Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 21 (Thursday, February 2, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 21 (Thursday, February 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2027-S2033]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of our
new colleague, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. I think he has
spelled out very cogently why the American people voted for change.
They are tired of Big Brother Government saying,
[[Page S2028]] ``We know what's best for you. We're going to give it to
you, whether you like it or not. We have programs that are good for
you, whether you can pay for them or not.''
The people want a balanced budget amendment, and they are right. This
is no time to start playing politics as usual. This is an important
issue.
I will tell you how important it is. If we continue to do business as
we have in the past, we will become just like our neighbor to the
south.
Who will we go to for the bailouts? Who? What are we talking about?
We are not talking about cutting spending. Oh, no, we are talking about
decreasing the rate of spending. We are still going to spend
trillions--something like $13 trillion in the next 7 years. We are
talking about maybe cutting that down to $12 trillion. If we can do
that, we have a balanced budget.
What do we have here? The opposition, the Democrats, are simply and
purely stalling. They are looking for a way for escape clauses. Let me
tell Members, there are many of our colleagues who voted on the other
side for the balanced budget amendment. What are they doing now? Why,
they are scampering for the hills. The Senator from Tennessee was
absolutely right. They voted for the balanced budget amendment to
protect their political hide in years gone by so they could go back and
say to their people, ``Oh, I voted for the balanced budget amendment.''
They knew we could not get two-thirds.
And here we are. Here we are, poised to do something that the
American people overwhelmingly want. And what are they doing? Ducking,
shimmying, telling us, ``How can you get there? Spell it out over the
next 7 years.'' They cannot tell us what they are going to do next
month, let alone 7 years down the line.
What are the interest rates going to be 7 years down the line? Keep
spending this way, it will be 20-plus percent, we will not have any
economy. The Senator is right. Know what Social Security will be worth?
Know what inflation will take place? Incredible. What are we going to
do then? It is about time we did the business of the people. Stop the
pussyfooting.
The American people know what they want. Those Members who were sent
here to do the business of the people should keep our feet to the fire.
I know it will be tough. But doing the right thing sometimes does
require some courage. The fact is that we should stick with the
principles that the American people are demanding. They want Members to
balance the budget. They want Members to cut spending, cut taxes. It is
right for America. We can do it.
I have to tell Senators I am not going to look the other way. I will
be very candid. If our colleagues begin this business of attempting to
find these escape clauses, we will call it to the attention of the
American people. We have an obligation to keep their feet to the fire,
to do the business of the people.
Mr. President, in that connection, I have to say I think that the
President of the United States looked for a way to get around the voice
of the people. The voice of the people is the Congress. And in
proposing his new agreement to help our neighbors to the south, he
circumvented the Congress. Now, I hope that that plan works. But I have
grave, grave doubts. I have grave doubts that we will have the ability
to see to it that those loan guarantees are not just withered away, and
that we do not see the American taxpayers picking up $20 billion-plus.
I can name places I see loan guarantees and we know they will get
paid back, and they do help. Maybe Orange County. I remember loan
guarantees for New York. Much more difficult terms then those we have
made available to our brethren in the south--Mexico. Guarantees. That
means we are paid out over a period of 4 years. Not within an 18-month
period of time.
I did not know if the IMF and the World Bank will do the kind of job
or whether they are in a position to see that Mexico makes the kind of
reforms necessary, or whether they will just continue to print paper.
I wonder, is it the business of this country to see to it that those
who invested were getting 20- and 30-percent returns in Mexico, that we
will hold them harmless and they will get every single dollar and get
back 20 percent? Is that the business of this country? If you make an
investment and there is a high risk and you get 20-percent return,
people say you are a genius. But if it goes sour and you go down, do we
really expect Uncle Sam, the American taxpayers, Uncle Sam to bail you
out and say, ``We hold you harmless.''
What kind of economic stabilization program is that? I wonder why it
is that we did not say to the Mexican Government, as those noteholders
come due, ``We will help you in renegotiating the payments and the
terms.'' Why should people get dollar for dollar, plus 20 percent? I
did not know you did that in restructuring. Certainly that is not what
the capital system is about.
I have to tell Members, I think that all the doom and gloom
predictions and the fact that there would be huge immigration, masses
coming across the border, well, that is our Government's responsibility
to see that we stop that kind of thing.
