[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 23 (Monday, February 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2156-S2209]
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
resume 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 resumed consideration of the joint resolution.
Pending:
Daschle motion to commit the resolution, with instructions
to report back forthwith, with Daschle amendment No. 231, to
require a budget plan before the amendment takes effect.
Dole amendment No. 232 (with instructions to commit), to
establish that if Congress has not passed a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution by May 1, 1995, within 60 days
thereafter, the President shall transmit to Congress a
detailed plan to balance the budget by the year 2002.
Dole amendment No. 233 (to amendment No. 232), in the
nature of a substitute.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the
amendment filed by the distinguished minority leader Thursday or Friday
of last week. Actually, he called it the right-to-know amendment. I
call it the right-to-stall amendment because that is what it amounts
to.
The balanced budget amendment represents the kind of change that the
American people asked for last November. The American people know the
Federal Government, they know the bureaucrats who run it, and they know
that those bureaucrats need to be put on a fiscal diet.
In contrast, the proposal offered by the distinguished minority
leader, with all due respect, is offered in defense of the status quo
and business as usual. If my colleagues supporting the Daschle proposal
had been in the first Congress, we never would have adopted the first
amendment of the Bill of Rights. Just imagine James Madison defending
the free speech clause of the first amendment to some of our colleagues
today:
``Does this mean you can't yell `fire' in a crowded theater,'' they
would ask?
``Does it protect obscenity? If not, what is the line between
obscenity and protected free speech? We cannot accept the free speech
clause without these details spelled out,'' they would say.
``Does the free-speech clause protect the American flag from
desecration? If so, we cannot accept the first amendment.''
Some of my colleagues made that very clear when they turned down the
flag amendment twice a few years ago.
What about the religion clause, the free-exercise clause and the
establishment clause of the first amendment, would the supporters of
the Daschle proposal, had they been in the first Congress, have
demanded an accounting of just when and how the Government can aid
religious schools?
Would they have insisted on knowing all of the circumstances under
which citizens or local governments can put a menorah or a creche on
public property?
Would they have turned down the first amendment because the first
Congress would not fulfill the ludicrous task of answering these
questions? Or would they have accepted the principles contained in the
first amendment and have allowed those principles to develop as they
have over the years?
Just imagine if the following clause in article I, section 9 came
before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; * * *
``Oh, no,'' my colleagues of today would have said had they been
there, ``tell us how much the appropriations will be over the next 7
years or we cannot adopt this provision in the Constitution.''
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, had they been in Philadelphia in 1787, would have said,
``we cannot give Congress the power to regulate commerce until we know
the tariffs and the interstate regulations Congress will enact over the
next 7 years.''
Here and now let us adopt the principle of a balanced budget with the
careful exceptions of wartime or when a supermajority consensus is
reached for a pressing national purpose on a rollcall vote. Then, after
we adopt the principle, we can implement it over the next 7 years,
adjusting the budget to take into account changing circumstances during
that time.
Yesterday, on the Frank Sesno show on CNN, I debated with Alice
Rivlin. It was interesting to me that at the very time that we are
making the case on the floor that the Federal Government is not serious
about balancing the budget, that unless we have a balanced budget
constitutional amendment, we will not get to a balanced budget by the
year 2002, the President is filing his
[[Page S2157]] budget for this next year, a budget which, by the way,
proves our case.
By their own reckoning, that is those in the White House--and Mrs.
Rivlin did have a difficult time really supporting their position--by
their own budget, we will face deficits for the next 12 years that
average no less than $190 billion a year. There is no desire to get to
a balanced budget by the year 2002. In fact, they say by the year 2005,
2006, or 2007, the average deficit will be $190 billion a year. In
fact, the President's own budget will increase the national debt from
$4.8 trillion to a little over $6 trillion in the next 5 years. If
there ever was a case made for the need for a balanced budget
amendment, it has to be this budget which has been delivered today.
How ironic it is that they would deliver that budget at the very time
when we are arguing that the only way to get to a balanced budget by
the year 2002 would be to put some fiscal mechanism into the
Constitution that will help us to get there.
What do we face? Why, we have an amendment filed by the minority
leader that is so defective that it is even constitutionally unsound.
In fact, some authorities are now calling it unconstitutional because
it would add to section 5 of the Constitution another reason, another
debate before we could have a constitutional amendment.
I just have to say, after all, this is the Constitution that we are
amending, not budget legislation. In fact, as I read the Daschle
proposal, it requires that we pass a resolution laying out the details
of a plan starting in fiscal year 1996, even though that requirement
would be contained in an amendment that does not become effective until
the year 2002, ignoring the fact that there will be three intervening
Congresses before we get to the year 2002.
To require that a constitutional provision be fully implemented
before it is adopted puts the cart a long way before the horse. After
all, the whole problem is that Congress has not been able to balance
the budget in the absence of a constitutional requirement to do so. For
26 years, Congress has failed to balance the budget. Mrs. Rivlin said
on that program yesterday--and I have admiration for her, she is a fine
woman. If she had her way, she would get to a balanced budget by the
year 2002, but she was unable to get this administration to do it. Mrs.
Rivlin basically said yesterday we just simply should do it.
I remember the distinguished Senator from West Virginia saying we
should just do it. It is odd to me how those who are always saying we
should just do it right here in the Congress, we have the power to do
it now, it is odd to me how many of those who are saying that are
people who are opposed to the balanced budget amendment and, in the
process, are dedicated to the same old order that has put us in this
financial difficulty that we are in right now--$4.8 trillion in
national debt, going to $6.3 trillion in just 5 years under the
President's so-called deficit reduction plan.
I do give the President some credit for at least trying. He is
consolidating programs; he is recommending cutting out some programs.
But those are minuscule efforts in comparison to what needs to be done
and what will be done if we pass a balanced budget constitutional
amendment.
To require that a constitutional provision be fully implemented
before it is adopted is really, really something that nobody should be
deceived by reading. It seems to me that the people who really have the
burden of showing us how they will balance the budget are the ones who
claim we do not need the balanced budget amendment. We say the budget
cannot be balanced without a constitutional requirement. It is that
simple, and the President's budget makes our case.
To those who think we can balance the budget without the balanced
budget amendment, I say to them, ``Show us how; you tell us how you
want to do it. If you cannot show us the way to a balanced budget
without the amendment, this suggests one of two things: Either you
agree with us that it cannot be done without the constitutional
requirement or you are simply against balancing the budget at all.''
Now, if the truth be known, there is a lot of mouthing about
balancing the budget, but the very people who are doing it most of the
time are those who are against the balanced budget amendment, except
those who want a balanced budget amendment so we can get to a balanced
budget.
Now, that brings me to the President. If President Clinton gets his
way and defeats the balanced budget amendment this year as he did last
year, what is his purpose? Does he not want a balanced budget? Does he
stand for the status quo of ever-higher taxes and ever-higher deficits?
Or is his point that we can balance the budget without the
constitutional mandate?
The fact is, his own budget will increase the deficit by $1 trillion
over the next 5 years, and that is assuming the optimistic economic
assumptions in that budget will remain optimistic and will actually
occur.
Or is his point that he can balance the budget without the
constitutional mandate? If so, I would expect him to release his plan
for a balanced budget this week.
Well, his plan is anything but a plan for a balanced budget. For the
next 12 years he admits that under his budget, as much as he has
tried--and I give him credit for that--we will have an average of a
$190 billion deficit every year for those 12 years--again, if all the
economic assumptions they make are correct, and they have never been
correct yet. It is always higher.
Where is this Presidential leadership we have been hearing about? I
guarantee you there will be no efforts, really successful efforts made
without a balanced budget amendment and without both the President and
the Congress working together to get there. And that is what the
balanced budget amendment will bring about. It will force us to work
together to get a balanced budget by the year 2000.
The President's deficit reduction tax plan has failed to control even
the growth of annual budget deficits which continue to rise during the
latter years of the plan, surpassing $200 billion as early as 1996. And
if his old plan is correct, they would reach the record level of $297
billion in the year 2001 and would top $421 billion in annual deficits
in the year 2005.
Now, he claims this new budget, by cutting some programs and
consolidating others, will get it down to only a $190 billion deficit
each year through the year 2005. That is 10 years from now.
The President's so-called deficit reduction plan, which included
massive tax increases on working people, retirees, and other Americans,
neither stops the growth of the national debt nor balances the budget.
The fact is that if House Joint Resolution 1 passes in its current
form, we can and will balance the budget. It is not the lack of plans
that has prevented us from balancing the budget. It is the lack of
will.
We do not claim to have the perfect, painless way to balance the
budget, but there are quite a number of options for us to examine and
draw from, at least in part. In fact, over the last few years, we have
seen a number of plans released from both sides of the aisle from both
bodies and from outside organizations. I will just hold up a few:
The Concord Coalition zero deficit plan, the Republican alternative
to the fiscal 1994 budget, the Congressional Budget Office's
illustration of one path to balance the budget in their Economic and
Budget Outlook 1996-2000, just to name a few. There are others.
Senator Domenici has said that if we would allow the Government to
only grow 2 percent a year--now, 2 percent of $1.5 trillion is still a
lot of billions of dollars. We would still be increasing spending, but
if we would only allow it to grow 2 percent a year and you totally
exclude Social Security from any cuts and keep it just totally
inviolate, we would reach a balanced budget by the year 2002.
So the fact is we have the way to get there, a variety of ways of
getting there. We just do not have the votes right now without a
balanced budget constitutional amendment. Even the current White House
Chief of Staff Leon Panetta submitted a balanced budget proposal during
his tenure in the House, but they have not been able to do it since his
tenure in the White House.
Like I say, other ideas include limiting the growth of spending to 2
percent without touching Social Security or cutting just 4 cents a year
off every
[[Page S2158]] dollar of planned spending except Social Security. That
would get us to a balanced budget in the year 2002.
Unfortunately, a lot of the people who are arguing that we ought to
lay out in detail how we get there in 7 years are the people who would
vote against that type of an approach as they are voting against the
balanced budget amendment. Furthermore, there are many proposals out
there to reduce spending significantly and reduce the deficit: the Dole
50-point plan, the Penny-Kasich deficit reduction plan, the Brown-
Kerrey bipartisan cutting plan, the prime cuts list prepared by
Citizens Against Government Waste, the Kasich budget alternatives for
fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995, and the Brown deficit reduction
plan by our distinguished Senator from Colorado, who made that point in
the last year or so.
Now, I do not think that any one of these proposals is necessarily
the ultimate solution, yet they all have some ideas worth considering.
I certainly believe that we could evaluate and analyze proposals in
these plans as well as other ideas that I guarantee will be forthcoming
from both sides of the aisle if we pass this balanced budget
constitutional amendment.
Let me say it one more time. The problem is not the lack of ideas. It
is the lack of will. House Joint Resolution 1 in its current form will
provide that will.
Now, the Daschle proposal itself raises more questions than it would
answer. We are talking about this amendment that now has been amended
twice by Senator Dole, or at least has two amendments pending against
it. For example, the Daschle amendment would require a statement of new
budget authority and outlays only on accounts which were over $100
million in 1994.
Well, what about accounts that were under $100 million in 1994 but
have grown? What about new accounts? The Daschle proposal would also
require an allocation of Federal revenues among major resources of such
revenues, but what qualifies as major?
The Daschle proposal would further require a detailed list and
description of changes in Federal law required to carry out the plan.
Such information is currently in a document separate from the budget
resolution. That document for President Clinton's 1993 budget plan was
over 1,000 pages long. Do we really want to increase the already
mammoth budget resolution? Besides that, I really do not understand the
Daschle provision. Are we supposed to predict over the next 7 years not
just the changes in law Congress may ultimately pass but the date upon
which Congress will pass them?
The Daschle proposal creates additional problems by making
constitutional references to statutory law. It incorporates section
310(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by reference. Now, what
happens if Congress amends that section? The balanced budget amendment,
it would seem to me, would allow that amendment any time Congress
chooses to do so, which, of course, makes the balanced budget amendment
totally worthless. I guess that is, after all, what the Daschle
proposal is trying to do, make it so it is impossible for us to ever
balance the budget.
If Congress amends that section, would that qualify as a
constitutional amendment itself or does it qualify just as an amendment
within the constitutional amendment that is permitted because section
310(a) is merely mentioned by point of reference in the balanced budget
amendment? That is, if Daschle would pass. And I cannot believe anybody
would be serious about voting for something like that.
Similarly, the Congressional Budget Office is explicitly referred to
in this proposal. That means that the Constitution would now refer to
four branches of Government--the Congress, the Supreme Court, the
Executive or President, and the Congressional Budget Office. What
constitutional thinking is that? How in the world could they put that
into the Constitution? We know the Congressional Budget Office has been
wrong more than it has been right. So we are going to write it into the
Constitution? We will if the Daschle amendment is passed. I cannot
imagine anybody really voting for an amendment that would put the
Congressional Budget Office into the Constitution.
Now, here we are in the new Congress trying to reduce the Federal
Government, the Federal bureaucracy, and the Daschle proposal attempts
to enshrine a part of it in the Constitution.
Those of us on both sides of the aisle who have worked for years to
pass this constitutional amendment have consistently heard from our
opponents that we are trivializing the Constitution with budget
matters. Talk about trivializing the Constitution--the Daschle proposal
would have us add a new section to the Constitution, longer and
extraordinarily more detailed and technical than the proposal that has
been the subject of hearings, a committee debate and vote, and a
committee report. It adds new terms to the Constitution like
``aggregate levels of new budget authority.'' What does that mean? It
means whatever Congress says it means. I guess that is the genius of
this proposal. Because Congress will make it very clear they are never
going to get serious about a balanced budget until it is defined.
The first term on that list is ``aggregate levels of new budget
authority.'' This phrase, like many of the terms on this list, is
technical budgetary and accounting jargon. This proposal asks us to put
into the Constitution a phrase that means the total levels of new
spending Congress will allow for the next 7 years.
Can you believe that? Determining new budget authority is a part of
the budget and appropriations process we go through every year. This is
not the type of timeless language that enunciates broad, immutable
principles as does the language of the Constitution. Adding this type
of language will only demean and trivialize the Constitution.
But look at the next one. Here is another one: ``major functional
category.'' Functional categories are part of the system we use to
classify budget resources and activities to reflect the national
priorities and needs being addressed. The proponents of the Daschle
amendment, or proposal, appear to be asking us to freeze one portion of
our current budget policies and national priorities by adding them to
the Constitution.
Mr. President, balancing the budget is not a one-time event. It is a
dynamic process. This amendment asks us to put one or two 30-second
spots from a 2-hour movie into the Constitution. This is not the
purpose of our Constitution.
But look at this one: ``account-by-account basis'' is going to be
written into the Constitution. This is another of the technical
accounting terms used to define our budget. These accounts represent
agencies and programs that reflect our national spending priorities.
This type of language may be wholly appropriate for implementing
legislation but it is wholly inappropriate for inclusion into our
Constitution.
Look at this one: ``allocation of Federal revenues.'' This is just
another way to define and present our budget information. I feel a bit
as though I am repeating myself, but this is not the type of language
we should be adding to our Constitution. I cannot believe that the
proponents of this proposal could mean to use this type of language to
drive constitutional policy. Nor can they mean to freeze current
budgeting terms and techniques in the Constitution.
What about this one: ``reconciliation directives"? These are all part
of the so-called Daschle amendment. These ``reconciliation directives''
are the tools used during the budget process to instruct the committees
to report legislation changing existing laws or pending legislation in
order to bring spending, revenues, or debt limit into conformity with
the budget resolution. Can you imagine the games that could be played
with that? This amendment calls for a budget resolution extending out
to the year 2002. Are we really going to ask our committees to change
current or pending laws that far out into the future? Again, I remind
the Senate that the budget is a process which proponents of this
amendment are asking us to significantly slow down and freeze. This
just does not reflect reality.
Look at this one, No. 6: ``section 310(A) of the Congressional Budget
Act.'' This ``reconciliation directives'' is a serious issue, but this
is even more
[[Page S2159]] serious, and it is raised by the reference to section
310(A) of the Congressional Budget Act. This could have far-reaching
implications. Not only do we have the unprecedented step of referring
to a statute in the Constitution, but a particular section of that
statute. This raises a serious question about our ability to reform the
budget process through legislation. Will this proposal of having that
written into the Constitution constrain our ability to amend that
statute or that section through legislation? Or would we need a
constitutional amendment to do so? Would this proposal lock Congress
into the budget process status quo?
A lot would argue it would. There has been a lot of discussion about
reforming the budget process to streamline it and make it more
responsive to national priorities. I would hate to see us constrain
ourselves to such a point that this would be next to impossible, by
writing section 310(A) of the Congressional Budget Act into the
Constitution.
What about this one? ``Omnibus reconciliation bill'' is mentioned in
the Daschle constitutional amendment language. The reference to omnibus
reconciliation bill once again puts a budgetary process into the
fundamental charter of our Nation.
Once again, I want to say this type of language does not belong in
the Constitution. This is coming from those who say we are trivializing
the Constitution? Ms. Rivlin, the leading budgeteer in this
administration and a person for whom I have great admiration, said that
she does not think we should put these types of things--she is against
the balanced budget amendment because it puts, in her eyes, some
economic matters into the Constitution. She must be sick at heart at
what they are trying to do here.
Look at this one: ``Congressional Budget Office.'' This is perhaps my
favorite of all of the references in the Daschle amendment. Here we
are, in this Congress, trying to cut bureaucracy, and the Daschle
proponents are attempting to enshrine the bureaucracy, the
Congressional Budget Office, in the Constitution of the United States
of America.
We now have four branches of Government, if they get their way: the
executive, legislative, judiciary, and the accountants. If they get
their way. The Congressional Budget Office? Will that be the fifth
branch of Government? What about the FDA? Should we not enshrine the
FDA in here and make it the sixth branch of Government? This is what
the folks who are pushing this mean. Of course, we will have to say no.
No, that will simply not do.
Look at this one: ``Economic and technical assumptions.'' Once again,
we have the example of technical jargon being put into the
Constitution. ``Economic and technical assumptions'' are the tools used
in determining the basis of our budget activities. They are vital in
determining forecasts of our future events. Yet, I do not think they
belong in the Constitution. This phrase, indeed this whole proposal, is
better addressed in implementing language which could be changed by a
simple majority vote. It just does not belong in our Constitution; and
that is why we have implementing language.
So when you hear them saying we should exclude Social Security from
the balanced budget amendment, I say how could anybody really seriously
argue that? The balanced budget amendment should be written like a
constitutional amendment, which it is, the House resolution. It is, and
we should not trivialize it by putting all kinds of jargon into the
Constitution.
My friend, Senator Domenici, may like this last one. It is a
reference to the ``Committee on the Budget.'' It may mean that his
committee now has constitutional status and cannot be eliminated
without a constitutional amendment. I fear he may be pleased with the
committee's new power to trigger constitutional law.
But, seriously, I hope we will all agree we should not be enshrining
congressional committees in the Constitution by reference. They are
established by internal rules and can change title or function, or even
cease to exist, as we have already seen in this new Congress. Would
this proposal make us pass a constitutional amendment just to change
the name of a committee? This is what I call really trivial stuff.
Mr. President, just look at that, ``constitutional language?''
Aggregate levels of new budget authority? Major functional category?
Account-by-account basis? Allocation of Federal revenues?
Reconciliation directives? Section 310(A) of the Congressional Budget
Act? Omnibus reconciliation bill? Congressional Budget Office? Economic
and technical assumptions? Committee on the Budget? All to be enshrined
into the Constitution in what will be one of the largest constitutional
amendments in history.
I notice Senator Domenici is here. Let me just finish my remarks with
just a couple of other comments.
I daresay that James Madison and the Founding Fathers must be turning
over in their graves. They must be.
In testimony by Alice Rivlin before the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, where she said she was against the balanced budget amendment
on behalf of the administration, she had this to say:
Consequently, the administration continues to oppose the
effort to write fiscal policy into the Constitution. The
Constitution should establish principles that are basic and
necessary at all times, not fiscal policies like a balanced
budget that may not be appropriate in every year under every
condition.
One can only imagine what she thinks of the Daschle amendment. At
least a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is written in
constitutional language, language that would get us all there, if we
have that fiscal mechanism in the Constitution.
So to write all of this other stuff in is to trivialize and demean
the Constitution of the United States. And, frankly, I hope all of our
colleagues will vote to keep that out.
I notice the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is here.
We look forward to hearing his remarks.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Shelby). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Hatch for yielding.
Mr. President, I thought he might be interested in my analysis of the
President's budget. If there is anything that ought to convince us that
we need a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, it is the
President's budget that he put out officially this morning.
It is hard to have all the details. But I would like to state for the
Senate and for the American people just a few observations and
perceptions about this budget which the President has presented.
First, I want to say that, to the extent that we can, we ought to
work with the President. We ought to try. Normally, President's budgets
have been declared dead on arrival. When the Republicans were in the
White House the Democrats said that.
I do not want to say that. But I would say that this budget is on
life supports. There is no question about that. It is not dead, but it
is on life supports. There are a few concepts in it that we ought to
build on. There is no deficit reduction of any significance; nothing
for our children at all. The President in his remarks on this says this
is good for the American dream, and then proceeds to talk about middle-
class Americans who will be helped, et cetera. But he forgets to say
this budget is an antichildren of the future of America budget.
Right now we believe every man, woman, and child is indebted $18,000
for the debt that we have been incurring without regard to their
future--man, woman, and child. This deficit produced in 5 successive
years, as he puts them together--the added deficit--will add $2
trillion, I say to the occupant of the chair, to the debt; $2 trillion.
We think by that time the children of America will be saddled with a
$24,000 to $26,000 debt. So let us use $26,000. It is $18,000 now. It
will be $26,000 because of this budget, and worse than that--which is
ignored in the comments from the White House today--while the deficit
stays steady but does not go down, it will go skyrocketing up again.
And whose responsibility is it to address that? Do we wait for our
children to address that, or do we address it now? There is no question
that the deficit of the United States by the year 2002 will be back up
to $321 billion.
[[Page S2160]] So that is what this amendment on the floor is about.
Remember we were going to have a balanced budget by 2002. Under the
President's budget it will be $321 billion. The President talks about
getting the deficit down, and since I was on the floor for maybe 5, 6,
or 10 days--I do not even remember talking about the budget which the
President produced the last time--in 1993 when he takes credit for
getting the deficit down--my projections then are now coming true. The
nightmare that I predicted is true. It is upon us. What was the
nightmare? The nightmare was that we will raise taxes on the American
people, the largest tax increase package in history, and we will not
get the deficit under control. That is true. Most of the deficit
reduction heretofore are tax increases and defense spending cuts. What
about the rest of Government? There were no cuts then, and no cuts now.
First of all, the President had a good handle when he ran for this
office, a good fix on the deficit. In 1993, when he talked to the
American people about getting it under control, he understood it very
well for he said we will never get the deficit under control until we
get the health-care programs of the U.S. Government under control. That
was true then. That is true today.
The President's budget, which I have just indicated while not dead on
arrival certainly takes a walk on the important issues of our day,
takes a walk on the importance deficit reduction issues of our day
because none of the health-care programs of the Government are
addressed. There are no reductions in them of any significance. They
are left to carry right on growing at somewhere between 10.5 and 11.5
percent a year. So why should anyone believe that this budget is a good
budget for America?
Frankly, in the midst of a solid recovery, when the signs are there
everywhere that we have to have major reform, that we have to reduce
the size of our National Government, the President proposes in his
budget that we ought to put 300 programs together and block them into
27 programs. Will not one think that there would be an effort to
streamline Government, and what else? Save money? Actually, the block
grants go up. Unless I can be informed to the contrary, the best I can
find is after going through this exercise and streamlining of
Government--which is not much streamlining because you still have 27,
you do not give many of them back to the States--but even it is
supposed to be an efficiency in delivery of service measure. To improve
the delivery, you ought to get some savings out of it. It goes up.
Let me go through and quickly talk about a couple of other things
because, obviously, we want to have a very constructive year. We do not
want to have a year when all we do is argue. But I do not believe we
should leave some of the things that the President talks about already,
and in his budget, I do not believe we should leave them unanswered,
for when Republican Presidents issued budgets the opposition party was
quick to talk about what was wrong with them.
So I repeat. This budget is a white flag on entitlement spending.
Surrender, or at least it says, as the President of the United States,
``I do not want to do it. It is too hard. Maybe you ought to do it,
Republicans.'' I think those commenting on it are already sort of
saying that. The President said, ``I do not want to do anything that is
tough. Why don't you do it, Republicans? Then we will negotiate.''
I submit that one is contrary to what this President says all the
time. I mean he talks about leadership. Where is the leadership when
you put a white flag up to surrender to that part of the budget that
you know you must get under control and in doing that you kind of
hoodwink the public that you are really getting the deficit under
control?
Let me move on.
You know, there used to be the magic asterisk, the question of
veracity; the question of, How truthful is the budget? I would like to
just raise a question of veracity in this budget.
First of all, significant problems occur in the President's budget
proposal related to a concept that has worked heretofore. Everybody
acknowledges that there is a new portion of the budget called pay-as-
you-go procedures and savings adjustments from adjusting and extending
discretionary spending limits established in the current budget. So
what the President has done relates to this pay-as-you-go. Let me talk
about it.
The President's budget does not reduce direct spending programs
enough. I spoke of that on the white flag of surrender.
So let me talk a minute. He will claim there is $28.7 billion there to
offset reductions in tax receipts of $54.7 billion. Instead, it
attempts to close this gap with what I will call creative accounting,
$101 billion in discretionary spending cuts, creative accounting as to
$101 billion in discretionary spending. In truth, the $101 billion
savings is overstated by nearly $90 billion. Mr. President, he takes
credit, through creative accounting, for $101 billion in discretionary
spending reduction, and $90 billion of that is overstated. Following
current budget rules, the net result of the President's budget is not a
reduction in the deficit claimed as $80 billion over 5 years, but
rather is an increase in the deficit of between $15 billion and $20
billion over that 5 years.Current law defines pay-as-you-go
enforcement procedures that apply to direct spending and receipts. The
President's budget assumes the law is changed to include discretionary
spending in the definition of pay as you go to offset reductions in
taxes. Even so, the discretionary cuts are significantly overstated
from inflating spending caps from 1996 to 2000. Let me repeat. Savings
from discretionary spending cuts are overstated from inflating spending
caps from 1996 to 2000.
You see, if you have in place caps at this level and those caps as a
matter of law expire, the President lets it go back up and then claims
the savings. And that is $90 billion of the $101 billion. So, in
essence, they go up and he reduces them back to where they are, and
through creative accounting, that is the big savings in the budget.
We will get that from the Congressional Budget Office. We will ask
them for that. It is not Senator Domenici who ought to be saying this,
it is officials who have at least as much prowess as the President's
experts but are neutral and not part of any political presentation of a
budget.
So creative accounting has created a very big credibility gap in
terms of whether or not there are any cuts in this President's budget.
Let me wrap this up again by saying the deficit, under the
President's proposal, will increase each year, and the public debt--
which we are talking about in the constitutional amendment--will go
from a 1995 level of $4.9 to $6.6 trillion--from $4.9 trillion to $6.6
trillion--and the debt on each man, woman, and child will go from
$18,000 to $26,000. The dream of our children and for our children is
getting stepped on once again. No action now because it is too tough;
action later when it is too late, when the children are bearing the
burden when we leave them little of a legacy because we do not have the
courage to do what we ought.
Frankly, without the President's leadership, I do not know where we
are going. Frankly, I have told this Senate and the public in the
United States that you will not get a balanced budget unless the
President wants to cooperate with the Congress. I can tell you
unequivocally, unabashedly, you cannot get to a balanced budget without
the leadership of a President. Second, you cannot get there without
both parties participating. It is too tough, really and politically.
So when you have a President who takes a walk and opposes the
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, it would seem to me
that the expectations and hopes of the American people that we might
finally have arrived at a point in history when we are serious about
this, when we might get the deficit under control, get a balanced
budget, I want to warn them that the will may be there on the part of
many of us, but we may indeed not win this constitutional amendment
that would have made the President join in the team that wants to get
it done. Obviously, some Members on the other side and this President
do not choose that. I think they do not choose it for a number of
reasons. But I tell you unequivocally, absolutely, when they say they
will not choose it, we will never get there, and certainly we will
never get there with budgets like this one.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S2161]] Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], is
recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have just heard Senator Domenici from
New Mexico, chairman of the Budget Committee here in the Senate,
outline for us what many of us feared we would hear from this President
as he presented his budget to the Nation which will now be presented
today--statistics and facts and figures that I do not think any of us
wanted to hear or that the American people can even begin to fathom as
it relates to what it all means.
Certainly, this chart I have with me reflects exactly what the
Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, said.
From a debt structure for our country at the end of fiscal 1995
somewhere in the $4.9 trillion mark to, by this President's own
admission with the submission of his budget today, a deficit out here
in the outyears around the year 2002 of $6.6 trillion. What does all of
that mean?
I find it also very unique that as we debate the balanced budget
amendment here on the floor--as we have been now for well over a week,
and as we will, maybe, for the next several weeks--that the leader of
the Democratic Party would come to us with an amendment that, in
essence, says: Submit a budget in all of the detail of how you want to
balance the budget, and if you do not, we cannot submit a balanced
budget constitutional amendment as a matter of principle to the people
for their consideration.
I say that is an interesting combination, Mr. President, because as
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are now saying that, the
very leader of their party has presented a budget today that looks like
this as it relates to debt structure. Not even their President was
willing to talk about a reasonable approach toward the kind of deficit
reduction that he himself pledged to us as a country but 1 year ago. In
less than a year, this President has moved away from the very premise
he ran on, on the very budgets he proposed, on the very premise by
which he pushed through one of the largest tax increases in the history
of the country, and that is, that we would have continually declining
deficits toward a balanced budget, with a progressive reduction in the
rate of debt growth for our country.
Mr. President, what happened? Where are you? Why did you forsake us?
Why did you say one thing in one budget year and now come forth with an
entirely different approach in another budget year?
Well, I may sound a little hard on the President this morning. Let me
back off a little bit and say I guess I am not surprised, because for
the last two decades, other Presidents have been making similar
promises, and many of those Presidents have been Republican Presidents.
Yet, we saw the deficit and the debt structure of our country grow from
1990, where we had a debt of around $3 trillion, now to a President
walking before the cameras and talking to the American people and, in a
straight-faced way, suggesting that this budget projected outward will
produce a $6.6 trillion deficit.
This morning in the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore, who is the
director of fiscal policy at the Cato Institute here in Washington,
tried to put these kinds of analyses and projections in perspective for
the American people. I recommend to my colleagues that they read that
article, because it begins to cause us to focus about why we are here
on the floor of the U.S. Senate and will be here for the next 3 weeks
debating a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.
I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal]
If You Bought 2 Trillion Copies of This Paper * * *
(By Stephen Moore)
Today, President Clinton releases his fiscal 1996 budget.
Already the Associated Press is reporting that officials
claim the budget ``proposes to abolish or consolidate
hundreds of government programs, reducing federal spending by
$144 billion over the next five years.'' No doubt the
president will firmly insist that this is the most tight-
fisted, penny-pinching budget in 20 years.
Why is this so predictable? Because this is what every
president since Richard Nixon has said. But 20 years ago the
federal budget was $370 billion. Today, Mr. Clinton will
request almost $1.6 trillion. Even adjusting for inflation,
the federal budget is twice as large as it was during the
last years of the Nixon presidency. Besides, without the
sleight of hand of baseline budgeting, President Clinton's
new budget calls for a $50 billion increase in spending from
the current budget. And that was $70 billion more than was
spent the year before that. Yet the budget-busting news is
bound to be greeted with a national yawn of unconcern.
Why is there more public outrage when we learn that
Washington wastes $100 on Al Gore's famous ashtray than that
it wastes nearly $1.6 trillion on everything else? Much of
the problem seems to be that 1\1/2\ trillion is an
incomprehensibly large number. So here are some simple ways
to picture how enormous the U.S. government is today:
One trillion dollars--$1,000,000,000,000.00. That's 12
zeroes to the left of the decimal point. A trillion is a
million times a million. It would take more than 1\1/2\
million millionaires to have as much money as is spent each
year by Congress.
One of the highest-paid workers in America today is
basketball superstar Shaquille O'Neal, who reportedly earns
about $30 million a season in salary and endorsements. He is
rich beyond our wildest imaginations. But he'd have to play
33,000 seasons before he earned $1 trillion. It would take a
Superdome full of Shaquille O'Neals to have enough to pay all
of Congress's bills each year.
Here's an experiment. What if we were to try to pay off the
$4 trillion national debt by having Congress put one dollar
every second into a special debt-buy-down account? How many
years would it take to pay off the debt? One million seconds
is about 12 days. One billion seconds is roughly 32 years.
But one trillion seconds is almost 32,000 years. So to pay
off the debt, Congress would have to put dollar bills into
this account for about the next 130,000 years--roughly the
amount of time that has passed since the Ice Age.
Even if we were to require Congress to put $100 a second
into this debt-buy-down account, it would still take well
over 1,000 years to pay the debt down.
Try this one on for size. Imagine a train of 50-foot
boxcars crammed with $1 bills. How long would the train have
to be to carry the $1.6 trillion Congress spends each year?
About $65 million can be stuffed in a boxcar. Thus, the train
would have to be about 240 miles long to carry enough dollar
bills to balance the federal budget. In other words, you
would need a train that stretches the entire Northeast
corridor, from Washington, through Baltimore, Delaware,
Philadelphia, New Jersey, and into New York City.
Former Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Miller
calculates that if a military jet were flying overhead at the
speed of sound and spewing out a roll of dollar bills behind
it, the plane would have to fly for more than 15 years before
it reeled out 1.6 trillion dollar bills.
Here's a challenging one: If you laid $1 bills from end to
end, could you make a chain that stretches to the moon with
1.6 trillion? Answer: without a sweat, with billions and
billions of dollars left over. In fact, they would stretch
nearly from the Earth to the sun.
The newspaper tabloids report that O.J. Simpson is paying
some $55,000 a day in legal fees. The trial would have to
last 26 million days, or almost 100,000 years, before the
lawyers earned $1.6 trillion.
This year the White House want to spend three times as much
as America did to win World War I, which cost roughly $500
billion in today's dollars. Adjusted for inflation, the
combined cost of defeating the Nazis and the Japanese in
World War II and winning World War I was $4.5 trillion. This
is what Washington will spend in peacetime in just the next
three years to continue losing the war on poverty, drugs,
illiteracy, homelessness and so on.
So far, we've just been counting the amount Washington
spends each year. When state and local expenditures are
included, total annual government spending now surpasses $2.5
trillion. That's more than $23,000 of government for every
household in America. In constant dollars government spends
twice as much per household as it did in 1960--though most
Americans believe that government services have deteriorated
since then.
With the $2.5 trillion government spends each year, you
could purchase all of the farmland in the U.S. (market value:
$725 billion), plus all of the stock of the 100 most
profitable U.S. corporations today ($1.6 trillion). You would
then still have just enough money left to pay the advance on
Newt Gingrich's book deal.
All of this points to one conclusion: The budget that Bill
Clinton is presenting today is not lean; it is not efficient;
it is not frugal. It is a monstrosity. It should be greeted
with heaps of ridicule and scorn. No matter how you stack it,
$1.6 trillion is a whole lot of money--even in Washington.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me take from Stephen Moore's article
this morning some of the examples he used as to what all of this means,
because I really do believe that every Senator has been lost in the
woods of trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars and no longer
do we really understand
[[Page S2162]] what it means for this President to come forth with a
budget of $1.6 trillion. And we turn and say, Mr. President, what does
that mean? What kind of impact will that have on the economy of this
country? What does it mean to every American? Well, you heard the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee say it meant a debt structure per
capita in this country, per individual citizen, going from $18,000 to
$26,000.
Here is another figure: A $1.6 trillion budget is representative of
spending $23,000 for every household in America. Can you imagine that
this President is saying to every American who owns a home or
household--and that could be an apartment--that this Government is
going to spend $23,000 per household? Well, that is what this $1.6
trillion budget represents. Here is another fascinating figure. We are
all riveted--at least some are. In all fairness, I am not too riveted
to the television set these days watching the O.J. Simpson trial. But
we are told that O.J. is paying something like $55,000 a day in legal
fees, at least that was a figure that came out several days ago.
Well, here is an interesting figure--$55,000 a day, that is what O.J.
apparently is paying his lawyers. Compare that to a $1.6 trillion
budget, the American people would be privileged to watch O.J.'s trial
for how many days? Twenty-six million days to get to a $1.6 trillion
price tag. Again, that is 100,000 years of watching O.J. and the trial.
Does that begin to focus what our President has just announced or will
be announcing today with a $1.6 trillion budget? Twenty-six million
days of O.J., 100,000 years at $55,000 a day.
Have we lost our senses? Have we lost our perspective? Yes, we have.
And that is why the House 2 weeks ago, by a very large and historic
vote, passed a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. And that
is why myself, the Senator from Utah, the Senator from South Carolina,
and others for so many years have led the issue on the balanced budget
amendment. And it is why we introduced House Joint Resolution 1 here on
the floor and we are debating it today, because this Congress and this
Government has lost its perspective. We do not know what a $1.6
trillion budget is all about or what a $6.6 trillion debt is all about.
One trillion--12 zeros behind the deficit figure. That is equivalent
to 1.5 million millionaires all giving up their fortune for 1 year of
Federal budget. That is another perspective that Stephen Moore put in
his article that I think begins to cause us to focus on what this
budget is all about.
Now, here is another good example. I am using these this morning
because I think the American public's eyes glaze. They hear us talking
about section 3, subsection (a). They hear us talking about the kind of
language that the Daschle amendment has in it--``aggregate levels of
new budget authority.'' I have a feeling that they do not understand
that. Frankly, not many of us understand it.
How about ``major functional category''? I doubt that they understand
it. But, believe it or not, that is what the opponents to a balanced
budget amendment want to put in the Constitution of our country today.
Now here is an analysis that the American people will understand.
Again, it is an analysis of what $1.6 trillion means. Imagine a train,
a freight train, 50-foot boxcars, crammed with $1 bills, each boxcar
50-foot long, crammed with $1 bills. How long would that train have to
be to house $1.6 trillion or President Clinton's budget?
Well, here is an interesting statistics. You can get about $65
million in a boxcar. Now if any of you are quick with mind and
calculate that, you may well be ahead of me. But my calculations and
the calculations of Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute suggest that
that is a train that is 240 miles long.
So, in other words, if you are thinking of the Northeast corridor
here of our rail system--that is from Washington, DC, through
Baltimore, through Delaware, through Philadelphia, through New Jersey
and into New York City--one train all hooked together, not moving, each
boxcar 50-foot long, crammed with $1 bills, $65 million per boxcar, and
Mr. President, you got your budget--$1.6 trillion.
Now, I think the American people understand that analysis. I do not
think they understand ``aggregate level of budgetary authority.'' I
doubt that they understand ``account by account basis.''
Many Americans have read our Constitution and they understand what a
beautifully simple and clear document it is. They understand the
purpose of why it is clear, so that it cannot be reinterpreted and
misinterpreted and reinterpreted again. And what is also very important
is that every word that is in that Constitution does not allow the
Congress, on a daily or yearly basis, to change the game plan or the
definition of the words or the description of the program or the policy
that might be enshrined within the Constitution.
And, of course, that is exactly what the amendment that has been
presented and is now known as the Daschle amendment does. And that is
why there is no doubt that this Senate has to vote it down. We cannot
trivialize our Constitution. We must stay on focus as to why the
American people sent us here and to what they so profoundly said on
November 8 of last year.
Well, let me give you another analysis. If you do not understand what
$1.6 trillion is all about, what $6.6 trillion of debt is all about,
what a debt per every American of $26,000, as their share of the
national debt, or a budget that spends $23,000 per American household
is all about, here is a quote from the former Office of Management and
Budget Director Jim Miller, who I believe headed that up under Ronald
Reagan.
He calculates that if a jet airplane were flying overhead at the
speed of sound and spewing out a roll of $1 bills behind it--that is,
all connected together, open up the side door and drop it out and let
it roll out across the skies of America--what would happen. Well, that
plane would have to fly more than 15 years nonstop, airborne,
constantly spewing out those $1 bills all connected together to get to
$6.6 trillion.
Well, people are probably beginning to say, ``Senator Craig, we have
had enough of that.'' But I think those are important visuals for the
American people to begin to understand what we are talking about and
why a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution is so critically
important.
Now let me for the next few minutes talk about the kind of impact
that this will mean to the American people, our ability as a Government
to establish priorities and to determine those areas where Government
does have a legitimate role and a responsibility to spend the tax
dollars of this country for a variety of purposes and priorities that
the American people believe are necessary and essential.
Here is one of the greatest problems we have today with a constantly
mounting debt. This chart represents interest on the Federal debt
through the year 2005. Yes, we do borrow money and, yes, that money is
debt. It is real money. We owe it to someone.
They expect a return from the money that we have borrowed from them.
We do pay interest.This year in the budget that the President has
just proposed, $1.6 trillion, that ``.6,'' ``.3 of the .6'' is interest
on debt, now the second largest item in the Federal budget. It is now
crowding out defense, crowding out discretionary spending, like the
management, running of our Forest Service, our Department of
Agriculture, and a variety of other programs that a lot of Americans
think are pretty important and pretty essential. It is just interest on
debt.
It is not buying any program. It is not putting any food in any poor
child's mouth. It is going out to pay for the amount of money that the
Federal Government has already borrowed. That figure, as we know it, is
today around $300 billion annually. Of course, with the growth from 4.9
to 6.6 in Federal debt, as this President has now sanctioned, that
figure will progressively grow over the next good number of years.
The gross interest payment exceeded, as I mentioned, in 1994, nearly
$300 billion. This is the greater of the total outlays of the Federal
Government in 1974. That is an interesting piece of history: That the
interest on debt in 1994 was greater than the total outlays of the
Federal Government in 1974. Is there any reason to try to understand
why the American people spoke in the election of November of last year
with
[[Page S2163]] such alarm, why they rejected those who were there
running again for reelection, who tried to defend the status quo?
I believe the American people are growing frightened of this kind of
a debt structure, fearful that their Government and its spending are
out of control, and that there is no way to rein it in and; as a result
of that, we could risk out here, at a $6.6 trillion debt, loss of our
ability to control our Government or our ability to pay interest, if
not principle, on debt.
Those are very real facts. That is why I believe the balanced budget
amendment passed so soundly in the House for the first time in history,
and why I believe it can pass here in the U.S. Senate.
There is no doubt that we have our work cut out for Senators. As we
watched some of the leaders of the Senate talking on national
television in the news shows yesterday, one of them, strongly opposed
to this, said he will speak weeks and weeks on the floor, convincing
the American public that what we are doing is OK, that somehow we ought
to just keep on doing what we are doing; while he, of course,
recognized that reduction in deficit and control of debt was important
and he said we ought to try to do that, too, and we ought to work
toward that, and he even suggested that all of the successes of the
last several years were producing a substantially better budget.
