave in regard 
to that. The bottom line is clear: Fiscal responsibility should and 
must be dictated by the Constitution.
  Congress has made attempts in the past to bring the budget under 
control, only to see them compromised away when the momentum shifted to 
another issue, or another crisis. We have the momentum on our side once 
again. It is important that we seize that momentum, submit approval of 
this important amendment to the States, and finally put into place a 
mechanism by which our economic health will no longer be subject to the 
shifting currents of the day. We will know, first and foremost, that 
our budget priorities must be formulated under the dictates of our 
cherished Constitution. This amendment will provide the teeth we need 
to balance the Federal budget.
  Since coming to the Senate, I have supported and advocated a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution. It was the first piece of 
legislation I introduced as a first-term Senator in 1979, Since then, 
the first bill I have introduced at the beginning of each new 
Congress--including the 104th--has been the balanced budget amendment.
  Passage of this legislation has come close before. During the 97th 
Congress, a measure was passed with 69 votes in the Senate, but failed 
to garner the two-thirds necessary in the House of Representatives. In 
the 99th Congress, after extended debate, passage in the Senate failed 
by only one vote. Just 1 year ago, the Senate narrowly defeated this 
legislation by a vote of 63 to 37, only 4 short of the 67 required for 
passage.
  I believe that it would have passed at that time, if the House had 
not previous to that voted not to pass the resolution.
  Now, in the 104th Congress, we have seen a series of political and 
fiscal developments that make the chances of passage greater than at 
any other time. The overwhelming vote in the House on January 26 gave 
the amendment even greater momentum. The ever-increasing concern to do 
something about the deficit is intense. Our national debt is on the 
mind of every person who thinks about America's future.
  For much of our history, a balanced budget at the national level of 
Government was a part of our ``unwritten constitution.'' A balanced or 
surplus budget was the norm for the first 100 years of the republic. In 
recent decades, however, Americans have witnessed a continuing cycle of 
deficits, taxes, and spending. And neither political party has a 
monopoly on virtue here: these fiscal policies have been pursued with 
equal fervor by Republicans and Democrats.
  I have used the Thomas Jefferson quote on budget deficits before 
during debates on this amendment, but it is worth mentioning again. He 
warned, ``The public debt is the greatest of dangers to be feared by a 
republican government.'' Over the course of time, we have lost sight of 
Jefferson's warning.
  Some argue that if we possessed and practiced stronger discipline as 
a legislative body, then such an amendment would be unnecessary. As I 
said before, I do not dispute that sentiment, only its reality. The 
last balanced budget we had was under President Lyndon Johnson. The 
last 18 years or so indicate 
[[Page S1755]] that the problem goes much deeper than individual and 
collective resolve. Rather, it is the institutional structure of 
Government that encourages short-term responses to problems instead of 
a focus on the greater good and the future.
  There is no doubt about what our responsibilities as national leaders 
are. There is also no question as to what the American people want and 
deserve. There is a question as to whether the Congress will respond 
affirmatively by accepting this challenge. We have the momentum and the 
opportunity to finally stop mortgaging the future and saddling our 
children with unconscionable debts.
  I look forward to the debate in the coming days. I hope we will find 
the strength and determination to do what we know must be done in order 
to restore our economic health.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________