You do not threaten the American people every time there is a crisis
and say, ``My gosh, unless we do this, put up $20 billion, $40 billion
we will have a massive migration to this country.'' Is that what we are
coming to? Just raise that specter of fear? And we all succumb?
I hope this plan works. I have grave doubts. I predict if we look at
the history, we saw economic devaluations every time there was an
election. I would suggest this administration knew of this crisis, and
knew of it quite some time ago. Maybe back last November. And they hid
it from the American people. They did not step in and insist that
conditions be met at that point in time. Now they come and say the sky
is falling in. Well, that is OK but I do not think it is right that the
American taxpayer has to step in.
Mr. President, I will tell you as the Senator charged with the
responsibility of seeing to it that we are not wasteful, as it relates
to taxpayer dollars, and being on the Banking Committee we will hold
hearings and carefully monitor the execution of this agreement or the
implementation, to see to it that we do the best we can to see that
there are real economic reforms, and we are not taking hardworking
taxpayers' money and just shoveling it down there. Then in 3 or 4 years
from now throw up our hands and say, ``Oh my gosh, we did the best we
could do. Maybe to protect our investment we have to invest another
$20, $30, or $40 million.''
Look at the record and that is what it demonstrates. In 1982 the
banks were holding most of the paper and took a pretty terrific loss.
It seems to me that 12 years later, the only difference is, the
American people may be poised that they can get a bigger hit. That is
unfortunate. Thank you.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New
York. I appreciate his remarks, especially those on the balanced budget
amendment. He certainly makes a difference in this body, and will make
a difference once we pass that amendment.
Mr. President, let me assure the American people that the balanced
budget amendment is neither snake oil nor a tonic. It is a necessary
first step to a healthier economic lifestyle. It is as sensible as
anyone who has been a binge deciding, finally, to go on a diet. This
amendment puts a bloated, overgrown Federal Government, and out of
control Federal bureaucrats, on a diet. Now, as our colleague from
Idaho, who is certainly helping me on this amendment and is one of the
leaders on this amendment, Senator Craig has said, if someone decides
to go on diet to lose 100 pounds over 2 years, we do not ask that
person to name every meal he or she intends to eat over those 2 years.
To ask for a budget over the next 7 years is equally a diversion.
Indeed, just imagine if some of our colleagues had been sitting in
the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in Philadelphia. Just imagine
when the following clause in article I, section 9 came before the
Convention: ``No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *.'' Oh no, these
colleagues would have said, tell us how much the appropriations will be
over the next 7 years or we cannot adopt this provision and this
Constitution.
[[Page S2029]] What about the clause in article I, section 8, giving
Congress the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce? Oh no,
some of our colleagues would have said in Philadelphia in 1787, if they
felt the same as some of our colleagues here, we cannot give Congress
the power to regulate commerce until we know the foreign tariffs and
interstate regulations Congress will enact over the next 7 years. If
the spirit of these colleagues of ours had prevailed then, perhaps
goods from New Jersey would still be taxed by New York.
This is the Constitution we are addressing here, not a budget
document.
What is important here is this: What is going to happen to our
country if we do not enact this balanced budget amendment?
These monster deficits force the Federal Government to engage in
massive borrowing. Interest rates are kept high and are driven higher.
Home buyers face higher mortgage rates, making it more difficult for
hardworking Americans to get their piece of the American dream. Home
builders cannot build homes, workers do not have jobs, revenues are not
paid to the Federal Government. The greater the difficulty in buying a
home, the greater the problems in the home building industry.
Employment will drop in that industry and in related businesses from
realtors to title searchers.
The cost of buying consumer goods goes up as a result of these
monster deficits and the Government borrowing it compels. Let us just
take the automobile industry as another example. As the cost of credit
goes up, automobile sales naturally are adversely affected. Also,
workers get laid off. Auto sales and service workers at your local auto
dealer get laid off. The industries which supply the automobile
manufacturers all have to lay off people. Every consumer industry is
adversely affected when the cost of credit goes up.
What about the impact of monster deficits on small business? Listen
to a part of a statement submitted to the Judiciary Committee by the
National Federation of Independent Business, which strongly supports
this amendment, I might add:

As deficits increase, the cost of capital increases. Large
deficits absorb a significant portion of the available
capital. As a result, private enterprises are crowded out of
the pool of available credit for financing. Unfortunately,
this crowding out is not borne evenly across businesses of
all sizes. It is more probable that small businesses bear the
brunt of this financial displacement since they have fewer
financing alternatives available to them relative to larger
firms. When small businesses cannot obtain capital to improve
facilities, purchase equipment, and expand their operations,
fewer jobs are created and less revenue is sent to the
Treasury.