Well, I am sorry, that Senator was not right. He was wrong, if we use
the example of the very budget that the President is producing today,
which is a reflection of the spending programs of the last several
years. In other words, anyone who stands on this floor in the next 3
weeks and opposes a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution or,
more importantly, the right of this Senate to agree with the House and
send out to the American people a balanced budget amendment for them,
the American people, to decide whether it ought to be a part of the
Constitution, and whether it ought to control or bring into control the
growth rate of our Federal budgets, what those people are simply
advocating is the status quo. They are trying to avoid the people of
our country taking their Government back. They do not want to give up
the power they have: The power to spend, the power to go home and say,
``Look what I have done for you.''
Well, I think the message is changing. I think the American people
are saying something entirely different from what they have said in the
past. The reason is very simple: They now see, as far as the eye can
see, the red of debt; or as far as the plane can fly, billions of
dollars spewing out of it, year after year. Or to imagine that $1.6
trillion budget really is beyond the ability of any Member to imagine
how much that kind of money really is.
We are talking about a fundamental change in the course of our
country that can be produced if the Congress of the United States is
willing to address the demand of the public they were sent to
represent. That, of course, is to pass a balanced budget amendment, and
to send it forth to the States, and to begin a national debate across
our country in every capital city of every State as it relates to the
ratification of that amendment, where every citizen and every State
legislator will begin to understand exactly what the Federal budget is
all about and the kind of impact it has on the general economy of our
country.
Those are the issues. Over the next several days, as we look at the
President's budget, as we hear the rhetoric from the other side,
saying, ``We don't want a balanced budget amendment. We want business
as usual,'' and more importantly, ``We want you to show every cut you
would make to balance your budget.'' We cannot even get from this
President the commitment that he told Members he would honor last year
and the year before with his budget messages, and that was to reduce
the deficit and to keep the deficit declining. Even this President has
begun to walk away from it, so reflected by his proposal and by the
budget that he is now presenting.
There will be adequate time for me to discuss other issues over the
course of the next several weeks. Several other Senators are joining me
on the floor, and I certainly hope our colleagues from the other side
will find it today in their ability to come to the floor and defend
their amendment, their motion to recommit, their motion to duck and run
from a balanced budget amendment, their motion that would muddy up the
Constitution of our country with language like ``aggregate levels,''
and ``major functional categories,'' language that has no business in
the Constitution.
But, more importantly, the American people cannot even begin to
understand. We know what the American people understand. They
understand that every day and every week and every month and every
year, they have to balance their checkbooks. Their budgets have to
balance. They have to pay their bills, or they are in trouble. And they
are now growing fearful that our unwillingness to do so could bankrupt
our country, their country, their future.
Now, that is very simple, and the American people clearly understand
the importance of that kind of basic economic simplicity--balancing
budgets, controlling debt, spending within your means.
I am sorry, Mr. President, your budget just does not get it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington State.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I wish to express my admiration to my
colleague from Idaho on the quality and clarity with which he has
outlined both what the President proposes to Members, and the way in
which that proposal illustrates better than almost anything we can say
the need for this constitutional amendment.
Last week, Mr. President, we ended the week in a debate over a motion
by the distinguished leader of the Democratic Party that would have the
effect of adding to this constitutional amendment for a balanced budget
a detailed set of requirements, the net result of which would be to
mandate that the Congress pass binding laws which would lead to a
balanced budget by the year 2002 before the amendment itself would be
submitted to the States.
Those requirements themselves were to become, according to the
distinguished Democratic leader, a part of the Constitution of the
United States. Thus, they would preempt to this Congress not only the
statement of a general principle, but an outline of the precise
blueprint by which a balanced budget would be reached, taking that
power away from three Congresses that are to convene between now and
the year 2002, and ignoring totally whatever dynamic changes may and
will take place both in our economy and in our situation in the world
during that period of time.
The proposal was an improvident and unreasonable proposal, in any
event. The illustration as to why it was so unreasonable is best drawn
by the budget submitted by the President of the United States since the
Daschle motion was laid before this body.
The view of those of us who favor the constitutional amendment, of
course, was that it was more the duty of those who defend the status
quo, those who feel that Congress has operated responsibly, along with
the President, over the course of the last many years, those who feel
that the situation is not broke, that we do not need dramatic change,
that it was more their duty to tell us how they would reach a goal to
which all of them give lipservice--the goal of a balanced budget--
without any fundamental change in the Constitution than it was for
those of us who feel that the situation is flawed at the present time,
that the discipline that will lead to a balanced budget will not be
imposed internally by either the President or the Congress of the
United States and that, therefore, we need to change the Constitution
itself to mandate that all of us--Republicans and Democrats,
conservatives and liberals, Presidents and Members of Congress--work
together to reach a balanced budget.
We attempted to make that position clear last week. I think to a
certain extent we did so. But the President has ended that argument for
us by the submission of his budget. His budget, for all practical
purposes, never, never, never will result in a budget with a deficit of
less than $200 billion. And using the figures of the Congressional
Budget Office, which all agreed to use earlier
[[Page S2164]] during the course of this year, that deficit, in fact,
will increase very substantially, upward of $400 billion either at or
not long after the time that this constitutional amendment will become
effective if promptly ratified by the States.
So we now have before us two starkly differing views of the fiscal
and financial future of the United States: First, represented by those
who back this constitutional amendment, whose view it is that as
difficult as it may be it is important 7 years from now to have reached
a balanced budget or at least to make it more difficult thereafter to
vote an unbalanced budget, as against those whose view it is that the
Federal debt can keep on increasing by $200 billion a year, $300
billion a year, $400 billion a year to infinity. These are the two
distinctly different points of view represented in this body that will
be validated, that will be evidenced by votes on final passage on this
constitutional amendment.
Once again, it is important to point out that even this amendment,
should it be enshrined in our Constitution, will not under any and all
circumstances require that the budget be balanced every year. It will
simply make it considerably more difficult to vote for an unbalanced
budget because that unbalanced budget will have to be, under almost all
circumstances, at least bipartisan in nature; that is to say, it will
have to get a 60-percent majority vote in both Houses of Congress and,
of course, be approved by the President.
But the opposing point of view was outlined by the distinguished
senior Senator from Idaho magnificently in his remarks, as it was by my
senior colleague from the State of New Mexico. The opposing point of
view is essentially: Let us give it up; let us pass a budget which does
not deal with entitlements in any respect whatsoever; let us pass a
budget which admits that even if everything comes out as favorably as
the administration hopes, there will never be a deficit significantly
less than $200 billion a year.
To this Senator at least, that strips away the disguise that
opponents to this constitutional amendment do wish for a balanced
budget but just feel that to require it by passing an amendment to the
Constitution is too drastic a remedy. In fact, those who will support
the President's budget this year will be ratifying his decision that a
balanced budget is not necessary, is not appropriate, never needs to
come into being at all.
I may be overstating the case. It may very well be that there are
opponents to this amendment in this body who themselves disagree with
the President's budget. If so, I hope that during the course of this
debate they will tell us how they disagree with the President's budget
and how they propose to bring the budget into balance without the
discipline of this constitutional amendment.
So far, no one has spoken up to that point of view. Nothing more than
lip service to fiscal responsibility has been heard from our opponents.
Maybe, perhaps there is an outside chance that we will hear how that
can be done without this joint resolution having passed, but in the
meantime, while our opponents have the opportunity to come up with
their contrasting ideas, in the meantime, we are dealing with the
Democratic leader's motion to recommit and to send back out to this
floor not just the constitutional amendment for the balanced budget,
but two additional pages of material, Mr. President--two whole
additional pages of material--which are to go into the Constitution of
the United States with topical references to the Budget Act of 1974,
with specific requirements related to statutes--not constitutional
provisions--but statutes on the books at the present time, outlining in
detail how the Congress must reach the goal of a balanced budget by
law, by changes in our fiscal policies today that will be impossible or
at least extremely difficult to change at any time during the next 7
years before this constitutional amendment is even submitted to the
people.
Leaving aside, Mr. President, the aesthetic considerations of whether
such purely statutory material should ever, under any circumstances, be
included in the Constitution, a proposition which I find to be
outrageous and which I believe most constitutional scholars would find
to be outrageous, leaving that aside, the proposal of the distinguished
Democratic leader is itself unconstitutional on its face.
As I did on Friday, I should like to leave with this body the
specific provisions of article V of our Constitution which deal with
the way in which constitutional amendments are to be added to that
document. Article V, and its material portions, reads as follows:
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem
it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution *
* * which shall be valid * * * when ratified by the
Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States * * *.
Mr. President, that provision does not allow for conditional
constitutional amendments. This motion proposes a conditional
constitutional amendment. It envisages, it imagines that both Houses of
Congress with two-thirds votes will pass a long, long constitutional
amendment, far longer than any other amendment to be found in that
document, but that it would not be submitted to the States until
Congress had passed, and the President had signed, another law--a very
long and complicated law, a reconciliation bill--thus bringing the
President into the process of amending the Constitution, something
which the people who wrote the Constitution specifically ignored,
specifically barred.
This proposal says that the constitutional amendment will not be
submitted to the States until that complicated reconciliation bill is
passed, signed by the President and becomes law. That, Mr. President,
is a clear, open and blatant violation of article V. Under article V,
the Congress of the United States passes a constitutional amendment.
The States ratify it. Nothing happens in between, no conditions
subsequent, no statement that this amendment will not really go to the
legislatures of the several States unless we do something or someone
else does something in between.
Mr. President, not only does the proposition that we should include
such language in the Constitution offend the sensibilities of everyone
deeply concerned with that document, it is in and of itself
unconstitutional. I believe that it should be dealt with by a
constitutional point of order. I am convinced that not only will all of
the supporters of the constitutional amendment in its present form
uphold that constitutional point of order, but I think many of the
opponents to the constitutional amendment would do so as well because
they have a deep respect, a deep respect which they have spoken to
eloquently and at length on this floor, for the Constitution, and I
cannot imagine that they would wish to engage in such a blatantly
unconstitutional procedure and clutter up our magnificent founding
document with such language.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GORTON. I will be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. CRAIG. Let me thank the Senator from Washington for his very
clear explanation of why so many of us are frustrated by this motion by
the Democratic leader and the rewriting, almost instant rewriting of an
amendment that the Senator from Washington and I and others have spent
almost a decade with constitutional scholars writing to make sure that
it was extremely accurate and that it fit the mode and the style of our
Constitution, an amendment that was thoroughly reviewed by the
Judiciary Committee of both Houses and now all of a sudden this massive
new amendment with all kinds of language in it.
I truly appreciate, first of all, the Senator's legal mind and the
clarity with which the Senator has spoken to this issue and pointed
this out. I am amazed, and I think most Senators that are now examining
this motion are extremely amazed, as to why would they do something
like this. It is not even a very good diversion. It is a tragically
poorly written document, and they are proposing by its presentation
that it become a part of the Constitution. So I thank the Senator very
much for that explanation and going into that kind of detail. I think
it is terribly frustrating to the American people but, more
importantly, I think now Senators on this floor are becoming extremely
frustrated over why this kind of amendment.
Mr. GORTON. My friend from Idaho is entirely correct. I think in
recap we
[[Page S2165]] have to say about this motion, first, the motion
proposes that the Congress of the United States act in a profoundly
unconstitutional manner. Second, it proposes that we add to the
Constitution of the United States language which no serious person
could ever consider ought to be a part of our fundamental document of
Government. Third, it proposes a course of action which is
irresponsible. We are dealing with a general principle that budgets
ought to be balanced. Obviously, if Congress and the States put that in
the Constitution, everyone--Presidents, Democrats, Republicans--
together will have to work to meet that constitutional obligation. The
details of one particular method of reaching that goal, when there are
a multitude of such matters, should play no role in this debate.
But, fourth, it seems to me it was designed to hide what many must
have known would be the President's total and abject failure to come up
with an alternate method of reaching this goal without a constitutional
amendment. We now know that the alternate method is never to have a
balanced budget--in fact, never to get the budget deficit significantly
below $200 billion a year.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield again? Is it not true that as we
write proposed constitutional amendments, the one concern we have is
that the wording that goes into those amendments is not something that
falls within the purview of the Congress on a daily basis? By that I
mean they could simply rewrite or change a law and it would change the
meaning of it. The Constitution, as we know it and as we are certainly
pledged to uphold, is a document that we are constantly trying to
comply with instead of change.
The language that is put in the Daschle amendment used, as I
mentioned earlier, and as the Senator has mentioned, and the Senator
from Utah mentioned--the word ``aggregate'' sums, and it used a variety
of other words that, is it not true, every year the Congress could pass
by a majority vote here in the Senate and the House and change the
definition and therefore change the approach of the amendment itself?
Mr. GORTON. We could certainly do so, and undoubtedly we could
provide employment to numerous constitutional scholars and courts to
either interpret what we had said in the constitutional amendment and
what we said in the later statute, or whether or not the two
corresponded with one another. We have examples of this kind of
Constitution writing in many States which have constitutions that did
go into statutory detail that are 4, 5, 10 times longer than the
Constitution of the United States and are universally criticized as not
stating general principles.
The original House Joint Resolution 1, on which the Senator from
Idaho has worked so diligently over the years, is cast in Constitution-
type language. Members can agree or disagree with the fundamental
principle that it establishes, but it does deal with a fundamental
principle. This proposal by the Democratic leader deals with nothing at
all that is fundamental, and it takes its language out of a statute
which has been changed several times since it was originally passed in
the mid-1970's. It does not belong in the Constitution of the United
States.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding and responding.
Mr. GORTON. And I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Tennessee is
recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, one message that Tennessee has conveyed to
me in very clear terms over the past years and most recently over the
weekend as I traveled in east Tennessee is that they want a balanced
Federal budget, and they believe and they know that the only way to
accomplish this is through passage of the balanced budget amendment.
Tennesseeans and the American people in general understand full well
today the consequences that will result from further irresponsible
deficit spending--rising long-term interest rates, lower productivity,
and deteriorating living standards. They understand full well that with
Federal spending on auto pilot, the debt continues to grow, interest
rates will continue to escalate, and we cannot guarantee that in the
future there will be enough money to fund Social Security.
Gross interest on the debt is now the second-largest single Federal
spending item after Social Security. Mr. President, the American people
understand full well that balancing the Federal budget will not be
easy; there will be tough choices to make. But their message to
Washington is that they as individuals make tough choices every day.
They balance their own budgets and they expect the Federal Government
to do likewise.
Mr. President, this is not a problem that will disappear. It must be
addressed now, by this Congress. The last vote on the balanced budget
occurred in March 1994, just last year. Since that time, just a year
ago, the national debt has increased by more than $160 billion.
We spent almost six times as much on net interest payments on the
debt in 1994 as we did on total outlays on all Federal job training,
education, and employment programs combined.
Mr. President, we have two choices. We can continue the reckless and
destabilizing policy of deficit spending as we have seen in the
President's budget as proposed today, or we can reverse our course and
begin pursuing a responsible fiscal agenda. The first important step
toward restoring fiscal discipline is to adopt a balanced budget
amendment.
But there are those who oppose the balanced budget amendment. They
say if our Founders had intended a constitutional requirement for a
balanced budget they would have put it in the original document. This
argument ignores history. The writings of some of our early leaders
like Thomas Jefferson revealed that paying off the Federal debt and
balancing the budget was critical to them. It was second nature. It was
something they took as a given. They did not and could not anticipate
the gross fiscal irresponsibility of future generations of Congress. If
they had, I believe they would have included in the Constitution a
requirement that the Federal budget be balanced each year.
Still others who oppose the balanced budget amendment say, ``Well,
first tell us what you will cut before we vote on it.'' But this
argument misses the point. If Congress had the discipline to decide and
agree upon where the cuts would be made without being forced to do so,
the budget would be balanced today and we would not need a balanced
budget amendment. That is precisely the point. Congress cannot agree
and Congress does not have the discipline and the American people today
recognize that. That is why they demanded that the balanced budget
amendment be passed. Moreover, we will learn as we go. We will
determine what reforms work, which programs should be repealed. The
plan will be flexible, designed to deliver Government services as
efficiently as possible. We should not tie our hands before we decide
to pass the balanced budget amendment.
I spent the last 18 years of my life in medicine, transplanting
hearts and lungs into patients who were dying, whose futures had been
destroyed. Many of my heart transplant patients recognized that they,
too, faced a choice. They could undergo an enormously difficult
surgery, endure tremendous pain and a long and difficult recovery but
they would have a chance at a good future. They would have the
opportunity to live. Or, on the other hand, they could decide to forgo
surgery and die--with no future, no opportunity.
Those patients did not ask me to describe to them what would happen
on each day of that difficult recovery period after surgery, after
their operations. They knew it would be tough. And they knew they had
no choice if they wanted that new opportunity, if they wanted a new
future. They first made the decision to undergo the operation. Then
they dealt with the day-to-day hardships of recovery.
Our situation today is somewhat analogous. Our country is literally
hemorrhaging from the enormous debt under which we labor. We are
threatening future generations. We are threatening the future of our
children. We are threatening our Social Security system. And we are
threatening our ability to lead the way in the global economy of the
21st century.
[[Page S2166]] Individual Americans and most State governments live
with a balanced budget. It is time the Federal Government do likewise.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the balanced budget
amendment, not only because I favor the concept of a balanced budget
amendment but because, it seems to me, it is one of the building blocks
of the kind of change that American voters asked for in November; a
procedural change that not only will change the specifics of what is
done but, over time, will change the character of this Federal
Government and will deal with the basic question, How do we achieve
less Government and a less expensive Government? It is one of the
procedural changes I think is necessary, one of the procedural changes
that will have to be dealt with--some of which we have already dealt
with.
We need a balanced budget amendment to put some honesty and truth
back into our budgeting, too, to deal with the question of whether or
not it is morally right to spend more than we take in. The answer, of
course, is it is not.
The other, of course, is unfunded mandates, which this body has dealt
with, as has the House. We will soon be reconciled in conference
committee.
I think a line-item veto is another of these building blocks, along
with congressional accountability, which has also been passed here. So
we are making real progress toward fundamental change, the kind of
change that will have long-range impacts on this Government, that will
have a long-range impact on the transfer of power to local and State
governments, that will have a long-range impact on transferring power
to individuals as this Government was set up to do.
So I rise in favor of this as one of the building blocks. It is not a
new idea. It is something many of us have favored for a very long time.
It is basic to change. We can talk a lot about the details, as the
Senator from Tennessee pointed out. The real question, of course, is
should we balance the budget? Should we be fiscally responsible? Should
we pass along debts to our children and our grandchildren? Or should we
be responsible for them ourselves? Should we take account of the fact
that our credit card is maxed out and be responsible for the decisions
we make? Should we be forced to have a cost-benefit ratio on the issues
we talk about? If they are worth having, they are worth paying for. If
we are only willing to put them on the credit card, then we cannot do
that. That is what balanced budget amendments are all about, to bring
about the fundamental change.
However, and I take a little from Bill Bennett when he said: We, now,
in this new Congress, are allowed to consider the concept that
everything that is worthwhile, everything that is good has to be
controlled and funded by the Federal Government. That is a concept that
has slipped into our society that does not need to be there.
So I rise in strong support of the balanced budget amendment. We
hear, of course, it is not needed. The evidence is that it is. We hear,
of course, there are tools there to accomplish that without a balanced
budget amendment. There is no evidence of that, even in the President's
budget, which was made public today. There is no evidence of that.
One of the things we seem to lose sight of as we talk about the
deficit--and talk about it we should--is the fact that spending has
increased each year. Spending increases to $1.6-plus trillion under the
President's budget. The President talks about the administrative
efforts to reduce the deficit, which have been useful. Nevertheless,
spending has continued to increase all throughout that. We seldom hear
the reduction in deficit is generally a one-time proposition, where
there was a revision of some projected spending that gave us most of
the deficit reduction. So people ask for change. People want less
Government, less spending, and lower taxes. This will help do that.
We hear we need more time. This is not a new idea. This is one we
have talked about for years. Most people have known this has been
necessary for years. I have no objection to full discussions. I begin
to wonder whether this is full discussion or simply delaying.
Nevertheless we are here, prepared to do that.
We hear occasionally if we have an amendment, judges will be setting
the budget. There is no evidence of that. I think 49 States have
balanced budget amendments. My State of Wyoming has a balanced budget
amendment. It has a balanced budget amendment in the constitution. It
is very simple. In section 1 of article 16 it says:
The State of Wyoming shall not in any manner, create any
indebtedness exceeding 1 per centum on the assessed value of
the taxable property in the State * * * except to suppress
insurrection or to provide for the public defense.
It has been very satisfactory. The legislature knows this is your
income, this is your expenditure. You have to make it fit.
The balanced budget, I believe, was one of the primary reforms we
were sent here to consider, that we were sent here to pass. We are not
moving toward it without the balanced budget amendment--$1.6 trillion
in spending next year more than last year, with a projected deficit of
approximately $200 billion until the year 2002 with no appreciable
change of where we have been. This is not the kind of change that
people asked us for when we were sent here in November. Those of us who
just ran this year I think have a particularly clear picture of what
voters were talking about. There are 11 new freshmen in this body, all
11 of whom support the balanced budget amendment. I think that says
something about it.
Mr. President, I hope we continue to work on this issue. I hope we
come to a resolution before long. I think there is a limit to the
productive discussion and debate. We need to consider those things that
are real. We do not need to spend a great deal of time simply
postponing a decision that needs to be made, and which needs to be made
for the good of this country.
There are additional Senators on the floor.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from
Wyoming for his excellent statement on the issue of a balanced budget
amendment. It is one which I hope Senators will listen to closely. The
Senator has I think outlined some critical issues that this Senator is
discussing as we move down the road to determine whether or not we are
going to pass this critical piece of legislation.
I want to rise on an ancillary issue dealing with the balanced budget
amendment, dealing more importantly with the budget which we are going
to have to pass this year as the Senate and as a Congress.
Today, the President laid before the American people his budget
proposal, and, to say the least, it was not a document that would
excite a whole lot of interest or enthusiasm from a variety of
different quarters, including many within his own party it appears.
It is difficult to presume that here in the late 20th century a
President of the United States could be deemed irrelevant, and
certainly some of the pundits in the national media, however, have
reflected on that question. I do not believe that can occur to a
Presidency in the late 20th century; become irrelevant.
Yet, when you read this budget proposal that the President has put
forward, you have to say that he has left the field of play on what is
probably the most important issue which we have to face as a nation and
as a people; that is, how we manage our fiscal house, and what we do
for our children relative to managing our fiscal house, or, more
appropriately, what we do to our children in managing our fiscal house.
As we all know, because this debate on the balanced budget has been
going on for a considerable amount of time, and regrettably will
probably go on for an additional period of time--a couple of weeks--the
debt of this Nation has exploded. And it is a debt which is going to be
borne by the next generation. As we allow it to expand further and
further by each year running a Federal deficit, we put a greater burden
on the next generation.
[[Page S2167]] It is getting to the point where many of the economic
scholars who are leaders in this country are concluding that as we move
into the period 2010 to 2020 this Nation will face financial
bankruptcy. Our children, instead of being raised in a country which is
the force, the economic engine of the world, will find themselves in
their earning years in a nation which is scrambling to keep up, a
nation which is feeding itself from hand-to-mouth potentially.
Potentially we could end up like Mexico is today, as a nation whose
debts have skyrocketed so quickly that it is no longer able to service
even an interest on its debts.
It is a fact that, if we continue to drive the debt, the present
deficit which we have in the budget as proposed by the President is
exactly what will occur: That some time around the year 2020 we simply
will not be able to finance the Government of the United States because
so much of the funds of the Government of the United States and
revenues will be absorbed by interest costs on the Federal debt. Around
the year 2015 or 2017 the revenues of the Federal Government will only
be enough to cover four items in the Federal budget: Social Security,
pension benefits, health care, and interest on the national debt. And
all other functions within the Federal Government will not be paid
for--national defense, education, caring for the sick, the elderly,
caring for the less fortunate. All of those items will be beyond our
means to pay for. We will as a nation be bankrupt.
If you are going to address that issue in the outyears, you have to
address it beginning today. Yet, this President has consciously decided
to put forward a document which makes absolutely no substantive attempt
to address the deficit which we are confronting as a nation. Not only
does it not attempt to address it and to reduce it, it actually accepts
as a fait accompli that we will have deficits for as far as the eye can
see of a dramatic nature.
The number that they use is $200 billion a year for 5 years every
year; $200 billion a year. Even I, in my elementary level of
mathematics, recognize that is $1 trillion of new debt that this
President has decided is acceptable to pass on to our children. That is
a huge cost and a huge burden to put on them. But worse than that, no
attempt is made in the budget proposal of the President to address the
underlying structural causes which are driving that debt. No attempt is
made to address those elements of the Federal budget which are causing
us to run the $200-plus billion deficits. As a result, when you get
past that 5-year window that is the timeframe that budgeteers use
around here, that $200 billion debt starts to geometrically progress,
and we find that we have a deficit in terms of $300, $400 billion,
potentially even $500 billion, as we move into the next decade because
nothing is being done to slow that growth in the budget proposed by the
President.
It was a conscious decision. That is I think what bothers me the
most. It was a conscious decision made by the leader of this Nation to
walk away from seriously addressing how we deal with this, the most
critical issue that we as a nation have relative to passing on our
concerns and well-being to the next generation. It was a conscious
decision.
The President has decided--and I find this ironic because he has
decided to do this in the context of raising the visibility of the
baseball strike while he moves onto the back burner his budget plan.
The President has decided to walk away from the budget process, the
issue of addressing the deficit, and, as his smokescreen so that
hopefully the public will not notice this most egregious act of
malfeasance he has raised the visibility of his participation in the
baseball strike.
Well, that is very nice. We all want to see baseball played again in
the United States. I am sure we will, and we will probably see it
sooner rather than later. But I have to say that for the children of
this country who enjoy baseball, much more important to their future is
their capacity to have a job, to raise a family, and to live in a
prosperous nation when they reach adulthood. And by walking away from
the field of addressing the budget deficit, the President has gone well
down the road toward undermining the future of those children.
Baseball terms do come to mind when you think of what is happening
here, when you think of what this administration is doing on the issue
of debt, terms like ``walk,'' ``strikeout,'' ``whipped,'' ``misplay,''
``wrong field.'' I think the one that probably most aptly describes it,
however, is ``another down the first baseline.'' That is what this
budget is, another down the first baseline--$200 billion of deficit
being accepted as a fait accompli for the next 5 years, $1 trillion in
new debt added to the Nation's already staggering debt for our children
to pay. That certainly is not even a single. It is not even a double
play. It is another down the first baseline of the budget.
Worse than that, they could not even come to $200 billion without
using gimmicks. They claim $100 billion of spending cuts in this
budget, with great fanfare. I heard the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget today saying we have saved $100 billion in this
budget, and we are going to take $63 billion, and we are going to give
it to a tax deduction. Well, $100 billion is not saved in this budget.
It is an accounting adjustment, a game of numbers shift.
They take the caps off, then they put the caps on. These are technical
terms, but basically what it is, is a shell game of maneuvering numbers
around, which produces $90 billion in savings--allegedly.They are not
real savings. They are savings we are going to incur anyway. We have
already taken credit for them, and as a practical matter we would take
credit for them. The fact that they are scoring them is a reflection of
their insincerity in the entire process, which I guess is driven by a
desire of this administration for reelection, exceeding its desire to
address the issues it was elected to address. That is unfortunate.
Irrelevant? No, but clearly not participating in its opportunities to
lead, would be a way to define this administration's proposal on the
budget.
So what do we do? Well, we have a Republican Congress now and,
obviously, the pollsters for the President have said to the President,
let us just leave it to them, let them do it. Then we will play off the
things we like and the things we dislike, we will attack and set up a
political confrontation and, as a result, we will gain many points from
the American people because we will be on the offensive against the
Republicans, who are attempting to address the deficit responsibly.
I suppose our response in the Senate or in the House could be, well,
we can play that game, too. We can put forth budgets which are
structured on poll numbers versus being structured on the need for the
future of our country and our children. But I hope we will not. I hope
that, as a party, we will come forward with an aggressive budget and I
expect we will because we have the type of leadership it takes to do
that, leaders in the House and in the Senate. Senator Domenici and
certainly the majority leader of the Senate, Senator Dole, I do not
think, are going to opt to bunt, hit a number, to balk, or leave the
field. I expect we will come forward with a very aggressive proposal to
try to address the deficit. It will be one which has to address, if it
is going to be successful, the core issues of what is driving spending
in the country today, as far as Federal accounts are concerned.
Fifty-five percent of the Federal Government today is represented by
entitlements. Entitlements are programs where you have a right as a
citizen to receive a payment under that program because you meet
certain qualifications under the law. Discretionary spending represents
a significantly smaller percentage of the Federal budget. You cannot
balance this budget, or even make a significant downpayment on the need
to balance the budget, or at least bring down the deficit,
unless you are willing to address entitlement spending--
something which the President has absolutely refused to recognize or
acknowledge or do in his own budget, and which reflects the cynical,
really, approach that his budget takes toward addressing the financial
concerns of this country.
How do you address entitlements? Well, we have, for a variety of
reasons, taken Social Security off of the table--probably the real
reason is because every time it is put on the table, one side or the
other demagogs the issue so
[[Page S2168]] badly that somebody ends up a terrible loser in the
fight over how you address Social Security. As a practical matter,
Social Security is not driving the deficit, so there is no huge
momentum to take it up. It is not like in 1983 when the Social Security
trust fund was about to go bankrupt and we were able to put together a
bipartisan effort under the leadership of President Reagan and
Congressman Pepper and came forward with the Pepper Commission, which
made the fund not only solvent but put it into a position of surplus,
as it is today. Today because the fund is actually putting in more
money than it is taking out, there is no immediate need to address
Social Security. And we will not, for political reasons and because of
that substantive reason, other than, I hope, we will look at the
payroll tax, because we are generating these huge revenue surpluses and
there is no reason to be subjecting people to what is one of the most
regressive taxes we have in this country at its present level, when it
is generating surplus. We should be considering reducing the payroll
tax, at least for low- and moderate-income individuals.
But there are other entitlement accounts which have to be addressed.
Look at them. Independent of Social Security, 55 percent of those
accounts are health care accounts, 20 percent are pension accounts,
about 20 percent are welfare accounts, and about 10 percent are the
rest, including agriculture. There are significant things that can be
done in all of those areas, which would dramatically reduce--especially
in the outyears--the rate of growth of the cost of those programs and
in many instances would also significantly improve the quality of those
programs and the beneficiaries' lifestyle under those programs.
Take, for example, the issue of welfare. The Governors have come to
us and said, essentially--this is a capsulization--all right, if you
will give us control over the welfare programs, which have been an
abject failure--has anything been more of a failure in the liberal
welfare state than welfare itself? I am not aware of anything else, if
it has. After 40 years of the most expansive Federal control over
welfare, we have seen a society where we have more poor, more
illegitimate births, more women living in poverty, where we have more
bureaucracy, and where we have more disillusionment and lack of hope
amongst those on welfare than we started out with 40 years ago. That
has been a function of the liberal welfare state applying its largess
and compassion to a system in a manner which has failed miserably.
So the Governors came to us and said: Give us these programs and
allow us to manage them, give us flexibility, and we will take less
dollars. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me. What we have now is
not working and is costing a lot more. So let us take the Governors up
on their offer.
Did the President do that in his budget proposal? No. Even the
President, who is a former Governor and who made welfare one of his
primary concerns, did not have the fortitude to take that step. Why?
Because his pollsters probably told him: You are going to upset one of
constituency groups, so let us stay away from that and let the
Republican Congress handle that and make the tough decisions. If they
come up with a program that works, we will put our imprimatur on it and
get credit for it. If not, we will use it in the next campaign. That is
not what you call leadership, to say the least.
As a practical matter, we, as Republicans, can take the Governors up
on their offer. We can save considerable money, and I will guarantee
you that a welfare program--at least in my State, administered by my
State--free of Federal oversight, Federal regulation, bureaucracy and
the incredible costs and inefficiency. The Federal Government will be
able to deliver more dollars to the welfare recipient in a more
efficient and better way than we do today. Welfare recipients will
benefit dramatically from that system. We can take the issues of what
we do in the future as part of the entitlement question.
Prospectively, programs can be changed around here to make them more
cost-efficient. In the area of new hires coming into the Government,
new hires coming into the military, we can change the retirement system
to make it more reasonable and more in line with what the private
sector has and save considerable money in the outyears.
In the area of health care, there is a great deal that can be done. I
know we are going to have a lot of discussion about this. There is a
great deal that can be done that will positively impact--
especially the senior citizens who take part in the Medicare Program
today--and still save money. Well, of course, everyone from the liberal
camp says that cannot be; you cannot save money and positively impact
somebody. Yes, you can. You can create incentives in the marketplace,
which give senior citizens better health care, more comprehensive
health care than they are getting today, which saves money for the
senior citizen and for the Federal Government.
There will be proposals along that line. One that I happen to like is
one where I have coined a phrase called ``choice care,'' where we
actually give seniors significant choices. We do not take away any
choices they presently have; we give them more choices. When they make
choices that are cost beneficial to us and them, we do not allow them
to lose their present health care plans. We add to them with this
choice care. When they make those choices, we see savings, they see
savings and better care, and we get some controls over the cost of the
entitlements.
Well, how can that be? Because there are senior citizens who come
from a culture of fee-for-service that is the most significant and
expensive form of health care. To the extent we can change that culture
and encourage our seniors, through incentive systems of better care and
lower costs which they benefit from, to move into other forms of
delivery than fee-for-service, we save money and we reduce the cost of
entitlements.
And in the area of Medicaid, which goes to people who are essentially
on welfare, as health care coverage, again we can join with the States
as partners and Governors and come forward with a proposal and save a
dramatic amount of money.
Again, the President has ignored all these fields of opportunity for
the sake of putting forward a political budget.
In the area of farm price control supports, we can also do a
significant amount, although this is not a large part of the budget.
In the area of pensions, we can do a significant amount, and we will.
That is our purpose. We have an obligation to do this. If we do not do
it, it will be our children who will pay the price and it will be a
price which will be unconscionable, unthinkable to have passed on to
them. So we must do it.
You know, over the last month, I have listened, from the other side
of the aisle, to a number of presentations made very well and very
eloquently, I think, especially from the Senator from North Dakota, who
has come down here a couple of times with a number of charts and made
extraordinarily strong presentations on the size and the projection of
the Federal deficit. And it is staggering.
I say to those Senators, they must be embarrassed by this
presentation by the President. Those folks who are trying to
conscientiously raise the issue of how bad the deficit is and how
something must be done about it must be embarrassed that the President
of the United States would present a budget which essentially accepts
$1 trillion of new debt over the next 5 years as an acceptable event
passed on to our children.
The President of the United States would walk off the playing field
of responsible activity in the area of trying to manage this deficit
and, as the Wall Street Journal said, punt the ball. It is not really a
punt. It is a punting punt. It does not even qualify as a punt; more
like a missed kick. But it is inappropriate, whatever it is, because if
this Nation is not going to be able to survive as a prosperous and
decent place in which to raise and have a family, it is not going to be
able to fulfill the American dream or even hold out the American dream
to its people unless we address this deficit.
Regrettably, this President has decided that he, as the leader of
this country, has no obligation to lead in this area. And that is a
mistake
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
[[Page S2169]] Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the Senator from New
Hampshire laid down eloquently the problems that we have with respect
to spending. I think it is interesting and informative, however, to
know that those are not new problems. Those are problems that were
thought about by those who fashioned this Constitution.
Let me read a couple of quotes from Thomas Jefferson that seem to me
to be relevant.
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.
That question continues today. That is what we are talking about.
Further, he said:
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our
Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for
the reduction of the administration of our Government to the
genuine principles of the Constitution; I mean an additional
article, taking from the Federal Government the power of
borrowing.
Thomas Jefferson indicated that.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the debate on
this historic opportunity to adopt House Joint Resolution 1, the
balanced budget amendment.
Over the past week we have heard many eloquent speakers on the need
to pass a balanced budget amendment and bring this Nation's fiscal
policy under control. It has been especially encouraging to see our
freshman colleagues take to the floor and urge this body to adopt a
balanced budget amendment.
Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion to recommit with
instructions offered by the minority leader, Senator Daschle. The
language of his proposed substitute amendment would be a cumbersome
addition to the U.S. Constitution. His proposed amendment to the
Constitution reads more like Federal regulations or a statute rather
than part of the great document which governs this Nation.
Undoubtedly, it is the desire of every Member who supports the
balanced budget amendment to see the Federal budget deficit eliminated
that we may begin to cut away at the Federal debt which currently
stands at $4.8 trillion--I repeat, $4.8 trillion. Without a balanced
budget amendment, there has been little pressure on the Congress to
make tough legislative choices on Federal spending and the Federal
deficit has continued to grow. With a balanced budget amendment as part
of the Constitution, the Congress would understand the reality that
there are a finite number of tax dollars available for public spending
and various proposals would compete on merit and need, not popularity.
The balanced budget amendment would instill an urgent need for
legislative accountability as Congress considers various proposals for
increased Federal spending. Currently, there is no real check on
runaway Federal spending, and there will never be a shortage of
legislation creating new Federal programs or efforts to increase
spending in existing programs. Without a balanced budget amendment,
budget deficits over the long term will continue to rise and the
Federal debt will continue to grow. The Congress has not shown the
fortitude to address, in a meaningful way, the budget deficit and the
Federal debt. There have been times when gestures were made to bring
spending within our means but those efforts were short lived. Statutes
to reduce Federal spending have not been enough. They are too easily
cast aside and the Congress rolls along on its path of fiscal
irresponsibility.
I am convinced that without the mandate of a balanced budget
amendment, Federal spending will continue to eclipse receipts and the
American people will continue to shoulder inordinate tax burdens to
sustain an indefensible congressional appetite for spending. In 1950,
an average American family with two children sent $1 out of every $50
it earned to the Federal Government. Today, the average American family
is sending $1 out of every $4 it earns to the Federal Government. Under
current budget projections, there is no reason to believe that these
statistics will improve.
Mr. President, we can trace the debate on a balanced budget amendment
back in our history for 200 years. A defining moment may well have been
the appointment of Thomas Jefferson as Minister to France. Thomas
Jefferson was abroad when the Constitution was written and he did not
attend the Constitutional Convention. If Jefferson had been in
attendance, it is quite possible that he would have been successful in
having language placed in the Constitution to limit the spending
authority of the Federal Government. Upon studying the Constitution,
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter of a change he so fervently believed
should become part of the Constitution. He wrote the following:
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our
Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for
the reduction of the administration of our Government to the
genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional
article taking from the government the power of borrowing.
Further, Jefferson stated:
To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers
load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election
between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.
Another former President, Andrew Jackson stated the following:
Once the budget is balanced and the debts paid off, our
population will be relieved from a considerable portion of
its present burdens and will find * * * additional means for
the display of individual enterprise.
Preisdent Harrison described unnecessary public debt as ``criminal.''
Mr. President, early American Presidents and public leaders
understood the dangers of excessive public debt. For almost 150 years,
balanced budgets or budget surpluses were the fiscal norm
followed by the Federal Government. The unwritten rule followed by
Presidents and legislators until recently in our Nation's history was
to achieve balanced budgets except in wartime. But the role and the
size of the Federal Government has grown out of control. In the past
three decades, the Federal Government has run deficits in every year
except one. Further, the Federal Government has run deficits in 56 of
the last 64 years.Mr. President, during the 1960's, deficits were
averaging around $6 billion per year. The following decade, the 1970's,
saw deficits rise and they averaged $36 billion per year. In the last
decade, the 1980's, deficits continued to rise and averaged $156
billion per year. So far, in the 1990's, deficits have averaged $259
billion per year.
The Federal debt has grown as deficits have continued to grow and the
debt now stands at $4.8 trillion. It took this Nation over 200 years to
run the first trillion-dollar debt yet we have recently been adding
another trillion dollars to our debt about every 5 years.
I have been deeply concerned during my time in the Senate over the
growth of the Federal Government. It has been too easy for the Congress
to pass legislation creating new Federal programs and spending more tax
dollars whenever there is a call for Federal intervention. Of course,
the Federal Government has an appropriate role to protect the citizens
of this Nation, but it is not realistic to believe that Washington
should respond to every perceived problem with a new Federal approach.
This Nation has drifted from its original foundations as a national
government of limited authority. I believe the adoption of a balanced
budget amendment will do much to return us to a more decentralized
Federal Government of limited authority and the mandates of such an
amendment will increase legislative accountability. A balanced budget
amendment is the single most important addition we can propose to the
Constitution to begin reducing the size of the Federal Government.
Mr. President, we have seen the national debt and deficits rise
because in large part, the Federal Government has grown. The first $100
billion budget in the history of the Nation occurred in 1962. This was
almost 180 years after the Nation was founded. Yet, it took only 9
years, from 1962 to 1971, for the Federal budget to reach $200
billion.
[[Page S2170]] Then, the Federal budget continued to skyrocket; $300
billion in 1975, $500 billion in 1979, $800 billion in 1983, and the
first $1 trillion budget in 1987. The budget for fiscal year 1995 was
over $1.5 trillion. Federal spending has gripped Congress as a narcotic
but it is time to break the habit and restore order to the fiscal
policy of this Nation.
It is incumbent upon this body to send the balanced budget amendment
to the American people for ratification. The vote on final passage on
House Joint Resolution 1 could well be the most important vote we will
face as Senators as its adoption is essential for protecting our
liberties as a free nation. I hope we don't fail the American people on
this historic opportunity and instead present to the States our
proposed amendment to mandate balanced budgets. it is time to act to
secure the future for all Americans.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, efforts have been made to portray the
right-to-know amendment as constitutionally questionable. Those claims
are driven by politics. The argument is not compelled by the
Constitution.
The Constitution sets out two requirements for the approval of an
amendment. It must be approved by two-thirds of each House of the
Congress, and it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths
of the States.
The Constitution sets no other limits.
All we are proposing is that the Constitution be amended in the same
way it has been amended 27 times before, with a two-thirds
congressional majority in each House.
Ironically, the underlying proposal itself contains a clearly extra-
constitutional provision: That if it is not ratified within 7 years,
its provision will not take effect, no matter how many State
legislatures thereafter desire to approve it. It is a time-limited
proposal.
The time limitation is not a constitutional requirement. It is a
customary requirement.
There is no warrant in the Constitution for such a time limit or
against such a time limit. It has been used in this century as a way to
ensure reasonably contemporaneous consideration of proposals to change
the Constitution. It is a good idea, but it is not a constitutional
requirement.
Indeed, if we look at the 27th amendment, having to do with
congressional pay, which was revived and ratified by the States 200
years after first being proposed to them, and which is now part of the
Constitution, it is quite clear that there is no constitutional
impediment to ratifying an amendment outside the time constraints that
have been common in our century.
Opponents of the right-to-know amendment claim that, by imposing a
duty on Congress before the proposal is submitted to the States, it
somehow contravenes the Constitution. At the same time, those opponents
claim that imposing a time limit on the States after the proposal is
sent to them does not contravene the Constitution. I do not think this
argument holds up very well.
The right-to-know amendment falls squarely within the constitutional
purview of the Congress, an article I power that permits each House to
establish its rules of procedure.
The right-to-know amendment is an exercise in the article I power.
