[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.


                          ____________________