What a statement by the National Federation of Independent
Businesses.
Opponents of this amendment ask us about tax increases. If we do not
pass this amendment and put the Federal Government on a fiscal diet,
taxes are clearly going to go up to pay the ever-increasing interest on
the ever-growing national debt. I do not know any American who really
wants that to happen, to just throw more money down the drain on the
national debt's interest. Golly, when are we going to get it under
control?
Here is what the National Taxpayers Union says:

A child born today faces a huge bill by the time he or she
is old enough to vote at age 18. Paying interest on the
national debt accumulated just in this child's first 18 years
of life will cost that child's family over $103,000 in extra
taxes on average over his or her lifetime.

This assumes an annual deficit of $285 billion for this child's first
18 years and the National Taxpayers Union notes that the Congressional
Budget Office projects that the deficit will average $285 billion over
the next 11 years. So our children and our grandchildren will pay and
pay and pay unless we pass this amendment.
The American people want change. The amendment is part of that
change. We cannot keep going the same old way around here. The old
order, it seems to me, has to give on this issue. And if we do not get
the votes on this issue, then we have to rise up and get rid of the old
order. It is just that simple. Not because we dislike them or not
because they are not nice people or not because we do not like our own
Senators when they are at home; we have to get rid of them, we have to
get people here who mean business on this.
If we do not pass this balanced budget amendment this time, we may
never have a chance to do it again. It may be too late. But if we do
pass it, then everybody here knows the game is over, they know the
States are going to ratify this amendment, and they know that we are
going to have to get to work over the next 7 years to get that trend
line down to a balanced budget. It is that simple.
The distinguished Senator from West Virginia has told us how much a
balanced budget will hurt the States and the American people and
public. I do not think any of us here have claimed it will be easy to
balance the budget or that there will be no pain involved. We are not
painting nirvana here. We are saying there is going to be pain, but
pain with gain ultimately.
For the first time in 19 years--really, the first time in recent
history--Congress will be forced to make priority choices among
competing programs, and they will have to choose those that are the
most important programs, those that do the most good, and maybe let
those that are marginal and some that are not as good go, just as you
do when you do your budget, just as the States do when they do theirs.
We all know it is going to be difficult to cut back on spending. As the
Federal Government goes on a diet, the States and our American citizens
are smart enough to know that they are going to have to tighten their
belts, as well. It is about time. It is about time that we all just
come to that conclusion because that is where we are, and there is no
other way around it.
This diet involves more than just cutting our spending practices. It
means a lifestyle change from the spending binges of the past. It means
changing the old order. It means changing the old ways. It means moving
into the 21st century with new ways. These new Senators are making a
difference. I notice one of them sits in the chair right now, from
Pennsylvania. He got elected in part because he was willing to stand up
on this issue, and he is going to get reelected again because he is
voting for it. Those who do not are going to be the ones who have the
troubles.
We must all evaluate our current programs and spending levels to
determine their effectiveness. This includes our State programs, as
well. If we did not launder all the money through the Federal
Government, there would be a lot more money for the States, only it
would not be laundered and there would not be just 28 percent come to
the States out of the laundering. They would have 100 percent, and they
would not have to increase taxes to get there.
The numbers given to us by my colleague from West Virginia regarding
the grants given to States assume that each and every program will be
continued in its current form. I doubt that this is going to be true. I
do not see how anybody cannot doubt that is going to be true. We are
not going to keep all these same programs in their current form. We are
going to have to change some of them. We are going to have to delete
some of them. They are going to be the lesser programs, the ones that
do not count as much as others. Some States may be happy to end some of
these programs we force on them. But each of the States will respond in
its own way to meet the priorities of its own citizens.
As the ability of Congress to overspend disappears, we will be forced
to evaluate where the money is going. This means that we should put the
money into the most effective programs and stop funding the wasteful
programs that just are not working.
We will have to examine our priorities and adjust our spending
accordingly. We have seen many proposals to balance the budget without
cutting Social Security, Medicare, or other vital programs. While I do
not know of one that is the ultimate solution, they do show us that
with a lot of cooperation and work, we can find a roadmap to balance
the budget.