It in no way affects the ratification process. I think most people
would concede that. It in no way affects the congressional approval
process, and I think most people would concede that. Again, those are
the only two constitutionally established requirements to amend the
Constitution.
In fact, the right-to-know amendment, by requiring that the House and
Senate first adopt a budget path leading to a balanced budget, and then
send the proposal to the States for their consideration, impinges less
upon the Constitution's requirements than the 7-year deadline contained
in the language of the proposed amendment itself.
In short, this argument against the right-to-know amendment is a
smokescreen. It is meant to shift attention from the issue, the
question of specifically how to cut spending, to a dry debate over
constitutionality. I am not a constitutional lawyer. In fact, I'm not
any kind of a lawyer at all, but I can read.
The Constitution very clearly and plainly says, in language that can
be understood by anyone, that there are two requirements to amend the
Constitution when you choose the route of moving through the Congress:
Two-thirds of the Congress must pass it, and three-fourths of the State
legislatures must ratify it.
The Constitution says absolutely nothing else on this particular
subject. All of the sophisticated arguments in the world will not
change the plain language of our Constitution. The document speaks
plainly, and where it is silent, it is silent. It does not, by
implication, permit a time limit on constitutional amendments and then
bar a prior congressional action. It is silent on both counts. I think
that is an important issue. It does not, by implication, permit a time
limit on constitutional amendments and then bar a prior congressional
action.
The proposal before us has a time limit. I have not heard one Senator
argue that this is unconstitutional because it is not mentioned in the
Constitution. My amendment adds a prior requirement that doesn't
interfere with either of the constitutionally sanctioned requirements
or the extra-constitutional requirement of a 7-year ratification
deadline.
If Congress can limit the time within which a proposed constitutional
amendment may be ratified, nothing prevents Congress from adopting an
internal procedure before we send a proposed constitutional amendment
to the States in the first place. That is all that the right-to-know
amendment seeks to do.
Each House of the Congress has parliamentary rules, established under
article I, to expedite or retard the movement of legislation in various
ways. All these rules have full force whether we are debating an annual
appropriations bill or a proposed constitutional amendment.
The only thing the right-to-know amendment seeks is a prior
congressional action before the proposal is forwarded to the States,
under Article I rules. It does not impinge on the provisions that deal
with a proposed constitutional amendment. It is well within the power
of the Congress to determine that a prior action be taken. The
conditions in the right-to-know amendment are no less constitutional as
applied against the Congress, which is how they would apply, than a
time limit applied against the States, which is how a time limit is
applied.
The argument that the right-to-know amendment is in some way
unconstitutional is not a serious argument. It is an effort to divert
attention from the bottom line, and because we are talking about a
balanced budget requirement, the bottom line is the only line that
matters.
The right-to-know amendment asks that the Congress tell us how, over
the next 7 years, it will reduce spending in 48 percent of the budget
by enough to balance the budget in 7 years' time. That is all. It does
not tie future Congresses to a particular line of action. One Congress
cannot bind another. It simply asks the responsible Congress--this one,
the one that would vote on the constitutional amendment to balance the
budget--to tell the citizens and the States what the spending
reductions must be to comply with the mandate that is being proposed to
the States.
The mandate is to cut spending to reach budgetary balance in 7 years'
time without cutting defense spending and without cutting Social
Security. The only thing my amendment demands is that we tell the
people, the States and the cities how we plan to achieve this goal.
This is neither unfair nor onerous. When Congress debated the 14th
amendment in the wake of the Civil War, Members of Congress were
required to step up to the plate and give their views on what those
proposals would mean.
[[Page S2171]] Congressmen of the time did so. They stood up and
said, plainly enough, that they did not intend that the 14th amendment
be read to require voting rights for black Americans or integrated
education.
A hundred years later, the Supreme Court ruled against them. What
they said and meant did not stop the march of time. Neither will any
words of ours. There is no need for exaggerated concern about the
ability of some future Congress to steer its own course. The right-to-
know amendment does not dictate to a future Congress, because that is
impossible. It simply asks those who today claim we can easily and
painlessly reach a balanced budget in 7 years' time to tell us how this
is to be done.
Some of the most fervent advocates of this approach will be long gone
from here when the time comes to bite the bullet, just as the writers
of the 14th amendment were not around when the Supreme Court said we
had to end de jure segregation.
I do not think that in 2002 voters should have a right to call up
retired Senators and Members of Congress and demand to know what we
were thinking in 1995. But I think it is eminently fair to ask those
who are our contemporaries, who say this can be done now and that it is
going to be relatively easy, to tell us how it can be done now, how it
is going to be done easily. This is not an intellectual exercise in
abstract economics. We are talking about issues that are going to
affect the way real people live their lives--this year, next year, in
the year 2002, and beyond.
I want to make it plain that I am a supporter of a balanced budget
amendment. I have been for a balanced budget amendment for many years,
because I believe Government can and should operate within its revenue
base. I think it is doable. I think it ought to be done. But as we
debate that issue, let us be honest with the people; let us tell them
what this means, not in abstract, general terms, but in concrete,
specific terms, because those are the only terms on which we can cut
spending. There is no abstract, general spending in the budget. It is
all concrete. It is all specific.
Past Republican budget proposals have gutted student loans, cutting
them by over $12 billion. Middle-class parents planning to send their
children to college or vocational school have a right to know whether
we will eliminate student loans.
Republican budget proposals have slashed Medicare benefits by $30
billion. Senior citizens who count on Medicare have a right to know
whether we will make it even more costly to get health care. Republican
budget proposals have slashed spending on public education by $3
billion. American school children and their parents have a right to
know whether we will limit their opportunity to learn and succeed. The
American people have a right to know--and the majority has a
responsibility to tell us--specifically what will be cut, who will be
hurt, who will be helped, and how and when this will be decided.
That is the purpose of the right-to-know amendment.
The President's budget was submitted this morning. It contains $140
billion in spending reductions. It has been under attack by some
Members of Congress beginning last Friday, when details first began to
leak to the media. I understand the partisan desire to attack, I do not
understand how people think they can posture on a balanced budget
amendment, denounce the President's plan, offer nothing themselves, and
still have credibility. We have been hearing since last November that
there would be a Republican spending cut plan in the public arena
shortly. It is now February. News reports now tell us that we're not
actually going to get this plan until perhaps April or May.
We are being asked to pass unfunded mandates legislation, line-item
veto legislation, a balanced budget constitutional amendment, all sorts
of procedural proposals, but where's the beef? Where's the long-
promised budget plan itself? We have a very modest proposal--the right-
to-know amendment. It simply requires us to produce the beef, what we
hear is that we are contravening the Constitution and ignoring the
sacred trust handed on by the Founding Fathers. Perhaps some are
protesting too much.
We are engaged in a serious enterprise. We are trying to remake a
system inherited and modified over 200 years. We cannot guarantee that
the next Congress will follow in our footsteps. But we can't be
immobilized by that, either. Americans vote every 2 years. They expect
each new Congress to deal with the problems that arise within each 2-
year cycle. If we come up with a good plan, the next Congress is very
likely to follow it. All we ask is that we come up with a plan. If the
next Congress improves it, all the better. We cannot control the
future. We can control what we are willing to do now.
The right-to-know amendment is targeted to now. The balanced budget
amendment asks some future Congress, some years down the road, to do
something. That is fine.
This amendment asks this Congress to do something now. That is the
difference. Frankly, I do not understand the reluctance to act. I
especially do not understand the reluctance based on the criticism of
the President's budget. Clearly, all the critics have better plans,
less costly, more effective, less painful, easier. That is great. Let
us see these plans. Let us lay them out. Let us hear how the easy
alternatives really are. I want to hear what, in detail, these painless
cuts are. If we can learn this, we can go ahead with the right-to-know
amendment because it will be painless.
I understand the effort to drag the Constitution into this. It is an
effort to change the subject. The subject is still on the table, and it
is very straightforward. Americans have the right to know what we
propose to do because it will affect their lives. It will affect their
State and local tax burdens. It will affect the environments of their
cities and the kind of country their children will inherit. It will
affect all of us--our futures. Given that, we cannot let this
opportunity pass.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, there is not a single Senator who can rise
in this Chamber and come out solidly for an unbalanced budget, for
going further into debt than we already are. Every person, including
myself, knows that we have to get to a balanced budget. We cannot
afford to keep on, year after year after year after year, going deeper
into debt and, along with it, deeper into the interest payments,
increased interest payments on that debt.
We have to resist what I would call ``secret agent'' budgeting. The
proposal on the Republican side this year is you appoint me your agent,
and I cannot tell you how I am going to balance the budget but in
secret I will decide whether your Social Security is going to be cut,
whether Medicare is going to be cut, whether your pension protections
in the pension benefit guarantee are going to be cut, and on down with
a whole host of things.
I desperately want to achieve a balanced budget, but a little later
in my remarks here I will point out what the Democrats did back in 1993
when we faced up to, in advance, laying out exactly what we were doing,
what the cuts were going to be, what the tax increases were going to
be. It was honesty in budgeting. It was truth in advertising, honesty
in budgeting.
I feel the only way to achieve a balanced budget, whether you have
the balanced budget amendment in place or not, is to approach this
difficult issue openly and honestly. How on Earth can we talk about the
balanced budget amendment without talking about what is necessary to
balance the budget?
Let us say we vote this out of here; we are going to put out a
balanced budget amendment, have the two-thirds vote here, put it out to
the States; the States within a couple of months come back--surprising
speed for the States. They are allowed 7 years to consider this but
instead of that they all right down the line 39 or 40 States--it takes
38 to approve this. But let us say they come right back to us in 60
days, 90 days. They say we voted for it. We think it is a great idea.
We have to do that in our States. How are you going to do it
nationally? And we approve it. It is now part of the
[[Page S2172]] Constitution. We no longer have an option then. We have
to balance the budget.
That is pretty straightforward, really. All the people of the country
want to know how the balanced budget amendment will affect them if it
is passed. What is it going to do to them? What services will be
reduced? What taxes will be increased? That is what they want to know.
What is really going to happen? In theory, do we all want a balanced
budget amendment? Yes, we do. But in practice, how do we get there?
I do not think that secret agent budgeting is the way we should get
there. The people of Ohio, the people of America are the taxpayers of
this country and they deserve to know. If I go back home to the people
of Ohio and I go to a discussion with some of the elderly people in our
State, or I go to a nursing home or I go to a meeting of the AARP, the
American Association of Retired Persons, and I point at them and I say,
``They are going to cut your Social Security, make no mistake about
it,'' the first person up would say, ``Oh, no, wait a minute. They have
guaranteed they are going to take that off budget. They are going to
take that off budget. They are not going to touch Social Security over
here.''
I say: ``Oh? OK. I am glad to know that. Let me tell you something.
They are going to cut your Medicare.'' The next person up would say,
``Oh, no, wait a minute. They have guaranteed they are not going to cut
Medicare. That is going to be off base over here.'' So we have those
two things now, Social Security and Medicare, which are not going to be
touched by our new budgeting procedures here. Then we add a couple of
other things to that. We cannot ignore interest on the national debt.
That is running over $100 billion a year plus--$200 billion a year now.
So we say OK, the interest on the national debt. Here we have Social
Security, Medicare, and we have interest on the national debt. Then we
say, ``How about defense?''
No, we think we are a little thin on defense already. In fact, the
Republican side is saying we have to add money for defense. We cannot
get any further down. And I do not necessarily disagree with that. I am
on the Armed Services Committee. It has given me some concern, too,
about how far we have cut, particularly in the area of personnel. I am
not sure we could take care of two emergencies, as we are supposed to
be able to do, with regard to Korea and the Persian Gulf. I am not at
all sure we could do those right with the forces we have right now.
Yet, we are the only power in the world that could do that.
We have a lot of people who say, ``Yes but we are spending more than
all the rest of the world put together on defense.'' And that is true,
we are. But I also say we are the world's leader and we have greater
responsibilities than anyone else, too.
So you take Social Security--that is off over here. Then take
Medicare--that is off base. We cannot cut into those two things, Social
Security and Medicare. We have to pay interest on the national debt.
The good faith of the U.S. Government is behind those payments. Then we
take defense off. OK. We have those four items off budget. I do not
quarrel one iota with taking all those off budget. But where does that
leave us?
I will tell you where it leaves us. It leaves us with everything else
in the budget being cut about 30 percent. Everything else in the
Federal budget has to average a cut of 30 percent if we are going to
leave those four items off budget. Let me give an example of some of
this. If you leave all spending programs on the table, the across-the-
board cut for everything else is 13 percent, if you are going to
achieve a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002; a 13-percent cut in
everything across the board: Social Security, Medicare, defense, the
whole works.
If you take Social Security off the table then cut across the board
for everything else, it goes up to 18 percent. If you take defense off
the table, the across-the-board cut for everything else is 22 percent.
If you also assume the tax cuts that the House Contract With America
proposed, if you put that in, the across-the-board cut for everything
else is 30 percent. And if you also take all veterans programs off the
table, an across-the-board cut for everything else is 31 percent. If
you take military retirement off the table--which has been proposed by
some people--it goes up to 32 percent, as a cut that would have to be
taken on everything else. If you take civilian retirement off the
table, it goes up to 34 percent. And if you add Medicare to that, you
take that list I just named there and you add Medicare onto it, it
means everything else in the Federal budget--everything has to be cut
by 50 percent.
Let us go back just to the four basics I mentioned: Medicare, Social
Security, interest on the national debt, and the defense budget. Just
take those off and everything else in the budget has to be a 30-percent
cut.
Let us look at that a little bit. Do you want AIDS research cut by 30
percent? Oh, no; we cannot cut that. We are going to put that off
budget here so we will have to consider that, of course. We are not
going to that. So that means something else has to be cut more than its
30 percent.
How about cancer research? No, we cannot cut cancer research.
Let us get over in another area. How about air traffic control? We
all fly airliners on occasion, some of us more than others. How about
air traffic control? Are we going to cut out 30 percent of the
controllers; 30 percent of the budget the FAA uses for air safety? No,
I think we have to exempt that.
How about the Food and Drug Administration? Do we want some more
thalidomide tragedies contemplated in our future? Do we want to avoid
those? Do we want the FDA to be cut by 30 percent? How about
Alzheimer's research? Do you want that cut 30 percent? How about meat
inspection, poultry inspection, salmonella prevention programs? Cutting
out 30 percent of all agricultural research? How about your money in
the bank? Do you want bank regulatory authorities to have their budgets
cut by 30 percent? How about Americans on pensions? Do we want the
Pension Benefit Guarantee Program that the Government has as a backup
in case the pensions are not funded properly--do we want that to go?
If we are cutting all these things, too--you know, we just passed an
unfunded mandates program here--how about the States out there? They
get about $230 billion a year for environmental programs. That is going
to be pretty attractive for cutting, it seems to me, if we are forced
to go into a 30- percent cut on everything else.
We can name a whole host of things: Food stamps; highway money;
higher education; Social Security for the blind and for the disabled;
the Head Start Program; school lunch; the Special Supplemental Food
Program for Women, Infants, and Children; all farm support; nuclear
regulation--nuclear regulation for those places around the country
where there are nuclear plants--nuclear cleanup; research funds;
vaccines for children; dollars to track down the fathers of children of
unwed mothers; veterans hospitals; eliminating deductions on
mortgages--everything.
All the other functions of Government, all of those and far, far
more--that is not even beginning to be a complete list--would have to
be cut 30 percent. If they are not cut 30 percent, then something else
has to make up more than their 30 percent change. And that is only if
we put off budget Social Security, Medicare, interest on the national
debt, and the defense budget.
No one will tell us what is going to be in this, what is going to be
in the budget if we go ahead and pass a balanced budget amendment and
it is placed into effect more rapidly than most people think. I want to
know up front what is going to be cut. I think that is only reasonable.
We did it on the Democratic side back in 1993, when we had the
reconciliation bill on the floor. Yet the Republicans in 1995 tell us,
``Just trust us, somehow we are going to work this thing out. We are
not going to name all these things, as Democrats did back in 1993.'' We
named them in detail. We gave specifics of exactly how we were going to
do this, including tax increases. We were honest about this thing. It
was truth in budgeting.
There have been a number of estimates of just how this amendment will
affect Ohio in specific terms. It is all speculation because Ohioans
are not being told what is going to be cut.
[[Page S2173]] I say to my constituents back home in Ohio who may be
watching this today, they are not willing to tell us, on the other
side, what will be cut or how much your taxes will be raised, or
anything about either one of those issues.
We should be able to tell you back home how you are going to be
affected by the balanced budget amendment. But we are not. Let me give
you just a little bit of speculation on how this might impact Ohio.
Here is the speculation.
The Contract With America calls for balancing the Federal budget by
the fiscal year 2002 while cutting some taxes. Experts estimate that
doing so without cutting Social Security or defense spending or raising
taxes would require slicing all other Federal expenditures by 30
percent. Children's programs could suffer even more, if cuts in such
programs as Medicare or veterans' services were limited, as is likely.
Costs might be cut in several ways: By dropping groups of children from
programs, putting them on waiting lists, and reducing benefits or
quality of services. For example, by ending Medicaid coverage for some
health treatment, cutting AFDC grants by 30 percent, or by requiring
families to put up more costs through copayments and cost sharing.
Let me get down to the nut of this for Ohio. The following estimates
how many children would be affected in fiscal year 2002 if costs were
cut solely by reducing program enrollments. This is just Ohio alone.
No. 1 on our list, 74,800 babies, preschoolers and pregnant women would
lose infant formula and other WIC nutrition supplements; 183,350
children would lose food stamps; 291,800 children would lose free or
subsidized school lunch programs; 284,400 children would lose Medicaid
health coverage, those poorest of the poor, those who can afford to
lose it the very least; 287,150 cases now served by the State child
support agency would lose help to establish paternity or collect child
support, something we all want to see happen; 141,900 children would
lose welfare benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children; 11,500 blind and disabled children would lose the help we
give them under supplemental Social Security income; 10,150 or more
children would lose the Federal child care subsidies that enable
parents to work or get an education and training; 10,200 children would
lose Head Start early childhood services; 20,950 children in child care
and Head Start would lose child and adult care food program meals; and,
56,300 children would lose remedial education through title I.
We hear the screams obviously from the other side saying we do not
want to cut those programs. Let me repeat again, those estimates are
for programs to be cut just for my home State of Ohio. Those are not
national figures. We have just under 11 million population in Ohio.
Those figures are the ones that would apply to just our people in Ohio.
They say we are not going to cut all those things. All right, if you
are not going to cut all those things, if they are off limits, tell us
and tell us now so we do not have all the uncertainty that people have
about which programs are going to be cut. Just tell us. That is all.
Just be honest enough to do this up front. That is all we are asking.
If you do not cut Social Security, Medicare, interest on the national
debt, and national defense, then you have the across-the-board 30-
percent cut that I mentioned earlier. What does this do to a State like
Ohio? If the same services are to be provided as are provided now--
maybe some of those would be eliminated, I do not know--but if the same
services are to be provided while we protect the programs at the
Federal level, if Ohio is to pick up that difference, it would mean
that the State taxes in Ohio would have to go up 14.4 percent to
maintain services. If we are going to cut services, OK, those decisions
would have to be made. But let us know in advance what we are doing so
we know which people are going to be hurt.
Other States get hit even more than Ohio. Some are around 19 percent;
New York 17.4; Tennessee, 19.5; Mississippi, 20.8 percent. Their State
taxes would have to be increased just to maintain the services.
Mr. President, time and time again I have received letters from my
constituents in Ohio asking why the Congress cannot act like the
average citizens, why we cannot look at how much money we have, what
the programs are, why we cannot in Congress sit down like the people do
at home at the kitchen or dining room table and lay out all of the
papers and act and decide how they are going to go about balancing the
budget. Why cannot we in Congress in effect sit down at our table here
and balance a budget and live within our means as every other person in
this country has to do?''
If an average middle-class taxpayer can simply state that kind of a
goal at home, like sitting there saying I want to pay off all my debts,
I want to stop spending more than I am taking in and they look at all
the papers in front of them on the dining room table. They say, ``Well,
the first thing you have to do is--I am glad I sat down here. Now I
have to plan out exactly where my belt is going to have to be
tightened. I am going to have to decide where I am going to cut back. I
am going to have to decide what my income is going to be, and then I am
going to have to determine what sacrifices will have to be made so that
I am planning for the future in a more realistic way than I have done
in the past.''
Now, to carry out what the taxpayer sitting at the table back home
has to do, the American taxpayers are really in a terrible debt. If
they individually at home are in a terrible debt like the Federal
Government and they individually end up in bankruptcy court, you can
bet that taxpayer, he or she, will be forced to sit down and draw up a
financial plan for the future. I would say today should we not do the
same right here in the Senate? Should we be required to do exactly the
same thing and not do it with blue smoke and mirrors, not hiding behind
something that says we have to have a balanced budget amendment and
then we are going to tell you how to balance this thing. Why not do it
now?
The Houston Chronicle had a recent editorial that commented on this
type of situation. They said a citizen purchasing an automobile might
reasonably be expected to be informed of such basics as what type of
motor the car has, if it has one at all, what color the auto is, the
drive-out price, et cetera. ``Would we not take the same or greater
care with our Constitution than we would in buying a car?
Mr. President, I have not given a commitment to either side in this
issue about how I will vote on a balanced budget amendment. I frankly
would like to be able to vote for it. But I would like to do it on an
informed basis that tells me what is going to happen if the balanced
budget amendment happens, if it comes back approved, if the States say
yes, we want you to act this way. All the services that now we get from
the Federal Government, are we going to cut those things out? Or are we
going to alter them? And how are they going to be altered? If they
would tell me ahead of time what is going to happen, I might assess
that with regard to the whole country and my home State of Ohio and
say, yes, maybe I can be for that balanced budget amendment. Maybe if
that is where they want to cut and they specify those cuts and where
the tax increases will be--and I have no doubt there will be some
eventually--tell me what they are going to be before, not after I voted
for it, tell me before so I know what I am getting my people of Ohio
into. How could anything be more fair than that?
Going back to the Houston Chronicle article, I want to make sure
before this amendment leaves the lot that we know if we have a real
lemon on our hands. Let us have truth in advertising. Let us check the
sticker price.
Let us look under the hood; let us kick the tires. If everything
checks out, we will move down the road to our final destination to a
balanced budget, which I absolutely think we have to get to. Above all,
Mr. President, let us not embark on this trip without knowing the
direction we will take to get there. Let us not do it with blue smoke
and mirrors. Let us not hide our intentions.
I think sometimes our fears are not well justified here. I do not
think our knees will buckle if somebody says what we have to cut. We
will consider it. I do not think the knees of the American people will
buckle if somebody is honest with them and says:
[[Page S2174]] Here is exactly how we are going to get to this laudable
objective.
There is an old Shakespeare quote, and I do not know what play it was
in, but it said:
Our doubts are traitors, And make us lose the good we oft
might win
By fearing to attempt.
Never is that more applicable or more true than in our budgeting
considerations here. We have to have guts enough to allay those fears
and be willing to attempt a balanced budget by telling the American
people exactly how we are going to get there.
Mr. President, here we are discussing the balanced budget amendment,
and in the immortal words of Yogi Berra: It is deja vu all over again.
The first time I was part of the debate on the balanced budget
amendment here in the Senate was in 1982. That was the second year of
our grand experiment with supply side economics. Remember that, where
if we just cut taxes it was going to result in such an economic
increase of our general economy in the country, the new revenue would
more than make up the cuts in what revenue we lost with the cut. We
reduced taxes 25 percent over a 3-year period; a 5-percent cut on
income tax 1 year, and 10 percent each of the next 2 years. What
happened? What happened on that was that the new economic level did not
increase the way it was supposed to increase. We could not get those
percentages changed through the years, and we wound up with another
$3.5 trillion added to the $1 trillion in debt we had that had been
accumulated from every single President from George Washington through
Jimmy Carter. In the last 12 years, the deficit or the debt has gone up
to a little over $4.5 trillion. That is what happened with supply side
economics.
Even back then, when we were talking about all this, like today,
there was a lot of talk about balancing the budget but almost no talk
about how to get there. Instead, we preferred to talk about tax cuts.
Cut taxes, smile, be happy, it is morning in America; in the city set
on a hill, we can make no mistakes.
After 12 years of feel-good budgeting, we found ourselves with a $4.5
trillion debt; $4.5 trillion. It was a credit card. It was all done on
a credit card, a great big national plastic credit card. Well, then
what happened? We came along with the Presidential candidate who vowed
to take the deficit seriously, not by talking about magical fixes,
about supply side economics, about Laffer curves, and all the other
things we heard about back in those days, but by presenting real
options to reduce the deficit.
Luckily for our Nation's fiscal health, that candidate's message of
truth-in-budgeting resounded with the American public, and that
candidate, of course, now occupies the White House, President Clinton.
President Clinton showed us that his campaign commitment on deficit
reduction was not just election-year rhetoric.
I referred a little earlier here to what the Democrats did in 1993,
contrasted to what the Republicans are proposing to do in 1995, and
what happened. In the first year of the Clinton Presidency, he
presented a clear agenda for deficit reduction. He offered us real
specifics, but he offered us very tough choices, also. I mean, they
were tough choices. Congress responded and assigned specific cuts, cut
objectives, to the committees of the Senate here, in particular, and
the committees went to work on this plan. We came up with a program at
that time that was tough, tough, tough. And we made more tough voting
decisions back in the summer of 1994 than almost any time since I have
been in the Senate.
Why can the Republicans not do the same thing right now that we did
back in 1993? They are not giving specifics. Our program back then gave
specifics. It was not hidden. It did not say, ``Trust me and I will
tell you later about how we are going to get to these ends.'' It was
tough. Do you know what happened? The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of
1993 was a major component of President Clinton's overall economic
strategy to reduce the deficit by nearly $500 billion, half a trillion
dollars, in 5 years, to create jobs and invest in the American people.
It was the largest deficit reduction package in history. The
President's deficit reduction and economic growth package, as reported
by the House-Senate conference we voted on, was the largest deficit
reduction in U.S. history.
When the savings from this reconciliation bill were coupled with the
savings on caps on discretionary spending and interest savings, deficit
reduction would total almost $500 billion over the next 5 years.
These historic reductions were achieved through spending cuts and by
asking wealthy Americans, those who benefited through the 1980's, to
make their fair contribution to make sure of the Nation's economic
security. Was there a tax increase? Of course, there was. But there
were tax cuts, also, in trying to get at least toward a balanced
budget.
The President's plan, though, as agreed to with the House and Senate
conference, relied more on spending cuts than revenue increases. Under
the plan, Federal revenue would be increased by $241 billion and
Federal spending would be cut by $255 billion over a 5-year period,
with every penny locked in a deficit reduction trust fund. The deficit
reduction and economic growth package contained $88 billion in
mandatory spending cuts over the next 5 years. In addition, with
discretionary spending caps, there was a net savings of $102 billion
through the regular annual appropriations process, and the resulting
lower annual deficits and improved debt management will reduce interest
payments by $65 billion over that same 5-year period.
Those were laudable objectives and we put them into effect. We made
tough judgments in such areas as agriculture, nutrition, forestry, and
they were assigned to that committee to report a savings of $3.2
billion over 5 years. And they did that. They met their goal--$3.2
billion out of one committee. They modified the so-called Pay-92
programs and had changed some of the cotton targets, dairy products,
tobacco assessments, sugar, oilseed, peanuts, home loan rate, wool and
mohair programs, refinancing and prepayment of Federal financing, bank
borrowing to finance and prepay loans subject to certain penalties,
Federal crop insurance, CRP enrollment, Forest Service recreation
fees--those were all tough votes and they were taken in committee and
brought out here for discussion on the floor. Some were contested on
the floor, and we stood up and made our votes on those subjects.
The Armed Services Committee was assigned $12.63 billion over 5
years. That was tough to meet. We asked military retirees to forgo
COLA's. That is a tough vote when you vote on something like that. It
is very tough telling the veterans that, no, they are not like some
other people who would get cost-of-living increases. We are asking
them, in the interest of the national good, to forgo that for a little
period.
The reason I am pointing out some of these is we are being asked to
accept this proposal on the other side as a pig in a poke. The veterans
would not know now what was going to happen to them.
The Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee was instructed to
report savings of $3.31 billion over 5 years, and they met that goal.
Depositor preference changes; transfer of Federal reserve surpluses;
HUD-IRS income verification; Ginnie Mae REMIC's, the real estate
mortgage investment conduits; and FHA premiums--all of these things
were tough votes in committee and out here on the floor.
But we did them back in 1993 as part of that reconciliation package.
The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. They were
assigned $7.405 billion in cuts over 5 years and they achieved that
goal, with some of the communications Spectrum auctions, as they are
called, and user fees. And those are tough votes.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee, they were able to report
savings of $737 million over 5 years. They came out $77 million under
the target that was set out for them, but they still made major cuts.
And they made controversial votes such as on recreation fees in
national parks; some changes in the hard rock mining holding fees;
state royalty collection costs.
The Environment and Public Works Committee was assigned $1.254
billion over 5 years. They went into this on Nuclear Regulatory
Commission user fees, the Army Corps of Engineers user fees, and a
series of other things I will
[[Page S2175]] not even mention here. NRC's operating budget was
another one, requiring nuclear utilities to pay fees to cover all of
NRC's operating budget.
The Finance Committee was given a big target and they had to make a
number of changes. They did some of these in changing tax rates for
high-income earners. They changed gift and estate taxes, meals and
entertainment, club dues, executive pay, moving deductions, individual
estimated tax simplification, Social Security benefit changes,
corporate income tax changes affecting business, lobbying expenses
changes, corporate estimated tax rules, treatment of passive loss,
credits and AMT credits. And in international businesses, excessive
accumulated foreign earnings; research and experimental expenses
allocation changes; oil, gas and shipping income foreign tax credit.
Transportation fuels tax increase, 4.3 cents a gallon on all
transportation fuels currently subject to the leaking underground
storage tank trust fund; extension of transfer of current 2.5-cent-per-
gallon tax. Other intangibles, change of appreciation of intangible
assets; change in charitable contributions, change in expanding the 45-
day interest rules for tax refunds, denying business travel deductions
for spouses, increasing withholding rates on bonuses to 28 percent.
They had more under the Finance Committee--education and training
provisions, and extension of target job tax credit; research and
development, R&D credit; targeted capital gains tax cut; real estate
investment provisions: Permanent low-income housing credit, passive
loss relief for real estate provision, exclusion for discharge of real
property business debt. Luxury excise tax changes. Extension of the
AMT, alternative minimum tax, provision. Changes in how we would treat
empowerment zones and enterprise communities and some other changes
also.
They changed some of the things in Medicare and Medicaid also as to
how those programs were to be treated. All these under the Finance
Committee. Medicaid, some of the changes were made there.
And let me add a couple others here. The food stamp program was
changed. States had to match food stamp administrative costs; shelter
expense; earned income tax credit. Human resources.
I read all these not to bore my colleagues or to bore those watching
but to point out that there were hundreds, literally hundreds, of
changes made, hundreds of changes made that we voted up front in
committee and/or out here on the floor in advance letting people know
exactly how their future would be affected by the votes that we are
were going to make on that reconciliation bill.
Now, I submit to my colleagues and anyone watching or listening, if
it was important enough on a reconciliation bill, just on a
reconciliation bill, that we go through all that and let people know
specifically how they were going to be affected and be up front about
it on letting everyone know what the votes were, then that is the least
we can do if we are taking up something so much more fundamentally
important to our whole Government, our whole Constitution as a balanced
budget amendment.
The Foreign Relations Committee was assigned a savings of a $5
million target over 5 years. They met it.
The Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chaired at that time, was
assigned a $10.668 billion in savings. And I can tell you, we sweated
over that one in committee and we made it. Once again we had to delay
some retirement cost-of-living increases, the lump sum retirement
option was knocked out for Civil Service employees, Medicare part B fee
limits were changed, changed the extension of the proxy premium law,
the D.C.-Federal Employee Health Benefits, payments by the U.S. Postal
Service.
All of these things were tough votes, and I hate to keep just saying
that, but they were, but we did it up front and let people know exactly
what was going to happen to them.
Even the Judiciary Committee a $345 million target over a 5-year
period, and they met that.
The Labor and Human Resources Committee, $4.5 billion over 5 years,
and they met that goal. They brought up such things as student benefits
and cost savings that came from the Federal student loan programs being
administered differently.
The conference agreement also would require States to be responsible
if a default rate for borrowing that attend institutions of higher
education located in their State exceeds 20 percent. Those were hard
votes--Home loan program changes.
In other words, I bring up all these--and this is just a sampling;
this is not a whole listing of everything, but I bring these up to
indicate the tough votes.
Now we put this whole package together. President Clinton led the way
on this. He sent up where he felt we could cut; took the political heat
for this. We joined him in taking the political heat for saying up
front how we were going to vote on these things, laid it out.
Everybody, all the special interest groups, crowded out here by the
elevator, called on us in our offices and said, ``You can't touch this.
You can't touch that.'' Yet we did. We made the tough votes.
And there were several hundred votes, either in committee or out here
on the floor to put this thing into effect.
Let me come down to the bottom line. And here was what happened out
of all that reconciliation bill. Here is what happened.
Our budget deficit, at the time we passed that, was approaching $300
billion, just the budget deficit. We put that reconciliation bill into
effect. The next year it went down to somewhere around $250 billion.
This year some of the original estimates were that we were going to be
down to a budget deficit of only $168 billion. I think it is back up a
little bit now. I think the refined estimate is about $190 billion. But
we have gone from around $300 to $250 to $190 billion. That is heading
in the right direction with the budget deficit.
You know, the last time that ever occurred, where we had 3 years
where the budget deficit went down 3 years in a row, was under Harry
Truman. Clear back to the time of Harry Truman, the last time we had
the budget deficit go down 3 years in a row. It is working. That
reconciliation bill that we made those tough votes on did have an
effect.
Now some of the forecasts are that it is going to level off or it may
even turn up again, but let us modify that. Let us take action to
correct that. We have it heading in the right direction. Why would
anybody want to throw that out now and say we are in effect going to
put a gun pointed at us all and say we have to do something that may
cut the things I have mentioned earlier.
Social Security, Medicare, no, those are off base; interest on the
national debt, no, that is off base; the defense budget, no, that is
off base. Take those four items off base and everything else in the
budget has to average a 30-percent cut.
And we are not willing to tell people up front what is going to
happen, as we were back in 1993. Now in 1993, I say there were tough
votes.
When this bill went to conference with the House back in 1993, there
were some changes made in the conference. When it came back out here on
the Senate floor, it was one of the more dramatic moments I have seen
in my 20 years here in the Senate. What happened over in the House was
that not one single Republican voted for that conference package in the
House. Not one single Republican.
What happened here on the Senate floor? Not one single Republican
voted for that conference package that has resulted in the first 3
years of continual budget deficit reduction since the days of Harry
Truman. Not one single vote.
The Vice President is the Presiding Officer in the Senate. He shows
up quite often when there may be a close vote. That day there was a 50-
50 tie. The Vice President voted as is his constitutional duty to do.
He broke that tie, and so we had a 51-50 vote to put that
reconciliation bill into effect.
We had been up front in telling people what the effect was going to
be. What programs--all those that I went through. I did not go through
all the litany of the committees here just to fill up time here on the
Senate floor. I wanted to point out we went through things that
affected every single man, woman and child in this country. We did it
upfront. We did it to try and get to a balanced budget. We are trying
to do it without a balanced budget amendment.
[[Page S2176]] Now we are told, ``We will not tell you how we will do
it. We will not tell you what will happen. We will not tell you what
the estimates are going to be, or how it will be implemented if the
balanced budget amendment passes, and if it is ratified by the States.
We will figure it out. Just trust us. Then we will figure out some
things.''
Back in 1993 with that reconciliation bill we figured it out in
advance and got it started on the right track, honestly and openly, and
upfront, by telling every person in this country how they would be
affected.
That reconciliation bill of 1993 became law despite the lack of
bipartisan support. So we are now seeing our third year of declining
deficits. There were dire predictions then by some of our Republican
friends. I will not quote names but we have the quotes available. There
was going to be a recession and massive joblessness, a dire thing for
the economy, we would go downhill because of what we are doing, because
we increased taxes in some areas just on that top 1.2 percent of the
wealthiest of this country, I would add, was most of it. None of these
dire predictions panned out. The economy recovered, remains in good
shape, and in Ohio, my home State, as near as we can calculate it has
meant over the past several years about an average of 43,000 new jobs
every year.
Remember all the talk about how the cuts in that deficit reduction
bill were not real? Over a quarter of a trillion dollars in spending
has been cut. Has been cut. We are not talking about prospective. We
are talking about what has happened. It has been cut.
Fiscal year 1994, 342 Federal programs were reduced before the prior
year spending levels. Fiscal year 1995 just ended in October, more than
400 Federal programs were reduced below their prior year's spending
levels and another 40 were eliminated entirely. People talk about
downsizing Government. Starting to cut back on Government, cut down on
the size of the Government.
Know what happened as a result of the programs voted back in 1993? We
are doing that. The President set out a goal of cutting the Federal
employment by 272,000 people. I thought that was a lot. In the
Governmental Affairs Committee we oversee the civil service. We are the
committee of jurisdiction that looks into matters involved with civil
service. I thought when they talked about cutting back 272,000 people,
that was a big cut. I did not quite know how we would do that. We went
to work with the administration, at that time, when a lot of people
were rolling their eyes and saying they would believe it when they see
it. Well, just look at it now. People can believe it because they do
see it. I think a lot of people still do not believe it.
Of that 272,000, just over 101,000 positions have already been cut.
This is not prospective. This is not looking on down the pike
someplace. They have been cut. I worked with them on setting up
programs that would help accomplish that on Governmental Affairs
Committee. We passed that legislation. It helped them achieve those
goals. There are early buyouts, early retirements. All sorts of things
we put in to help get to that end. We were very, very successful.
Know what else we did? We tailored that program at the time. And let
me add a side bar: One of the problems in the Federal Government is
that we have had too many bosses and too few employees carrying out the
words of those bosses or the directions of those bosses. In private
industry, across the country, the average is one boss for every 12 to
15 employees. What is it in the Federal Government? One to seven.
While we are getting people out, we tailored these so that the
different branches and agencies and departments of Government had some
leeway, had some discretion to tailor these programs for the GS 13's,
14's, and 15's. So we got more of those people out who are the bosses.
So we are at the same time reducing the overall size of Government, we
are correcting some of this imbalance on the ratio between the
supervisors and the employees. That means a more efficient Government
as we go down the road to the future.
So about 101,000 jobs have been cut from the Federal work force. We
are ahead of schedule. We want to continue to work with the
administration to make sure that the cuts continue and we get to the
objective of 272,000.
All of these things were accomplished because we made the tough cuts.
We made the tough votes. We did not ask people to say ``Well, just
trust us and somehow we will get around to this in the future. Somehow
we will get to this end eventually.'' No, we made the tough votes. We
Democrats stood up and took the heat. I would repeat, all these
programs that we put through in that reconciliation bill, we did not
have one single, not one, Republican vote across the aisle. The Vice
President had to break the tie.
There were probably a number of people, judging by what happened in
last year's election, who stood up and made some of those tough votes
who are not here today. It may have been a factor in why they are not
here. I do not know. They had the political courage to stand up and
tell people what was going to happen to their lives if we made the tax
increases or made the cuts in programs that affect those people across
the country. And they did it. And they had political courage, whether
they are here today or not. We need to have that same kind of political
courage today.
There has been a lot of criticism about the tax increases that were
part of that program back then to balance the budget. There is a good
article in the Washington Post on the first of February by Judy Mann,
entitled ``Fiddling With the Numbers.'' I will not read the whole
article.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1995]
Fiddling With the Numbers
(By Judy Mann)
Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, the Republican meteor from New
Jersey, had the unusual honor for a first-term governor of
being asked to deliver her party's response to President
Clinton's State of the Union message last week.
And she delivered a whopper of what can most kindly be
called a glaring inaccuracy.
Sandwiched into her Republican sales pitch was the kind of
line that does serious political damage: Clinton, she
intoned, ``imposed the biggest tax increase in American
history.''
And millions of Americans sat in front of their television
sets, perhaps believing that Clinton and the Democrat-
controlled Congress had done a real number on them.
The trouble is that this poster lady for tax cuts was not
letting any facts get in her way. But don't hold your breath
waiting for the talk show hosts to set the record straight.
The biggest tax increase in history did not occur in the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The biggest tax
increase in post-World War II history occurred in 1982 under
President Ronald Reagan.
Here is how the two compare, according to Bill Gale, a
specialist in tax policy and senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution. The 1993 act raised taxes for the next five
years by a gross total of $268 billion, but with the
expansion of the earned income tax credit to more working
poor families, the net increase comes to $240.4 billion in
1993 dollars. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of
1982, by comparison, increased taxes by a net of $217.5
billion over five years. Nominally, then, it is true that the
1993 tax bill was the biggest in history.
But things don't work nominally. ``A dollar now is worth
less than a dollar was back then, so that tax increase of,
say, $10 billion in 1982 would be a tax increase of $15
billion now,'' says Gale. In fact, if you adjust for the 48
percent change in price level, the 1982 tax increase becomes
a $325.6 billion increase in 1993 dollars. And that makes it
the biggest tax increase in history by $85 billion.
Moreover, says Gale, the population of the country
increased, so that, on a per person basis, the 1993 tax
increase is lower than the one in 1982, and the gross
domestic product increase over the decade, which means the
personal income rose. ``Once you adjust for price
translation, it's not the
biggest, and when you account for population and GDP, it
gets even smaller.''
He raises another point that makes this whole business of
tax policy just a bit more complex than the heroic tax
slashers would have us believe. ``The question is whether
[the 1993 tax increase] was a good idea or a bad idea, not
whether it was the biggest tax increase. Suppose it was the
biggest? I find it frustrating that the level of the debate
about stuff like this as carried on by politicians is
generally so low.''
So was it a good idea? ``We needed to reduce the deficit,''
he says, ``we still need to reduce the deficit. The bond
market responded positively. Interest rates fell. There may
be a longer term benefit in that it shows Congress and the
president are capable of cutting the deficit even without a
balanced budget amendment.''
[[Page S2177]] Other long-term benefits, he says, are that
``more capital is freed up for private investment, and
ultimately that can result in more productive and highly paid
workers.''
How bad was the hit for those few who did have to pay more
taxes? One tax attorney says that his increased taxes were
more than offset by savings he was able to generate by
refinancing the mortgage on his house at the lower interest
rates we've had as a result. The 1993 tax increase did
include a 4.3-cent-a-gallon rise in gasoline tax, which hits
the middle class. But most of us did not have to endure an
income tax increase. In 1992, the top tax rate was 31 percent
of the taxable income over $51,900 for single taxpayers and
$86,500 for married couples filing jointly. Two new tax
brackets were added in 1993: 36 percent for singles with
taxable incomes over $115,000 and married couples with
incomes over $140,000; and 39.6 percent for singles and
married couples with taxable incomes over $250,000.
Not exactly your working poor or even your average family.