One example, for instance, would hold the growth of Federal
Government spending, currently at 5.4 percent per year and going up, to
3.1 percent a year. This would balance the budget by the year 2002. If
we exclude Social Security and constrain the spending growth to just 2
percent, the budget would still be balanced--and that is excluding
Social Security.
[[Page S2030]] This is without eliminating a single program. There
are ways of doing it. We just do not have the will to do it nor the
need to do it because we do not have the constitutional requirement or
mandate to do it. If we put this in the Constitution, I do not know of
a Senator in this body who would not change his or her legislating
style, who would not change his or her attitude about spending, who
would not try to live up to the mandate of the Constitution. We swear
to do so, and I believe everyone here will.
I realize that it is not as simple as I just explained with regard to
the 2-percent increase in the budget each of the next 7 years--we can
reach a balanced budget without really cutting the programs--but we
will have to examine the spending patterns of the Federal Government.
We will have to eliminate some well-intentioned programs that are not
working or not working well, and reform other programs that are not
working as well as they could.
The important point, however, is that we can get there, but we will
not get there unless we put this mechanism into the Constitution.
It is not painless, and we will all feel the pinch with the reduced
spending that will be necessary to balance the budget. But if we do not
balance the budget, it will cause each and every American taxpayer even
more pain. If we continue to increase the debt, inflation will
skyrocket and the dollars used by every American citizen will be worth
less, especially when we will be forced to monetize the debt. This will
hurt even more than tightening our belts and making the spending cuts
necessary to balance the budget. If we do balance the budget now, we
will all share the benefit. It will not be too much for any single
individual. We will all have to share.
More importantly, however, we will all feel the benefits of lower
inflation, a more valuable dollar, and the security of knowing that
except in times of war or other hostilities, or in times of severe
depression, we will maintain a balanced budget, which is what the
Founding Fathers really wanted, and what they really assumed would be
the rule under the Constitution.
This amendment will help us to do a better job. This will do away
with this old attitude that if we just tax and spend, we can get
elected. The system will change to where we can get elected if we live
within our means, conserve the Federal Government's money, the people's
money, if you will, work with the States, and quit intruding into
everybody's life every day as the Federal bureaucracy does now.
This country is in trouble. We are fighting with all we have to try
to solve the problems of this country, and this particular amendment
can do it. In all honesty, our spending in this country is at runaway
proportions. We are destroying our country. We are destroying the
future of our young people. For the first time in history--I repeat it
one more time--our kids do not have the promise of a better future that
we had. And I really, really resent that.
This is the greatest country in the world. I suppose we could survive
anything because of the resilience of the American people. But we could
survive better if we do what is right. This country, if it is righteous
and it does what is right and it lives within its means and if Congress
has the incentive to live within its means, will always be the greatest
country in the world. But if we do not do right and we keep spending
like we are spending and we keep interest against the national debt
rising like it is rising, compounding every year, this country will
slip; it will fall; this whole hemisphere will be affected; the whole
world will be affected; and our dollar will fall in value to the point
where those who are on fixed incomes, including our seniors on Social
Security, will be the most hurt.
This is important to our country's future. This is the single most
important vote that we will be casting when we vote up or down on this
amendment. I am quoting Senator Kennedy and Senator Biden when I say
that. But I agree with them. This is the most important vote most of us
will ever make. In order to get there we have to vote down all the
killer amendments that will make it more difficult to pass it again in
the House--and that is the purpose of them--and will make it more
difficult to pass it here. We are going to have to stand up and vote.
Now, I believe that we will have 67 Senators who believe enough in
this country to vote for a balanced budget amendment. The only chance
we have is this bipartisan consensus, Democrat- Republican amendment,
and acknowledge that it was no small achievement for the House of
Representatives to pass this through for the first time in history. We
have done it before in the Senate, but we have also failed before. This
time we do not intend to fail. If we win, it is going to be because the
American people got involved. So I hope everybody out there listening
to this really inundates this Senate with the demand that we pass the
balanced budget amendment.
Mr. President, 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. GORTON. 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. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senate appears to be drawing fairly
close to the end of a week in which Members have spoken in relatively
general terms about the desirability or lack of desirability of a
constitutional amendment to nudge this Nation along the road toward a
balanced budget. Soon we will be dealing with specific amendments to
this proposed constitutional amendment and I wish to speak for just a
moment both in general terms and in specific terms.
In general terms, we face the proposition that divides this body, I
believe at this point, simply into two camps. Earlier this week, I had
thought there were three different and distinct attitudes, but I have
heard only two. There are those who, like myself, believe that the
country is in a serious crisis, that the status quo is unsatisfactory,
and that the situation, the set of rules under which we have operated--
not just for years but for generations--will not and cannot serve to
lead this country along the road to fiscal sanity and a balanced budget
and that, therefore, drastic action in the form of a constitutional
amendment is necessary. I believe that expresses the views of a
significant majority of the Members of this body--I hope of two-thirds
of the Members of this body.
Those who oppose this constitutional amendment, however, have either
brought up rather narrow technical objections to it or have stated
almost without exception their devotion to the idea of a balanced
budget but their views that to change the Constitution in order to
encourage it is a bad idea. I believe they are wrong. I believe those
who feel that we should have a balanced budget but that we can reach
that goal without a profound change in the system under which both the
Congress and the President of the United States operate have a
tremendously difficult burden of proof. Because, of course, the rules
that they want to continue in effect have been the rules during the
entire time in which this multitrillion-dollar debt has been built up.
How is it that they feel that suddenly, without any change in the
system under which we operate, we will nevertheless reach a goal which
has eluded us for such an extended period of time? That, it seems to
me, should be the central focus of this debate by the one group which
stands for the status quo, mostly on the liberal side of the spectrum,
which nevertheless gives lip service to a balanced budget, but which
has given us not the slightest hint as to the road to be traveled in
order to reach that end.
If I understand it correctly, beginning tomorrow or certainly
sometime during the course of the next week, we will be faced, by
adding to the Constitution of the United States detailed provisions
pursuant to which those who feel the change in the Constitution is
necessary will be required to outline, in absolute, binding detail in
the laws of the United States, precisely the road by which we will
reach that goal by the year 2002, ignoring the fact that there will be
three new elections for Congress between now and that year in which
different Members will be elected, during which time crises in our
international affairs may or may not arise,
[[Page S2031]] crises in our own domestic and economic affairs may or
may not arise, with new Members with new knowledge who may wish an
entirely different course of action than any we could possibly outline
here.
Nevertheless, those who believe in the status quo will be asking us
to bind ourselves to a precise, legally binding, detailed blueprint of
the way in which this goal will be reached.
Mr. President, it is my position that it is they, not we, who should
provide us with that detailed blueprint.
We believe that dramatic change is necessary. We look at the history
of the last decade or decades, and say the system is broke. We wish to
fix it. The way in which we wish to fix it is to strongly, in the
Constitution of the United States, encourage a balanced budget by
requiring a significant supermajority which can unbalance one, which is
still to be possible under emergency circumstances when a bipartisan
majority feels that it would be necessary. We do not have, and we
should not have, a detailed blueprint about how to reach that goal
because, if this proposal becomes a part of the Constitution, all will
be a part of the solution, those who favor it and those who oppose it,
including the President and future Presidents of the United States. The
entire challenge will seem quite different to us and to the Nation at
that point. And we will learn. I think we will learn that it may be a
little bit easier than we had thought because the commitment to do so
in and of itself will, I think, lower interest rates, for example, here
in the United States.
It will be my position, and I think the position of many others here,
that the group of Members of this body and the people in this country
who believe the status quo is good enough, who do not want change, who
do not believe change is necessary, but who nevertheless, as they have
almost without exception, given lip service to a balanced budget, it is
they who are under the duty of telling us exactly how they will reach
that goal without a change in the Constitution, without a change in the
rules in which we operate in this Senate.
Mark my words, Mr. President. Next week, as we begin to cast votes on
these various amendments to the amendment, one fact should remain
before all of the American people. We are either for or against this
change. We are either for or against a new way of doing business. We
are either for or against the status quo. And those who try to hide or
obfuscate that issue through changes, through technical objections,
through demands for detailed blueprints, essentially are saying the
status quo is just fine.
Those who hold to the goal of this proposed constitutional amendment
in this form, the form in which it passed the House of Representatives,
are truly those who are devoted to a new and different way of doing
business, a way of doing business in which we no longer spend whatever
we like and pass the bill on to our children and grandchildren.
That is the issue we began to debate this week. It will be the issue
in every vote we take until finally, as I hope we will, we pass this
joint resolution and send it to the people of the 50 States for their
ratification.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for his
courtesy.