The rising GOP stars are finding out that when they say or
do something stupid or mendacious, folks notice. The jury
ought to be out on Whitman's performance as governor until we
see the effects of supply side economics on New Jersey. But
in her first nationally televised performance as a
spokeswoman for her party, she should have known better than
to give the country only half the story. In the process, she
left a lot to be desired in one quality Americans are looking
for in politicians: honesty.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I quote just a short part of this, talking
about a writer who commented on this and said:
He raises another point that makes this whole business of
tax policy just a bit more complex than the heroic tax
slashers would have us believe. ``The question is whether
[the 1993 tax increase] was a good idea or a bad idea, not
whether it was the biggest tax increase. Suppose it was the
biggest? I find it frustrating that the level of the debate
about stuff like this as carried on by politicians is
generally so low.''
So was it a good idea? ``We needed to reduce the deficit,''
he says, ``we still need to reduce the deficit. The bond
market responded positively. Interest rates fell. There may
be a longer term benefit in that it shows Congress and the
President are capable of cutting the deficit even without a
balanced budget amendment.''
Other long-term benefits, he says, are that ``more capital
is freed up for private investment, and ultimately that can
result in more productive and highly paid workers.''
How bad was the hit for those few who did have to pay more
taxes? One tax attorney says that his increased taxes were
more than offset by savings he was able to generate by
refinancing the mortgage on his house at the lower interest
rates we've had as a result.
I hope, in addition to that, people can read the whole article.
I do not want my speech today to be taken wrong. I am not looking for
a job in the President's communications office to try to put out rosy
scenarios for the White House. I am trying to make a very simple point.
We have seen the wrong way to approach balancing the budget, and we
have seen the right way, the honest way, the straightforward way for
the American people.
The wrong way led us to a $4 trillion debt, $4.6 trillion, I think,
is the best estimate right now of what we actually owe. The right way
of making the tough votes around here is such as we did in that
reconciliation bill of 1993. That put us back on the track.
What are we being told on the other side today? ``No, we won't put
out any figures, just trust me.'' We are going back into supply-side
economics again, that which gave us an additional $3.5 trillion in
national debt that we now have to pay interest on. We are going back to
some reconsideration of the Laffer curve. It was a ``laugher,'' all
right, the way it worked. We have a new name for it; now we are going
to rely on dynamic economics. That is what we hear from the House side.
We are going to rely on dynamic economics, which is supply-side
economics revisited. It says the dynamism comes from the fact that if
you cut taxes, it gives more money to the people who will invest, move
on to a new, higher level of economics; we will recoup a lot from that,
and that will help mitigate the tax loss to begin with. That is exactly
what we went through--exactly what we went through--in the early
eighties, only then it was called supply-side economics.
We are being asked today to vote on a balanced budget amendment
without being told what the cuts are going to be, what the tax
increases may have to be, what plans will be cut. Will it be Social
Security, Medicare? ``No, those are off limits,'' we are told, ``we
can't interfere with those.'' Interest on the national accident? ``Oh,
off limits.'' Defense budget? ``Oh, off limits.'' And I favor that
defense budget. I agree we probably cut a little further than I would
like to see us cut on that.
Take those four things off and everything else in the Federal budget
is going to have to be cut by 30 percent if we are going to meet the
objectives. And yet we are not told, they refuse to tell us how we are
going to do this.
If I ever saw peekaboo budgeting, this is it. Peekaboo budgeting. We
just give you a little hint here that we are going to do dynamic
economic modeling, or something, and that is supposed to quiet our
curiosity, I guess, a little bit. Now you see it, now you do not. But
we do not have any plan that lays out for us in this proposal, nothing
that even comes close to the type of definition and specificity that we
had the guts to vote back in 1993.
As we debate the balanced budget amendment, let us do it the right
way. I would like to vote for a balanced budget amendment. I truly
would. And I have not said yet that I will vote against the balanced
budget amendment positively. But I cannot vote for a balanced budget
amendment that just asks the American people and the people of Ohio and
all of us to just somehow accept this without any definition whatsoever
of how we are going to get there, what is going to be cut, what
programs people rely on now are going to be axed out of the program, as
we have to get into doing this.
So let us let the taxpayer know what is ahead. Let us lay out a 7-
year plan. Let us present it to the American people. Let us make it in
comparable specificity to what we did back in 1993, which had not one
single Republican vote when we passed that. Then we will all know
whether this balanced budget amendment is a good idea.
In 1993, the Democrats in the Senate showed that we could lay out a
plan. We did the hard work in committees, we did the hard debate, the
hard work here on the Senate floor.
In 1995, the process that is being proposed from the Republican side
basically says they either cannot or will not give us any information
on how we are going to achieve this balanced budget, if it passes. They
say just, ``Trust us, we will somehow figure it out. We will force
ourselves. We want a forcing mechanism here with a balanced budget
amendment. We have to have that or we cannot get around to saying what
the tough decisions are going to be and acting on them.''
And yet we have the history just 2 years ago in 1993 when we did
this. We did have the guts to do it then. So it is possible in the
Senate of the United States to have some political courage and say in
advance what is going to happen.
But the saying goes, or what we hear all the time is, if we force
ourselves with a balanced budget amendment, then I think we will have
an excuse, we will have an excuse for cuts that we would not have the
guts to make otherwise, and we would tell the people back home, ``I'd
have liked to have kept your veterans' benefits, I'd have liked to have
kept Social Security, I'd have liked to have kept your Medicare, but we
had the balanced budget amendment and so it forced me to vote to do
this to you.'' So we are looking for cover.
Do you remember the comedian Flip Wilson a few years ago? I remember
him very well. I thought he was very good. He had this character called
Geraldine. Every time Flip Wilson had something with this character of
Geraldine that somebody was criticizing him for doing, he would say,
``Oh, the devil made me do it; oh, the devil made me do it.'' Remember
that?
It seems to me that is a little of what we are talking about here.
The Republicans seem to want this, and some other people, too--not just
Republicans--they want this balanced budget amendment so when we have
to tell the elderly that we may have Social Security cuts, may have
Medicare cuts, defense, may have cuts in women's and infants' programs,
may have cuts in a lot of other things, ``Oh, the balanced budget
amendment made me do it.'' In other words, not my fault, we have the
cover of a balanced budget amendment.
I do not think we need that for political courage here. That is sort
of getting your courage out of a bottle or courage out of something
false when we are not willing to say what the cuts are going to be, not
willing to say what
[[Page S2178]] we will do if a balanced budget amendment passes.
Let us say we pass it here and the States ratify it within about 2
months. Then what are we going to do? Where will the cuts have to be
made? ``Oh, the balanced budget amendment made me do this thing.''
Supposedly that gives us political cover.
But I will say, in the meantime, let us not be reckless. I would like
to call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to show some
guts and tell us where you will cut, tell us how much taxes will have
to be increased when the balanced budget amendment passes. Tell us now.
Tell us up front. Let us be honest. Let the American people know. Let
the States know what they are going to have to pick up on this if it
passes.
Mr. HATCH. Will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. GLENN. Not right now. I am just about to end, and then I will
take any questions.
If we are honest, I say let us get started and do it now. So why
wait? Why do we need to wait for a balanced budget gun, in effect,
pointed to force us to action? We can take that action right now.
So let us not be reckless. Our Constitution has been amended only 27
times in well over 200 years, and before we amend it again, we ought to
at least know what the ramifications will be; for after all, none of us
wants the 28th amendment to turn out like the 18th amendment did. I
yield the floor.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend from Ohio
very briefly--and he is my friend and he is one of the most valued
Members of this body. Digressing just a moment, if anyone ever
questions John Glenn's courage, take a look at that small little thing
that he got into--``thing'' is the wrong word, but he knows what I am
talking about--that went into space.
It is incredible that anyone would get into that and get tossed into
space.
But any way, I think there are some answers for the questions of my
friend from Ohio. One is that we know from the General Accounting
Office if we balance the budget--and they suggested by the year 2001.
That is now 2002--that by the year 2020 we would have an average
increase in income per American, inflation adjusted, of 36 percent--
that is a huge increase--or, as they say, we are going to continue to
go downhill.
Second, we do know some of the options. And we have not spelled them
out in detail. One is the Concord Coalition put together a package. CBO
has suggested--and they have the most conservative estimate in terms of
what the savings would be on interest--the savings would be $140
billion on interest.
We could follow the present limitations we have through fiscal year
1998 and then put together for fiscal years 1999 through 2002 a
combination of the last Bush package and the package that we voted for
in 1993. I was pleased and proud to join the Senator from Ohio in
voting for that. That is not that onerous. That is doable.
What I do favor--and I have discussed this just very informally with
my colleague from Utah, who is the chief sponsor--I favor, once this
passes, asking the two leaders to put together a task force to outline
in broad terms where we are going so that the States can know with some
more specificity. But I would add that you cannot--the Daschle
amendment has us down to $100 million for 7 years out. That is just not
realistic. But I think in terms of billions you can do that.
I would add the CBO figure on savings on interest is the most
conservative. The Wharton School estimates the savings on interest will
be 4 percent; Data Resources, Inc., says a savings of 2.5 percent.
Their estimate is that half the savings that we will need by the year
2002 can come out of interest. This is Data Resources, Inc. They also
estimate if we do it we will have 2.5 million more jobs in this
country. How many that will be in Ohio and Illinois, I do not know. But
it is a very substantial amount.
I would add two other points here. One--and my colleague from Ohio
may differ with me as well as my colleague from Utah--I happen to think
we would not be in a bidding war on tax cuts right now if we had a
balanced budget amendment. I do not think it makes any sense, real
candidly, for us to say let us give ourselves a little bit of a tax
break and impose a further burden on our children and our
grandchildren. I think that is a good example of why we need this. We
are not going to be able to do everything we want. We are going to be
forced to make some tough votes. But I think we have to be forced to do
that. And I hope they will be bipartisan.
Let me just add one final point. Those who say we can balance the
budget without a constitutional amendment have two things going against
them. One is that for 26 years we have not done it. That is a pretty
powerful record. And second, they are saying to us you spell out in
detail what is going to happen, but they are not spelling it out in
detail. And at least we have, by all estimates we are going to save a
huge amount of money with interest. Whenever interest rates go down,
employment goes up. So there is a revenue plus in addition to the
interest savings.
So I hope my colleague from Ohio will continue to keep an open mind
on this because I think it is really essential for the future of our
country.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SIMON. I yield to my colleague from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. We both value our great friend from Ohio, and I have to
tell you that there is an offer by the other side and that is by the
President. It is right here, the budget for this year.
I have to say I give him credit for certainly bringing the deficit
down from the almost $300 billion that it was--$279 billion--to $190
billion. But from here on in, through the year 2005, this budget, using
optimistic economic assumptions that we all know are going to
fluctuate, is admitting that the deficits will be $190 billion at least
for every one of those years over the next 10 years. So they are not
doing anything to get down to a balanced budget.
If I could just add one other thing to my friend from Ohio. Back in
the early 1960's, when President Kennedy said we need to put a man on
the Moon, he set that as a goal. Nobody then was fully cognizant of
what it was going to cost or what we were going to do to get that man
there. But we also know that our friend from Ohio was one of the
earliest pioneers in that field. He is a hero to all of us, to
everybody who understands space and what it took to get there.
But if before the President could even set the goal, before the
President could even get it done, Congress had said we have to know
every detail on how you do it before we do anything, we would not be on
the Moon to this day.
The fact of the matter is all we are saying here is that if we pass
this amendment--and I appreciate my friend keeping his options open on
this amendment. That means a lot to me. I know it means a lot to my
friend and colleague from Illinois, and I think it means a lot to
everybody in this body who is for a balanced budget amendment and maybe
some who are not. But the fact of the matter is it is important that we
not have to plug in every detail over three successive Congresses,
which can change drastically on how we get there, when we have at least
10 programs that have been advanced and there have not been the votes
for any one of those without a balanced budget amendment forcing the
issue. And that is what this amendment does.
I just cite with particularity that sometimes we have to set the goal
out there and provide the mechanism to reach that goal just like we did
in space. Had we demanded that we have every detail of how you do it
over three successive Congresses, we would not be in space to this day.
So I just cite that as an illustration that in budgetary parlance
those who are criticizing the amendment by demanding to know now how we
are going to get there--we can give you 10 plans--they are the very
people who have never gotten us there for 26 years and who, it seems to
me, are not going to get us there if the President's budget is any
indication, and this is reality. This is tangible. This is something
that all of us got today.
I happen to have Alice Rivlin's copy of this because she gave it to
me last night. I did not use it until right now because I did want to
use it without
[[Page S2179]] her permission, but she gave me permission to use it
once it was distributed.
Frankly, here is tangible evidence that they are not going to do it
themselves. But if we put this balanced budget into place, we are going
to do it. We will get it done just like we got it done in space.
They are not particularly analogous, I acknowledge that, but still I
think there is a point that for three Congresses the only way we get
there is to modify this, and the only way we are going to do that is if
we have a balanced budget amendment that gives us the incentives to do
the same.
I thank my colleague.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues here, but I
disagree on what happened. We have not gone 26 years without action. I
disagree with that.
In 1993, we took action that headed our budget deficit downhill. We
were up to almost 300, we went down to around 250, one estimate this
year was for 168. It is back up around 190 now. But the point is we
have cast tough votes. We took tough action. We told the American
people in advance how we were going to do it so they knew how they were
going to be affected.
We had things headed in the right direction. We can make all we want
out of the President's budget that was submitted today, but let us
continue on the track that we are on. And if there is to be, as my
friend from Illinois says, a task force appointed to tell us how to do
this, let us form the task force now. Hold up the balanced budget
amendment. Let the task force get together and tell us where the cuts
are going to occur it if it passes. Then I would be much more happy
with this proposal.
I think we are reading so many things off the record here. I started
out my remarks this morning by saying if I go home to Ohio and I point
to somebody and I say, ``Your Social Security is going to be cut,''
they say, ``Oh, no, wait a minute now, the other side says we are going
to put Social Security off limits. That is not going to be cut.'' Then
I say, ``They are going to cut your Medicare.'' And they say, ``Wait a
minute, Medicare is going to be off budget here. We cannot cut that.''
Then we say, ``Interest on the national debt, we cannot cut back on
that because that would destroy the trust in our Government. And
defense is not going to be cut--probably it is cut a little too far
already given our worldwide responsibilities.''
If you take those things off budget, then everything else in the
Federal budget--Alzheimer's, cancer, AIDS--everything else, unless you
make up the difference, is going to have to be cut by over 30 percent.
Those are the facts.
So back in 1993, I think we took real action. We took action that
showed we can lay out these tough choices in advance and then have the
political courage to enact them. And we did. Why do we say we cannot
possibly make these decisions without a balanced budget amendment, when
we did it 2 years ago?
So I say once again, I would love to vote for a balanced budget
amendment, but I am not going to vote for a pig in a poke that may
wreck the support system for a lot of people in Ohio and across this
country without knowing the details of what we are voting for.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will just take a couple of minutes. I
agree with my colleague from Ohio, to the great credit of President
Clinton and to the credit of 50 Members of this body, we did start down
the right path.
What I also would have to acknowledge, as our colleague from
Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, said, is that it was a first step. But we
have not for 26 years balanced the budget. To go back to another time
when, as was pointed out in your remarks, we had that kind of decline,
you have to go back to Harry Truman's day. I think we have illustrated
we just are not doing it on our own.
I finally point out we can change a lot of things in this body. We
cannot change history. And the history of nations is, as they pile up
this debt, they keep piling it up because it is politically attractive
to do so, and then they end up monetizing the debt. They just start the
printing machines running.
That is where we are heading if we do not adopt this amendment, in my
opinion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while the Senator from Illinois is on the
floor, I wonder whether he might be willing to engage in colloquy with
me about the implementation legislation that would be required under
this amendment.
Before I ask him about that implementation legislation, however, I
was intrigued by his comment last time that we cannot change history. I
agree with that. We can interpret history, but we cannot change it.
Part of the history of this body is that if we put the onus on future
Congresses to do something instead of doing it ourselves, it is
unlikely to get done. We pass legislation here--see, I remember in
1980--that says, ``Congress will balance the budget.'' I think it
became law. We did not. It was in the law, the law that we obligated
ourselves to comply with. We took an oath to uphold the Constitution of
the United States and the laws created pursuant thereto.
The Senator from Illinois, who is a dear friend of mine, and I had a
colloquy back in 1986, I believe--1986--about this same issue. This is
about 8 years ago, 9 years ago, when a similar amendment was pending
before us.
I asked the Senator from Illinois these questions.
How would the monitoring of the flow of receipts and
outlays be done to determine whether the budget for any
fiscal year is on the track of being balanced? Would this
require implementing legislation?
Mr. Simon. There would have to be monitoring, and future
legislation would have to take care of the implementation of
that monitoring.
Mr. Levin. What exactly is the definition of receipts and
outlays? Specifically, would the receipts and outlays of
Bonneville Power Administration be receipts and outlays of
the United States pursuant to this constitutional amendment?
Would the answer to these questions require implementing
legislation?
Mr. Simon. Implementing legislation will be needed on some
of these peripheral questions, but the intent is clear.
* * * * *
Mr. Levin. * * * In an instance in which the President's
Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget
Office disagree with each other on what a level of outlays
is, how will the dispute be resolved so that it can be
determined whether or not outlays exceed receipts?
Mr. Simon. Future legislation will have to take care of
this.
Mr. Levin. Who will determine the level of receipts and
whether a revenue bill is ``a bill to increase revenues''? *
* * My question is, What happens if the revenue estimaters in
the Treasury Department say the bill is revenue neutral, and
the Joint Committee on Taxation say the bill will result in a
net increase in revenues? Whose estimate will prevail? How
will the dispute be resolved?
Mr. Simon. That will also have to be determined through
future legislation.
And on and on.
I am going to read into the Record, now, dozens of questions which
have to be answered by implementation legislation which we are not
going to answer, we are not going to adopt legislation which will
answer them, but which are left up to a future Congress.
The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Utah both said this is
not a self-executing provision. This provision requires Congress to act
sometime between the year 1995, or whenever we adopt it and the States
ratify it, and the year 2002.
The Senator from Illinois has said over and over again courts cannot
implement it, cannot enforce it. There is no impoundment here for the
President to enforce it. It is up to us to adopt implementation
legislation sometime in the next 7 years.
My question of my friend from Illinois, and I do not know he is going
to be able to stay on the floor while I read through a whole host of
questions which are not answered by this amendment--but which are
similar to the ones which we talked about in 1986 is--would he agree
that this amendment requires congressional legislation as a practical
matter in order to be enforced?
I understand putting the language in the Constitution will make it
more likely in his opinion that Congress will
[[Page S2180]] act. He is optimistic Congress will read this language
and do, by the year 2002, what it has not done up until now. I
understand that he feels there will be a political onus of some kind
that will be borne if some Congress does not put together a majority in
the next 7 years to adopt that implementation legislation.
But specifically, does he not agree that in order for this amendment
to have effect, implementation legislation is going to be required?
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may respond to my colleague, the
answer is yes and no. The answer is the amendment itself has the
requirement for 60 percent to extend debt. So that is self-executing.
And if Congress would not pass a single bill to implement, that would
be the power that is there. But there is no question that we have to
pass legislation to implement. I would not wait for future Congresses
to act. I think we ought to start right away. I see my new colleague
from Maine nodding in agreement here.
But let me make one other point, and that is we can nitpick here and
there on this. But the real important question and point is, that
dialog took place in 1986. We missed by one vote, passing that in the
U.S. Senate. At that point, the debt of this Nation was $2 trillion.
Now it is $4.6 trillion. What if we had picked up one more vote? We
would have more people working; we would have a higher standard of
living; we would have lower interest rates; we would have more homes
constructed; we would have a much lower trade deficit; we would have
millions more jobs in our country.
We would have millions more jobs in our country. And so we failed to
act in 1986. There is no question.
There are things that we are going to have to work on. I know my
colleague from Michigan well enough to know that even though he opposes
this, if we have the votes, he is willing to dig in and work on the
implementing legislation. He will be a valued Member in doing that. But
we should not fool ourselves. We should not nit-pick here and not
recognize the basic principle, and that is that we are doing harm to
our country in not facing up to our problems.
I thank my colleague.
Mr. LEVIN. If my friend would again be willing to yield, obviously if
we had adopted a constitutional amendment 6 years ago, or 60 years ago,
which led to a balanced budget we would probably be in better shape
than we are now depending on whether or not there was an opportunity
during a recession to be flexible.
But the issue I am raising is the opposite of a nit-pick. The issue
that I am raising goes to the heart of this amendment. This amendment
does not assure us that we will achieve a balanced budget. That is not
a nit-pick. That is a statement that goes straight to the heart of this
amendment.
I want to get to the language that my friend from Illinois pointed
to. The only language which the sponsor has pointed to that appears to
be self-enforcing is in section 2, having to do with the debt of the
United States. But section 2 says that ``the limit on the debt of the
United States held by the public shall not be increased.''
Does the Senator from Illinois know whether or not we have adopted a
statute which sets a limit on the publicly held debt of the United
States?
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in response to my colleague, I think those
terms are fairly clear. We had testimony on that very question from the
former Attorney General of the United States, Bill Barr, who believes
that language is very clear.
Mr. LEVIN. No. But my question to the Senator from Illinois--by the
way, it is not that clear. But assuming for the moment it is clear as
to what is meant by ``publicly held debt,'' assuming for a minute it is
clear--I do not think it is; I will accept the statement--my question
is: Do we have a statute now which sets a limit on the publicly held
debt of the United States?
Mr. SIMON. We have a statute that limits the debt of the United
States.
Mr. LEVIN. I understand. But my question is not that, because this
section 2 does not say that limit of the debt of the United States
shall not be increased unless three-fifths vote. The sponsors have gone
over the words very carefully. This is an amendment to the
Constitution. They have gone over each word. I assume that it is very
clearly their intent that it not be the limit of the debt of the United
States, but just a part of that debt which they say will not be
increased except by three-fifths vote.
So my question again to my dear friend from Illinois is this: Is
there currently a statutory limit on the debt of the United States
which is held by the public?
That is my specific question.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if we had changed the language so it just
says ``debt'' instead of ``publicly held debt,'' there would be
questions about that. Our intent is clear. When my good friend--he is
my good friend--from Michigan implies that we are not going to pay
attention to this, the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Maine,
the Senator from Wyoming, and the Senator from Illinois stood over
there right to the left of the Presiding Officer. We held up our right
hands and we took only one oath--to uphold the Constitution. I do not
think this body is going to ignore that. I think that is the real
question. I am not suggesting that my colleague from Michigan is not
sincere. But we can nit-pick. The principle is clear. The language,
constitutional scholars have told us, is clear.
I hope we move ahead and not get sidetracked on this.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me answer my own question since my
friend from Illinois has not; that is, there is no limit that I know of
in statute on the publicly held debt. So when the Senator from Illinois
points to that provision as being the self-executing provision of this
language, and there is none other that could be pointed to, he is
pointing to a limit which does not exist currently in law which would
require the Congress to enact a limit. Each one of us upholds the
Constitution of the United States within the best of our ability. We
each have taken that oath. We each raise our hands. The Senator from
Maine did it just a few weeks ago in this body. She has done it many
times in the other body. We do not raise our hands as a group. It is
not a group oath. It is an individual oath. We can carry out that oath
while not agreeing with each other. As a matter of fact, we carry out
that oath all the time while not agreeing with each other. If we always
agreed with each other because we took an oath, there would be
unanimity in this Senate instead of division. We do not always agree,
although we have all taken the oath.
This constitutional amendment does not require us to balance the
budget in a way which can be enforced. It simply requires us to try to
pass a statute within the next 7 years. There is a lot of difference.
It basically takes us off the hook for 7 years because it raises the
suggestion, it purports to state that we are going to balance the
budget by the year 2002 but has no enforcement mechanism in there to
achieve it; none. So for the next 7 years we are off the hook, and then
there is no hook.
The Senator from Illinois says, yes, there is because there is this
language in section 2 which says that the debt limit will not be raised
unless 60 percent of the whole Members of each House vote for such an
increase.
That is not a hook for two reasons. No. 1, there is no debt limit for
publicly held debt that is currently in law, and, therefore, the
Congress is going to have to pass a statute setting a debt limit for
``publicly held debt.'' So even that language requires the Congress to
establish a publicly held debt limit which is a subpart; by the way, a
subpart that is in dispute as to exactly how much it is of the current
debt limit.
But it is also not a hook for another reason; that is, that it simply
suggests that somehow or other we are not going to pay our debts, that
having run up debts, the Congress of the United States is not going to
pay our bills. That has historically not worked, and it should not work
because we should pay our bills. We should not default on obligations
of the United States of America. Catastrophe would result if we did not
pay our debts.
I quoted a colloquy between myself and the Senator from Illinois
about the 1986 version in which repeatedly the Senator from Illinois,
as always, is candid in saying that is going to require implementing
legislation, and
[[Page S2181]] that is going to require implementation legislation and
that is going to require implementation legislation. There are a lot of
other ``that's''; probably 30, 40, or 50 other important issues which
would require Congress somehow or other to reach agreement as to how to
do something.
What is the definition of ``receipts"? Do receipts include receipts
from the Postal Service, TVA power savings, Medicare premium payments,
receipts of government corporations, deposits in non-Treasury accounts?
I am sure implementation legislation is going to have to be used for
that.
What is the definition of ``outlays"? Do they include Federal loans,
federally guaranteed loans? Do they include spending by government
corporations, quasi-Federal agencies which pay for their activities out
of user fees? It goes on and on and on. Will we use estimates or actual
expenditures and actual receipts?
What happens if the OMB and CBO disagree with each other on what the
level of outlays and receipts are? How is the dispute going to be
resolved? What is a bill to increase revenues? It sounds easy. It is
not. It is a very difficult question, as a matter of fact. At what
point will it be determined that outlays will in fact exceed receipts,
which triggers remedial action? Are we going to do it early in the year
or in the middle of the year? The answer is we will resolve all that by
2002.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of questions, the answers to which I believe--but we will wait
and see--will be left up to implementation legislation.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Balanced Budget Amendment Questions
1. What exactly is the definition of receipts? For example,
do receipts include the receipts from Postal Service stamp
sales and TVA power sales? Do they include Medicare premium
payments. Do they include the receipts of government
corporations and quasi-federal agencies which deposit money
in non-Treasury accounts? Who will make this determination?
2. What exactly is the definition of outlays? For example,
do outlays include federal loans and federally-guaranteed
loans? Do they include spending by government corporations
and quasi-federal agencies which pay for their activities out
of user fees instead of out of Treasury accounts? Who will
make this determination?
3. Will estimates or actual levels be used for receipts and
outlays? In an instance in which the OMB and the CBO disagree
with each other on what the outlays or receipts are, how will
the dispute be resolved so that it can be determined whether
or not outlays exceed receipts?
4. Who will determine whether a bill is `a bill to increase
revenues?' For example, what happens if OMB says the bill is
revenue neutral, and CBO says the bill will result in a net
increase in revenues? Whose estimate will prevail? How will
the dispute be resolved?
5. At what point will it be determined that outlays will in
fact exceed receipts, triggering remedial action? August 1?
September 15? Who will make that determination--OMB or CBO?
6. At whatever point it is determined that outlays do or
will exceed receipts, will automatic spending cuts or tax
increases be triggered? When would that happen, and who would
be responsible for making it happen? Will cuts affect all
programs equally across-the-board, or will certain programs
be exempt?
7. Would it violate the language of the amendment if
Congress passes, with less than 60% of the votes, a budget
resolution that is not balanced?
8. Would it violate the language of the amendment if
Congress passes, with less than 60% of the votes, a bill to
increase spending from some base level without off-setting
spending cuts or revenue increases? Would it matter whether
this was the last appropriations bill of the year, and would
result total appropriations exceeding expected receipts? If
not, how will we ensure that Congress does not increase
spending without paying for it?
9. Would it violate the language of the amendment if
Congress passes, with less than 60% of the votes, a bill to
cut taxes without off-setting spending cuts or revenue
increases? If not, how will we ensure that Congress does not
cut taxes without paying for it?
10. What happens if Congress passes a budget resolution
which is in balance, that enacts appropriations bills on the
basis of that resolution, but part way through the year it
appears that outlays will exceed receipts? Would Congress be
required to vote separately on whether to authorize or
eliminate the excess, even through it voted for budget and
appropriations bills in the believe that the budget would be
balanced? What mechanism would be created to ensure that such
a bill would be considered?
11. At what point during the fiscal year would Congress be
required to voter to authorize an excess of outlays or to
eliminate that excess? What would happen if Congress did not
approve either such measure?
12. Would the amendment be enforced through sequestration
of impoundment? If so, when and how would that action take
place?
13. What happens if Congress approves a specific excess of
outlays over receipts by the required three-fifths vote of
each House, but the projection turns out to be wrong--the
deficit is greater than expected. Would a second vote be
required to approve the revised estimate of the deficit? Who
determines the dollar amount of excess that Congress will
vote on in each case? Who determines that the estimated
excess was wrong? How often would such determinations be
made, and such votes be required? Who determines when the
votes must take place?
14. The resolution requires that three-fifths of each House
vote to approve an excess ``by law''. Does this mean that the
President must sign a bill to approve an excess? What happens
if three-fifths of the Members of each House approve a
deficit, but the President vetoes the bill? On the other
hand, what happens if Congress passes a reconciliation bill
to balance the budget and the President vetoes it and there
are insufficient votes to override the veto? For example,
what if Congress votes to increase taxes to eliminate the
deficit and the President says he prefers spending cuts and
vetoes the bill. If there are insufficient votes to override
the veto, who has violated the Constitution--the Congress or
the President?
15. Could Congress shift receipts or outlays from one year
to another to meet balanced budget requirements? For example,
could paydays for government employees be put off a few days
into the next fiscal year to achieve a balance between
receipts and outlays? What mechanisms will prevent this type
of abuse?
16. Section 2 of the resolution provides that ``the limit
on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not
be increased'' without a three-fifths vote. What is the
current statutory ``limit on the debt of the United States
held by the public'', if any? If there is currently no such
limit, how will such a limit be established?
17. What does the debt of the United States held by the
public include? Specifically, does it include the debt of
wholly-owned government corporations (like the Commodity
Credit Corporation and the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation)? Does it include the debt of mixed-ownership
government corporations (like Amtrak and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation)? Does it include loans guaranteed by
the federal government, such as guaranteed student loans,
guaranteed agriculture and export loans, or Mexican loan
guarantees? If not, could additional government corporations
and quasi-governmental agencies be created to conduct federal
programs off-budget to evade the amendment? Could new
government guaranteed lending programs replace government
spending? How would this be prevented?
18. May the President transmit a proposed budget which is
not in balance in addition to his balanced budget proposal?
May the President transmit a balanced budget, but recommends
against its adoption? Can he submit the balanced budget at
any time before the fiscal year begins?
19. The Committee report states that the words ``bill to
increase revenue'' covers ``those measures whose intended and
anticipated effect will be to increase revenues to the
Federal Government.'' Does this mean net revenue? Over what
period of time would this be judged?
Would the revenue provision apply to a bill that increases
revenues for three years and reduces revenues for the
following three years, with a net change of zero over the
six-year period? What happens if the amendment is repealed
after three years, because it would result in a deficit?
Would a bill to increase the capital gains tax be exempt,
since many argue would have the effect of reducing revenue in
at least the early years after enactment?
20. Does ``revenue'' include fees? How do we tell the
difference between a revenue measure increasing fees and a
spending measure decreasing outlays by requiring users to pay
for services provided to them instead of funding the services
out of tax revenues?
What about a bill to raise the federal share of receipts
from concessions in our national parks?
What if the bill simply required regular competition for
national park concessions? Would that be a bill to increase
revenue, since it would have the ``intended and anticipated
effect'' of increasing the federal share?
21. Does revenue include tariffs? Would a trade measure
which authorizes use of retaliatory tariffs in certain cases
be considered a ``revenue measure'', since it would arguably
have the ``intended and anticipated effect'' of increasing
revenues? Who will make this determination?
22. Does revenue include civil and criminal penalties?
Would a bill that establishes a new civil or criminal penalty
be considered a ``revenue'' measure? How about a bill that
indexes certain penalties for inflation? How about a measure
to toughen enforcement of criminal or civil penalties? Would
a bill to tighten enforcement of the tax laws or provide more
personnel to the IRS be covered,
[[Page S2182]] since it would have the ``intended and
anticipated effect'' of increasing revenues? Who will decide
what is covered by this provision?
23. Would a statute that requires a new, lower measure for
inflation, be considered a bill to increase revenue, since by
slowing the adjustment of tax brackets it would have the
``intended and anticipated effect'' of increasing taxes?
Would the elimination of a special, targeted tax break be
covered by this provision? Would it cover a bill authorizing
the sale of buildings or land?
24. Sponsors of the amendment have said that the social
security trust funds will be protected in implementing
legislation and that the budget will not be balanced at the
expense of the States. How will this result be ensured?
25. The term ``fiscal year'' is not defined in the
amendment. The report indicates that Congress has the power
to define the term ``fiscal year.'' Does this mean that
Congress could change the effective date of the amendment by
legislation, passed by majority vote, which changes the
statutory time at which a fiscal year begins and ends?
Mr. LEVIN. There are about 50 questions here which will determine
whether or not in fact this constitutional amendment can be implemented
in a way to achieve a balanced budget.
I will submit a copy of these to the sponsors of the legislation so
they can give us an answer to the question.
The bottom line for me, Mr. President, is that this proposed
constitutional amendment does not balance the budget. It dodges the
issue because it depends on Congress passing implementation legislation
by the year 2002. What if it were fully implemented? The sponsors are
optimistic that it will be fully implemented. I think they are overly
optimistic, for all the reasons which I have stated and a whole bunch
more.
It is going to be very difficult for Congress to agree on how to make
cuts in legislation which will automatically sequester, which will
determine who will make the cuts, which will determine what all of the
hundreds of other decisions are that have to be made so that we can
have a balanced budget assured. Let us assume for a minute that the
sponsors' optimism is borne out and we kick the can down the road to
the Congress 7 years from now and we say: You folks pass implementation
legislation.
I do not think that is a responsible thing to do. In fact, I think
what we are likely to do by kicking the can down the road to a future
Congress, instead of acting ourselves on either the implementation
legislation or the cuts, is to increase the deficit.
So the answer to my friend from Illinois as to whether or not we
would not have been, 6 or 8 years ago, had we passed the amendment is
probably we would be worse off because probably then we would have
said, oh, they will take care of that in that future Congress. We would
not have done the hard work necessary a couple of years ago when we
finally decided to make some cuts in the deficit. We would have ducked
and said, oh, the Constitution will take care of that. A future
Congress will take care of that. That is what this amendment does.
But, for the moment, let us say that this legislation, which this
amendment relies on--this implementation legislation--in fact will be
passed, that somehow or other a majority of individual Members of the
House and the Senate will be able to agree on a process to make the
cuts that are necessary; what would be the impact? Should we know about
them?
I was interested when the Senator from Illinois said: ``Well, after
we pass the amendment, the leaders ought to get together and give us
something of a roadmap--not too specific, but so the States will know
what the cuts are.''
Why should we wait? The Senator from Ohio asked the Senator from
Illinois: ``Why are we waiting for whatever roadmap and whatever
specificity we are going to get from the leaders? Why do we wait for
the roadmap until after we have voted on the amendment? Why not adopt
it now and why not see it now? Why not have the benefit of knowing what
the impacts will be now, again assuming that this legislation is going
to be fully implemented?''
There was no answer to that question that was forthcoming, because I
think the same logic that says that the States should have some idea as
to what the impacts are would lead to the conclusion that we should
know what the impacts are--again, under a very big assumption, the
assumption being that this will indeed be fully implemented.
There are two problems with this constitutional amendment that have
been pointed out--two big ones. One is that the cuts will be massive
and should be known in advance. Another problem that others hold more
closely is that in fact it will not be implemented. Neither one of
those are particularly desirable outcomes. If it were not implemented,
if this is a dodge, if there are so many loopholes in this language
that it will not be fully implemented, it would be tragic to use the
Constitution that way. We would then be using the Constitution as a way
of avoiding our own responsibility of saying that Congress, by 2002,
should do something that we are unwilling to do, thereby evading what
we should be doing ourselves. I do not think the public is telling us
to pass language in a Constitution which says to a future Congress,
``Do something.'' I think the public wants us to do it and not dodge
it. That is my view as to what the likely outcome is of adopting this
constitutional amendment.
But there is another view which also has a lot of support, it seems
to me, behind it, which is that, yes, this thing could be fully
implemented, and then we should know what the cuts are prior to our
adopting the language of this constitutional amendment. We should know
and the States should know before they are sent an amendment for
ratification.
Whether we pass this amendment or not, it is still going to take a
majority of the votes of the Members of each House to make the tough
choices that are needed to cut spending and raise taxes. But unless and
until we make these choices, we are not going to have a balanced budget
regardless of whether we pass this resolution and regardless of whether
the States ratify.
Saying that we have to balance the budget cannot make it happen.
Unless and until we do the hard work of budgeting, or at least unless
we adopt the implementation legislation, it is all a dodge. It
encourages us to say that we have a cure before we have taken the
medicine. That, to me, is the irresponsible part of this amendment,
that it allows us to say that we have cured something before we have
either taken the medicine or at least adopted the implementation
legislation that will lead us to a certain result.
Every one of us in this body knows that we are not going to get to a
balanced budget without real sacrifice. One plan which was put forth by
some House Republicans last March would have cut spending on the
environment by 44 percent, spending on agriculture by 72 percent,
spending on energy by 65 percent, and cut the defense budget by $83
billion. I give those sponsors of that amendment credit for laying out
what the impacts would be--at least what they were willing to support.
They are entitled to credit, I believe, for what they did. But are we
all willing to do that? I hope we have the same kind of courage. It may
lead to different kinds of cuts or a different balance of cuts, but at
least I hope we will have that courage.
Yet, the reason we are told we should not adopt this roadmap, that we
should not lay out what the impacts will be in advance, was set forth
by the House majority leader, Dick Armey, who said that once Members of
Congress know exactly, chapter and verse, the pain that the Government
must live with in order to get to a balanced budget, their knees will
buckle.
Think about that for a minute. What he means is if you look at real-
world numbers, if we level with the American people about what it will
take to balance the budget, in his assessment, it will not pass. I
think that is an ostrich-like way of legislating, and far worse.
It is an ostrich-like approach to amending the Constitution. And we
ought to be much more serious about the Constitution than to pass
amendments which do not tell us either what the process will be to
achieve it or at least have an enforcement mechanism to achieve it.
I do not know of any other provision of the Constitution--there may
be one; I cannot find it--that is not enforceable, either in court or
by the executive branch.
Now, we do not want this enforceable in court because we do not want
courts deciding to raise taxes or making us do it, and we do not want
it enforceable
[[Page S2183]] by the executive branch. And we are sure we do not
because we do not want to give the President impoundment authority.
If it is not going to be enforceable by either the courts or the
executive through impoundment--which, by the way, I agree with that
conclusion that we ought to make it very specific in this amendment
that that cannot be, either have courts telling us where the cuts are,
courts adopting taxes, or the President impounding--but if it is not
going to do that, if the intent of the sponsors is that it not lead to
either impoundment or court enforcement, it then totally depends upon
Congress implementing and enforcing it. In that case, one of two things
is necessary: Either it is not going to be implemented, which would be
irresponsible and a misuse of the Constitution; or it will be, in which
case the American people and the States should know what the impacts
are.
It is one or the other. It either is going to be implemented by the
Congress--and I do not share the optimism of my friend from Illinois
that a Congress 6 or 7 years from now will adopt implementation
legislation. I think it is wrong for us to pass the buck to them. But
if it is not going to be implemented by them, it is wrong. If it is
going to be implemented by them, we should know the impact and the
American people and the States should know the impact.
We have been down this road before. This is not new, that we
considered constitutional amendments before.
We actually put into our laws before that Congress shall balance the
Federal budget by a certain year. We put in our laws the Gramm-Rudman
mechanism which did not work, and it did not work because it did not
have an enforcement mechanism which assured that we would get to a
certain point by a certain time. It was left to future Congresses.
Always future Congresses.
But what is unique about this legislation is that this is not a bill.
This is a constitutional amendment which fundamentally says, ``Congress
shall do something.'' It leaves it to a future Congress to pass the
implementation legislation to do it instead of us doing it.
And, I must say, I am intrigued by reference to the Founding Fathers.
It is unthinkable to me that those Founding Fathers of this country, in
a constitutional convention, would pass language that says a future
Congress should do something. Not that we should do it, not that we
should take the responsibility, not that we should be accountable, not
that we should act, but we should put into the document which is nearly
sacred for every American, the Constitution, language which says
``Congress, by a certain year, should adopt a law which will achieve
something.''
Would any of us vote for a constitutional amendment which reads
something like this: ``Congress, within the next 7 years, shall adopt a
law which will make racial, religious, or ethnic discrimination
unlawful''? Would we put that in the Constitution? ``Congress, within
the next 7 years, will adopt a law to prohibit religious, racial, and
ethnic discrimination''? I cannot believe we would do that. I think we
would pass the law to prohibit the discrimination. We would take the
responsibility.
The Founding Fathers would take the responsibility for passing the
law or they would put into the Constitution a right or a prohibition
which is enforceable.
The Constitution is the place where we put in rights and prohibitions
which are enforceable. They are not a place where we put in language
such as this which allows us to kick the can down the road for 7 years
which allows us to tell a future Congress to do what we are unwilling
to do, either to make the cuts or to adopt a process which will lead to
it.
There is no other constitutional amendment like this, and for a good
reason.
We should face up to the obligation. We either should adopt the cuts
or adopt the process. Either make the cuts or adopt the implementation
legislation so we all know what it is. We should not simply say, ``We
are going to amend the Constitution to tell a future Congress that they
should do something,'' knowing full well the difficulties for any
Congress to do it.
Now, Senator Simon and others are optimistic that a future Congress
will do it, much more optimistic in those future Congresses being able
to do things that we have been unable to do, frankly, than I am. But
their optimism should be tested now. We should adopt the implementation
legislation. If a future Congress can do it, we can do it, and that is
the test of their optimism.
In the absence of our doing it, either making the cuts or adopting
the implementation legislation which their language requires a future
Congress to do, this balanced budget amendment is, I am afraid, going
to be little more than a feel-good amendment which purports to address
the problem of Government spending and deficits without actually
addressing the problem.
The people want us to move to a balanced budget. They want us to do
that. They do not want us to push the responsibility off to a future
Congress, as this amendment would do. They want us to do it.
The proposed amendment is full of loopholes and ambiguities. For
example:
The implementation of the amendment depends on economic estimates
that can be made overly optimistic if that is what is necessary to
project a balanced budget. We have seen enough rosy scenarios in the
budgets of both Republican and Democratic administrations to know how
this game is likely to be played.
The amendment requires a balanced budget in each fiscal year.
Throughout the 1980's Congress and the President artificially lowered
the reported deficit and met Gramm-Rudman targets by shifting the
timing of spending from one fiscal year to another. Under the proposed
amendment, we can expect similar budgetary shell games.
States with balanced budget requirements have frequently avoided them
by creating independent or quasi-public agencies and placing their
expenditures off-budget. We did much the same thing in the 1980's with
the costs of the savings and loan bailout. Because the amendment does
not define key terms such as ``receipts'' and ``outlays,'' it is
certain to lead to similar manipulations.