Mr. President, as I struggle to get over my disbelief that we are
back at this, I rise once again to express my views of a constitutional
balanced budget amendment.
The basic reasons I oppose this amendment are the same ones that led
me to vote against it on the two previous occasions--since I joined the
Senate--that it has been before this body.
Congress does not need the U.S. Constitution to perform its
responsibility for the Federal budget. We were elected to make the
decisions about where to spend the hard-earned tax dollars of
Americans, and where not to spend those dollars. We were elected to
make the decisions required to adapt to the country's needs and to keep
us militarily and economically strong. We do not need to add another
page to the Constitution to do our job.
And some of us have worked very hard in the recent years to, in fact,
do the job of digging out from the exploding deficits of the 1980's,
reducing the deficit, and changing the priorities of the Federal budget
in order to cut waste and increase investment in America's future. I
have cast many votes in the recent years for actual cuts, for detailed
changes in policy, and for specific budget plans--all the time,
watching many colleagues vote the other way because somehow those
specific ideas just weren't quite palatable or perfect enough for him.
It is no accident that the Federal deficit will drop this year for
the third year in a row, for the first time in 50 years. The deficit
finally started to shrink because instead of waiting to get the
Constitution to tell us to cut spending and require some fiscal
discipline, we did it ourselves.
I want to see the Federal budget balanced, too. But I refuse to strap
the Federal budget into a speeding train, having no idea who and what
in my State of West Virginia that train will crush. I got elected to
help steer that train, to help set its speed, and to adjust its route--
so we can change course when we need to deal with less than minor
matters like recessions, natural disasters, military crises, and other
dire needs or situations.
As a former Governor of West Virginia, I am shocked every time I hear
proponents of the constitutional amendment say ``this is just doing
what States have to do.'' That is completely and utterly wrong, and it
is insulting and misleading to the American people. Every Governor and
every State government has tools, outside of its operating budgets,
to borrow and to invest. Through bonds and other methods, States can
build and repair roads, improve schools, and lay the ground for the
needs of their people. Under this constitutional amendment for a
Federal balanced budget, that would not be possible. This proposal is
nothing less than a straitjacket that just might suffocate the
prosperity and economic growth that determines whether there are jobs
and opportunity for Americans.

This is where economics is not just about textbooks or abstract
theories. To eliminate the Government's ability to stimulate the
economy or to intercede in a crisis is to create a recipe for disaster.
Whether economic growth were strong or weak would be ignored in the
name of a balanced budget. Recessions would be more frequent, longer,
and tougher to pull out of. Large spending cuts or tax hikes would be
required in times of slow growth, just when the opposite is called for
because cutting Government spending or raising taxes slows the economy
even more. Passing a balanced budget amendment would exaggerate rather
than mitigate America's shifting economic fortunes.
This year, I feel even more strongly that the constitutional balanced
budget amendment is a bad idea whose time has not come. That is because
there is another script that many of this amendment's proponents are
working from this year. It is called a plan to generate tax cuts that
are expected to cost between $400 and $700 billion over the same 7
years that this amendment would require a balanced budget. These are
tax cuts that go far beyond relief for hard-working Americans and the
middle class. You will find it in something called the contract for
America, and it is a script that wants to stage the revival of tax cuts
for the wealthy and corporations--this time with the hope it will not
pull the rug out from the rest of Americans like it did before.
Well, Broadway should stick to bringing back old scripts, not Capitol
Hill. In representing West Virginia, I don't want to see any revivals
of past nightmares.
When I was Governor, and watched Congress promise to balance the
budget while cutting taxes, I saw what happened in living color. Our
plants that shut down and threw working families of West Virginia into
foreclosures and bankruptcies. Our kids who dropped out of college
because tuition money had to go to their families' mortgage
[[Page S2032]] payments and medical expenses. Our senior citizens who
kept thermostats at 58 degrees because they could not afford heating
oil.
So when I say I want to see the hidden details of this balanced
budget amendment, it is not for political reasons or
academic curiosity. It is because of the contract I have with West
Virginia. It is because now I am here, not in the State House, to cast
my vote and say show us just how you are going to get this done.
For those who want to put the Federal budget on this speeding train,
where's your map? Who gets thrown off the train, and who gets to stay
on? Will it be the programs and services that feed children, care for
veterans, pay our rural hospitals, and keep our water clean and safe?
Will the highways now being finished in my State--while other States
got theirs paid for before us--end up being roads to nowhere because
the money will run out? Will our seniors find out that Medicare cannot
keep its promise just when they need health care?
West Virginia has the right-to-know what the script will be this
time. If it is to be a reprise of the 1980s, we are not buying tickets.
We saw the unemployment rates or some of our counties soar over 50
percent. We lost $1.7 billion in aid--the largest per-capita in the
Nation--almost $1,000 per person. We watched our plants close, we
watched our hospitals shut services, we watched our schools work with
fewer resources, and we were forced into a recession that the State is
only now starting to pull out of. So West Virginia will not be trampled
again.
I understand the lure, the appeal, the aroma of a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget. Write into the most sacred document of
this Nation, one of the most venerable documents in the world, that we,
the Congress, will require that expenditures made by the Federal
Government do not exceed its revenues.
But this is the classic case of putting the cart before the horse. In
the real world, this promise means coming up with a total of $1
trillion in actual budget cuts over 7 years--years that are going to
fly by very quickly. If those tax cuts for a lot of non-middle-class
Americans get thrown onto the equation, we are talking about $1.4
trillion in spending cuts. Then, if Social Security is excluded,
defense is given special protection, and there are few other
untouchables, what exactly does $1.4 trillion in budget cuts mean to
the people of West Virginia--and to the people of the other States?
Just when West Virginia is getting up from the beating we took over a
decade ago, we face this. Just as our industries and workers are
standing up to the challenges of the new economy, determined to make
it, we face this.
This amendment, with those added tax cuts, threatens to
pull $2.7 billion away from West Virginia. That means much less for
education, job training, housing, health care, student loans, veterans
services, you name it. That means less to feed schoolchildren, support
our police, invest in our university research.

Even some proponents of the balanced budget amendment are realizing
that, this time--as a new car called $400-billion-plus of tax cuts is
hitched onto the speeding train--this time, we all better know what the
route consists of.
For example, it is not possible to achieve $1.4 trillion in cuts
without squeezing unprecedented amounts of money out of Medicare,
Medicaid, and veterans health care and benefits. It is just not
possible. The Senate Budget Committee staff have even acknowledged that
$644 billion will have to come somehow from the so-called entitlement
programs--except for Social Security--over the next 7 years to hurl the
budget into balance. Maybe the nightmares will not happen. Maybe
seniors will not find benefits cut off. Maybe the veterans hospitals
can stay open. Maybe we will not just give up on immunizing poor
children. But maybe not. We could be sending people over cliffs with
this train.
Again, that's why I add my voice to the right-to-know idea. The
proponents of this amendment have an obligation to think through what
course they will take. Will it be a collision course for our economy,
finally growing again, facing intense competition from other nations
while working families can't seem to get their incomes up? Or maybe
there's a map I haven't seen yet--one that accelerates the deficit
reduction that I also want, but keeps the country and my State on an
even course.
Mr. President, the tools for deficit reduction are already in hand.
Cutting wasteful and frivolous spending, creating a climate for
productivity with accessible credit and sound trade policies, and
keeping workers on the job. That's just common-sense deficit reduction.
I will not change that stand until those who support this amendment
can detail all the spending cuts and tax increases necessary to reach
the promised land. Show my people the plan. Show Americans the
specifics, so we can also debate how they will affect our economy. Show
this Nation's hard-pressed families how they will send their kids to
college when student loans disappear. Show American industry and
workers how we will keep up with our competitors when we just give up
on research that plants the seeds for the next wave of technology. Show
Governors, State legislators, mayors how the greatest unfunded mandate
of all time--this balanced budget
amendment--will help them pick up the pieces. What happens when States
and communities do not get the funds to fight crime, train teachers,
promote their exports, or repair their bridges?

We watched some of this show already, and it was a huge flop. In the
1980's, we watched arbitrage kings and junk-bond peddlers make fortunes
while factories padlocked their gates and cast workers into the cold.
We saw a nation divided into winners and losers as budget efforts took
from those who could give least and asked little, if anything, from
those who had the most. The middle-class worked harder just to keep up,
the poor got poorer with less chance to get ahead, and the rich rode
first class as they profited.