Costs could be shifted from the Federal Government to State and local
governments by simply reducing funding for existing programs. Reduced
grants to the States would shift the burden of the deficit from the
Federal Government to State and local governments but would not shrink
the overall gap between Government revenues and Government spending.
The authors of the amendment have acknowledged that the proposed
amendment would be unenforceable without further legislative action by
the Congress. If outlays exceed receipts, they say, neither the
President nor the courts could step in to address the problem. I am not
aware of any case in which we have enacted a constitutional amendment
which the sponsors themselves claim to be unenforceable, but that is
what the authors of this resolution have said.
This resolution does not tell us what an ``outlay'' is. It does not
tell us what a ``receipt'' is. It does not tell us how Congress, which
enacts appropriations and revenue measures, will regulate the precise
level of outlays and receipts. It does not tell us how Congress will
monitor the flow of outlays and receipts. It does not tell us who will
determine the levels of outlays and receipts, whether it is CBO or OMB.
And it does not tell us what will happen if outlays in fact exceed
receipts.
The answers to all of these questions are left to a future Congress.
But, Mr. President, amending the Constitution is far too important an
undertaking to be done in the dark.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I think it is about time for us to start voting on
this amendment. After a week of talking about the balanced budget, I
believe that just about every argument against it is pointless, except
maybe one. The opponents' arguments are just many different ways of
saying, ``I don't want a balanced budget amendment, because I don't
want a balanced budget.''
[[Page S2184]] The one I had to research to respond to is that the
amendment is nothing more than a gimmick. After the fourth or fifth
time I heard this, I stopped assuming that I knew what a gimmick is and
decided to look it up.
One dictionary says a gimmick is ``A trivial or unnecessary
innovation added to enhance appeal.''
The opponents of this constitutional amendment say we are supposed
to pass responsible budgets without constitutional requirements.
Now, how would you explain that, when we have run deficits in this
country for 34 of the last 35 years? When were they planning to start
being responsible? Mr. President, when were they planning to say we are
going to be serious without a balanced budget amendment that says we
are going to be serious and there is no wiggle room?
The opponents also say this amendment is a gimmick and we should not
mess with the Constitution. The Framers expressly provided for
constitutional amendments.
We have been debating this proposal for over 12 years. The entire
Constitutional Convention took about 4 months in 1789. We are not
proceeding recklessly. We are acting after careful deliberation. We
passed a balanced budget amendment here in the Senate in 1982. We
failed in 1986, 1992, and 1994 by a handful of votes. The House tried
in 1990 and 1992.
A few days ago, with its new Members elected by a public demanding a
real change in Washington, the House passed the amendment for the first
time. With so many years of debate and preparation, Mr. President, we
cannot throw away this opportunity to put America on a new course. I
believe this is the most important vote that we will take in our terms
in the Senate.
Now, the opponents say, ``We should not legislate on the
Constitution.'' Well, I agree, we should not legislate on the
Constitution. It is a framework for Government and it should not spell
out particular policy choices. But the same opponents that make this
claim also propose amendments to this resolution which legislate
exemptions into the Constitution for high-priority items.
Such exemptions would, themselves, create gimmicks. Every possible
program would get squeezed into the off-budget constitutional
exception. Such exceptions, Mr. President, would require future
Congresses and future generations to follow our priorities. They would
have to use our programs instead of setting their own priorities and
using their own plans, public or private, to address them.
Even the minority leader's motion to recommit with instructions
provides for a balanced budget amendment that says, ``The directives
required by subsection A-3 shall be deemed to be directives within the
meaning of section 310(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Upon
receiving all legislative submissions''--now, does that sound like
James Madison? It sounds an awful lot like legislation to me. It sounds
like the Budget Act, something no Member really wants to see enshrined
for all time in our Constitution. If we start amending the Constitution
with sentences like that, people will not be able to carry our
Constitution in their vest pockets anymore.
Now, my dictionary has another definition for gimmicks. It says it is
``a significant feature that is obscured, ordinarily misrepresented; a
catch.'' Now, the opponents of this amendment keep trying to say there
is a catch. They are trying to scare the public into thinking that all
of the services that the Federal Government provides will be
eliminated. Of course that is not true. To balance the budget by 2002
we only have to slow down future increases in total spending, not cut
spending below its current level.
We can cut the bureaucracy and the redundancy of the Federal
Government while preserving our most important programs. That is
prioritizing. We must provide the programs that help those who cannot
help themselves. We have always done that in this country. What is to
change? We will feed the hungry. We will care for children and disabled
people who cannot help themselves. And we can do it while continuing to
cut waste, and do it more efficiently.
Like all bureaucrats whose kingdoms are threatened, the opponents of
this amendment claim that any cut would destroy the most popular
program, while they hide the waste, fraud, and abuse in the back. Now,
I have heard this argument before. It is called the ``We are going to
have to close the Washington Monument argument.'' They show us the most
popular program and they say, ``This is what is going to be cut.'' They
are acting like we do not have the sense or the commitment or the
ability to prioritize what are the most important uses of taxpayers'
dollars.
They are like the boy who cried wolf one too many times. We do not
believe them anymore. We do not believe that the Government cannot
really operate with a few cents less on the dollar. That is what
balancing the budget comes down to. Pennies on the dollar. We can reach
a balanced budget by the year 2002 without cutting Social Security or
Medicare.
(Mr. THOMPSON assumed the chair.)
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield for a
question?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield.
Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator.
I think the Senator is raising some very significant issues
concerning this constitutional amendment to balance the budget. The
Senator was mentioning the fact that so many of the opponents of this
balanced budget amendment call it a gimmick. My response has always
been if it were a gimmick, Congress would have passed it long ago.
As the Senator knows, over the years we have had a number of
statutory approaches. Now there have been suggestions under the Daschle
amendment and the so-called right to know that somehow we should pass
implementing legislation to tell the American public how we plan to
balance the budget over the next 7 years. But that is also statutory
language.
On the other hand, they are saying the constitutional amendment we
would not necessarily have to enforce. How do we know the Congress in
the year 2002 will actually enforce a constitutional amendment? Would
the Senator not agree that this is the only way, given your experience
here in this institution, to get a balanced budget for the American
people and for future generations, is through a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maine has
made the most important point. Gramm-Rudman was a wonderful idea that
should have worked. But what happened? Congress came along and bypassed
it, and bypassed it again, and bypassed it again. So it meant nothing.
That is exactly the point that I was making about having an exception
to the amendment. Any exception. What will happen? Congress will start
putting more things into what we except, and it will bind future
generations to say, ``That is the area that you must except out.'' It
could be that in 20 years Social Security or whatever exception they
are going to put forward may be taken care of. It may not even be an
issue at all. Why would we put that in the Constitution and take away
the ability of future generations to just act within a framework?
It is clear that we have to have a framework in the Constitution.
Saying that there would be this exception or that exception does not
take into account the changes in our society that might happen in the
next 50 or 100 years.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, would the Senator further yield for a
question?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as the Senator was mentioning, the
constitutional amendment establishes a very important framework, as our
forefathers established through our Constitution. We obviously take an
oath of office, individually; we take an oath of office, on behalf of
this institution and on behalf of the American people. So, we logically
would follow up in enforcing that constitutional amendment.
As the Senator was mentioning about the various pieces of legislation
that have been enacted over the years in Congress, for example, in the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to which she was referring, again, numerous
adjustments were not made. It gets back to the
[[Page S2185]] issue of whether or not we would be able to balance the
budget through the Constitution, statutory approaches. But we know the
statutory approaches have already failed on numerous occasions,
stretching back to the year 1921.
We had the Budget Accounting Act, the Revenue Act, the Byrd Act. We
have adjusted the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act on numerous occasions
because we could not meet the requirements within that legislation for
balancing the budget, believe it or not, by 1993 and then again in
1995, and in the 1990 revision of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. So it is
clear that that has not worked.
Now, as the Senator knows, this amendment that is before the Senate
concerning the right to know, I think the American people do not agree
that we are right in terms of what we are enacting in this hypothetical
budget that has been suggested here, that we would pass accompanying
the Constitution an amendment which would somehow be the budget that
would be operative in the year 2002. Of course it would hot.
Would the Senator not agree that this approach is somewhat of a
dilatory action, or hypothetical sideshow not to enact a constitutional
amendment, knowing full well that we will get a balanced budget through
a constitutional amendment and not through a statutory approach?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator from Maine is making an important
point. When you are doing something that is as important as this, we do
need to do it right because it is going to be an amendment to our
Constitution that will last. Our Constitution has prevailed over the
centuries because we have been very careful not to bind future
generations. With the Constitution, less is more.
There is one thing that we have to do, and that is make a bottom
line. We have to say, like every business in America, like every
household in America, like every State government and every local
government in America, there is an end. We must set our parameters and
then work within those parameters to set our priorities. That is what
every other entity in America does.
As the Senator from Maine has said, this is the time. It is a very
short window that we have to make a difference in the direction this
country is going, and we have the mandate.
For the first time, the House of Representatives has passed a
balanced budget amendment, and if we miss this opportunity, it may be
that the window will not return.
I wonder what all of these people who are convinced we should not
have an amendment, I wonder what they are going to say to the American
people about how they will balance the budget if they do not want it in
the Constitution and they say, show me first. Show me what you are
going to do if we do not have it. What is going to be different today
than 34 out of the last 35 years? Isn't that really the question?
Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield? I think that is exactly the
question. Would you not agree that those who are opposed to a
constitutional amendment have a greater burden to prove how they could
enact a balanced budget statutorily, because all previous attempts have
failed time and again?
There has been obfuscation, diversion, delays, distraction, and, in
the final analysis, we have only seen our debt grow. We have heard some
discussions how the deficit has come down in recent years, but what we
do not hear is the fact the deficit is going to go back up for the
remainder of this decade. In fact, since the last time the Senate
passed a balanced budget amendment in 1982, the debt has grown 309
percent.
Even the President's own budget, interestingly enough--we hear so
much talk about the President's tax package in 1993, and I well recall
that because I served on the House Budget Committee. We were challenged
to bring up our own specific line-item cuts. As Republicans on the
committee, we did. We did $435 billion worth of specific line-item
reductions in the budget.
Guess what? They were all rejected. So we got a tax increase, which
happens to be the largest tax increase in the history of the country.
It was supposed to reduce the deficit. To some extent it did, but,
again, what happened is the deficit continues to rise. In fact, one of
the reasons why it is rising is that the revenues projected from that
tax increase are less than had been anticipated and projected by the
administration. As a matter of fact, the Congressional Budget Office
has recalculated the deficit by $25 billion for each of the next 5
years, and that is based on an 11-year economic expansion. That would
be 3 years longer than the longest postwar expansion.
And so we can understand what is going to happen; we are just going
to see more debt. There will be obfuscation here about the right to
know, what we ought to do, we should do implementing legislation. But
the bottom line is, are we willing to balance the Federal budget?
As the Senator has mentioned, the only way that can be done is
through a constitutional amendment because we have all taken an oath of
office. That is why the opponents of this amendment do not want this
amendment enacted, to become law, because they know that we will take
our responsibilities seriously and we will be obligated to balance that
budget.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Since the Senator brought up the President's budget
and the inability of Congress to deal with this issue in the past, I
should say that the budget did come out today from the President, who
promised to cut the deficit in half, and it actually spends $200
billion more than we have in revenue this year.
After the Clinton administration is over, he will have added $800
billion to the national debt. The debt today is about $4.7 trillion.
That is $18,500 for every man, woman and child in this country. So
every baby that is born can be welcomed into our country knowing that
that poor baby has an $18,500 debt hanging over his or her head the
minute he or she comes into the world.
They talk about not putting it in the Constitution and yet as
recently as today, a budget is submitted that is again not in balance.
I think it is time for us to say enough is enough.
They talk about the sky is falling if this is passed, but do they
realize what we are going to have to do to get to a balanced budget by
the year 2002? According to the Joint Economic Committee, we can
balance the budget without cutting Social Security or Medicare and
permitting Medicaid to grow by 5 percent if we just limit the growth of
all other programs to 2 percent a year--that's the growth, not current
spending.
If we exempt only Social Security, we can balance the budget in 6
years by cutting projected spending by 4 cents on the dollar.
We are talking about limiting the amount of growth. We are talking
about prioritizing within our budget to limit the growth. If you set
aside Social Security and Medicare, you can still grow 5 percent in
Medicaid and 2 percent in all other programs and balance the budget.
Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
Ms. SNOWE. Again, I think the Senator is focusing on some key issues
that I think are important focal points for this debate. The Senator
was referring to the President's budget. Were you not surprised to see
the President did not sufficiently address spending reductions in his
budget, basically accepting the economic status quo? In fact, the
variances in his package on projected deficits between now and his
package of 1993 is more than an 11 percent change in the deficit, for
the worse.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. You say you were not surprised. Well, after seeing
the State of the Union Message where he challenged Republicans to come
up with spending cuts and yet did not offer spending cuts for us to
consider, it is really not a big surprise.
Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator further yield? I think the President has
in the past, as the Senator referred to, challenged us to offer
specific cuts. As I said, I served on the House Budget Committee for
the last 2 years and the last two budgets that we presented had very
specific cuts of $435 billion in reduction in spending over 5 years.
And then for the 1995 budget, we proposed an additional $150 billion.
The fact is, there was another budget that was offered on the floor, in
addition to the Republican-offered budget, and that was a budget that
would have provided additional spending cuts over the
[[Page S2186]] President's by $182 billion for a total of $682 billion
worth of spending reductions in the Federal budget over 5 years.
But the fact is, no one is prepared to accept those spending
reductions and recommendations unless we are forced to because there is
no discipline, and I think the American people are savvy enough to
recognize that we are not going to take that self-enforced action
unless we are required to.
That has been the past and clearly will be the future without a
balanced budget amendment.
The Senator was referring to the issue of restraining growth as
proposed by the Joint Economic Committee in terms of what we could do
to balance the budget just by restraining the growth in Federal
spending. It is remarkable. If we were to restrain growth in spending
by 2.4 percent exempting Social Security, we could save $28 billion in
new spending every year. That is $28 billion. Increased spending based
on growth is $420 billion over the next 7 years and we can increase
spending by half that amount. I do not think there is anybody in
America who would not think that is a substantial amount or sufficient
enough to address some of the issues and some of the programs and the
needs of this country and our changing priorities because over the next
7 years I would expect that we would have some changing priorities and
needs and concerns as they arise.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator from Maine is making an important
point. We are starting to talk about prioritizing--what can we cut in
order to put more in the programs that we need, the ones that are
really essential. In the President's budget he says he is going to look
at reinventing Government by paring down HUD and the Department of
Transportation, and I applaud the President and I wish to give him
credit for taking that step.
However, I think what we have to do is to start looking at how we can
do things in a different way. Maybe it is not just cutting down
departments. Maybe it is cutting down the infrastructure. Why do we
necessarily have to keep the entire infrastructure of the Department of
Transportation and the infrastructure of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development?
Perhaps we could take away some of the bureaucracy by having fewer
departments, by streamlining Government, by terminiating some programs,
such as the ICC, which the President has proposed again to eliminate
and which I am going to support, and by handing power back to the
States. Handing power back to the states is very important in the
overall effort to make the Federal Government smaller. When we do that,
let us not keep all of these massive bureaucracies in place. Let us
consolidate some departments--maybe the Department of Education.
I think the Senator from Maine would probably agree with me that if
we are going to get this country going in a different direction, the
one most important thing we can do is to pass a balanced budget
amendment and force ourselves to stop deficit spending. Let us start
working toward the balanced budget and then eventually we will be able
to start working on paying down the $4.7 trillion debt.
Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield? I think the Senator is absolutely
correct in referring to performance-based budgeting which was part of
the testimony that was submitted to the Senate Budget Committee
recently.
The Senator is correct in suggesting that what we should do is look
at every Federal agency, look at Federal programs, examine how we can
deliver them more efficiently. Perhaps they are best delivered by the
States and local governments. How can we be innovative and creative
rather than just accepting the status quo.
We have hundreds and hundreds of programs that we have been
delivering for years and years in pretty much the same manner, and
there has been no incentive to address them differently or to rework
them in a way where it could save taxpayers money.
I think the taxpayers of this country understand full well that the
Federal Government should be balancing its revenues with its
expenditures because ultimately that debt is being passed on to future
generations.
So the Senator is correct in saying that we should examine--and I
gather that is what the Senator is recommending--all of these Federal
programs and agencies so that we have a better understanding of what we
can afford, what is best left to the States to address and perhaps the
Federal Government should not be implementing some of the services
programs that we currently do.
We have never looked at it from that standpoint in the past. It has
never been a performance-based driven budget, and we have no innovation
and creativity delivered in a way that will save taxpayers money. The
constitutional amendment to balance the budget will clearly be
incentive considering there has been no incentive in the past other
than to divert and avoid the statutory requirements of balancing the
budget.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator from Maine would agree that for
us to be able to put our best creative efforts forward, to decide how
we can go forward into the 21st century by doing things a different
way, doing things more efficiently, and giving the States back the
power that they had when our Founding Fathers made the Constitution, we
have to say there is a limit. The Government, like everyone else in
America, will have to live within a budget.
We are not going to cut everything. The sky is not falling, as you
have heard on this floor day after day after day. We are going to make
responsible expenditures.
The Federal Government needs to do what it does well. It needs to
have a strong national defense. We need to have big science projects to
create the new technologies that create the new jobs for the future and
improve the quality of life. We need to deliver our mail; that is one
of the things that everybody assumed the Federal Government would do.
We are not doing it very well. We could do it a lot better. We need to
have foreign representation. We need to have foreign policy.
There are many things that the Federal Government should do and do
well, and we need to appropriate the money to do that. We need to
appropriate the money for closing our borders to illegal immigrants.
There are many things that we will need to fund. But the difference is,
from the debate we have heard between the two parties disagreeing on
this issue, with some exceptions, of course, are we going to live
within the budget and are we going to make those tough decisions? It is
not a cart before the horse--you tell me what the decisions are going
to be and then I will decide if I am going to do the responsible thing
by saying you have to live within your budget.
There can be no question that we must live within our budget. And it
is irrefutable that for 34 of the last 35 years we have not lived
within a budget. We are going to have to take the necessary precaution
of making parameters, and in this case the parameter is a balanced
budget amendment which says Congress, you are going to live with a
budget, and you can decide the priorities.
I think we should give Congress the freedom through the generations
of the future to decide its priorities. But for heaven's sake, let us
not miss this opportunity to promise to the American people that we are
going to stop putting an $18,000 debt on every child born in this
country.
Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield.
Ms. SNOWE. Would the Senator be surprised to know that half of the
citizens of this country, half under the age 35 have only witnessed
Congress balancing the budget just once? I guess it would not be
surprising, given the fact we have seen on so many occasions Congress
has avoided that responsibility.
As the Senator knows, before the Senate is pending the Daschle
amendment, the right-to-know amendment. Do you think it is fair, I
would like to ask the Senator, that we would present a budget,
according to the Daschle amendment, a balanced budget plan to the
American people knowing full well that that might not be the plan in
the year 2002 because we have three intervening elections with two
Presidential elections, different makeups of Congress, different
priorities, different emergencies that might arise? If we only recall
what has happened in the 7 years since 1988, we can only appreciate
[[Page S2187]] what might happen over the next 7 years.
Under the Daschle amendment, we are being asked to set forth a
balanced budget plan, right to know, send it out to all the States
accompanying the ratification of the constitutional amendment. People
will be making their decisions thinking that this will be the balanced
budget plan in the year 2002 when in fact, of course, it would not
because in the meantime Congress will be making all kinds of changes to
that balanced budget plan.
So, Mr. President, I would ask the Senator, do you think it is fair
to present that kind of plan to the American people knowing full well
that that will not be the plan ultimately in the year 2002?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would only say to the Senator from Maine that I
think it would be more fair if the minority leader would put forth in
his right to know to the American people what they are going to do to
balance the budget if we do not pass the constitutional amendment to
require it.
I think that is what the American people would like to know. What are
you going to do differently today than you did 34 out of the last 35
years? That is a right I think the American people have, to know before
someone votes to kill this opportunity to have a balanced budget
amendment for this country for the future, to know what they would do
if it is defeated.
We must make sure that our future generations do not carry the debt
of overspending and the excesses of the present day. We should not have
the right to bind future generations from any present point by not
living within our means. That is the bottom line.
It is not fair to say you are going to kill this amendment with a
right-to-know provision if you are not going to say to the American
people what they have a right to know, and that is what are you going
to do to balance this budget if you do not have the amendment? That
would be the responsible approach. Does my colleague not agree with me?
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I certainly do
agree. I am sure that she will agree the fact is these amendments that
are being offered--certainly the Daschle amendment is an attempt
ultimately to kill the constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
Which, as the Senator has mentioned, this will be our last occasion.
This is our window of opportunity, because we have seen a historic vote
take place in the House of Representatives last week. For the first
time, that body enacted a constitutional amendment.
The last time the Senate enacted a constitutional provision and the
House did not was in 1982. As I said, since that time, we have seen a
309-percent growth in the debt. That is $3.5 trillion since the last
time the U.S. Senate enacted a constitutional provision.
We certainly cannot put that onto future generations by failing to do
what is important here today. I think all of these amendments that are
being offered are being offered in the spirit of killing the
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, because they know full
well we will in the final analysis balance that budget because we will
take that action now.
Does the Senator not agree we would obviously begin that process to
achieve that goal of balancing the budget so we can be prepared for
meeting the final goal in the year 2002?
I know when I was in the House working on this issue, and we worked
on to 1992, and in 1994 we in fact had planned to begin to set the
process forward, in the first year and the second year, of course, as
we are here, to begin the process of gliding us toward that path of a
balanced budget in the year 2002, in anticipation of and presuming the
States would ratify the constitutional amendment.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maine has
come to the bottom line. The amendments that are being offered are
being offered to kill the amendment. I hope the American people will
see this debate for what it is.
I have so much faith in the American people, in the good common sense
of the people of this country. They can see the people who are being
sincere about wanting to change the course of America, and those who
are throwing up the roadblocks in the name of--whatever. Whatever
exception they would like to have. It is a smokescreen. It is an effort
to keep us from doing what really will get this country back on track.
We will have to make very tough choices. There is no question about
that. Everyone knows that. But as I go out in my State and in the other
States I am able to visit, I think people are ready. I think people
more than ever are ready to say, ``You know, I would really like to
have that expenditure, or some other program, but if it takes not
having that particular program in order to balance our budget, we are
willing to say in the scheme of things this may not be as important as
the big things that only the Federal Government can do and do well.''
I am sensing that.
Does the Senator sense that in the State of Maine as she goes home
and talks to the good, commonsense folks of Maine?
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I certainly do.
Having been involved, of course, in this last election, I certainly
understood the concerns of the people of my State of Maine, which was
that we needed to be accountable for our actions and to be fiscally
responsible.
People are no longer prepared to accept the notion we were going to
continue with the economic as well as the political status quo. They
understand we have not been accountable fiscally in the past. They are
concerned not only about their own futures; they are concerned about
their children's futures, as well. They know the impact of the deficit
has affected their standard of living, whether it is through loss of
jobs, the loss of productivity, the loss of savings that allowed this
country to grow--it has prevented us from making the necessary
investments in our infrastructure so we can invest in the future of
this country. We cannot grow if the pie is getting smaller because we
are consuming greater and greater pieces of that pie to pay the
interest on our growing national debt.
The American people understand that. I know my constituents in the
State of Maine understood that. For those people who are not involved--
and I know the Senator was involved in an election last November--but
for those who were not involved, they clearly misunderstood the message
if they think the American people do not want a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget. They do. They do not understand, as
the Senator has mentioned, that the Federal Government does not balance
its budget. Because everybody else in America does. They cannot
understand why the United States Congress is not required to meet the
same bottom line as every State save one in America, every family, and
every business.
So in the election last November, that was the message. I think, in
the final analysis, if we fail to pass this constitutional amendment,
it really will send a message to the American people that somehow we do
not get it. I think that would be unfortunate.
As the Senator from Texas would agree, the American people deserve
more than that.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maine has hit
the nail on the head. Those of us who were in the election, an election
that I think was to change the course of this country, do get the
message. We got the message from the American people that they want a
balanced budget amendment. Probably of all the issues they were voting
on, this was among the very top.
I saw a poll in the Washington Post that showed 4 out of 5 Americans
want a balanced budget amendment. Of course, the people will have
another say in this. They do have the right through their legislatures
to act on this balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It does
not just automatically go into the Constitution if we do pass this
amendment by our two-thirds vote here. It will go to the States and
three-fourths of those State legislatures must ratify the amendment.
So the people are going to have their say. They will be able to have
the final word. I think it is very important for us, because of the
message the people sent so loud and clear, that we are required to send
it to the States to let
[[Page S2188]] people have their say. I think the people will feel much
better if they have the opportunity to act in this way on a very
important part of the election of 1994; the election in which they said
we want a more accountable Government, we want a more accountable
Congress, and we want responsibility to be shown by our leaders.
That is exactly what we are trying to do. As the Senator from Maine
pointed out, I think the people are going to send another very clear
message in 1996, if they do not see that things are being done
differently in the Halls of Congress. I think particularly because the
House has acted on this already, it is very important the Senate,
hearing the people's voices, give them a chance to let their
legislatures ratify this amendment, or not ratify it, as they see fit.
That is their voice.
But I think it is incumbent on us to let the people speak, through
their legislatures, exactly what their feelings are on this issue.
We have the opportunity of a lifetime. For the first time in years,
this Congress has the opportunity to change the course of this country
by letting people have their say. I think we must do it. We really must
do it. If we do not, if we did not get the message, I think that the
people in the U.S. Senate who are now representing the people of our
Nation will hear a lot more from the people. I got the message. I think
the Senator from Maine got the message. But I am not sure that
everybody that I have heard debating for the last week has gotten the
message. I certainly hope for everyone's sake that we do the right
thing.
Last year, when we were debating this amendment, Senator Simon from
Illinois, who was the sponsor of the balanced budget amendment and who
did a wonderful job, was talking about the importance of this balanced
budget amendment. He said the reason there were so many heroes in the
Alamo is because there was no back door. Well, of course, no Texan
could let that pass because I had to defend the honor of the heroes at
the Alamo. I had to set history straight and say to the good Senator
from Illinois there was a back door at the Alamo. The back door was
when the line was drawn in the sand and every man at the Alamo was
given a choice to cross the line and stay and fight or not to cross the
line. Any man that did not cross would have been able to leave the
Alamo before the siege began and go to the rear. Of course, everyone
knows that every man crossed the line, including Jim Bowie, who had to
be carried across the line in a stretcher. In effect, the Senator from
Illinois was correct. The back door was a line in the sand. The line in
the sand gave them the escape but the great heroes at the Alamo chose
to close that door.
What the Senator was saying was we have a balanced budget amendment
that is closing the door. We are not going to have heroes because we
are going to close the back door, and we are going to do what is right.
It is not heroic. It is just good common sense. Every person in America
should know that it does not take a hero to do what everybody else in
America is already doing, and that is living with a balanced budget;
setting the parameters of what they think is best, and, saying, OK,
this is what I have and I am going to prioritize with the resources
that I have.
That is what we are asking the Congress of the United States to do,
not just for today, but for our future generations. It is right that we
amend the Constitution because this is a very important policy. It is
part of our structure of government that we say we will live with a
balanced budget.
Just about every State in this country has a balanced budget
amendment in its constitution. It is the framework of government,
whether you live with a debt or not. It is right to put it in the
Constitution. What is not right is to legislate on the amendment by
saying we are going to balance the budget but we will have these
exceptions. That is not a document that will live through the centuries
as our Constitution has.
Our Founding Fathers created a living document because they put the
framework in place. It is a giant step to amend this wonderful
document. That is why it has not been done very often. But it has been
done when there was a need to continue to make it a living document,
and that is why our Founding Fathers gave us a chance to amend it. They
knew things would change in the course of our country's history. They
knew that they would have to provide some way for us to be able to add
to it so that it would continue to live, so that our people would not
be oppressed with the document that did not protect them from the
changes that they could not even envision.
I think a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is very
proper because it says this is going to be part of the framework of our
Government, that we will live within our means and that we will not put
a debt on the heads of our children for the spending that we do today.
It is pretty simple, and I think the American people understand that.
I think the American people are a lot smarter than the politicians give
them credit for. I think the American people are going to understand in
this vote exactly whether the Senate of the United States got the
message from November 8, 1994. They are going to be able to determine
from this vote whether they need to send another message in 1996, or
whether we are going to get this country back on track. Whether we are
going to do responsible budgeting for our future and for the future of
our children and grandchildren.
We must pass this amendment if we are going to take that first step
toward bringing our country back to what our Founding Fathers thought
it should be; that is, a very strong Federal Government that is limited
in its powers and very strong States that can make the decisions for
their people because they are closer to the people.
So I hope the Senate of the United States does the right thing for
the people who have voted for us and who sent a clear message on
November 8, 1994.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just take a few minutes. I want to
reply to the distinguished minority leader who took time to come to the
floor and chat about some of the arguments that we have been making. I
want to point out that the distinguished Senator from North Dakota
mistakes my arguments.
I pointed out that article V sets forth the exclusive conditions for
promulgation of a constitutional amendment. The distinguished Senator
from North Dakota brought up that there is a 7-year time limit and that
is a condition on ratification. Promulgation and ratification, of
course, are distinct acts and are two different acts. They should not
be confused. Under article V once Congress has passed an amendment by
the necessary two-thirds margin in both Houses, the amendment must be
promulgated to States for ratification. There is nothing in the text of
article V nor in the constitutional history that suggests that Congress
can play slick games with the States by passing an amendment but
keeping it from going to the States.
The act of promulgation is a ministerial act that must be performed
once the two-thirds vote has been obtained. By contrast, there is ample
reason why Congress should be permitted to include additional terms and
conditions on ratification such as the 7-year time limit.
Article V makes it clear that it is up to Congress to specify the
``Mode of Ratification.'' There is also substantial precedent in our
constitutional history for Congress to specify time limits on
ratification. In INS versus Chadha, a 1983 case--the case that struck
down the legislative veto--the Supreme Court expressed the principle
that when the Constitution sets out a methodology, Congress cannot
expand on it, contract it, or otherwise alter it. Article V provides
that a Constitutional amendment that is passed by both Houses shall be
proposed to the States for ratification. The Daschle substitute is
unconstitutional in that it would place an additional condition on, and
thereby delay, Congress' promulgation of the balanced budget amendment.
So I wanted to point out that difference.
In the meantime, what I would like to do, Mr. President, is just
point out what is happening as we debate the balanced budget amendment.
We call this chart the balanced budget amendment debt tracker. In other
words, this is the
[[Page S2189]] increase as we debate. On day one of the debate, the
American taxpayers were called on to pay $829,440,000 in additional
debt. That is day one of the debate. Now we are in day eight since the
debate started. I have to tell you that if we put day eight down and
accumulate it up to today's date, we are talking about a $6,635,520,000
increase in the national debt as we have debated the balanced budget
amendment. In just 8 days, we shot up from here to here. We have gone
up from a little less than a billion dollars to almost $7 billion--
$6,635,520,000--in just 8 days. We intend to put this balanced budget
amendment debt tracker on the floor every day. Day 9 will go up even a
little bit more, and we will keep that going on as we go through each
day of debate, because there are those who think that a prolonged
debate and a defeat of the balanced budget amendment in the end, of
course, is a good thing for America. We think a prolonged debate and
defeat of the balanced budget amendment is a disaster for America, and
this shows us the difference in just 8 days of debate, what it means to
the American taxpayers.
According to the Concord Coalition, our national debt increases at
$9,600 a second. That is $576,000 a minute, $34,560,000 per hour, and
$829,440,000 a day.
So as this chart shows, the national debt on January 30, 1995, the
day we began debating this amendment, was in excess of $4.8 trillion.
That is what this red line means. On the first day of that debate, we
added $829,440,000 to the national debt, all while we are standing here
talking about the balanced budget amendment.
By 2 o'clock today, 7 days later, the eighth day, the debt has
increased by $6,635,520,000. So as I have said, beginning today, I will
post on this chart how much the debt has increased since the debate
began. As you can see, the amount is tremendous.
Mr. President, we have been debating day in and day out, for the 19
years that I have sat in this body, how we should balance the budget.
We ought to have the guts to do it and we should do it. Yet, every day
we are going up $1 billion in national debt while Washington spins
around and does business as usual. Mr. President, that is what is
happening here--business as usual, the old order, the old way of doing
things. I loved James Q. Wilson's article in the Wall Street Journal.
He has never been a believer in the balanced budget amendment, but he
has come to the conclusion that it is the only thing that politically
will work. I think this type of a chart helps him to understand why it
has to be.
Mr. President, I am tired of the old order. I am tired of the old
arguments. I am tired of the excuses. I am tired of the American
taxpayers having to live with our profligacy. I am tired of your
children and my children, your grandchildren and my grandchildren,
having to pay for the profligacy of people who do not have the guts to
do what is right here. We have a population out there, in part, that is
demanding that we cut the deficit but the reason we do not do it is
that we are demanding tax cuts while they want more spending. If
someone tries to bring fiscal order around here, many of these people
will scream that it may hurt my program.
That is why we need a balanced budget amendment. We have to do
something in the best interest of the country as a whole, of our
children and our grandchildren. This chart, I think, as well as
anything I know, shows us where we are going. Each one of these days we
will put up how much, since the first day of debate, spending and the
deficit has gone up.
The best argument I know to make for the balanced budget amendment is
to read this budget of the administration that they just handed out
today. I know the administration tried to do its best, but even it has
thrown its hands in the air and said we cannot do any better than
almost $200 billion deficits every year for the next 12 years.
I have to tell you, that is not the answer, Mr. President. The answer
is the balanced budget amendment that says, look, the game is up,
fiscal responsibility is finally here, or else you are going to have to
vote to not be fiscally responsible and face the wrath of the
taxpayers. That is what this amendment will do. That is why our
colleagues should vote for it. I hope they all will.
I yield the floor to my colleague from Alabama.
Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, there is certain language in the
resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget
that I think needs some explanation and may throw some light on some
aspects of our Government that we need to be informed about.
Section 2 speaks of the debt of the United States. This is a section
that I believe should be very strongly included because I think it
gives enforcement power. It reads as follows:
The limit on the debt of the United States held by the
public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the
whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an
increase by a rollcall vote.
Now, the particular language that I want to direct the attention of
the Senate to is ``the debt of the United States held by the public.''
In the committee report, which I intend to offer in its entirity into
the Record, there are explanations on various aspects of the language
found in the resolution. Let me direct your attention to these words
* * * debt of the United States held by the public * * * a
phrase which is a widely used and understood measurement
tool. The General Accounting Office, in its ``Glossary of
Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process'' [(Exposure Draft,
January 1993)], defines ``Debt Held by the Public'' as ``That
part of the gross Federal debt held outside the Federal
Government. This includes all Federal debt held by
individuals, corporations, State or local governments, the
Federal Reserve System, and foreign governments and central
banks. Debt held by government trust funds, revolving funds,
and special funds is excluded from the debt held by the
public.''
The current, accepted meaning of ``debt * * * held by the
public'' is intended to be the controlling definition under
this article.
I think it is very important, relative to trust funds, that we
understand that the debt held by Government trust funds, revolving
funds, and special funds is excluded from the language ``debt held by
the public.''
Now, under section 2, it takes a three-fifths vote to be able to
raise the national debt held by the public. I interpret this to mean
that in the event that we did not raise the national debt, we did not
vote by the three-fifths vote to do it, then trust funds, revolving
funds, and special funds that are in surplus could continue to be paid.
Normally, in the course of events, if the U.S. debt is not raised,
you have reached the maximum of the debt. Therefore, you cannot borrow.
When you cannot borrow and do not have funds to operate on, the Federal
Government comes to a halt.
But by this language, ``trust funds, revolving funds, and special
funds'' are excluded from this. Therefore, if there is surplus in those
trust funds, then payments can be made to the recipients of those trust
funds or those revolving funds. Now, that would apply to Social
Security funds. That would apply to highway trust funds. That would
apply to aviation trust funds and others, according to the way I read
this, relative to the operation of the Federal Government in the event
that a debt limit is not raised in order for the government then to
continue to borrow.
I want to also speak briefly on trust funds and to some of the other
aspects of this language. Under section 1, we have a situation where
the total outlays shall not exceed the total receipts for the fiscal
year unless you have a three-fifths vote. In the definition as to what
``receipts'' means, under section 7, it is defined in the language and
it is the explanation given in the committee report that:
Total receipts * * * is intended to include all moneys
received by the Treasury of the United States, either
directly or indirectly through Federal or quasi-Federal
agencies created under the authority of acts of Congress,
except those derived from borrowing. In its present usage,
``receipts'' is intended to be synonymous with the definition
of ``budget receipts,'' which are not meant to include
offsetting collections or refunds.
The exception to total receipts is ``except those derived from
borrowing.'' And this ``is intended to exclude from the receipts the
proceeds of debt issuance. To borrow is to receive with the intention
of returning the same or the equivalent. It is intended that those
obligations, the title to which can be transferred by the present owner
to
[[Page S2190]] others, such as Treasury notes and bonds, be excluded
from receipts.''
Now here is an important aspect of this explanation: ``Contributions
to social insurance programs, though also carrying an implied
obligation, are not transferable and should be included in receipts.''
Basically, I interpret this language to mean that trust funds, like
Social Security, which take in contributions, should, therefore,
consider those contributions as receipts within the meaning of the
foregoing language. Therefore, they are not excepted from the
definition of total receipts. Actually, I believe the way this is
written, ``to include all moneys received by the Treasury of the United
States,'' will mean that Social Security funds and other trust funds
cannot legislatively be declared to be off-budget. I believe that the
way this language is written constitutionally requires that trust funds
be on-budget as opposed to being off-budget.
Now, trust funds are in instances loaned to the Government where
there is a surplus like in the Social Security trust fund or in the
highway trust fund or in the aviation trust fund, and so forth. They
are placed in Government securities, as required by Federal law. Being
placed in Government securities, therefore, they are not transferable,
because they are a unique type of obligation that is required for the
Government to purchase.
Therefore, a surplus that is invested from the Social Security trust
fund can be repaid under the language of this amendment and the
definition of outlays has to be considered. In the definition of
outlays, the amendment says, ``Total outlays shall include all outlays
of the United States Government except for those for the repayment of
debt principal.''
So, in regard to the application of the balanced budget amendment and
the balancing of the budget to require a three-fifths vote, we see
that, first, trust funds surpluses are included in the total receipts
but for the pay-back of the trust funds. Therefore, there is the
exception that excludes it from the three-fifths vote in that it is a
repayment of debt principal. And the repayment of debt principal allows
the borrowing that is done from trust funds to be repaid without having
to go through the three-fifths votes or to be, in effect, on budget in
that manner.
Now, there is a problem, as I see it, where the Social Security trust
fund or any other trust fund with a surplus, is taken and put into the
special types of instruments by which the Government invests in
Government securities. But there is a problem in that attributable
interest is not included in the ``total outlays'' exception.
As the attributable interest on the debt principal becomes due and
payable, therefore, a question is raised as to whether or not it has to
be paid through the regular budget and could Congress, by law, refuse
to pay the interest due on the principal debt? These are questions
which must be answered in the days ahead as we debate the implications
of whether or not there should be a Social Security exclusion within
the proposed constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget.
A similar question is raised in regard to an issue pertaining to a
capital budget. As I interpret the language, the definition of total
receipts excepts from the total receipts those that are derived from
borrowing. If we borrow, then we would have the right for that income
not to be included in regard to total receipts.
Then, on outlays where we have an exception for the repayment of debt
principal, we have an exception which can apply to a capital budget.
But again, the attributable interest has to be handled through the two-
thirds vote and through the three-fifths vote in a manner that it is
brought up.
I do not think the language of this excludes a capital budget, but on
the other hand there is the question pertaining to the interest that I
think is a matter that ought to be considered and about which we ought
to be knowledgeable as we further debate this amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee report
filed on this proposed resolution be considered, as fully printed, a
part of the debate at this point in my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HEFLIN. Now, Mr. President, we know all the statistics and have
heard all the arguments for and against an amendment requiring a
balanced Federal budget on numerous occasions over the years. It
appears, however, that this body will finally get its best chance yet
to draw upon the potential of this Nation and finally adopt a balanced
budget amendment resolution and send it to the States for ratification.
The 104th Congress has seen a confluence of political and fiscal
developments that makes the amendment's chances of passage this year by
both Chambers of the Congress better than ever before. The House has
already acted, and has said emphatically that this is the discipline we
need. The intense concern to do something about the deficit has become
part of the national psyche: It is on the mind of every person who
thinks and cares about the future of America. This resolution enjoys
broad bipartisan support.
For most of our history, a balanced budget at the national level of
government as an unwritten part of our 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. We tend to look at each program in
isolation, not realizing how each appropriation affects an already
strained treasury.
Alexander Hamilton, while serving as Secretary of the Treasury, once
said: ``Public debt swells 'till its magnitude becomes enormous, and
the [burdens] of the people gradually increase 'till their weight
becomes intolerable. Of such a state of things great disorders in the
whole political economy, convulsions, and revolutions of government are
a natural offspring.'' Hamilton made this observation nearly 200 years
ago, but it is surely instructive to us as we debate the balanced
budget amendment.
Similarly, once our Constitution was finally adopted, Thomas
Jefferson warned, ``The public debt is the greatest of dangers to be
feared by a republican government'' Jefferson knew the long-term evils
of deficit spending.
Over the course of history, we have lost sight of our Forefathers'
warnings. I am firmly convinced that the Federal Government does not
have the will power to reduce spending and balance its budget without a
constitutional amendment mandating that it do so.
Yes, this amendment's opponents argue that if we possessed and
practiced a stronger discipline, such a drastic measure would not be
needed. I do not dispute that sentiment. I wholeheartedly wish that we
did not need this amendment. I do not take amending the U.S.
Constitution lightly. But I do dispute the sentiment's reality.
Incredibly, the last balanced budget came 25 years ago under President
Johnson. The haphazard fiscal policies of the last 20 years or so show
that the problem goes much deeper than individual or collective
resolve. We have to admit that simple collective will power will not
solve this dilemma, regardless of who is responsible for the state of
affairs as it now stands. We all must accept responsibility. It is the
institutional structure of government that encourages short-term
responses to individual need, rather than their implications for the
greater good and the future.
Others argue that such an amendment would alter forever the balance
of power between the executive and legislative branches. But under this
amendment, each branch will retain its constitutional powers. The
stalemate we have now with regard to national fiscal policy would be
broken without significant changes in the balance of power.
Other opponents say that this amendment will result in economic
policy and budgeting by court decree, significantly higher taxes, and
severe cuts in important programs. The provisions in this resolution
address each of these arguments and provide safeguards against them.
The bottom line is that the amendment will impose upon the executive
and legislative branches the discipline needed to set priorities.
It is important to understand what will happen if we do not get our
national deficits and debt under control. Increased debts leave smaller
safety margins necessary to deal with possible
[[Page S2191]] economic adversity. This poses a certain threat to our
economy, leaving it highly vulnerable to increases in interest rates or
shortfalls in income.
Moreover, should interest rates rise during this period of high
personal and corporate debt, many individuals and businesses would be
unable to meet the high interest payments to follow. Bankruptcy and
economic instability would become widespread.
If we look back just a few years, we can see that the refusal of the
executive branch and Congress to take seriously the mounting deficit
was one reason the American economy faltered during the period before
the 1992 elections. As our national savings pool shrank, our rate or
gross investment became too low, our interest rates too high, and job
creation too slow. The favorable economic conditions we have now are
encouraging, and proof that the omnibus bill we passed in August 1993
was the right thing to do. But this should in no way absolve us from
taking further, more definitive action by passing this resolution.
We should not fear the State's approval of an amendment to balance
the Federal budget, as over 30 have already signaled a willingness to
do. The State legislatures are where the heart of this debate should
be, since more than 40 out of 50 have already learned to operate under
laws mandating balanced budgets.
There is no doubt as to what our responsibilities as national leaders
are in this regard. There is also no question as to what the American
people want and deserve. The only question is whether we are willing to
respond affirmatively by accepting the challenge. What this debate
boils down to is the very future of this country. A constitutional
amendment to require a balanced budget is the only way to once and for
all control spending and eliminate record high deficits. It is time to
take decisive action rather than to continue divisive rhetoric.
Indeed, we have already exhausted a wealth of different options to
bring our finances under control, but they remain out of kilter. The
right thing to do is to amend the Constitution so that Congress and the
President are required to balance the budget.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Senator from Louisiana.
MR. BREAUX. I thank the President for recognizing me.
Mr. President, we are engaged in debate on the question of whether we
should submit to the States a constitutional amendment to ask them to
approve that which would require the Federal Government to balance the
budget. You would think that on such a historic debate people in the
galleries would be falling over themselves to listen to the words of
all of the Members of the Senate because, indeed, this is a very
important debate. But I do not see there is that great interest in what
we are doing on the floor of the Senate this afternoon, and that is
unfortunate, because I think it is very, very important that Members of
Congress, not only in Washington, but elected officials in our States,
also reflect on what we are doing because it, indeed, will affect them
directly.
I take this time to call to the attention of my colleagues a very
excellent editorial which appeared this morning in the Baton Rouge
Morning Advocate, one of the, I think, outstanding papers that covers
the State of Louisiana. I will ask that it be made part of the Record.
It addresses what I think is a key part of this debate.
We, in the Senate, cannot pass a balanced budget amendment by
ourselves. I want to say very clearly, I support a balanced budget; I
support a balanced budget amendment. I think it should be part of the
Constitution. But I think that we should recognize that there is a
partnership arrangement here. We cannot do it by ourselves. A balanced
budget amendment can only be part of the Constitution if 38 States
ratify it. Then it is going to be incumbent upon them to look at the
balanced budget when they get it, say, my State of Louisiana, and say,
``All right, what does this mean? How is it going to affect the people
of Louisiana?'' not just how does it affect Congress or how does it
affect Washington, because the real effect is going to be on the people
in the various States.
The editorial is headlined ``People Deserve an Explanation.'' And it
says:
House majority leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, is right when he
says spelling out necessary spending cuts will make it tough,
maybe impossible, to enact a balanced budget amendment.
However, Armey and his party are wrong to refuse to level
with the people about what this would entail.
The editorial continues:
As Armey has suggested, knees are likely to buckle in
Congress if the pain this will cause is detailed. Many
citizens also will lose zeal for fiscal responsibility when
they discover that it is likely to affect them.
The Republicans' refusal to say how they propose to balance
the budget sends a clear message that they believe the
cowards among us, in Congress and elsewhere, outnumber those
who are willing to face unpleasant facts and do what is
necessary to correct this problem. Recent history supports
that premise, but this can change with responsible national
leadership in the White House and Congress.
In a representative democracy the people deserve to be
given information they need to make up their minds about
vital issues. Given that information, the people might well
make the wrong decision, but that is the privilege of a free
society.
Furthermore, the political strategy of refusing to divulge
details, as smart as it might seem to congressional leaders,
could backfire on them.
The public's appetite for detail is not always keen, but
the American people don't appreciate politicians who
deliberately keep them in the dark.
The editorial concludes by saying:
We want the budget balanced and the national debt reduced,
but we cannot support the notion that what the people don't
know won't hurt them.
I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate, Feb. 6, 1995]
People Deserve an Explanation
House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, is right when he
says spelling out necessary spending cuts will make it tough,
maybe impossible, to enact a balanced-budget amendment.
However, Armey and his party are wrong to refuse to level
with the people about what this would entail.
As Armey has suggested, knees are likely to buckle in
Congress if the pain this will cause is detailed. Many
citizens also will lose zeal for fiscal responsibility when
they discovered it is likely to affect them.
The Republicans' refusal to say how they propose to balance
the budget sends a clear message that they believe the
cowards among us, in Congress and elsewhere, outnumber those
who are willing to face unpleasant facts and do what is
necessary to correct this problem. Recent history supports
that premise, but this can change with responsible national
leadership in the White House and Congress.
In a representative democracy the people deserve to be
given information they need to make up their minds about
vital issues. Given that information, the people might well
make the wrong decision, but that is the privilege of a free
society.
Furthermore, the political strategy of refusing to divulge
details, as smart as it might seem to congressional leaders,
could backfire on them.
The public's appetite for detail is not always keen, but
the American people don't appreciate politicians who
deliberately keep them in the dark.
We don't doubt that Democrats are politically motivated in
calling for the Grand Old Party to detail its grand new
plans. As columnists Jack Germond and Jules Witcover recently
noted, Democrats realize details would bring out special
interests in opposition to the amendment. They correctly
observed that details of President Clinton's health-care
proposals were ``the ammunition for their rejection'' last
year.
On the other hand, we are convinced that Hillary Rodham
Clinton miscalculated mightily when she and a legion of
advisers undertook to draft those health-care proposals in
secrecy. That tactic might have delayed attacks by special
interests regarding the specifics, but it also aroused
considerable public suspicion about what was being fashioned
behind closed doors.
The Democrats' motivation might be petty indeed, but their
position is quite correct. As the saying goes, the devil is
in the details, and that is precisely why the public is
entitled to know them.
A balanced-budget amendment has been approved in the House
and likely will come to a vote in the U.S. Senate shortly.
U.S. Sen. Bennett Johnston, D-La., has announced his
opposition to the amendment. Sen. John Breaux, D-La., says he
is undecided.
Breaux, Johnston and 39 other senators support a ``right-
to-know'' provision for the amendment. We don't necessarily
favor putting that language in the amendment, but we do
support the concept behind it.
Breaux says Congress cannot spell out every projected
budget cut in every federal program over the seven years
Republicans
[[Page S2192]] want to gradually balance the budget. However,
he says Congress can pass a seven-year outline of general
intent and budget-writing methods.
Breaux is right.
We want the budget balanced and the national debt reduced,
but we cannot support the notion that what the people don't
know won't hurt them.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the point that the editorial attempts to
make, and I think does a good job of doing, and the point I have been
trying to make is that we are, in effect, by this amendment, without
the right to know accompanying it, sticking it to the States and doing
it in the dark. We are saying to the States that you should trust us to
do the balanced budget efforts that are necessary in Congress in a way
that you are going to like or a way that you can handle it or in a way
that you can support, but do not make us tell you how we are going to
do it.
We are saying, we are going to give you the balanced budget and you
should ask your State legislators to vote for it, make it part of the
Constitution. And then sometime later, the Congress is going to tell
you, after you have already voted for it, after the fact, we are going
to tell you what it is going to mean to your State.
But I suggest at that point it is too late, they will have already
voted. They will have already voted to cut programs, they will have
already voted to have to raise taxes, if they are going to keep a level
of program funding for their respective States. But then it is going to
be too late.
So I say, what is wrong with trying to require that, when we submit
the balanced budget amendment to the respective States, it is
accompanied with a budget resolution that says to the States that if
you adopt this, here is what it is going to mean to your State? Like
the editorial said, they might not vote for it, they may make the wrong
decision, but at least they will have made the decision knowing what
the implications are.
I asked the National Governors Conference when I spoke to them last
week: ``Governors, how are you going to answer the question of your
speaker of the house or your president of the senate when he or she
comes to you and says, `Governor, if I ask our colleagues to vote for
this, what is it going to mean to the people of our State?'''
And the Governor is going to have to say: ``I don't know. Trust
Congress.''
That is not a sufficient answer. It is like Ronald Reagan used to say
when he talked about the Soviets, he said trust, yes; trust but verify.
I suggest that if the only verification we can give the States is to
tell them how we are going to reach that time in the year 2002, in
effect achieve a balanced budget in 7 years, what is wrong with telling
them how we are going to do it?
Some of our colleagues say, ``We can't do that, we can't do a 7-year
balanced budget amendment; it is too difficult, it is too hard to do
it.'' I suggest we did it 2 years ago when we passed a 5-year
reconciliation. We cut the Federal deficit by over $500 billion. It was
not easy. Not a single Republican voted for it, but we did it for 5
years. And if my Republican colleagues say, ``Well, we can't do it for
7; that is just impossible,'' how about 5? Make me an offer. Let us do
it for 5. I will go along with 5. But at least give the States some
information so they can cast an intelligent vote when we ask them to
vote for the balanced budget amendment.
Like the editorial said:
We cannot support the notion that what the people don't
know won't hurt them.
I suggest that as the States become more concerned about what this
really means, they will demand that the Congress give them an
indication of what we are going to do, how we are going to do it,
before we ask them to vote for it. I think that is fair. I think it is
the right thing to do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Senate,
not only as a Senator representing the State of West Virginia, but also
in my capacity as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
To repeat a point I made before this body last Thursday, I still do
not understand why so many of my colleagues want to add another page or
even more to the U.S. Constitution to force us to do the job we were
sent here to get done.
From the day I entered the Senate, and saw the way the Federal
deficit was growing out of control, I braced myself for the decisions
and the public, out-in-the-open votes that would be required to deal
with our budget crisis. Making actual cuts in programs and benefits is
hardly ever easy--they almost always take something away from someone.
but that's what our job requires. And that is why just 50 of us voted
less than 2 years ago to enact a record level of real, actual deficit
reduction. We did not need to clutter the Constitution to enact a more
responsible and fair budget.
And to speak to today's question, I cannot emphasize enough how
enormously troubled I am by the idea of using the Constitution to force
$1 trillion or even $1.4 trillion in more cuts without West Virginians
or the rest of the American people having any idea where those cuts
would be made.
At the moment, I want to speak not only for the people of my State,
but for the 202,200 West Virginians who are veterans--and for the
26,364,900 veterans across the country.
Mr. President, the veterans of West Virginia and the United States of
America have the right to know. They have the right to know what this
proposed amendment to the Constitution will do to the services and
benefits that come to them because they once served, or fought, or even
physically suffered to stand up for the very rights that our
Constitution stands for. What a cruel irony it will be if Congress
revises the Constitution to break faith with the very men and women who
have served their country so faithfully.
It is not that veterans have excluded themselves from dealing with
the country's fiscal problems. Sitting on the Veterans Affairs
Committee, I have heard the leaders of veterans organizations
repeatedly tell us they are willing to do their fair share in solving
the Nation's problems, and that includes the Federal deficit. In fact,
veterans made a major contribution to the package that we enacted in
1993. That deficit reduction plan required $2.6 billion in savings in
veterans' programs, spelled out on paper for anyone and everyone to
evaluate, debate, support, or oppose.
The difference between the 1993 deficit-cutting plan and this
constitutional amendment is that the former told veterans, in my State
and across this country, what Congress felt had to be done to cut waste
and reduce Government spending--where the latter, this balanced budget
amendment, may as well say, ``Sign now, pay later.'' There is not a
clue in this amendment to even hint at what will happen to veterans'
compensation, pensions, health care, widows' benefits, prosthetics,
education, and claims processing. Not one word.
That is why we want to attach a Right-to-Know ``rider'' on the
business before us. We are simply saying a better, more honest policy
is for the proponents of the balanced budget amendment to first show
upfront who will pay, and when and how, and then we can talk about
signing at the bottom line.
I have said before, and I continue to say, that we in this body owe
the American people a clear explanation of where the trillion dollars
or more of cuts will come from, not vagueness about where they might
come from or whether taxes will be increased or decreased. We owe those
who have served and sacrificed for this country, the more than 26
million veterans from coast to coast, a clear explanation. They have at
least earned the right to hear the full truth.
The Federal Government's agencies and experts are struggling to
forecast what impact this constitutional amendment might have on
Americans. Most sources from the Government or private organizations
say that the size of the cuts required will be unprecedented--immense
in scope. Because the budget would have to be balanced in 7 years, one-
third of programs from anticrime efforts to Medicare may have to be
eliminated. That is a figure, a number: one-third.
In the real world, that figure translates into less police and fewer
prison cells. It means seniors finding out their
[[Page S2193]] doctor cannot see them anymore because Medicare has
stopped paying. It means rural hospitals going under when payments
aren't keeping up with the cost of providing the world's greatest
medical care I always hear about on this floor when we try to enact
health care reform.
And today, I want to talk about what all this might mean to our
Nation's veterans.
I have sometimes told veterans that when you are a veteran yourself,
or when you work at the VA or volunteer for a veteran's service
organization, you do not need to be reminded about the sacrifices of
those who served in our Armed Forces. It is part of your daily life--
and it is very easy, Mr. President, to begin to think that everyone
thinks about veterans, and the veterans community. But it is not always
the case.
Veterans have carried the torch of freedom proudly from one
generation of Americans to the next, by their courage in war, in
defense of America--and by their dedication in peace to keeping America
strong.
So how exactly will this constitutional amendment affect veterans? I
do not see a single provision in this proposal to exempt veterans'
benefits and services, like monthly compensation for disabled, service-
related veterans. I cannot find any large or even fine print that gives
one single clue on how veterans' programs will be cut, where they will
be cut, when they will be cut.
Make no mistake about it. Veterans' benefits will have to be on the
cutting table under a balanced budget amendment that tries to get the
job done in the next 7 years. The contract made to veterans will have
to be rewritten to rush this quickly and this blindly toward the
Promised Land.
Let us talk just a minute about veterans' benefits, Mr. President. We
hear a lot about them. What exactly do we mean when we say ``veterans'
benefits''?
First, there is service-connected disability compensation. This
compensation is paid to veterans who were injured while in service to
this country. It is a benefit valued perhaps more than any other in VA.
Why? Because our Nation recognizes and respects, as we should, the
commitment we made to those who gave up their livelihood, left their
homes, agreed to risk their lives for their country, and suffered an
injury while doing it. Many never came home. Who here intends to break
our contract with the disabled men and women who have served their
country and risked so much?
When commenting recently on the Contract With America, the Secretary
of VA, Jesse Brown, said, ``America already has a contract, if not a
sacred thrust, with its 26 million veterans who have honorably and
faithfully served their country.''
Veterans with low incomes get help through a pension program. It
differs from compensation in that it is a needs-based program. It is
available only to a totally disabled veteran who served during wartime
and though not injured while in service, suddenly finds himself or
herself in need of help just to survive. And with the amount of money
the Government pays them under this program now, it is all they can do
to survive.
Jesse Overbaugh and his family in Richwood, WV, are a good example of
how a pension works. Jesse was ill this past year with serious
circulatory problems and unable to work. He and his wife, Lucena, still
had four children living at home. Jesse is a Vietnam combat veteran who
was awarded the Bronze Star. The VA was able to help the Overbaughs
until they began receiving other help. The family received a monthly
check for $1,296 from VA. Not much money for a family of six, but it
was all the help they could get at the time--and the least our
government could do for a man who risked his life in Vietnam.
Do the proponents of this constitutional amendment want to tell Jesse
Overbaugh and his family to expect to lose a third of that pension? Or
what does the Senator from West Virginia tell them about how this
amendment will affect them? They have a right to know, and I would like
to know.
When we combine the amount of money VA spends on compensation,
pension, and education, it makes up almost 50 percent of the total VA
budget. Many people do not realize that.
Yes, the budget can be balanced in 7 quick years through a plan that
includes slashing veterans' benefits by 30 percent. That is, indeed, an
option. But it is not this Senator's idea of a just or responsible
plan.
The veterans and families of my State and this Nation have a right to
know what exactly is being contemplated to get the budget balanced this
quickly. Is one idea to break promises--our contract--with the men and
women who agreed to risk their lives for freedom at home and around the
world?
As I stand here today, let us think about reducing our debt--by a
third--to the veterans of the 11th Airborne who 50 years ago this past
weekend parachuted into the mountains outside of Manila as part of the
operation to liberate the Philippines. What do the proponents of this
amendment have to say to these veterans and their families, as we
debate a constitutional amendment to balance the budget that does not
include a single detail on how the job will get done?
Last year, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the GI bill, often
referred to as the most comprehensive legislation ever passed. Twenty
million veterans benefited from its programs.
In keeping with that tradition, over 380,000 service members and
veterans received benefits from the Montgomery GI bill just in 1994.
The veterans still counting on this help to attend
college or more education have a right to know. It is time to tell
them, many of them Persian Gulf veterans, to give up on that hope? If
this program is cut by a third, there will be $258 million less in
return for the contributions they made to their education. Shouldn't
someone be telling them that Congress may be on the verge of breaking
this contract with them?
How about our contract with America's military widows? How do you
tell the widow of a disabled veteran who died as a result of his
service-connected injuries, that her monthly income will be cut from
$769 a month to $539? That is less than $7,000 a year. These are not
rich people--these are the sons and daughters of America, people often
on the margin. We need to remember the price that is paid by those who
are left behind during a time of war and world conflict, those left
behind to worry--to wonder--to wait. The wives, daughters, and mothers;
the fathers, sons, and brothers. War leaves its mark on all of them.
They, too, have the right to know what this proposed amendment to the
Constitution will mean to them.
Recent surveys show that between 250,000 and 600,000 veterans are
homeless each night. Imagine--some 250,000 veterans on any given night
living on the streets or in shelters. These figures are absolutely
staggering. Outrageous.
I want to remind my colleagues that in 1994, 20,200 homeless veterans
received assistance in VA regional offices, shelter sites, and on the
streets. How many homeless veterans are living in Maine--in Florida--in
New Mexico, or Oregon? My colleagues may not be hearing from homeless
veterans. There are good explanations for that. Like not even having
the pen and paper or the money for a phone call to be in touch.
We will know soon enough, if this amendment is attached to the
Constitution, just how serious the problem of homeless veterans is in
every State. The States and communities that don't want unfunded
mandates will be handed an immense, unfunded shift in responsibility
for veterans living on the streets and grates.
There is not one hospital, one vet center, one outpatient clinic, one
veterans' home or domiciliary, that will be safe. If we put the budget
on this speeding train, it may have to trample any one of these.
I cannot say which veterans hospitals will be hurt the most by the
cuts. Because this constitutional amendment does not come with details
like that. I can only guess.
I can speculate that hospitals in rural States and communities will
be especially vulnerable. Then I think about small States like
Delaware. Would the veterans of Delaware lose their only VA hospital?
Or other rural States where VA medical centers provide health care to
thousands of lower income people who have no place else to go? Medical
centers like those at
[[Page S2194]] Hot Springs, SD, or Fort Harrison in Montana?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that tables from
the 1994 Annual Report of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs showing the
number of patients receiving inpatient and outpatient medical care,
broken down by State and facilities, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TABLE 7.--PROGRAM SUMMARY, INPATIENT AND OUTPATIENT MEDICAL CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inpatient care--patients treated\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals Nursing homes Domiciliaries Outpatient medical care
Location of VA facility ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAMC nursing VAMC
VAMC hospital Non-VA2,3 State home2,4 home care Community2,3 State home2,4 domiciliary State home2,4 Visits to VA Fee basis care
care component component care component staff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmentwide:
Totals...................... 906,925 20,377 2,056 30,926 29,096 17,873 18,244 6,453 24,134,839 1,023,144
Transfers................... 33,651 .............. .............. 614 452 .............. 20 .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All facilities: Totals.... 940,576 20,377 2,056 31,540 29,548 17,873 18,264 6,453 24,134,839 1,023,144
===============================================================================================================================================================
Alabama:
Birmingham.................. 7,455 86 .............. .............. 129 .............. .............. .............. 166,437 ..............
Montgomery.................. 3,668 88 .............. .............. 37 205 .............. .............. 45,299 20,092
Tuscaloosa.................. 4,016 3 .............. 236 19 .............. .............. .............. 65,562 ..............
Tuskegee.................... 5,822 .............. .............. 208 60 .............. .............. .............. 82,849 ..............
Alaska: Anchorage (ROC)......... 46 1,700 .............. .............. 55 .............. 71 .............. 57,349 33,113
Arizona:
Phoenix..................... 10,379 122 .............. 306 211 .............. .............. .............. 232,574 10,718
Prescott.................... 2,533 12 .............. 77 177 .............. 706 .............. 77,304 ..............
Tucson...................... 5,966 2 .............. 664 370 .............. .............. .............. 183,676 ..............
Arkansas:
Fayetteville................ 3,733 .............. .............. .............. 60 .............. .............. .............. 76,726 ..............
Little Rock\6\.............. 16,696 214 .............. 307 397 34 268 15 288,136 27,375
California:
Fresno...................... 4,376 29 .............. 330 80 .............. .............. .............. 125,171 4,786
Livermore................... 1,365 87 .............. 206 31 .............. .............. .............. 49,131 ..............
Loma Linda.................. 7,504 .............. .............. 273 267 .............. .............. .............. 191,043 ..............
Long Beach.................. 11,961 233 .............. 496 268 .............. .............. .............. 358,982 ..............
Los Angeles (IOC)........... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 158,800 349
Martinez.................... .............. 666 .............. .............. 115 .............. .............. .............. 293,825 15,767
Palo Alto\6\................ 10,389 117 .............. 775 583 .............. 212 .............. 278,897 13,420
San Diego................... 8,280 211 .............. 308 202 .............. .............. .............. 261,458 19,695
San Francisco............... 7,719 245 570 256 274 883 .............. 1,284 228,609 22,200
Sepulveda................... 1,788 176 .............. 72 107 .............. .............. .............. 250,206 ..............
West Los Angeles\6\......... 15,683 52 .............. 318 609 .............. 956 .............. 407,912 ..............
Colorado:
Denver...................... 7,732 29 .............. 239 247 301 .............. 42 213,383 7,986
Fort Lyon................... 840 48 .............. 192 35 .............. .............. .............. 37,583 ..............
Grand Junction.............. 2,428 .............. .............. 71 67 .............. .............. .............. 42,410 ..............
Connecticut:
Newington................... 2,713 66 717 .............. 102 .............. .............. 971 80,393 7,083
West Haven.................. 7,330 5 .............. 159 197 .............. .............. .............. 177,174 ..............
Delaware: Wilmington............ 3,142 23 .............. 129 90 455 .............. .............. 80,271 2,091
District of Columbia: Washington 10,295 124 .............. 233 222 368 .............. 124 241,055 3,740
Florida:
Bay Pines................... 11,560 1,594 .............. 488 481 .............. 609 .............. 264,921 61,692
Gainesville................. 9,604 47 .............. 224 143 .............. .............. .............. 183,575 ..............
Lake City................... 6,059 6 .............. 216 59 .............. .............. .............. 89,620 ..............
Miami....................... 12,051 235 .............. 421 246 .............. .............. .............. 396,341 ..............
Tampa....................... 12,325 48 .............. 506 437 .............. .............. .............. 372,733 ..............
Georgia:
Atlanta..................... 8,662 422 .............. 225 291 .............. .............. .............. 176,838 44,653
Augusta\6\.................. 9,870 4 .............. 88 245 358 .............. .............. 147,809 ..............
Dublin...................... 4,588 2 .............. 174 153 396 743 135 74,004 ..............
Hawaii: Honolulu (ROC).......... .............. 2,009 .............. .............. 52 .............. .............. .............. 81,929 15,956
Idaho: Boise.................... 3,275 25 .............. 277 105 253 .............. 132 92,650 2,977
Illinois:
Chicago (Lakeside).......... 6,746 23 .............. .............. 133 .............. .............. .............. 171,059 ..............
Chicago (West Side)......... 8,177 225 .............. .............. 340 .............. .............. .............. 265,084 11,016
Danville.................... 6,271 43 .............. 358 142 .............. .............. .............. 122,187 ..............
Hines....................... 13,080 75 .............. 495 543 515 .............. 15 273,266 ..............
Manon....................... 4,858 21 .............. 133 283 .............. .............. .............. 92,650 ..............
North Chicago............... 4,465 40 .............. 554 476 .............. 211 .............. 146,396 ..............
Indiana:
Fort Wayne.................. 3,102 .............. .............. 132 144 .............. .............. .............. 37,560 ..............
Indianapolis\6\............. 7,995 182 .............. 218 305 417 .............. 78 183,679 21,416
Manon....................... 2,418 .............. .............. 100 79 .............. .............. .............. 54,701 ..............
Iowa:
Des Moines.................. 4,041 9 256 .............. 121 742 75 184 78,740 11,062
Iowa City................... 6,576 40 .............. .............. 233 581 .............. 103 106,962 ..............
Knoxville................... 2,349 .............. .............. 368 53 .............. 433 .............. 55,620 ..............
Kansas:
Leavenworth................. 4,014 27 .............. 183 200 .............. 695 .............. 108,640 3,145
Topeka...................... 5,178 23 .............. 159 82 .............. .............. .............. 142,153 3,467
Wichita..................... 3,902 110 .............. 151 150 93 .............. 165 79,776 13,057
Kentucky:
Lexington\6\................ 8,570 14 .............. 215 115 299 .............. .............. 130,061 ..............
Louisville.................. 7,944 144 .............. .............. 260 .............. .............. .............. 157,053 11,732
Louisiana:
Alexandria.................. 4,504 22 .............. 256 195 .............. .............. .............. 84,724 ..............
New Orleans................. 7,622 105 .............. .............. 140 187 .............. 128 250,013 5,966
Shreveport.................. 6,515 59 .............. .............. 252 .............. .............. .............. 116,000 6,674
Maine:
Togus....................... 4,475 122 .............. 113 72 332 .............. .............. 121,664 28,945
Maryland:
Baltimore................... 7,157 76 .............. .............. 179 .............. .............. .............. 239,150 6,862
Fort Howard................. 1,907 31 .............. 69 33 .............. .............. .............. 39,484 ..............
Perry Point................. 3,496 5 .............. 159 83 .............. .............. .............. 92,646 ..............
Massachusetts:
Bedford..................... 2,919 22 .............. 327 135 .............. 144 .............. 143,386 ..............
Boston...................... 9,501 112 405 .............. 200 119 .............. 390 355,437 3,746
Brockton\6\................. 7,818 .............. .............. 195 258 .............. .............. .............. 235,745 ..............
Northampton................. 2,891 38 108 119 167 391 .............. 40 123,643 ..............
Michigan:
Allen Park.................. 8,154 219 .............. 155 88 661 .............. 103 208,982 10,748
Ann Arbor................... 6,489 16 .............. 407 181 .............. .............. .............. 169,602 ..............
Battle Creek................ 4,646 19 .............. 282 99 .............. .............. .............. 145,378 ..............
Iron Mountain............... 2,432 12 .............. 117 45 216 .............. 62 40,551 1,724
Saginaw..................... 2,453 24 .............. 225 96 .............. .............. .............. 49,029 ..............
Minnesota:
Minneapolis................. 14,629 508 .............. 801 715 537 .............. 285 331,284 18,530
[[Page S2195]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inpatient care--patients treated\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals Nursing homes Domiciliaries Outpatient medical care
Location of VA facility ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAMC nursing VAMC
VAMC hospital Non-VA2,3 State home2,4 home care Community2,3 State home2,4 domiciliary State home2,4 Visits to VA Fee basis care
care component component care component staff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Cloud................... 2,889 84 .............. 285 62 .............. 269 .............. 87,900 2,938
Mississippi:
Biloxi\6\................... 6,015 12 .............. 160 180 .............. 880 .............. 198,294 ..............
Jackson..................... 9,107 77 .............. 248 258 208 .............. .............. 136,795 15,083
Missouri:
Columbia.................... 7,670 11 .............. 126 292 .............. .............. .............. 84,852 ..............
Kansas City................. 7,834 138 .............. .............. 375 .............. .............. .............. 160,354 15,366
Poplar Bluff................ 3,341 21 .............. 89 117 219 .............. .............. 46,463 1,073
St. Louis\6\................ 13,141 104 .............. 433 225 865 .............. .............. 279,566 8,544
Montana:
Fort Harrison............... 3,527 16 .............. .............. 173 128 .............. 52 43,196 12,185
Miles City.................. 971 27 .............. 38 39 .............. .............. .............. 26,663 ..............
Nebraska:
Grand Island................ 1,378 .............. .............. 208 25 347 .............. 50 32,211 ..............
Lincoln..................... 3,095 59 .............. .............. 89 .............. .............. .............. 49,584 6,658
Omaha....................... 6,059 44 .............. .............. 188 277 .............. 6 108,156 ..............
Nevada:
Las Vegas (IOC)............. .............. 108 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 106,804 2,587
Reno........................ 3,910 58 .............. 415 109 .............. .............. .............. 122,044 7,200
New Hampshire: Manchester....... 2,691 77 .............. 358 84 172 .............. .............. 82,933 6,199
New Jersey:
East Orange................. 9,626 57 .............. 109 192 620 .............. 11 204,476 3,718
Lyons....................... 3,723 .............. .............. 332 51 .............. 155 .............. 73,626 ..............
New Mexico: Albuquerque......... 9,821 81 .............. 247 225 258 .............. 21 258,524 3,305
New York:
Albany...................... 6,469 57 .............. 306 257 .............. .............. .............. 186,461 7,062
Batavia..................... 983 6 .............. 118 58 .............. .............. .............. 69,762 ..............
Bath........................ 2,032 7 .............. 208 75 .............. 647 .............. 59,639 ..............
Bronx....................... 6,272 14 .............. 237 125 .............. .............. .............. 230,835 ..............
Brooklyn\6\................. 9,327 75 .............. 357 209 .............. 156 .............. 376,524 214
Buffalo..................... 8,469 30 .............. 189 187 .............. .............. .............. 204,517 6,081
Canandaigua................. 2,165 4 .............. 140 34 .............. 175 .............. 74,359 ..............
Castle Point................ 2,223 9 .............. 187 74 .............. .............. .............. 56,686 ..............
Montrose.................... 3,603 7 .............. 193 46 .............. 165 .............. 69,048 ..............
New York.................... 7,837 57 .............. .............. 89 .............. .............. .............. 312,765 1,212
Northport................... 6,407 6 .............. 270 142 646 .............. .............. 249,112 ..............
Syracuse.................... 5,226 135 .............. 208 95 184 .............. .............. 132,144 14,055
North Carolina:
Asheville................... 6,484 13 .............. 89 178 .............. .............. .............. 88,976 ..............
Durham...................... 8,220 143 .............. 414 245 .............. .............. .............. 131,329 ..............
Fayetteville................ 4,349 8 .............. 90 150 .............. .............. .............. 100,447 ..............
Salisbury................... 3,987 111 .............. 181 202 .............. .............. .............. 93,196 47,686
North Dakota: Fargo............. 3,449 215 .............. 280 63 41 .............. 143 54,141 10,971
Ohio:
Chillicothe................. 6,124 44 .............. 705 437 .............. .............. .............. 84,925 ..............
Cincinnati.................. 6,688 159 .............. 106 223 .............. 189 .............. 158,974 3,499
Cleveland\6\................ 10,462 255 .............. 330 262 415 1,159 231 342,239 8,349
Columbus (OC)............... .............. 273 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 112,108 20,230
Dayton...................... 6,384 53 .............. 406 370 .............. 627 .............. 192,709 ..............
Oklahoma:
Muskogee.................... 4,274 98 .............. .............. 208 .............. .............. .............. 127,340 24,138
Oklahoma City............... 8,780 59 .............. .............. 314 1,646 .............. 61 215,845 ..............
Oregon:
Portland\6\................. 10,786 137 .............. 351 544 .............. 196 .............. 234,694 23,891
Roseburg.................... 3,936 127 .............. 202 193 .............. .............. .............. 93,735 12,660
White City (Ind. Dom.)...... .............. 51 .............. .............. 45 .............. 1,850 .............. 23,100 ..............
Pennsylvania:
Altoona..................... 2,397 63 .............. 93 52 649 .............. 337 43,699 9,893
Butler...................... 2,249 29 .............. 206 92 .............. 256 .............. 54,844 2,411
Coatesville................. 3,168 31 .............. 318 172 .............. 390 150 68,361 1,191
Erie........................ 2,028 41 .............. 47 122 102 .............. 122 63,098 2,059
Lebanon..................... 3,777 61 .............. 275 151 .............. .............. .............. 78,040 7,931
Philadelphia................ 7,980 138 .............. 305 82 .............. .............. .............. 241,715 5,942
Pittsburgh (Highland Dr.)... 3,388 58 .............. .............. 193 .............. 109 .............. 101,330 2,767
Pittsburgh (Univ. Dr.) (6).. 7,776 81 .............. 364 304 .............. .............. .............. 132,633 7,418
Wilkes-Barre................ 5,450 154 .............. 232 111 97 .............. 17 153,993 11,074
Philippines: Manila (ROC)....... .............. 1,001 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 9,650 ..............
Puerto Rico: San Juan........... 11,551 464 .............. 292 24 .............. .............. .............. 364,215 30,555
Rhode Island: Providence........ 4,251 35 .............. .............. 203 312 .............. 32 170,151 5,642
South Carolina:
Charleston.................. 6,289 48 .............. .............. 117 .............. .............. .............. 136,677 ..............
Columbia.................... 6,545 615 .............. 187 181 473 .............. .............. 177,943 20,827
South Dakota:
Fort Meade.................. 2,848 .............. .............. 158 80 .............. .............. .............. 53,427 ..............
Hot Springs................. 2,441 .............. .............. .............. 56 62 554 134 64,171 ..............
Sioux Falls................. 3,538 114 .............. 130 84 .............. .............. .............. 64,675 8,391
Tennessee:
Memphis..................... 10,494 .............. .............. 361 222 .............. .............. .............. 213,727 ..............
Mountain Home............... 6,937 76 .............. 168 375 .............. 1,000 .............. 176,215 ..............
Murfreesboro................ 4,886 22 .............. 256 122 283 .............. .............. 103,371 ..............
Nashville................... 8,316 95 .............. .............. 182 .............. .............. .............. 163,920 8,254
Texas:
Amarillo.................... 4,000 17 .............. 177 235 .............. .............. .............. 126,877 7,794
Big Springs................. 2,951 .............. .............. 103 90 .............. .............. .............. 37,314 ..............
Bonham...................... 1,767 16 .............. 219 153 .............. 417 .............. 49,554 ..............
Dallas...................... 11,791 201 .............. 365 450 .............. 130 .............. 310,449 16,408
El Paso (IOC)............... .............. 864 .............. .............. 19 .............. .............. .............. 84,300 10,740
Houston..................... 17,709 39 .............. 246 359 .............. .............. .............. 397,542 1,786
Kerrville................... 3,485 2 .............. 221 120 .............. .............. .............. 41,603 ..............
Martin...................... 1,542 .............. .............. .............. 61 .............. .............. .............. 18,035 ..............
San Antonio................. 13,014 331 .............. 452 247 .............. .............. .............. 319,120 11,569
Temple...................... 7,408 22 .............. 214 269 .............. 828 .............. 211,593 ..............
Waco........................ 4,157 69 .............. 196 127 .............. 142 .............. 90,196 7,072
Utah: Salt Lake City............ 7,811 49 .............. .............. 400 93 .............. .............. 151,603 10,480
Vermont: White River Junction... 3,578 62 .............. 153 74 280 .............. 43 82,534 2,483
Virginia:
Hampton..................... 5,166 32 .............. 254 150 .............. 1,055 .............. 176,981 529
Richmond.................... 11,968 12 .............. 150 257 .............. .............. .............. 213,059 ..............
Salem....................... 7,242 340 .............. 327 120 .............. .............. 68 176,722 20,821
Washington:
American Lake............... 2,386 311 .............. 126 129 .............. 252 .............. 141,202 11,213
Seattle..................... 8,967 148 .............. 209 530 434 .............. 218 219,302 15,309
Spokane..................... 2,840 84 .............. 222 109 .............. .............. .............. 76,458 6,867
Walla Walla................. 1,528 29 .............. 206 85 .............. .............. .............. 36,121 4,926
West Virginia:
Beckley..................... 3,001 4 .............. 73 86 .............. .............. .............. 40,502 ..............
[[Page S2196]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inpatient care--patients treated\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals Nursing homes Domiciliaries Outpatient medical care
Location of VA facility ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAMC nursing VAMC
VAMC hospital Non-VA2,3 State home2,4 home care Community2,3 State home2,4 domiciliary State home2,4 Visits to VA Fee basis care
care component component care component staff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarksburg.................. 3,633 1 .............. .............. 246 .............. .............. .............. 72,301 ..............
Huntington.................. 4,762 41 .............. .............. 329 .............. .............. 199 83,985 11,848
Martinsburg................. 4,818 5 .............. 201 158 .............. 727 .............. 129,085 1,159
Wisconsin:
Madison..................... 5,239 13 .............. .............. 45 660 .............. 126 74,145 ..............
Milwaukee................... 8,193 225 .............. 377 206 .............. 813 .............. 250,097 18,591
Tomah....................... 2,761 3 .............. 158 151 .............. .............. .............. 56,917 ..............
Wyoming:
Cheyenne.................... 1,760 108 .............. 71 52 59 .............. 75 43,786 2,507
Sheridan.................... 1,819 .............. .............. 48 37 .............. .............. 101 24,610 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Number of discharges and deaths during FY1994, plus the number on the rolls (bed occupants and patients on authorized leave of absence) on September 30, 1994. Transfers to another facility
are included in the count of discharges for each facility.
\2\As reported by VA authorizing facility.
\3\Authorized and paid for by VA.
\4\Supported by VA.
\5\Medical visits to private physicians authorized by VA on a fee-for-service basis.
\6\Includes data for two divisions of the VA medical center.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, do my colleagues realize that the VA
just last year added four new Women Veterans Comprehensive Health
Centers, bringing to eight the number of such VA facilities in the
country? Do we need to let those facilities know they better prepare to
roll back care for these women who served side by side with their male
counterparts, or nursed dying soldiers and sailors?
VA medical centers admitted over 870 quadriplegic veterans last year.
With a balanced budget amendment, will we need to tell 261 of them to
seek treatment elsewhere? I do not know the answer, because I can't
find the budget that goes along with writing new promises into the
Constitution.
VA is predicting a loss of 63,000 full-time employees under the
balanced budget amendment. Understand that these employees are the
doctors, the nurses, the technicians who administer health care, as
well as the vital support staff that keep our facilities operating. It
would require closings.
The loss of this staff would mean that literally thousands of
veterans who are now receiving health care would no longer be able to
get treatment. VA figures suggest there would be 488,000 fewer
inpatient visits and 11,403,000 fewer outpatient visits at our medical
centers.
Staff cuts will create severe problems in an already troubled
adjudication system within VA. Timely decisions in benefits claims will
become impossible. Over the past 2 years, in my capacity as chairman of
the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have heard from literally
hundreds and hundreds of veterans from across the country complaining
of the time it takes to receive the benefits they are entitled to as a
result of the injuries they sustained in the service. Some veterans
wait years. Who is going to tell them it will get worse?
Veterans write us daily about the long delays in processing their
claims. I know because I get copies of those letters to my colleagues,
because of my duties with the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
It currently takes VA 25 to 30 weeks to process an original claim.
Are my colleagues aware of that, Mr. President? Disabled veterans--
disabled because of something that happened to them when they were
serving their country--and they wait 30 weeks to get a claim processed?
And as if that weren't bad enough, they often wait years if they file
an appeal.
A recent study showed that 50 percent of veterans believe that VA
took too long. That adds up to approximately 60,000 unhappy veterans in
the State of Georgia, 24,000 unhappy veterans in the State of Oregon,
and 110,000 unhappy veterans in the State of Florida. A 30 percent cut
in veterans' benefits will not help them get their claims faster, and
every Senator will hear from those unhappy veterans.
Am I going to have to tell the 32,000 veterans and dependents who
receive benefits in my State of West Virginia, that the promises made
to them will no longer be kept?
Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that the tables
from the 1994 annual report of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
showing estimated expenditures of VA benefits for veterans, broken down
by State, be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TABLE 57.--ESTIMATED SELECTED EXPENDITURES BY STATE\1\--FISCAL YEAR 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readjustment benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education assistance
Total of -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
selected Total Montgomery GI Bill
State expenditures readjustment Post-Vietnam ---------------------------------------------------------------
($000)\2\ benefits conflict Active duty chapter 30 Selected reserve chapter 106
($000)\2\ (chapter 32) ---------------------------------------------------------------
amount ($000) Trained during Trained during
fiscal year Amount ($000) fiscal year\3\ Amount ($000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total\2\..................... $37,065,479 $1,353,964 $74,621 274,208 $742,457 101,411 $121,645
===============================================================================================================
Alabama................................. 785,715 32,530 1,307 6,049 16,851 3,984 4,603
Alaska.................................. 66,312 5,414 492 1,261 2,460 0 267
Arizona................................. 670,660 33,104 1,687 7,851 20,355 1,518 1,568
Arkansas................................ 587,811 15,226 439 2,327 6,983 1,867 2,261
California.............................. 3,365,923 125,891 8,009 29,201 77,984 6,392 7,125
Colorado................................ 516,016 32,789 1,999 6,823 18,100 1,289 1,532
Connecticut............................. 385,507 10,284 619 1,562 4,448 1,171 1,541
Delaware................................ 110,636 3,533 190 656 1,640 0 345
District of Columbia.................... 967,169 3,433 236 806 1,130 1 164
Florida................................. 2,298,565 82,537 4,626 19,681 52,348 3,481 3,574
Georgia................................. 1,032,498 44,585 3,214 9,795 27,297 3,832 3,159
Hawaii.................................. 150,428 7,803 824 2,494 4,565 1 361
Idaho................................... 104,717 8,451 405 1,747 4,893 753 907
Illinois................................ 1,299,820 49,215 2,167 11,582 32,326 1 6,096
Indiana................................. 591,100 23,285 1,282 4,341 11,484 2,451 2,813
Iowa.................................... 391,646 15,431 674 2,465 7,319 0 2,343
Kansas.................................. 402,285 16,616 985 3,515 9,719 0 2,023
Kentucky................................ 576,813 21,932 1,138 4,052 11,663 1,546 1,772
Louisiana............................... 662,189 26,150 793 4,471 13,187 4,688 6,365
Maine................................... 242,324 8,744 340 1,033 3,023 528 632
Maryland................................ 581,570 22,837 1,954 5,973 10,641 1,038 1,704
Massachusetts........................... 1,035,435 21,606 1,125 2,932 7,945 2,525 3,549
Michigan................................ 1,013,182 34,797 2,453 8,309 21,196 2,432 2,703
[[Page S2197]]
TABLE 57.--ESTIMATED SELECTED EXPENDITURES BY STATE\1\--FISCAL YEAR 1994--Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readjustment benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education assistance
Total of -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
selected Total Montgomery GI Bill
State expenditures readjustment Post-Vietnam ---------------------------------------------------------------
($000)\2\ benefits conflict Active duty chapter 30 Selected reserve chapter 106
($000)\2\ (chapter 32) ---------------------------------------------------------------
amount ($000) Trained during Trained during
fiscal year Amount ($000) fiscal year\3\ Amount ($000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota............................... 610,199 25,701 1,227 4,459 13,022 1 3,939
Mississippi............................. 510,578 13,510 375 1,996 5,802 2,465 3,240
Missouri................................ 843,611 29,324 1,396 5,537 14,101 14,569 2,866
Montana................................. 135,931 7,508 293 1,227 3,906 528 763
Nebraska................................ 272,180 12,676 496 2,604 7,111 1,541 1,944
Nevada.................................. 215,290 9,082 520 1,495 3,775 0 303
New Hampshire........................... 157,206 6,493 367 777 2,257 1 518
New Jersey.............................. 732,046 16,633 1,161 2,750 7,132 1,455 1,688
New Mexico.............................. 327,691 13,368 682 3,094 8,612 0 931
New York................................ 2,364,552 51,795 4,151 8,544 26,795 5,390 4,380
North Carolina.......................... 1,033,147 46,054 2,701 8,946 26,253 2,331 3,013
North Dakota............................ 96,701 6,850 195 1,034 3,406 0 1,412
Ohio.................................... 1,290,547 46,852 2,534 9,799 24,838 3,803 4,608
Oklahoma................................ 667,384 27,678 1,162 4,954 12,936 4,200 2,599
Oregon.................................. 539,912 21,609 1,014 3,858 11,082 1,122 1,245
Pennsylvania............................ 1,615,823 45,247 2,345 8,094 23,358 3,884 4,895
Rhode Island............................ 169,601 5,207 283 776 1,828 0 543
South Carolina.......................... 523,427 25,556 1,234 5,063 13,657 2,249 2,723
South Dakota............................ 198,971 8,383 300 1,111 3,793 976 1,312
Tennessee............................... 927,700 28,630 1,418 5,303 15,395 1,953 2,383
Texas................................... 2,649,635 106,722 4,985 24,102 63,069 5,661 6,241
Utah.................................... 236,066 11,311 516 1,717 4,805 1,814 2,014
Vermont................................. 106,809 2,820 96 289 909 0 318
Virginia................................ 995,424 51,903 3,834 11,474 28,969 2,219 3,095
Washington.............................. 793,159 47,044 2,567 9,672 27,562 1,637 1,861
West Virginia........................... 431,465 10,257 268 1,432 4,519 1,060 1,405
Wisconsin............................... 647,126 25,644 1,390 4,323 13,504 2,770 3,675
Wyoming................................. 99,606 3,916 153 852 2,504 284 324
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Expenditures for Compensation and Pension for the 50 states and D.C. were derived from the Federal Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS) and are
gross expenditures. Education expenditures come from the COIN EDU 666, information for insurance and indemnities for the 50 states and D.C. are
statistical estimates. All other dollar estimates are derived from VA accounting reports.
\2\The totals for ``Readjustment Benefits'' are the sums of the programs shown plus $5.1 million for the Service Members Occupational Conversion
Training Act (SMOCTA), which is not shown.
\3\As reported by station of jurisdiction which may report for more than one state.
TABLE 57 (continued)--ESTIMATED SELECTED EXPENDITURES BY STATE\1\--FISCAL YEAR 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readjustment benefits (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education assistance (continued) Vocational rehabilitation
------------------------------------------------ (title 38, U.S.C., ch 31) Hospital Medical
Dependents educational assistance (title 38, -------------------------------- Automobiles Specially Insurance and domiciliary services and
State U.S.C., ch. 35) and other adapted indemnities and other administrative
------------------------------------------------ conveyances housing for amount ($000) construction costs amount
Total trained during FY Trained during for disabled disabled amount ($000) ($000)
-------------------------------- fiscal year Amount ($000) veterans veterans
Sons and Widow(er)s and Amount ($000) ($000) ($000)
daughters spouses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total................ 33,714 4,422 $102,341 43,668 $274,540 $24,861 $8,006 $1,975,804 $627,015 $16,470,058
===============================================================================================================================================================
Alabama......................... 1,025 133 3,146 958 5,791 515 266 27,060 37,284 292,424
Alaska.......................... 68 12 227 399 1,920 25 0 2,678 11,210 2,145
Arizona......................... 810 147 2,256 1,015 6,070 960 196 38,552 4,963 269,036
Arkansas........................ 626 70 1,970 474 2,920 354 158 17,078 4,837 242,797
California...................... 2,872 413 8,325 3,588 20,883 2,453 510 219,313 62,273 1,623,737
Colorado........................ 598 103 1,840 1,344 8,556 439 112 31,135 647 192,858
Connecticut..................... 173 13 673 358 2,617 180 190 33,242 4,582 201,525
Delaware........................ 83 18 252 222 1,049 28 0 5,850 4,518 55,102
District of Columbia............ 114 5 243 153 1,645 15 0 4,362 8,424 897,908
Florida......................... 2,410 352 7,018 2,095 11,795 2,064 762 163,325 41,632 759,754
Georgia......................... 1,262 174 4,079 977 5,901 669 194 43,687 13,717 379,525
Hawaii.......................... 118 19 411 283 1,528 89 0 15,054 5,504 52,309
Idaho........................... 182 27 520 274 1,570 112 0 7,867 457 51,257
Illinois........................ 639 66 1,998 812 5,876 514 190 87,060 16,598 752,069
Indiana......................... 546 61 1,515 951 5,515 502 114 30,188 24,117 247,372
Iowa............................ 229 19 654 434 3,868 319 232 23,448 4,574 202,763
Kansas.......................... 400 58 1,248 434 2,452 132 0 19,770 8,263 195,742
Kentucky........................ 704 89 1,913 910 5,040 264 113 19,475 3,374 218,943
Louisiana....................... 598 77 1,951 551 3,454 360 0 24,498 7,771 281,976
Maine........................... 335 56 1,133 490 3,264 153 190 9,791 6,937 76,526
Maryland........................ 472 73 1,544 1,200 6,358 471 74 43,068 4,695 232,300
Massachusetts................... 710 48 2,080 703 6,089 502 273 55,625 7,481 510,201
Michigan........................ 876 77 2,448 810 5,208 632 0 55,883 91,739 400,762
Minnesota....................... 383 45 1,333 708 5,295 725 114 40,079 9,091 290,195
Mississippi..................... 508 54 1,634 322 1,949 193 309 14,772 2,655 219,102
Missouri........................ 616 100 2,009 1,109 8,132 656 38 38,651 12,740 405,640
Montana......................... 131 11 407 316 1,989 59 0 7,649 1,036 47,908
Nebraska........................ 349 44 1,053 337 1,899 120 38 13,918 264 130,460
Nevada.......................... 131 14 410 637 3,908 74 76 11,275 2,330 87,036
New Hampshire................... 198 20 630 319 2,295 177 190 10,095 101 49,515
New Jersey...................... 407 46 1,663 710 4,526 417 0 72,964 7,234 282,614
New Mexico...................... 350 39 943 369 1,838 222 76 13,267 2,661 140,968
New York........................ 1,335 110 4,171 1,467 10,846 957 118 143,402 31,316 1,274,225
North Carolina.................. 1,464 229 4,603 1,277 8,081 906 403 44,245 18,596 345,783
North Dakota.................... 99 6 352 196 1,408 37 0 5,249 1,631 44,385
Ohio............................ 904 96 2,705 1,262 10,235 1,539 190 77,523 6,872 553,423
Oklahoma........................ 1,035 148 2,869 1,450 7,318 434 228 22,279 9,897 197,974
Oregon.......................... 352 56 1,013 973 6,609 464 38 24,374 5,138 257,743
Pennsylvania.................... 919 96 2,834 1,145 10,262 839 114 104,254 11,651 752,636
Rhode Island.................... 177 10 475 206 1,840 122 38 8,579 1,668 74,939
South Carolina.................. 857 136 2,503 991 4,604 390 392 25,104 1,197 183,512
South Dakota.................... 140 18 416 376 2,365 95 76 5,818 2,727 120,560
Tennessee....................... 762 93 2,176 1,114 5,866 865 431 29,216 7,290 448,757
Texas........................... 3,165 441 9,415 3,698 20,319 1,485 772 112,710 78,768 1,019,808
Utah............................ 317 47 899 458 2,815 184 0 11,399 7,153 125,459
Vermont......................... 74 9 232 142 1,199 19 37 4,471 444 58,294
Virginia........................ 1,400 209 4,592 1,637 10,427 738 228 56,910 7,397 348,214
Washington...................... 830 132 2,566 1,647 11,180 701 280 43,561 6,549 290,245
West Virginia................... 329 38 999 430 2,811 175 0 10,850 7,365 221,392
Wisconsin....................... 551 55 1,796 789 4,523 487 208 41,402 5,023 301,780
Wyoming......................... 81 10 199 148 632 31 38 3,779 2,628 58,462
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Expenditures for Compensation of Pension for the 50 states and D.C. were derived from the Federal Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS) and are gross expenditures. Education expenditures
come from the COIN EDU 666. Information for insurance and indemnities for the 50 states and D.C. are statistical estimates. All other dollar estimates are derived from VA accounting reports.
\2\The totals for ``Readjustment Benefits'' are the sums of the programs shown plus $5.1 million for the Service Members Occupational Conversion Training Act (SMOCTA) which is not shown.
\3\As reported by station of junsdiction which may report for more than one state.
[[Page S2198]]
TABLE 57--(continued)--ESTIMATED SELECTED EXPENDITURES BY STATE\1\--FISCAL YEAR 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation and pension
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Living and deceased veterans Living veterans
State -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Burial Service-connected Nonservice-connected Total
-------------------------------- benefits -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Amount ($000) ($000) Number Amount ($000) Number Amount ($000) Number Amount ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total................................ 3,254,932 $16,638,638 $58,558 2,474,684 $13,619,967 780,248 $2,960,113 2,604,420 $12,906,987
===============================================================================================================================================
Alabama......................................... 78,829 396,416 1,375 52,860 284,684 25,969 110,357 58,216 288,352
Alaska.......................................... 7,940 44,865 57 7,571 42,894 369 1,913 7,460 40,910
Arizona......................................... 58,518 325,004 978 49,893 288,844 8,625 35,182 49,291 254,748
Arkansas........................................ 50,579 307,873 1,173 33,308 238,527 17,271 68,173 37,908 239,334
California...................................... 270,727 1,334,710 4,117 219,440 1,152,717 51,287 177,876 220,024 992,633
Colorado........................................ 49,271 258,587 605 42,541 231,380 6,730 26,601 41,557 202,924
Connecticut..................................... 29,667 135,874 524 25,023 121,090 4,644 14,260 25,250 110,854
Delaware........................................ 8,618 41,633 170 6,939 35,603 1,679 5,860 7,069 32,423
District of Columbia............................ 9,026 53,043 165 6,169 40,339 2,857 12,539 6,979 39,630
Florida......................................... 238,368 1,251,318 3,114 198,620 1,105,840 39,748 142,364 197,330 971,126
Georgia......................................... 104,509 550,984 1,929 76,620 447,248 27,889 101,807 79,384 406,135
Hawaii.......................................... 12,732 69,758 165 11,521 64,618 1,211 4,975 10,949 55,431
Idaho........................................... 14,016 72,685 265 11,520 62,087 2,496 10,333 12,001 59,525
Illinois........................................ 89,023 394,878 2,132 62,120 288,105 26,903 104,641 70,863 307,636
Indiana......................................... 55,755 266,138 993 41,784 213,672 13,971 51,473 44,972 212,343
Iowa............................................ 29,399 145,429 688 21,069 111,569 8,330 33,173 23,337 115,236
Kansas.......................................... 31,129 161,895 642 23,529 129,800 7,600 31,453 24,963 126,315
Kentucky........................................ 58,944 313,089 1,180 38,111 226,760 20,833 85,148 44,493 240,883
Louisiana....................................... 63,277 321,795 1,163 36,997 213,673 26,280 106,959 45,208 235,274
Maine........................................... 23,256 140,325 405 17,206 117,406 6,050 22,513 19,154 117,688
Maryland........................................ 55,153 278,670 1,079 44,779 240,837 10,374 36,754 44,333 209,629
Massachusetts................................... 90,525 440,523 1,507 75,595 393,556 14,930 45,460 75,745 356,422
Michigan........................................ 93,653 430,001 1,380 72,341 347,597 21,312 81,024 77,228 350,685
Minnesota....................................... 51,390 245,133 1,182 39,145 198,414 12,245 45,537 42,176 198,689
Mississippi..................................... 48,002 260,539 1,027 27,823 183,343 20,179 76,170 34,139 193,923
Missouri........................................ 67,617 357,256 1,425 46,474 265,774 21,143 90,057 52,523 277,006
Montana......................................... 13,182 71,830 246 10,352 61,014 2,830 10,330 11,330 61,174
Nebraska........................................ 20,752 114,862 453 15,669 91,483 5,083 22,926 16,824 91,615
Nevada.......................................... 22,220 105,568 418 18,636 91,159 3,584 13,991 19,343 84,780
New Hampshire................................... 16,719 91,002 288 14,220 80,863 2,499 9,851 14,350 75,416
New Jersey...................................... 77,252 352,601 1,305 64,885 312,051 12,367 39,245 64,720 281,182
New Mexico...................................... 28,032 157,428 426 22,053 133,517 5,979 23,485 23,075 125,396
New York........................................ 180,913 863,814 3,773 136,280 709,995 44,633 150,046 146,100 694,641
North Carolina.................................. 108,132 578,470 1,820 76,158 454,132 31,974 122,518 81,844 433,219
North Dakota.................................... 8,031 37,956 181 5,982 29,574 2,049 8,202 6,709 31,508
Ohio............................................ 127,478 605,877 2,189 96,132 482,272 31,346 121,415 103,510 483,509
Oklahoma........................................ 64,837 409,556 1,252 46,162 310,834 18,675 97,470 51,130 324,660
Oregon.......................................... 41,447 231,048 721 32,288 190,148 9,159 40,178 34,719 188,326
Pennsylvania.................................... 148,652 702,035 2,835 111,177 575,082 37,475 124,118 117,879 552,091
Rhode Island.................................... 15,223 79,208 350 12,350 69,303 2,873 9,555 12,557 63,285
South Carolina.................................. 57,238 288,058 1,156 39,020 219,404 18,218 67,498 42,350 207,635
South Dakota.................................... 11,572 61,483 297 8,040 45,586 3,532 15,600 9,443 50,505
Tennessee....................................... 79,751 413,807 1,679 51,656 304,708 28,095 107,420 59,569 313,633
Texas........................................... 247,939 1,331,626 4,446 188,353 1,102,254 59,586 224,926 193,861 999,636
Utah............................................ 15,763 80,745 277 13,313 70,803 2,450 9,665 13,535 66,262
Vermont......................................... 7,320 40,781 157 5,593 34,506 1,727 6,118 6,010 33,199
Virginia........................................ 100,056 532,001 1,860 79,481 454,537 20,575 74,604 79,049 391,930
Washington...................................... 78,647 407,760 1,070 68,917 365,966 9,730 38,724 67,423 322,175
West Virginia................................... 32,992 181,601 798 21,491 132,205 11,501 48,598 25,216 142,172
Wisconsin....................................... 54,846 273,277 999 42,493 225,473 12,353 46,805 46,084 227,515
Wyoming......................................... 6,015 30,821 122 4,985 26,722 1,030 3,977 5,238 25,772
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Expenditures for Compensation and Pension for the 50 states and D.C. were derived from the Federal Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS) and are gross expenditures. Education expenditures
come from the COIN EDU 666. Information for insurance and indemnities for the 50 states and D.C. are statistical estimates. All other estimates are derived from VA accounting reports.
TABLE 57 (continued)--ESTIMATED SELECTED EXPENDITURES BY STATE\1\--FISCAL YEAR 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation and pension--Continued
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Living veterans--Continued Deceased veterans
State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service-connected Nonservice-connected Total Service-connected Nonservice-connected
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Amount ($000) Number Amount ($000) Number Amount ($000) Number Amount ($000) Number Amount ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total................ 2,182,465 $10,775,024 421,955 $2,131,963 650,512 $3,673,093 292,219 $2,844,943 358,293 $828,150
===============================================================================================================================================================
Alabama......................... 45,584 216,030 12,632 72,322 20,613 106,689 7,276 68,654 13,337 38,035
Alaska.......................... 7,197 39,314 263 1,596 480 3,897 374 3,581 106 317
Arizona......................... 43,865 227,343 5,426 27,404 9,227 69,278 6,028 61,500 3,199 7,778
Arkansas........................ 28,284 190,368 9,624 48,966 12,671 67,366 5,024 48,159 7,647 19.207
California...................... 190,059 860,022 29,965 132,612 50,703 337,960 29,381 292,695 21,322 45,265
Colorado........................ 37,694 182,540 3,863 20,384 7,714 55,058 4,847 48,841 2,867 6,217
Connecticut..................... 22,918 100,348 2,332 10,505 4,417 24,496 2,105 20,741 2,312 3,755
Delaware........................ 6,184 28,193 885 4,230 1,549 9,040 755 7,410 794 1,630
District of Columbia............ 5,273 29,871 1,706 9,759 2,047 12,248 896 10,468 1,151 2,780
Florida......................... 173,976 865,108 23,354 106,018 41,038 277,077 24,644 240,732 16,394 36,346
Georgia......................... 65,202 337,102 14,182 69,033 25,125 142,920 11,418 110,146 13,707 32,774
Hawaii.......................... 10,226 51,672 723 3,759 1,783 14,162 1,295 12,946 488 1,215
Idaho........................... 10,403 51,226 1,598 8,299 2,015 12,895 1,117 10,861 898 2,034
Illinois........................ 55,938 230,656 14,925 76,980 18,160 85,111 6,182 57,449 11,978 27,661
Indiana......................... 37,692 175,624 7,280 36,719 10,783 52,802 4,092 38,048 6,691 14,754
Iowa............................ 18,875 90,375 4,462 24,861 6,062 29,506 2,194 21,194 3,868 8,312
Kansas.......................... 20,782 103,010 4,181 23,305 6,166 34,938 2,747 26,790 3,419 8,148
Kentucky........................ 32,961 179,020 11,532 61,863 14,451 71,026 5,150 47,740 9,301 23,286
Louisiana....................... 31,540 162,197 13,668 73,077 18,069 83,358 5,457 51,476 12,612 33,882
Maine........................... 15,392 99,969 3,762 17,719 4,102 22,231 1,814 17,437 2,288 4,794
Maryland........................ 39,060 184,094 5,273 25,535 10,820 67,963 5,719 56,744 5,101 11,219
Massachusetts................... 68,590 323,529 7,155 32,894 14,780 82,593 7,005 70,027 7,775 12,567
Michigan........................ 65,973 290,866 11,255 59,820 16,425 77,936 6,368 56,732 10,057 21,204
Minnesota....................... 35,690 164,613 6,486 34,077 9,214 45,261 3,455 33,801 5,759 11,460
Mississippi..................... 23,333 140,827 10,806 53,096 13,863 65,590 4,490 42,516 9,373 23,074
Missouri........................ 40,781 211,581 11,742 65,425 15,094 78,826 5,693 54,193 9,401 24,632
Montana......................... 9,536 52,850 1,794 8,323 1,852 10,411 816 8,164 1,036 2,247
Nebraska........................ 13,858 73,609 2,966 18,006 3,928 22,794 1,811 17,874 2,117 4,920
Nevada.......................... 16,816 73,263 2,527 11,517 2,877 20,370 1,820 17,896 1,057 2,474
New Hampshire................... 12,904 67,607 1,446 7,809 2,369 15,298 1,316 13,256 1,053 2,042
New Jersey...................... 58,860 253,619 5,860 27,563 12,532 70,115 6,025 58,432 6,507 11,683
New Mexico...................... 19,425 107,483 3,650 17,912 4,957 31,606 2,628 26,034 2,329 5,573
[[Page S2199]]
TABLE 57 (continued)--ESTIMATED SELECTED EXPENDITURES BY STATE\1\--FISCAL YEAR 1994--Continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation and pension--Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Living veterans--Continued Deceased veterans
State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service-connected Nonservice-connected Total Service-connected Nonservice-connected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Amount ($000) Number Amount ($000) Number Amount ($000) Number Amount ($000) Number Amount ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York....................... 123,702 588,042 22,398 106,599 34,813 165,401 12,578 121,954 22,235 43,447
North Carolina................. 65,432 351,727 16,412 81,492 26,288 143,431 10,726 102,405 15,562 41,026
North Dakota................... 5,517 25,294 1,192 6,214 1,322 6,268 465 4,280 857 1,988
Ohio........................... 87,136 396,541 16,374 86,968 23,968 120,179 8,996 85,732 14,972 34,447
Oklahoma....................... 39,872 249,151 11,258 75,509 13,707 83,644 6,290 61,683 7,417 21,961
Oregon......................... 29,013 157,722 5,706 30,604 6,728 42,001 3,275 32,426 3,453 9,575
Pennsylvania................... 99,793 466,992 18,086 85,100 30,773 147,108 11,384 108,090 19,389 39,018
Rhode Island................... 11,053 56,050 1,504 7,235 2,666 15,573 1,297 13,253 1,369 2,320
South Carolina................. 33,167 163,054 9,183 44,581 14,888 79,267 5,853 56,350 9,035 22,917
South Dakota................... 7,274 38,285 2,169 12,220 2,129 10,681 766 7,301 1,363 3,380
Tennessee...................... 44,630 239,403 14,939 74,230 20,182 98,495 7,026 65,305 13,156 33,190
Texas.......................... 161,799 839,273 32,062 160,363 54,078 327,544 26,554 262,981 27,524 64,563
Utah........................... 12,079 58,692 1,456 7,570 2,228 14,207 1,234 12,112 994 2,095
Vermont........................ 4,983 28,435 1,027 4,765 1,310 7,424 610 6,071 700 1,353
Virginia....................... 68,319 340,184 10,730 51,745 21,007 137,211 11,162 114,352 9,845 22,858
Washington..................... 61,613 291,648 5,810 30,527 11,224 82,515 7,304 74,319 3,920 8,197
West Virginia.................. 18,744 107,049 6,472 35,122 7,776 38,631 2,747 25,156 5,029 13,476
Wisconsin...................... 38,908 190,970 7,176 36,545 8,762 44,764 3,585 34,503 5,177 10,261
Wyoming........................ 4,560 22,587 678 3,185 777 4,927 425 4,135 352 792
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Expenditures for Compensation and Pension for the 50 states and D.C. were derived from the Federal Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS) and are gross expenditures. Education expenditures
come from the COIN EDU 666. Information for insurance and indemnities for the 50 states and D.C. are statistical estimates. All other dollar estimates are derived from VA accounting reports.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I spoke earlier about a West Virginia
veteran receiving pension benefits. I would like to take just a moment
now to give you an example of a disabled veteran receiving disability
compensation and medical care in our VA medical centers. I do not want
any doubt about who is getting VA benefits and why.
Jim Honce lives in Bridgeport, WV, and I am enormously proud of him.
Jim is a World War II disabled veteran. He is a Navy man and served
aboard a minesweeper, the U.S.S. Skill. During the war, a minesweeper
would travel 3 or 4 hours ahead of a convoy, sweeping for mines in the
water, setting buoys for ships to follow, and cutting channels for them
to land. It was a vital mission. Thousands upon thousands of American
lives were saved because of the work done by those on our minesweepers.
It was incredibly important and dangerous work.
On September 23, 1943, off the coast of Italy, Jim's life was
changed. The U.S.S. Skill took a direct hit from an enemy torpedo and
sank. Only 32 of the heroic 102-man crew survived. They were all
wounded. Not one of the ship's officers survived.
Jim was thrown 70 feet to a lower deck, suffered flash and fuel oil
burns over his entire upper body, his left arm and ribs were fractured,
and he had a scalp wound. He remembers being dragged off the burning
ship by an electrician's mate, who was suffering from a broken arm
himself. They made it about 100 yards from the ship when it went down.
Jim was not able to be placed on a liferaft with 12 other survivors
because of his injuries, so he held onto a rope in the water. The water
was shark infested, and Jim tells of a sister ship shooting at the
sharks when it arrived to rescue the men. Just imagine it. It sounds
like an action movie--but it was real life--it happened.
Once he arrived back in the States, home for Jim for the next 2 years
was the naval hospital in Bethesda, MD. During his stay there he had
nine operations and had to learn to walk all over again.
Jim has gone on with his life, went on to college, married, and
raised a family. But he still suffers terribly from both his physical
and emotional wounds--and the memories of those crew mates lost--and
the events he experienced in that war--will never go away.
Jim was awarded the Purple Heart--he earned his ``Contract With
America.'' Today, he is one of our 2.1 million veterans receiving a
service-connected compensation check for the injuries that still plague
him and that changed his life forever.
Mr. President, there is no way that I, in good conscience, can vote
for an amendment to balance the budget without being absolutely
positive that Jim Honce, and the many, many disabled veterans like
him--and Jesse Overbaugh and his family, and the many, many other
families like his--will retain what little repayment the Government now
provides them. They have earned their contract with their country--and
we should not let them down.
There is a lot of talk about sacrifices on this floor, Mr. President.
The American people need to make sacrifices and shoulder the burden for
the sake of the future. Somehow, that wasn't the talk that led 50
Senators to vote against a historic plan of real deficit reduction
before us 2 years ago.
But the talk is back, and now it is around the idea of using the
Constitution to make a mad, blind dash to a balanced budget, and maybe
even $400 billion of tax cuts to take along for the ride.
My purpose in taking the floor is to ask the proponents of this speed
chase to the finishing line to let more than 26 million Americans
called veterans--those who are disabled, those who are widows, those
who are poor, those who are sick, know something about what happens to
them along the way. Will they be sidestepped or stomped on? Will their
benefits and services be untouched or will they get sliced down the
middle?
Mr. President, if anyone in America has earned the right to know, it
is America's veterans and their families. With more than 200,000
veterans just in my State, and more than 26 million veterans across the
country, I could not possibly consider this proposed use of the U.S.
Constitution, before knowing what it will mean to the men and women who
have paid the highest honor to this sacred document through their
military service.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from New York [Mr.
Moynihan] is recognized.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Before the Senator from West Virginia leaves the floor,
I hope he will pause long enough for me to congratulate him on his
remarks. The Senator from New York joined the U.S. Navy 50 years ago
last July 1 and, without having any expectation of it, came to benefit
enormously from the GI bill, from veterans' insurance. I shall be
remarking this afternoon that during the first year of the Kennedy
administration, in an effort to stimulate the economy back from the
sharp recession of 1960 that came so quickly on the recession of 1958,
the VA issued a double dividend on that $10,000 life insurance we had
all signed up for. It was not a lot, but it was enough to enable us to
buy our little farm in Delaware County, the last hills in Appalachia
which connect us with West Virginia. We live there to this day.
I do not think that would be possible under the proposed amendment. I
am confident that if it were tried it would be litigated, and that
years after the effort was made by Walter Heller and James Tobin and
President Kennedy, and such, we might find out we had or did not have
such a benefit, but it would not help those who needed it at the time.
The prospect of any litigation and leaving the decisions of the Federal
Government, taking them out of the Senate Chamber across the park to
the Court, or down the avenue to the
[[Page S2200]] Federal Reserve, is baffling and certainly troubling,
and he has described it with great clarity and force. I thank him.
Mr. President, this week I propose to present three papers to the
Senate arguing in opposition to House Joint Resolution 1, ``Proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require a
balanced budget.''
The first of these papers will show that the current deficit is a
recent event that marks a sharp departure from fiscal problems of
earlier administrations that were directed primarily to the seemingly
intractable problem of a persistent full employment surplus, with its
accompanying downward pressure on consumer demand.
The second of these papers will relate the singular events of the
1980's which led to huge deficits and a correspondingly huge debt. I
will show that there is no reason whatever to think we will repeat this
behavior, or misbehavior, especially now that the events are better
understood.
The third paper will explore the folly and danger of writing into the
Constitution decrees concerning fiscal policy which would have been
inappropriate to a small 18th century republic and would be absurd and
potentially destabilizing to a world power in the 21st century.
Representative democracy in the United States is fully capable of
balancing the Nation's accounts without an amendment to the
Constitution. Deficits are not endemic to democracy. As recently as the
Nixon administration, the President's economic planners faced a problem
of surplus in the national accounts, and thought it wise to create
deficits in order to move the economy toward full employment.
In those not notably distant years full employment with price
stability was the central goal of fiscal policy; this had been
indicated by the Employment Act of 1946 which established the Council
of Economic Advisers, and became steadily more feasible as economic
projections became steadily more reliable. The Nixon administration
inherited a difficult economic situation. Contrary to advice from the
Council, President Lyndon B. Johnson had been unwilling to raise taxes
to pay for the increased outlays occasioned by the Vietnam war. The
result was inflation. This was stamped out, but then unemployment rose.
It became necessary to stimulate the economy once again by deliberately
incurring a deficit. George P. Shultz, then Director of the newly
established Office of Management and Budget, explained the policy in
the budget of the U.S. Government, fiscal 1973:
Budget policy.--The full-employment budget concept is
central to the budget policy of this Administration. Except
in emergency conditions, expenditures should not exceed the
level at which the budget would be balanced under conditions
of full employment. The 1973 budget conforms to this
guideline. By doing so, it provides necessary stimulus for
expansion, but is not inflationary. [Italic in original]
George P. Shultz is one of the most admired public men of his
generation. His service as Secretary of State in the Reagan
administration won the esteem and gratitude of much of the world, along
with that of the American people. It is useful to recall that he is by
profession an economist, having once been dean of the School of
Business at the University of Chicago. He had joined the Nixon
administration as Secretary of Labor. He was speaking in terms then
readily understood by fellow economists, but not always clear to
laymen, such as myself. The key phrase in his policy statement is
italicized:
* * * expenditures should not exceed the level at which the
budget would be balanced under conditions of full employment.
Which is to say that in the absence of full employment, as was the case
in fiscal year 1973, the Federal Government should deliberately
contrive to incur a deficit equal to the difference between the
revenues that would actually come in at levels of underemployment and
those that would come in at full employment.
Far from being inevitable and unavoidable, there were points in the
business cycle where a deficit had to be created. Otherwise surpluses
would choke off recovery.
The contrary thought, that budget deficits will be continuous and
uncontrollable is surely the oldest of prejudices against democracy.
Which is to say the assertion that a majority will continuously vote
itself benefits which the economy cannot sustain.
In an earlier age this supposed tendency was seen as a threat to
property. Benefits would be obtained by confiscatory taxation--or plain
confiscation. Hence, John Locke's prescription for a stable society:
the security of ``Life, liberty, and estate.'' In the Declaration of
Independence, Thomas Jefferson devised a more felicitous formula:
``Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Yet, there was never
any doubt that the security of property was essential to such
happiness. In the Federalist No. 10, James Madison address this issue
with not the least apology. Ours would be a representative Government,
concerned to moderate, if not indeed to control appetites.
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a
pure Democracy, by which I mean, a Society, consisting of a
small number of citizens who assemble and administer
Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs
of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost
every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a
communication and concert results from the form of Government
itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to
sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence
it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible
with personal security, or the rights of property; and have
in general been as short in their lives, as they have been
violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have
patronized this species of Government, have erroneously
supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality of
their political rights, they would, at the same time, be
perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions,
their opinions, and their passions.
In modern times a more common fear has been that the excesses of
democracy would debauch the currency through the monetization of debt,
which is to say inflation. Indeed, there have been such episodes,
albeit relatively rare. Twentieth century democracies have experienced
fairly steady price increases. Yet nothing ruinous. Far the greater
fact has been the economic growth of the 20th century. Far from
inhibiting such growth, democracy is now widely seen as an essential
precondition. If democracy caters to wants more than to needs, it has
proven itself reasonably capable of satisfying both, not least because
we have developed a profession of economics which, if not in any sense
perfected or even especially scientific, even so has a lot to show for
itself. In the United States, for example, real per capita income has
increased fourfold over the course of the 20th century from about
$4,300 to $20,500 per person.
The historian Alan Brinkley has recorded the development of the idea
of Federal spending as a route to prosperity, dating back to the
1890's, particularly for public works to counteract the business cycle.
In the 1920's, William Trufant and Waddill Catchings argued for public
spending as an antidote to underconsumption, an idea that would come to
dominate both theoretic, to use Madison's term, and applied economics.
The theoretical approach to underconsumption is much associated with
the publication in 1935 of John Maynard Keynes ``the General Theory of
Employment Interest and Money.'' That master of the calling, John
Kenneth Galbraith, records that by the autumn of 1936, ``the General
Theory'' ``reached Harvard with tidal force.'' In a review of
Galbraith's autobiography, I have commented there has been no other
event like it in the history of the social sciences. The Great
Depression, then two-thirds over, had seemingly falsified the central
tenet of classical economics, which is that markets clear through the
price mechanism--that whatever is offered for sale, including labor, is
purchased. There were business cycles, to be sure, but, most important,
there was said to be an inherent tendency for the system to return to
an equilibrium in which all resources were fully employed. But for 6
years there has been no such return; none was in sight. In ``the
General Theory of Employment Interest and Money,'' Keynes demonstrated
that there could be unspent savings, and that when this happened prices
would not adjust downward to ensure that the same volume of goods would
be purchased with the reduced--after saving--purchasing power.
Galbraith summarizes:
[[Page S2201]]
Instead, output and employment fell until reduced profits,
increased losses and the need to spend from past savings
ensured that all income from current production or its
equivalent was thus established, one with a lot of people out
of work--the under-employment equilibrium.
After an unprecedented period of depression, mounting crisis, and
something like intellectual desperation, this had indeed the quality of
revelation.
However, by the time any considerable portion of the economics
profession had converted to Keynesianism, the Second World War had
commenced. And so to a considerable irony, Keynesian economics was to
be given its first trial not in the conditions of depression for which
it had seemed designed but in the very opposite circumstances of a
wartime economy, when the central problem was an excess of consumer
demand and a shortage of consumer goods production.
Yet, in the crucible of war, the new doctrine produced, well,
astonishing results. In a series of newspaper articles, Keynes set
forth how to maintain price stability, during wartime, and in the
United States a new Office of Price Administration did just that.
Until, that is, the war ended and wartime controls collapsed. Here are
the inflation rates for that period.
Percent
1941................................................................9.7
1942................................................................9.3
1943................................................................3.2
1944................................................................2.1
1945................................................................2.3
With the war ended, Congress enacted the Employment Act of 1946. The
authors of the legislation, and perhaps especially committee staff,
were convinced that this new economics could now be used as originally
intended, which is to say to ward off a recurrence of the Great
Depression of the 1930's. It was widely assumed that the depression
would indeed resume at war's end. Hence, for example, the Interstate
Highway Act of 1944, a public works program in the classic New Deal
mode. The Employment Act established the annual economic report of the
President which steadily became a more detailed and instrumental
document. By 1947, for example, we established the current survey
methods measuring unemployment on an annual basis, a national statistic
previously gathered through a patch-work of survey and administrative
data. In 1960, with the election of John F. Kennedy, the new economics
was well-established. Kennedy assembled a brilliant Council of Economic
Advisers, Walter W. Heller, Kermit Gordon, and James Tobin. Although
but little noted at the time, the present Senator from New York became
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy Planning and Research. What I
now report, I saw. I dare to think that what I saw is of great
importance in the matter now before the Senate.
The unemployment rate had remained remarkably low throughout the
post-war period. Then, in 1958 recession struck. The unemployment rate
rose to 6.8 percent, two-and-one-half times the 2.9 percent rate of
1953. A recovery followed. But then stalled. By 1961, when the new
President took office, it was back up to 6.7 percent. What had
happened? In their first annual report to the President, in January
1962, the new Council of Economic Advisers offered a striking
explanation. The Federal budget was running a surplus. This was termed
``the full employment surplus.'' Chart 6 in the report, entitled,
``Effect of Level of Economic Activity on Federal Surplus or Deficit,''
showed how this worked. Higher Government expenditures during the 1957-
58 recession helped to reduce the unemployment rate from 6.8 percent in
1958 to 5.5 percent in 1959. But the fiscal 1960 program, the next to
last of the Eisenhower administration, and which, according to the
Council, was ``The most restrictive program of recent years * * *'' had
a large full employment surplus amounting to almost 2 percent of
potential gross national product. This surplus came about as follows.
As the recovery from the 1958 recession got underway, economic activity
grew and so did the revenues of the Federal Government. But Congress
would not, or in any event, did not spend the additional revenue. As a
result, the recovery stalled. This untoward event was ascribed to
``fiscal drag.'' Accordingly, the President's economic advisers devised
a fiscal 1962 program with a built-in deficit, which moved the economy
closer to full employment. To say again, the Federal Government had to
find ways to prevent a recovery from stalling because of an
accumulation of a budget surplus.
The President's economists then proceeded to explain their actions
and plans to reduce the full employment surplus.
The full employment surplus is a measure of the restrictive
or expansionary impact of a budget program on over-all
demand.
* * * * *
the budget in 1958-60
The analysis of the budget program in terms of the full
employment surplus points to a probable major cause of the
incomplete and short-lived nature of the 1958-60 expansion.
The most restrictive fiscal program of recent years was the
program of 1960. Its full employment surplus exceeded any
from 1956 to date . . . The full employment surplus declined
sharply as a result of higher expenditures during the 1957-58
recession until it reached an estimated $3 billion in the
second half of 1958. Thereafter, it rose gradually through
most of 1959 but then increased sharply to about $12\1/2\
billion in 1960. Thus, whereas the Federal budget contributed
to stability during the contraction phase of the cycle and
during the first year of the expansion, it was altered
abruptly in the direction of restraint late in 1959 at a time
when high employment had not yet been achieved.
* * * * *
federal fiscal activity in 1961-62
Immediately upon taking office, the new Administration
moved vigorously to use the fiscal powers of the Federal
Government to help bring about economic recovery. Federal
procurement was accelerated by presidential directive early
in February, and tax refunds were also expedited . . .
Changes in transfer programs added about $2 billion to the
combined total of transfer payments for fiscal years 1961 and
1962. The Veterans Administration advanced the payment of
$150 million of veterans' life insurance dividends into the
first quarter of calendar year 1961, and then made an extra
dividend payment of $218 million at midyear. The Congress
promptly adopted a number of measures requested by the
President. A Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
was adopted, providing for extension of exhausted benefits
and giving the Administration time to develop a comprehensive
program for permanent improvement in unemployment
compensation.
In time, the Council came forward with a proposal for a tax cut,
which was enacted in 1964, and Walter Heller hit upon the idea of
revenue sharing. If the Congress would not spend the surplus, then
surely the Governors would oblige. Those were heady times. I recall
visiting the White House mess in the company of that most eminent of
public men, Arthur J. Goldberg, then-Secretary of Labor, later an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and Permanent Representative to
the United Nations. Walter Heller was there and recounted in the most
precise terms just how much GNP had been lost by congressional delay in
the tax cut, just how much would be gained once it was enacted. His
projections were perhaps too confident, but his principles were sound,
as well as the practice that went with them. That double dividend on
G.I. bill life insurance brought our family savings to just the point
where we were able to buy the farm near Pindars Corners in Delaware
County which has been our home ever since.
In the economic report of the President transmitted to Congress in
January, 1969, the Council of Economic Advisers, now headed by Arthur
M. Okun, could report.
The full employment surplus was a particularly enlightening
measure of fiscal policy in the early 1960's when the economy
was far below its potential. Actual Federal budgets were then
in deficit. But after taking account of the large shortfall
in tax revenues associated with the gap between potential and
actual output, there was a large full employment surplus. It
meant that the economy could realize its potential only if
private investment far exceeded private saving. By that
standard, discretionary fiscal policy was highly restrictive.
The vigorous and unbroken expansion of the last 8 years is
in dramatic contrast to the 30-month average duration of
previous expansions. No longer is the performance of the
American economy generally interpreted in terms of stages of
the business cycle. No longer do we consider periodic
recessions once every 3 or 4 years an inevitable fact of
life.
As remarked earlier, the Johnson administration left office with too
much of a deficit, which had to be reversed. And was. But the 1960's
had produced an economics capable of understanding such matters to a
degree never previously achieved. An understanding which we are asked
to reject altogether by an amendment to the Constitution
[[Page S2202]] which economists of every political persuasion reject as
potentially ruinous.
This consensus was stated February 3, in a statement issued by
hundreds of such economists. They state:
When the private economy is in recession, a constitutional
requirement that would force cuts in public spending or tax
increases could worsen the economic downturn, causing greater
loss of jobs, production, and income.
That insight is the great legacy of the economics that emerged from
the great depression of the 1930's. It was hard-won knowledge. It is
not to be lost in the turbulence and contention that accompanied and
now follow a single congressional election.
Mr. President, seeing my distinguished friend from California on the
floor--she has been waiting patiently to address the Senate--I am happy
to yield the floor and I look forward to her remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the Senator from New
York, I thank him for his leadership, protecting the senior citizens of
this Nation. I think as we develop the arguments on this balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution, both pro and con, his leadership
will be a real bright spot in this U.S. Senate.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I do hope all Americans are paying close
attention to this debate on the balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution and that they are listening very carefully to the
arguments presented on both sides. This is a very important debate. We
do not very often even discuss amending the Constitution of the United
States of America. So it is important that we hear the arguments, we
debate both points of view and the various amendments that will come
before us as those on each side of the aisle try to perfect this
amendment and some will try to defeat it.
Some will say the only way to balance our budget is to write the
requirement to balance it into the Constitution. Others will say the
Constitution is not the appropriate place to put economic theory. I
myself am not philosophically opposed to the idea of amending the
Constitution with a balanced budget amendment if it provides
flexibility to the people's elected representatives to respond to
national security threats, disasters, emergency situations, and
recessionary conditions. It also must protect our commitment to
American workers past and present, by exempting the Social Security
trust fund from its procedures.
By flexibility I mean specifically that such an amendment should not
enshrine a supermajority vote into the Constitution. The balanced
budget amendment pending before the Senate now, which has the strong
support of the Republican leadership, a part of the Contract With
America, does not meet that criterion of flexibility. It does, in fact,
require a supermajority and I think that is a tremendous mistake and it
does violence to what I consider the rule of democracy. I think
majority rule is what our ancestors fought and died for.
Amending our Nation's most important document is not something that
should be done lightly. I know this is the time of the 30-second sound
bite, the wisecrack, the easy solution. But some issues are more
complicated than that, and this, amending the Constitution of the
United States of America, is one of those issues. The Californians I
represent--and I might say 31 million strong--and all Americans should
ask the following questions in this critical debate.
First, should we build into the Constitution the requirement of a
supermajority vote to take the budget out of balance? For example, if
we are in a deep recession one year, or a depression--and this country
has gone through recessions and depressions--should it take a
supermajority to enable us to respond? In the Republican contract it
will take a three-fifths vote in each House to enable us to act. In the
Senate that is 60 votes. I think that is downright dangerous.