In the recent years, and I do not just mean the past 2 years under a
Democratic President, I thought Congress was figuring out that it was
time to take a different approach. No more games, no more empty
promises. If we deserve to be here, we have to make real choices and
honest decisions. When enough of us started doing that, then and only
then did the Federal deficit start to shrink. The job is far from done,
and it is not getting any easier. But by working out a balance between
what must be done to invest in our people and use their hard-earned tax
dollars more wisely, we have a course that I see as far less reckless
and dangerous than strapping this amendment onto the U.S. Constitution.
The balanced budget amendment is a quick-fix for a problem that has
grown because of quick-fixes. West Virginia does not deserve any
repeats of a cruel and unfair past. So spell it all out for us--every
spending cut and every tax--and show us where the money to balance the
budget this quickly, with constraints that not a single State
government is under, will come from. Until you can, do not ask West
Virginia to sign on. We know the old saying, ``Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' And we will not get fooled again.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANTORUM. 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. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in the last few minutes here before we
pack up and call it a day, I wanted to respond to some of the comments
that the Senator from West Virginia just made while I was presiding. He
made some comments that were familiar in tone, that I had been hearing
throughout the day and throughout the week by so many Members who have
risen in opposition to the balanced budget amendment.
I keep hearing this familiar refrain, ``I am for a balanced budget--
but.'' ``I really believe in a balanced budget--
[[Page S2033]] however.'' ``We need to get to a balanced budget but
this constitutional amendment just is not the way to do it.'' ``You
need to tell us how you are going to get there. But I want to get
there, too, but I do not need to tell you but you need to tell us,
because you are for a balanced budget amendment.'' Or, you are for a
balanced budget amendment but you are not for this amendment, because
this amendment says that we are going to have a balanced budget by the
year 2002.
Then when are you for a balanced budget amendment? If not in the year
2002, are you for a budget balanced budget in 2003? 2004? 2005? Pick a
number. Tell us when you think we should have a balanced budget, and
then you tell us how you will get us there. But do not stand and say
that you are for a balanced budget in the abstract, but it would be too
painful and too hurtful to your State or to the individuals that you
know who will suffer under this, to get there. You are either for a
balanced budget and for the commitment to get there, or you are just
talking. And we have been doing a lot of talking here in the Senate and
the House for a lot of years about how we are going to get to a
balanced budget.
Now, the Senator from West Virginia said that he took pride in the
vote he cast 2 years ago, 1993, that put us on course. We are on
course, he said. We are on course. I do not know if he has seen some of
the deficit projections by the Congressional Budget Office. We are not
on course to a balanced budget. We are not even close to being on
course to a balanced budget. This budget is going to hang around where
it is right now for the next couple of years, and then just goes way up
again around the turn of the century, doubling from where it is today.
We are not on course for a balanced budget.
We must do something just to keep the deficits where they are now. We
will have to pull back Government, or, as some would propose, increase
taxes, just to hold where we are as far as annual deficits. So we are
not on course. We are way off course.
Now, I come from southwestern Pennsylvania, which is the border of
West Virginia. I actually lived the first 7 years of my life in West
Virginia. I am very familiar with West Virginia. And I am very familiar
with the pain that a lot of the people in West Virginia and
southwestern Pennsylvania and around the Pittsburgh area where I am
from, suffered during the early 1980's. And I represented a
congressional district before I came here where in the late 1970's
there were over 110,000 steelworkers working in my district. When I was
sworn into office in the early 1990's, there were less than 15,000
steelworkers remaining.
Now, I know what economic devastation is, but I can tell Senators,
the people in that district, the people in West Virginia, are not
concerned about the next Government program we will create to put them
back to work or to train them. What they want are good, private sector
jobs. And that is what responsible fiscal policy will get this country.
Sound fiscal policy will stabilize this economy and create jobs into
the future.
I look forward to the opportunity to respond further to the Senator
from West Virginia and others on that side of the aisle. I see it is
time to wrap things up, so I will yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to compliment the distinguished
Senator from Pennsylvania. I cannot say what it means to me to see
these new Senators on the floor coming down here and standing for the
balanced budget amendment. All 11 of them do. It is an amazing
transition, an amazing change. As somebody who has been fighting for
this for the last 18, 19 years, I have to say, these folks, like the
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, are making a difference. And
they will make a difference, coupled with heroic Democrats who are
willing to fight side by side with us because--whether liberal or
conservative--they feel that it is now the time to make this change. We
have to do it.
So I want to compliment the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.
I have great respect for him. He deserves it. He is a great addition to
this U.S. Senate. I hope he will keep fighting side by side us on this
and other matters.

____________________