The second question we should ask is should we build into the
Constitution the requirement of a supermajority to respond to a natural
disaster, an earthquake, for example, or a flood that ravages our
homes, our towns, our farms? I know the Presiding Officer sitting in
the chair tonight has gone through that as a brand new Senator. He has
seen what floods can do. The Republican contract would require a three-
fifths vote to respond to a natural disaster and I think that is very
dangerous. I am going to talk a lot more about the whole issue of
disaster relief later in my remarks.
Third, should we build into the Constitution the requirement of a
supermajority to respond to a flood of illegal immigrants or a public
health crisis or an internal terrorist attack--a terrorist attack that
strikes us unexpectedly?
If we have to move and we have to act, should we have to have a rule
of a supermajority for us to respond to that? The Republican contract
would require a three-fifths vote for us to go out of balance to
respond to that. I think that is very dangerous.
(Mr. ABRAHAM assumed the chair.)
Mrs. BOXER. So, what the constitutional amendment before us will do
is require a supermajority for us to do our jobs as U.S. Senators. And,
as I said, I think that does violence to democracy itself, which is
based on majority rule. I do not believe in the tyranny of the
minority. And I am in the minority now. I am not happy about it. I see
my friend, the Senator from Utah, has a big smile on his face because
he should be happy. The Republicans won control of the Senate. But I do
not like the idea of giving the minority the right to stop things in
their tracks. I think it is wrong. I thought it was wrong when the
Republicans were in the minority. I tried to change the filibuster, for
example, even when it was not in my own best interests as now a member
of the minority party.
There are those who say we will never balance this budget if we do
not put that amendment into the Constitution and if we do not have a
supermajority requirement. History shows us that this is not the case.
I think it is very important to learn from history. History has shown
us that it is an aberration to have these kinds of deficits. Our
ballooning deficits, as a share of the size of the overall economy, did
not become a problem until around 1980.
I want to quote Herbert Stein of the American Enterprise Institute.
He was the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Richard
Nixon. I want to say that again. Herbert Stein worked in the Republican
administration of Richard Nixon. Let us hear what he said about this
amendment.
I see that we have a very strong leader on the floor right now, the
Senator from West Virginia, who to many people is still their leader.
He is still their chairman. Certainly when it comes to defending the
Constitution of the United States of America, I say unequivocally that
I know of no one else who does it with the style and substance of the
Senator from West Virginia. Last year, the Senator from West Virginia
held hearings on this balanced budget amendment to the Constitution,
and they were extensive. I urge every Senator, Republican and Democrat,
to read those hearings.
Herbert Stein came down to the hearing. This is what he said:
Our experience under the current regime without the
amendment has not been terrible. Between 1950 and 1980 the
annual deficit averaged about 1.2 percent of the GDP. After
1980 there was a break in history. Deficits became much
larger than they have been, averaging 4 percent of GDP.
I think it is very important for us to know that it was Democratic
President Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress that began reversing
the anomaly of the eighties. It is true there was a budget agreement
under George Bush, and it did start down the track. But I believe it
was that vote that we cast here in the Senate for the deficit reduction
plan that brought us to a point where we can be very proud of that $500
billion deficit reduction package which passed this Senate. I want to
point out that not one Republican voted for real, substantial, deficit
reduction. They talked about the amendment then. They talked about how
terrible it was to have deficits. But not one Republican joined us. We
did not just talk about the procedures as gimmicks for getting us to a
balanced budget. We actually took the steps needed to reduce our
deficit.
[[Page S2203]] With the President's leadership, we made some very
tough choices. We cut spending. We cut taxes also for millions of
working families and, yes, we did raise some taxes on the top 1 percent
of families in America, the top 1 percent of the economic strata. The
very wealthy did pay a tax increase. That is not an easy vote, my
friends. No one likes to go home and say, ``I hate to tell you, but I
had to vote to raise your taxes.'' But we did it. We did it because I
believe it was the right thing to do to get this deficit on the
downward track.
How can I explain that someone making $400,000 a year was paying the
same tax rate as someone making $55,000 a year? I believe the Tax Code
must be fair, and every one of us has to do his or her share to reduce
that deficit. What is interesting is after that deficit reduction plan,
for every American who pays higher taxes, 10 pay lower taxes. So it was
a fair bill, a fair package. And it brought fairness to the Tax Code,
and it started us on this decline of this deficit without a
constitutional amendment. We started to get the deficit on the decline.
So here it is in plain view, in this Senator's perspective, the
difference between making the tough votes on budget and making this
very simple vote on amending the Constitution. Let me say how I feel
about that. I respect every one of my colleagues, Democrats and
Republicans, who will vote for this, no matter what the shape of it is.
I do not particularly think it is a courageous vote. I think it takes
this country into a position where the minority Members of Congress can
hold our country hostage to depression, recession, disasters, and
unknown emergencies.
I have heard many of my colleagues say, because I am very concerned
about this, ``Oh, in times of recession and depression, in times of
disaster, we will all come together and it will be easy to get 60 votes
in the U.S. Senate. It will not be a problem, Senator Boxer. It will be
easy. We will pull together as Americans. We will have supermajorities
to go out of balance and to increase the debt ceiling''-- which by the
way also takes 60 votes. I have read the Record. That is just not so.
Supermajorities are hard to get, and I will show that in this debate.
I think we are going to find that our hands are tied, ensuring our
inability to act when we should act. Why else do we come to the Senate?
Why else do we want to be here if not to help the people, particularly
in times of crisis, whether it is an earthquake, whether it is a
veteran who is, yes, a paraplegic? We heard Senator Rockefeller, who
lives his life here in the Senate in behalf of veterans. We heard what
he said about what would happen to veterans if this passes.
Why are we here? Why are we here? I ask my friends. To tie our hands,
to make it impossible for us to act? I hope not. I hope the American
people ask those who support this amendment if they voted for real
deficit reduction last year. If they did not, then I say they are
hiding behind this constitutional amendment. It is a figleaf. They want
to be able to say they are for a balanced budget. Well, whoopee. That
is easy. Saying you are for a balanced budget is easy. What is tough is
making the tough votes to make it happen. But when they had the
opportunity to vote for deficit reduction by casting a very difficult
vote--and it was difficult--they took a powder on that vote. If they
had prevailed, we would not have had the success we have had thus far
in getting that deficit under control.
I think it is very important to continue to talk to the American
people about--since the Republicans did not vote for the deficit
reduction that the President put forward and the Democrats supported--
what kind of deficit reduction do they support?
I know what I supported because I supported the President's package.
So I can show you what I supported. It was difficult. But I can show
you. And I will take the heat for it, and I took the heat for it.
But I say they have not shown us their hand. They support an
amendment to the Constitution that supposedly outlaws deficits unless a
supermajority decides to go out of balance. And I say they have a moral
obligation to tell us what their version of deficit reduction looks
like.
Now, I heard Senator Byrd discussing this the other day, and he said
something very sensible. He said if an average American goes to buy a
used car, would they not look under the hood and see what is under the
hood?
Well, I say to my Republican friends, if you want to put forward this
balanced budget amendment, show us your budget. Open up the hood. We
need to see what you mean and what you want to do. It is the right of
the American people to know and to know before, not after, we vote for
this amendment.
Now, in the deficit reduction bill that I voted for, which passed in
1993, we protected education and children and new technology
investments and health research and Social Security and the fight
against crime. We did cut other things. As I said, over 200 Government
programs were terminated or reduced.
I say, what are the Republican priorities? Where is their budget? We
know that the Republican Contract With America promises $700 billion of
tax cuts over the next 10 years and, by the way, not targeted to the
middle class but to those also in the high tax brackets. They have
proposed the same child tax credit for families making $200,000 a year
as for families making $30,000 a year.
Now, think that is not going to drain the Treasury. I can assure you
that it will. How will they pay for these tax cuts? How will they pay
for these tax cuts? They already said they do not want to cut defense.
Indeed, they want to spend more on defense. They already said they do
not want to touch Social Security even though, by the way, many of them
do not support the amendment to exclude Social Security from the
balanced budget amendment. They say they do not want to touch Social
Security. I am going to vote to remove Social Security from the
balanced budget requirement. Social Security should be separate and
apart from the budget, untouchable because it is a trust fund and it
must be there for current and future retirees.
The Republicans want to leave it right there. In the House, they
defeated the amendment to delete Social Security from the requirements
of this amendment. But I want to take them at their word tonight. I am
going to take them at their word tonight. Even though they did not want
to remove Social Security from the requirements of the balanced budget
amendment, let us take them at their word that they will not touch
Social Security.
Now, if Social Security is off the table, what would we have to cut?
We already know they do not want any new taxes. They have already said
that. They want tax cuts. They do not want to touch the military. They
want to spend more. So what would their balanced budget look like? They
will not tell us. It is as simple as that.
I say to the American people, you have a right to know. I am trying
to get you the facts. As soon as I learned about the balanced budget
amendment, on January 12, I sent the following letter to my colleagues,
who have brought this amendment before us. I sent it to the
distinguished majority leader, to the chairman of the Budget Committee,
and to every Republican Senator who is part of the leadership of this
Senate and endorses this balanced budget amendment. This is what I
wrote. I am going to read you what I wrote the Republican leaders of
this Senate.
Dear Senator: I understand that it is the intention of the
Republican majority to bring the constitutional amendment to
require a balanced budget to the Senate floor as soon as
possible because of the Republican Contract With America.
Because you are a supporter of this constitutional amendment,
I ask that you send to me your plan to reach this balanced
budget target by the year 2002. As I am sure you are aware,
the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that to get to
a balanced budget by the year 2002 would require deficit
reduction in the amount of $1.2 trillion. I would be
interested to know what programs you recommend be cut or
revenue raised in order to reach a balanced budget.
Specifically,
I wrote to my colleagues:
I am interested in knowing the cuts you would make in
programs for crime prevention, education, health and science
research, border enforcement, environmental protection,
veterans, or transportation. I would also be interested to
know what cuts you intend to make to defense, Social
Security, and Medicare. Because--
[[Page S2204]] I wrote--
there is no exception for assistance to people who have been
struck by a natural disaster, I would also appreciate your
candid assessment of how this constitutional amendment could
impact funding for disasters such as an earthquake, flooding
or fires. Ominously, a supermajority would be necessary or
other programs would have to be cut to provide assistance to
these disaster victims.
I thank you for you attention to these questions.
I sent 16 letters. So far I have not received a single response. I
hope that they will in fact write to me and give me the details of
their budget because the American people deserve these details. I am
waiting, and I think they are waiting. Now, I must say I am not shocked
that I have not received a response.
House Majority Leader Armey said that if Members of Congress saw the
details, ``it would make their knees buckle.'' Listen to that one.
The House has very fast procedures over there. I was there for 10
years. It is an incredible atmosphere, a very exciting atmosphere. As
some watchers of the Congress have been known to say, the House is like
the cup where things get really hot and the Senate is like the saucer
where they cool down. We are cooling things down here because, as Dick
Armey, the majority leader of the House said, if Members of Congress
saw the details, ``it would make their knees buckle.''
House rules allowed the balanced budget amendment to be rushed
through the House. I am not critical of that. That is the way it is
over there. But we have the ability over here to fully debate measures,
and we will not be rushed. We will be able to point out very clearly
what will happen when we have a requirement for a balanced budget in
the Constitution that requires a supermajority to respond to the needs
of the American people.
Now, I said when I was elected to the U.S. Senate that I would fight
for the people of California and for what I believe in, and after the
Republicans took over the Senate, the press started asking, ``Aren't
you going to change? Aren't you going to be different?''
I said that I was elected to fight for the people of California and
what I believe in. And that is what I intend to do for as long as they
want me to do it. The day they do not want me to do it, they will pick
someone else. That is the Contract With California that I have.
I said at the opening of this Congress that I would work hand in hand
with the Republicans if I felt that what they were doing was good for
my State and my country, but I also would stand up and fight against
them when I felt what they were doing would hurt my State and my
country.
I want you to know I supported the Congressional Accountability Act
with my Republican friends. Yes, I felt it could have been made
stronger, so I also supported amendments for campaign finance reform
and the gift ban that they voted down. I finally voted for that bill
because on balance it was a good bill which, by the way, Democrats and
Republicans had pushed in the last Congress.
Let me tell you, this rigid amendment that gives so much power to the
minority is bad for my State. You need to have three-fifths of the
Congress to vote to go out of balance or raise the debt limit--60 votes
of the Senate right here--and that gives power to the minority to
thwart the will of the majority, and that is not right. That is not
right. The majority should rule--not the minority. And if I am stuck in
the minority, that is my problem. I have to learn to live with it. I
should not be able to stop this Senate from responding to the needs of,
say, a disaster, a crisis, a health emergency.
I know a health scientist who told me that the worst virus you can
imagine, Mr. President, is one plane ride away from this country. It is
unbelievable. There is a book called ``The Hot Zone'' which talks about
this. The worst virus, the worst bacteria that you can dream of, is one
plane ride away from America, and we are going to have a situation
wherein a minority could stop us from reacting to that kind of
emergency.
I say that is bad for the people of California and bad for the people
of this country.
I have already shown you by reciting history that you do not need an
amendment to balance the budget. We did it around here for many, many
years. It was not until the 1980's that things got out of control.
Trickle-down economics did not do what it was advertised to do, and
this budget went out of control. We have to make progress and we are
making progress. I would like to get that deficit down to zero, and I
believe we can. But in some years--some years--because of major
problems, because of the state of the economy, which may reduce
revenues to this Government--what causes the deficit? Expenditures and
revenues have to match and some years in this country, because we are a
free market, proud economy, some years we go into recession. We used to
go into worse recessions. But we have gone into some pretty bad ones.
Of course, before I was born was the depression that so impacted the
lives of my parents, because they lived through that and they never
stopped telling me the horror stories of that time.
Sometimes those revenues go down. Do we want to say, no matter what,
we will have a balanced budget, and even if we have a virus that comes
in from another country, a bacteria, an earthquake, a fire, a
recession, a depression, we need to get a supermajority? My friends
say: It is easy, you will get it at a time like that. If they feel that
way, why do we not have some exemptions here for recessions, for
disasters, so that we know we can respond in a timeframe that makes
sense.
Let me tell you what would happen to my State if this amendment
passes in the timeframe laid out and if the Republicans stick to their
promise--namely, that they will not touch Social Security, and they
will enact a megabillion dollar tax cut, and they will increase
military spending. That is what they said. And they will not show us
their budget. I am trying to figure it out.
What is left on the table? Let me tell you who I went to to get the
answer. I did not go to my own party or call the White House. In
February 1994, the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Group, one of our
Nation's leading economic forecasting firms, said the balanced budget
amendment could cost the State of California more than 700,000 private
sector jobs as a result of a significant decline in economic activity
in the State. The drop in personal income would be roughly $148
billion.
The Treasury Department reports that the balanced budget amendment
would reduce annual Federal grants to the California State government
by $7.7 billion. So, first of all, we have a 700,000 loss of private
sector jobs as a result of that decline in economic activity, and we
have the drop in personal income of $148 billion in my State and loss
of Federal grants of $7.7 billion. How can I not take to the Senate
floor and protest this amendment? It is going to kill my State. It is
going to hurt the people of my State--the children, the families, the
elderly, the veterans, people caught in disasters. It is going to hurt
our ability to stop illegal immigration at the border.
I cannot sit back and allow this to happen to the people of my State
without fighting. I cannot sit back and not fight for an exception in
this balanced budget amendment for disasters. I have to fight for an
exception for disasters. The Kobe earthquake in Japan demonstrates in
ways words cannot express the violence that can be released from an
earthquake at 7.2 on the Richter scale. The 6.7 rated Northridge
earthquake caused at least $20 billion in damages for both the public
and private sector. But a 7.0 earthquake could cause more than $57
billion in damages to Los Angeles, according to a University of
Southern California study.
Let me say to my friends from the Midwest and from other parts of
this country, we had a report from James Lee Witt that just hit the
press yesterday that says they expect an earthquake of that size--Kobe-
size--to hit this country, and more than likely it will be in the
Midwest. So talking about earthquakes simply is not a matter for
California. Talking about floods simply is not a matter for California.
The tragedy in Japan revealed another underlying problem, and that is
the problem the Japanese Government had in responding to the crisis.
The Government's slow response is undergoing intense scrutiny by
Japanese citizens, and rightly so. I bring it up here today because I
want us to understand, because we are on the firing line, when
something like that happens, we do not want our Government
[[Page S2205]] to be indecisive and unresponsive in times of crisis.
Let me say this: We have responded beautifully to the recent
disasters in California and the Midwest floods and the problems in
Georgia and the problems in Texas, under this really newly designed
FEMA that we have under the Clinton administration. I do not want us to
go back to the days when FEMA did nothing.
Let me tell you what a Japanese bureaucrat said to hundreds of
homeless people gathered at a local city hall. Put on your thinking
caps, because it is going to be us for sure if we do not make an
exception for disasters. This is what this bureaucrat said to these
homeless people, hardworking citizens of Japan, suffering from an
earthquake, homeless:
I can't do anything about your house at this point. I
suggest you go to another city.
Imagine Americans taking that. Are we going to tell the people of our
cities, suburbs, our rural areas, to move and leave their memories,
their dreams, their hopes, because we put in the Constitution a
mechanism that tied our hands and said we cannot act? I hope not. I
hope the American people will not let that happen. They all love the
sound of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. ``They better
look under the hood,'' as Senator Byrd said.
Our States are not colonies of the Federal Government. When disaster
strikes, ``we are,'' as the words say above this beautiful Capitol
dome, ``from the many one.'' No confederation of States can respond to
a natural disaster as the U.S. Federal Government can respond to a
disaster.
When I offer my amendment to exempt disasters from this, I am going
to go into chapter and verse about how we have responded and the time
that it took and the billions of dollars of relief we were able to send
to the various parts of this country.
I hope all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join
with me. I do not see how we can possibly not learn from the disasters
in this country and from the Kobe experience that the United States of
America is the preeminent of, by, and for the people, because we can
respond in a crisis. Let us not tie our hands and let 40 people in this
body stop us--or 41 to be exact. It takes 60 votes to go out of
balance, to respond to a disaster.
I am saying to you, let us not put ourselves in a situation while the
debate rages day after day after day, and we have 51 votes to help and
we have 52 votes to help, but we are a long way from 60 votes and we
cannot help. I would not want to be the Senator whose constituents are
going through the hellish nightmare of a disaster without a Federal
Government to help. Getting 60 votes will be difficult. History has
proved that. Let me tell you, my friends, I am not just theorizing
here. We had a horrible earthquake in San Francisco where the Cypress
Freeway was badly damaged.
Hundreds of thousands of people commute on that every week.
Now I will tell you, I barely survived a vote to rebuild the Cyprus
Freeway, 52 to 43, because none other than the distinguished majority
leader, who was minority leader then, tried to say, ``Let's get
offsetting cuts.''
There are some times when there is a crisis and you do not expect it,
whether it is in your family or in the family of government, and we
must act to help people.
So I hope that my friends on the Republican side and on the
Democratic side will join me when I offer the amendment, which, by the
way, is cosponsored by Senator Leahy of Vermont. It has the support of
Senator Feinstein and Senator Inouye, and the list is growing. Because
we should not have our hands tied in a disaster.
Now let me cite another example of where we should not have our hands
tied. We should not require a supermajority to act in case of a
recession. I do not think we want to return to the days of Herbert
Hoover. During the Great Depression of the 1930's, Republican President
Hoover refused to see the economic danger signs and he would not act to
bolster the plummeting American economy.
When the Depression struck and unemployment in this country rose from
under 5 percent to over 20 percent in roughly 2 years, Hoover still
refused to act. He refused to provide assistance for the one-fifth of
the American population that was out of work.
Let me tell you what he said. And I want the American people to
please listen to the words of Herbert Hoover. He said. ``The principles
of individual and local responsibility'' would be applied to the
victims of the economic suffering.
Let me repeat that. In the days of the Depression, when people of
skill were selling apples on the street and heads of families were
jumping out of windows because they could not provide for their
families, President Hoover said, ``The principles of individual and
local responsibility'' would be applied to the victims of economic
suffering.
And I quote him further:
Each community and each State should assume its relief of
the distress with that sturdiness and independence which
built a great nation.
Sound familiar? Let me read it again.
Each community and each State should assume its relief of
the distress with that sturdiness and independence which
built a great nation.
My friends, that statement is true, but in times of deep emergency in
this country--from the many, one. That is the purpose of the United
States of America. From the many, one. We come together and we have
great strength when we come together.
Now I hear a lot of talk about the new federalism. And I hear words
that sound just like this. There is nothing new about it. We tried it
and it failed.
Of course, we must be responsible for ourselves and our families, but
there are times when things occur in this country that we cannot
control, such as recession, depression, an outbreak of cholera, or a
serious bacterial infection that may come in, a plane ride away, or a
disaster that only God understands why it has to happen to us. And then
from the many, one, from the many States, one, and not a situation
where in order to act as one we need a supermajority. That is wrong.
We understand that there are times when the Federal Government needs
to act to counterbalance cyclical downturns and serious
economic trouble.
And, again, Senator Byrd had a press conference with Senator Moynihan
and Senator Sarbanes and prize-winning economists who said this is a
huge mistake to put this requirement into the Constitution with a
supermajority vote.
A statement signed by over 200 economists and political scientists
says that the balanced budget amendment--and let me quote from them--
``hinders severely the public sector's ability to compensate for
cyclical fluctuations.'' In other words, recession, depression. ``The
need for Federal action to stabilize the economy has been widely
recognized since the 1930's.''
This is the economists talking.
A balanced budget eliminates one the few mechanisms
preventing mild downturns from developing into severe
recessions.
Sometimes you want to act early in a recession to turn it around so
it does not turn into a depression. Well, it would be hard to get 60
votes for that, I say to my friends.
I have received letters from several economists repeating these
concerns.
Dr. James Tobin, a professor of economics at Yale University and a
Nobel laureate, says in a letter to me: ``The balanced budget amendment
would make the economy more unstable, more vulnerable to business cycle
recessions, because it requires the budget to be balanced every fiscal
year regardless of economic conditions,'' which is what I talked about
before. In many years, it will be perfectly good economic policy to
have a balanced budget, but sometimes it may be very difficult.
This is what this Nobel laureate says in his letter to me:
The tax increases or expenditure cuts necessary to keep the
budget balanced would make recessions worse and retard
recoveries.
Let me repeat that: This amendment would ``make recessions worse and
retard recovery.''
He goes on and explains:
When the economy is depressed, individual and business
incomes are smaller; income and payroll tax receipts are
smaller, too. Spending is down throughout the economy, so
excise and sale taxes yield less revenues than normal.
Outlays for unemployment insurance, food stamps, cash
welfare
[[Page S2206]] and even Social Security benefits are higher *
* *.
Now, why are they higher? Because people are out of work and they are
drawing down on these safety net programs which I have not heard anyone
say they want to destroy.
``The economy,'' he goes on, ``would be worse if these responses to
recession did not occur or were cancelled out. Individuals and
businesses hit by losses of income and employment would be hit even
harder if their tax liabilities remained as high as before and if they
received no help. They would have to curtail their spending even more,
depressing economic activity further.''
So we have a vicious circle of misery. And what does it take to go
out of balance? Under this amendment, unless there is an amendment to
go out of balance with 51 votes in a recession, you have to get 60
votes to ease the pain of the American people.
Dr. Robert M. Solow, professor of economics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, and also a Nobel laureate, says the following:
The Amendment is not only bad law, it is bad economics. One
of the important ways we protect ourselves against deep
recessions is through ``automatic'' variations in the Federal
budget. When business turns bad and sales turn down, incomes
fall too. Wage and salary income is reduced by short time and
layoffs; business profits are usually even harder hit. The
Treasury's tax revenues fall automatically. A balanced
Federal budget will be thrown into deficit, not by act of
Congress, but by workings of the economy.
If the law required Congress to respond by increasing taxes
or reducing income-support payments or other expenditures,
the result would be perverse. Families and firms would find
themselves even worse off, business sales would fall further,
and the recession would worsen.
Dr. Lawrence R. Klein, a proessor of economics at the University of
Pennsylvania and a Nobel laureate, also opposes the balanced budget
amendment because of its potentially damaging effect on the economy.
Professor Klein wrote in his letter to me that:
* * * the primary economic objection to the proposed
amendment is that it locks government fiscal policy into an
inflexible position. * * * The experience of 1991 and 1992
provides ample evidence of the failure of monetary policy to
bring the economy significantly out of recession when it is
acting alone instead of being coordinated with fiscal policy
in a balanced way.
Professor Klein goes on to say:
There are times when budget deficits are needed for
temporary stimulus and when surpluses are needed for
restraint. If these short-run fiscal policies are properly
coordinated with monetary policies we can enjoy a much better
national economic performance.
These economists are very impressive.
I started off with Herbert Stein, who has been a leading voice for
the Republicans, who says this is not a good idea. So it is bipartisan.
These are people who really care about this country's economy. This is
not a political issue to them. This is an issue of substance. They are
concerned about our inability to act quickly to head off a recession,
stop it from getting worse.
Now I want to bring up some of the real, what I call red herrings of
this debate. They are thrown up there, but they are really not real.
The argument is made that all we are doing to the Federal Government
is what the States already do. This is untrue. The balanced budget
requirements of the States usually apply only to the State's general
fund, which, according to the General Accounting Office, is only about
54 percent of a State's spending.
The balanced budget requirements of most States only deal with a very
small part, with 54 percent of the State's budget and the rest does not
have to be in balance.
As State deficits start to rise, State governments do some
interesting things; 47 States can issue general obligation debt to
finance operations and other State activities.
They say they have to have a balanced budget, but they go out when
things arise and they issue debt; 42 percent of States have capital
budgets for infrastructure and other investments that are not required
to be balanced. In other words, where the United States of America's
budget includes infrastructure, capital improvements, highways,
bridges, roads, as part of our budget, in 19 States, those things are
off budget. They are separate. And they can be, in fact, financed by
debt.
I know that the leader here is getting a little concerned at the
length of my speech, but I can assure him this will not be the last
time I am on the floor, and I am getting to the end of my statement.
This is the longest speech I have ever made on this Senate floor. I am
very proud that I am able in this democracy to take to the Senate floor
and give a complete speech on a subject that is so important.
This is the Constitution of the United States of America, and in a
Contract With America that Republicans have written, they want to have
a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. They would like to
get it done in 100 days. Maybe they will. But I came here to fight for
the people of my State and for what I believe in. This is going to hurt
the people of my State.
For me, it is unprecedented to speak longer than 30 minutes on the
Senate floor. But I am doing it because in my heart I would be failing
the people of my State if I did not.
Forty-seven States can issue general obligation debt to finance
operations and other State activities; 42 States have capital budgets
for infrastructure and other investments that are not required to be
balanced; and 37 States are allowed to borrow for capital projects.
Moreover, the General Accounting Office reports when States begin to
experience deficits, they often resort to financial gimmicks to achieve
a balanced budget, such as putting things off budget, shifting
accounts, and reducing contributions to pension plans which, by the
way, can be very dangerous.
Let me tell Members what the debt is in my State of California. It is
$23.5 billion. The Governor of my State says he has to balance his
budget. He does not say he has $23.5 billion of debt.
Now, the argument is made, so if we say that the Federal Government
should act as the States act, I say to Members, the States have debt. I
am not saying it is right. I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying it
is a reality. So then some people will say, why do we not have the
Federal Government act more like a business? Members have heard that--
act more like a business. By the way, I think we should sometimes. Does
business have debt? In fact, debt for businesses was $3.8 trillion in
the third quarter of 1994. The Federal debt is about $4 trillion.
Business debt is $3.8 trillion. It is very close.
Now, why does business go into debt? They do it because they make
investments with the money they borrow; they expand their capabilities.
And I do not think there is one successful business person who would
come before Members and say they could never imagine a time when they
did not make a loan to expand unless they had unlimited resources. That
is why businesses are so dependent on interest rates. When interest
rates go down, they are happy because they can go to the bank and get
cheap loans, and they can turn that into productivity and profit. Now,
they must be wise about it. So should Government. Sometimes, they go
into debt.
Now the argument is often made, let the Federal Government look like
a family. Now we will look at family. Private debt held by households
in the third quarter of 1994 was $4.5 trillion. Private debt by
households is larger than the Federal debt. Federal debt is $4
trillion; household debt $4.5 trillion. Amazing. I do not know too many
people who do not have home mortgages. Maybe other Members do. I do not
even know too many people that own their cars outright. The upper
echelon, sure, no problem. Clip the coupons, get the inheritance, no
problem. But the average working American has a mortgage. Indeed, we
encourage them to buy homes. We make the interest on the mortgage tax
deductible.
So, yes, families have debt. Now, it should be reasonable. It should
be intelligent. It should not be overdone. We know when we get in
trouble we have to pull back. But if we say the Federal Government
should look like a family, families have some debt. More like a
business? Business has some debt. More like the States? States have a
whole lot of debt. I am not saying it is right. I am not saying it is
wrong. I am saying it is the way it is in a capitalistic society.
If someone in our family suffers a setback, we do not throw up our
hands and say, ``Sorry, we did not expect that you would get cancer,
and we have used
[[Page S2207]] up our rainy day funds and we cannot do anything about
it.'' We pull together; from the many, one. We reach out to friends and
community to help, and that is why we have to be able to act as a
Federal Government and to act quickly and to act in such a fashion that
it does not take a 60-vote majority.
Now, many of those supporting this amendment rail against bureaucracy
and unelected folks having too much power. I agree with them.
Therefore, I cannot understand them supporting this rigid amendment
where the power will go, first, to a minority in the House and Senate,
and second to the courts. For example, how do we define outlays in this
amendment? How do we define revenues? These basic questions will surely
be the subject of litigation. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Constitutional scholars anticipate that the President will be sued by
parties who think his revenue estimates are too high, and by parties
who think his revenue estimate is too low; by parties who think his
growth projections are too high, and by people who think his growth
projections are too low; by people who will lose benefits or salary
increases if the President impounds appropriated funds, which he can do
in this amendment in the event of a shortfall, and by Congress if the
President declines to impound. And, of course, the cases will be heard
by judges who do not necessarily have any background in fiscal policy,
who will find in their case books no useful precedent and will discover
in the amendment itself no description, no remedies.
Ironically, the simplest solution for the courts in some cases may
very well be to order a tax increase. So the power goes to a minority
of Congress, to the courts, and maybe even to the Federal Reserve,
because they will be the only institution which will be free to respond
in an economic crisis through monetary policy.
If Congress' hands are tied by the will of a minority, as the pending
amendment would do, the central bankers of the largest nations who
already have great power will fill the vacuum. They will be able to
wield greater authority over financial markets, interest rates,
industrial development, and economic behavior all around the globe, and
we do not even know who these people are.
So, Mr. President, I am coming to the end of my remarks. I am down to
the last few brutal minutes. For all these reasons, I hope we will not
add this amendment to the Constitution. It is a tough vote to vote
``no'' because it seems simple. If you favor a balanced budget, vote
for the amendment to the Constitution. But that is not what this is
about.
I have made tough deficit reduction votes and continue to do that.
But I will not put Social Security at risk. And that is what this
constitutional amendment does. I will not put our citizens at risk in
case of natural disaster. And that is what it does. I will not put our
people at risk in a recession, and that is what this amendment does.
And I will not put our fighting crime budget at risk, and that is what
this amendment does, as well as put so many people--our children, our
elderly, our families--at risk.
I will not stand by while my State of California gets the shaft from
colleagues who, frankly, will not even tell Members where the cuts are
coming from. They are taking a budget ax, but we do not know where it
will land. I cannot stand by quietly and not talk out for my State and
for the people I represent.
I worry very much about this amendment. It is one of our most
important votes. I think, again, out of many, one. That means we should
be able to respond to a crisis. We will not be able to do this. I think
if we vote for this, before we vote, we should demand that my
Republican friends show us their budget.
Let us support amendments to protect our people by exempting Social
Security disasters and economic downturns from this rigid amendment.
Let us remove the requirement of a supermajority which will totally tie
us in knots, and if we do not do these things, then let us defeat this
amendment.
In closing, Mr. President, true leadership requires patience,
courage, and convictions. This debate will challenge our patience, our
courage, and our conviction. Let us meet the test not just as a
personal challenge, but because the stakes are enormous for America for
now and for decades and decades to come.
I thank my colleagues for their patience. I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senator from California suggests that
the balanced budget amendment is inconsistent with the Framers of the
constitution and their Constitution because it requires a supermajority
to pass an imbalanced budget. She asserts that this is
countermajoritarian and that majority rule is the main principle in the
Constitution. This is simply wrong.
Virtually every provision of the Bill of Rights is
countermajoritarian--each limits what passing majorities can do. There
are many instances in the Constitution: separation of powers, checks
and balances, bicameralism, the qualified veto, advise and consent
provisions, and treaty ratifications which do not involve the House and
often involve supermajorities. The entire amendment process requires
supermajorities of Congress and the States. Each of these
involves supermajority requirements or gives decisionmaking power to
less than the majority.
But, Mr. President, the Bill of Rights goes even further: It does not
allow changes with majorities, or even supermajorities. In fact, even a
unanimous vote cannot contravene the Bill of Rights without amending
the Constitution itself. A majority cannot make laws abridging freedom
of speech. A majority cannot establish a national church or interfere
with the free exercise of religion. A majority cannot allow police to
make unreasonable searches and seizures. A majority cannot infringe on
the right to keep and bear arms--at least not legitimately.
A majority cannot change the bicameral Congress to a parliamentary
system or divide the unitary Executive into a Roman triumvirate. A
majority cannot even lower the age requirement of Senators.
Mr. President, the Constitution itself is a countermajoritarian
document. If all we wanted in a government was mere majority rule, we
would not need a Constitution at all. The very notion of a set of rules
that a majority cannot change is countermajoritarian and empowers a
minority. But, Mr. President, I believe the Constitution has proven its
worth by protecting transient majorities from themselves and protecting
the minority as well. And it has proven its worth as a basic charter
for our Government and our Nation.
Changing majorities in Congress have been spending our children's
money and they have trampled on the rights of those generations who do
not have a vote yet. It is wholly appropriate to require at least a
measure of consensus among those represented to spend the legacy of the
young and the unborn. It is wholly consistent with Madison's
``auxiliary precautions'' which serve to control the Government to help
maintain the freedom of the governed.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to explain to
the American people what this debate over the balanced budget amendment
is really all about.
It is a debate between those in this body who want to maintain the
status quo versus those of us who want to implement the change that the
American people voted for last November.
It is a debate between those who want to preserve the business-as-
usual practices of official Washington--more taxes, more spending, and
more debt--versus those of us who want to shake up Washington and
promote less government and more individual freedom.
Mr. President, in March 1994, 17 Senators on the other side of the
aisle voted for the balanced budget amendment. Although I was not here,
I am told that many of these Senators gave impassioned speeches about
the dire economic consequences of high and rising budget deficits--
about the immorality of burdening future generations with massive debt.
Today, the projections of future deficits and debt are significantly
higher than they were last year. The latest CBO outlook for the budget
deficit shows it climbing from $207 billion in fiscal 1996 to $243
billion in fiscal 2000. By fiscal year 2005, the CBO projects
[[Page S2208]] that the deficit will rise to over $400 billion.
Budget deficits are rising. Interest rates are rising. The national
debt will increase by over $1 trillion over the next 5 years. But
somehow our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted for the
balanced budget amendment in March 1994 now feel less compelled to
support the amendment today.
They now want to attach special conditions; namely, the right-to-know
and Social Security exemption amendments to the balanced budget
amendment in exchange for their support on final passage.
As a new Member of the Senate, I would like to know why our
colleagues voted for a balanced budget amendment that did not include a
right-to-know provision last year? Why were there no requests for
budget details back then?
The minority leader was quoted the other day in Congress Daily saying
that he may not vote for the balanced budget amendment because he does
not ``have sufficient information on it.'' Again, I was not here, but
the minority leader and others apparently had sufficient information
when they voted for the balanced budget amendment the last March.
Why did our colleagues vote last year for a balanced budget amendment
that did not include a provision to exempt Social Security? Is Social
Security somehow more at risk this year than it was last year? Judging
from the cards, letters, and phone calls that I get from Michigan's
senior citizens, Social Security is politically as strong as ever. I
have no doubt that it will compete very well with other programs in the
Federal budget.
Mr. President, in truth, the only difference between today and last
year is that a new party controls the Congress--and some people do not
like it. These amendments are nothing but veiled attempts to torpedo
the balanced budget amendment, thereby thwarting the American public's
will as demonstrated in the last election.
In my judgment, we need the balanced budget amendment now more than
ever. Clearly, the budget deficit is once again spiraling out of
control. And President Clinton has apparently decided to raise the
white flag on the budget deficit.
His proposed budget for fiscal 1996 barely puts a dent in the out-
year budget deficits. In fact, his budget calls for an increase in
Federal spending from $1.5 to $1.9 trillion by the turn of the century.
It will produce budget deficits of about $200 billion every single year
through the year 2000.
Mr. President, according to an article in Saturday's Washington Post,
one administration official who participated in drafting the
President's budget said that, ``It should be a source of shame.''
With this budget submission, the President has basically decided to
walk away from his campaign pledge to cut the budget deficit in half
during his first term--and walk away from the public's overwhelming
desire to balance the Federal budget.
In my view, President Clinton's budget should be the poster child for
the balanced budget amendment.
Without the constitutional force of a balanced budget amendment, the
President is simply not compelled to make some tough choices and submit
a balanced budget.
Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, I think this debate is a
showdown between the business-as-usual politics of official Washington
and the desire for sweeping change that the people voted for last
November. It is that simple.
Those Senators who oppose the amendment want to maintain the status
quo of higher deficits, higher spending, and higher taxes. Those
Senators who support the amendment want to shake up the system and
force Congress to do what every American family must do--live within
its means.
education infrastructure and the right-to-know amendment
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, as a strong supporter of the right-
to-know amendment, as well as a strong supporter of the balanced budget
constitutional amendment, there is a lot I would like to say on behalf
of the principles that underlie both ideas. However, at this time, I
would like to say just a few words about the fiscal year 1996
administration budget proposals and their impact on my top legislative
priority in the last Congress, the Education Infrastructure Act.
I ran for the Senate in no small part because I believe that the
Federal Government has a real responsibility to make primary and
secondary education a higher priority. I think it is absolutely clear
that a solid primary and secondary education is the foundation on which
opportunity is built, and I am convinced that one of the most cost-
effective ways the Federal Government can open up opportunities for our
children over the long-run is to give primary and secondary education
the attention they deserve.
That is why I am so disappointed that the administration is proposing
to rescind the $100 million fiscal year 1995 appropriation for the
Education Infrastructure Act, which I authored last year, and it is why
I am so disappointed that the President is not requesting any money for
this very important program in fiscal year 1996.
Last year, Congress passed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which
President Clinton signed into law on March 31, 1994. I strongly
supported this legislation when it was before the Congress. It promises
to help create a coherent, national framework for education reform,
founded on the national education goals.
Helping to achieve real progress in education is what the Education
Infrastructure Act is all about. Last Wednesday, the General Accounting
Office released a frightening report on the physical condition of our
Nation's public schools. This study concluded that it will take $112
billion to restore school facilities nationwide to a ``good'' overall
condition. The GAO found that public schools need $11 billion just to
meet Federal requirements, including $46 billion to make all programs
accessible to all students and $5 billion to remove or correct
hazardous substances.
The Education Infrastructure Act, which was included in the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is
specifically designed to help school districts that do not have
adequate local resources to provide facilities where students can
learn. It assists school districts in renovating, altering, and
rehabilitating old facilities and in constructing needed new
facilities.
It is inherently unfair to expect our children to meet national
performance standards if they do not have a real opportunity to learn.
The Education Infrastructure Act will help our children learn by
helping to restore an environment conducive to learning. In her
research at Georgetown University, Maureen Edwards found that students
in poor school facilities are likely to fall over 5 percentage points
below those in schools that are in fair condition and 11 percentage
points below those in schools in excellent condition. These figures are
eloquent testimony as to why the Education Infrastructure Act is so
needed, and why it is such a cost-effective idea to pursue. And they
provide important evidence as to why the decision to zero out the
Education Infrastructure Act in the budget was so ill-advised.
But building on the work Congress did last year on the Education
Infrastructure Act was not the only opportunity this budget missed.
Looking at the budget more broadly, I am very disappointed that it does
not continue the work that the administration and Congress began in
1993 to reduce Federal deficits. The current strength of the U.S.
economy and the long-term budget trends the United States is facing
make this the time to act. In too many areas, however, this budget
defers taking actions that are already long overdue.
Most importantly, the budget does not contain proposals to deal with
the major entitlement
problems the Federal Government is facing. Mandatory spending is
becoming an ever-greater portion of the Federal budget, and it is the
engine driving the growth of the budget. Mandatory spending will be
almost three-quarters of the entire Federal budget by the year 2003,
and mandatory spending, together with interest expense, represents 95
percent of the growth of year-to-year Federal spending. The only way to
get a real handle on Federal deficits is to take a hard look at
mandatory spending. That is what the Bipartisan Commission on
Entitlement and Tax Reform, on which I served, was all about. And that
is
[[Page S2209]] what the Commission found, approving its report on the
trends driving the growth of Federal spending by an overwhelming 30 to
1 vote.
However, the truth contained in the Commission's report--that rapidly
rising health care costs and the ``graying of America'' are what are
driving Federal deficits--is not reflected in the budget.
Medicare and Medicaid continue to rise at rates above the rate of
economic growth or Federal revenues. Health care reform continues to be
essential in order to make any lasting progress on health care cost
growth. Yet the budget does not face the need for reform in health
care.
Social Security needs reform to ensure it will be there for future
generations as it has for current and past beneficiaries. This does not
mean cutting benefits for any current beneficiary by even a nickel, but
it does mean that we need to face the reform issues honestly, and that
we owe it to the American people, and particularly to younger Americans
who worry that Social Security will not be there for them, to face them
now. Yet, this budget does not do so.
Instead, the budget seems to concentrate on the part of the budget--
discretionary domestic spending--that CBO says has not grown as a
percentage of the economy since 1960, rather than taking on the real
area of growth--mandatory spending. And it proposes tax cuts, when the
American people know that deficit reduction is the higher priority.
The President does not support the balanced budget constitutional
amendment, but the underlying budget trends do not either know or care
who is for the balanced budget amendment or against it. The trends
simply go on until we develop the political will to act to change them.
We all have an obligation to the American public to tell the truth
about the budget, and about the future we face if we do not act. The
American people know that something is wrong with the budget; the
budget document should be a clear guide to what that something is.
Mr. President, I am confident that the American people will make the
right decisions regarding the budget if they have the right
information. This budget does not do enough to see that they do. Not
facing our budget problems condemns us to a future where we don't have
the money to solve either old problems or new ones. It costs us
economic growth, savings, and works to undermine the standard of living
of most Americans.
Dealing with our budget deficits is not an arcane accounting issue,
it is perhaps the most important issue facing America today, and the
most important determinant of the kind of future we will see. Balancing
the budget is a people issue--an issue for our children and their
children. It is disappointing that the budget does not do more to
communicate those fundamental truths to the American people. I expected
more.
____________________