[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2808-S2813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are now in our 14th day of debate. I was 
very interested in the chart of the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire, ``Statutes Don't Work.''
  I hear people on the other side constantly saying we ought to just do 
it; we ought to just balance the budget; we ought to have the guts to 
do it. Almost invariably they are the people who are the biggest 
spenders around here. Almost invariably.
  It is the biggest joke on Earth, after 26 straight years of not 
balancing the budget, to have these people tell us, we just have to do 
it ourselves. That is the biggest joke around here to everybody who 
knows anything about budgetary policy in the Federal Government.
  Do not think the people are stupid out there. They know what is going 
on. They know doggone well that if we do not have this balanced budget 
amendment, we will never get fiscal control of this country, we will 
never make priority choices among competing programs, and we will just 
keep spending and taxing like never before.
  [[Page S2809]] I have heard Senators on the other side of this issue, 
and some who even support us, beat their breast on how they voted for 
that large tax increase last year, and that deficit spending thing they 
did. Anytime you increase taxes, if you can hold on to spending at all, 
you are going to bring down the budget deficit. The problem is that at 
best, their approach starts up dramatically in 1996 and really 
dramatically at the turn of the century to a $400 billion annual 
deficit.
  These people are always saying we just have to do it. They are the 
same people who say we could do it with the Budget and Accounting Act 
of 1921, the Revenue Act of 1964, the Revenue Act of 1968, Humphrey-
Hawkins in 1978, the Byrd amendment in 1978. I was here for most of 
those. From 1978 on, I was certainly here, and I have to tell you, I 
voted for that Byrd amendment and I was really thrilled. Here is the 
U.S. Senate, this august body of people who mean so much to this 
country, voting to say that in 1980, we are going to balance this 
budget.
  Back then, we probably could have if we had really gotten serious 
about it. But it was almost the next bill that came up that a 51 
percent majority vote changed that. The distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire really makes a great point here.
  The debt limit increase, why, I was here for that, too. We promised, 
``Boy, we're going to balance the budget.''
  The Bretton Woods agreement; again, Byrd II; recodification of title 
31; Byrd III; Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, I remember what a fight that was 
to get that through. My gosh, at last we are going to do something for 
this country; we are going to get spending under control; we are going 
to help our country. It helped a little bit, darn little.
  We had to go to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II, II because the little it 
did help was just too much for these people around here, just too much 
for these budget balancers who say we simply ought to do it.
  Let me tell you, I am tired of saying we simply ought to do it. I 
heard it from the White House. What do we get from the White House? A 
budget for the next 5 years that will put us over $6 trillion; that the 
annual deficits for the next 12 years are $190 billion a year plus.
  Now tell me they mean business. No way in this world. This game is 
up. Those who vote for this are people who are serious about doing 
something for our country, about getting spending and taxing policies 
under control. I said spending and taxing. We are not just worried 
about spending, we are worried about these people who think the last 
answer to everything is to tax the American people more. And anybody 
who thinks that last tax policy was just the upper 2 percent, they just 
have not looked at what they have done. They even taxed Social 
Security.
  People just do not realize because sometimes the big lie is told 
around here so much that people cannot figure out what is going on. 
That is why baseball is the No. 1 issue in this country right now. I 
happen to know. I happen to be in the middle of that one, too. But I 
have to tell you, as important as baseball is, it is not a fly, a flea 
on the backside of an elephant compared to what this problem is.
  When we went to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II, that did not work, either. 
It was a simple statute that we just amended and amended.
  We have done some things here. There are some heroes here to me on 
both sides of the floor who are trying to do their best. I do not mean 
to find any fault with any individual Senator. We all have our 
problems. But, by gosh, the point I am making is, we are not going to 
do it unless we have a fiscal mechanism in the Constitution that 
requires us to at least make priority choices among competing programs 
before we spend this country into bankruptcy. That is what this 
amendment will do. This chart is a beautiful illustration of why 
statutes do not work.
 They may work for a short period of time, but sooner or later we are 
going to spend us just blind again.

  In fact, there are those who worry even if we put the balanced budget 
into the Constitution, there will be some in this body and certainly 
some in the other who will try to find every excuse they can to get 
around it.
  That is fine. But they are going to have a rough time because a lot 
of us are going to be here to make sure that there are no ways of 
getting around it; that we have to face the problems of this country. 
And right now I have to say we are not facing them. As much as people 
feel they are, we are not. We are with $200 billion deficits ad 
infinitum, well into the next century, and we are selling our kids into 
bankruptcy. It just makes me sick.
  Elaine and I have six children and 15 grandchildren--the 15th is on 
its way, but I count that child as if it has been born. It is only a 
month or so away--15 grandchildren. The fact of the matter is every one 
of those kids is going to be saddled with irresponsible debt because we 
keep fiddling while Rome is burning. Our balanced budget tracker poster 
sure shows that. We are now up to $15 billion in increased debt just in 
the 18 days we have been on this amendment--18 days.
  We have runaway spending in this country. We have a destructive 
welfare system that is tearing the fabric of our country apart, our 
families apart, that encourages immorality and promiscuity and children 
born out of wedlock to the point where today in this country in some 
cities there are more children born out of wedlock than there are in. 
As a matter of fact, in some cities in this country there are more kids 
aborted than there are kids that are born. And you wonder why we are 
losing our moral fiber? You wonder why this country has problems?
  We have a Tax Code that does not work. Everybody knows it. We all 
feel picked on. Most people in this country hate the IRS. Those are 
loyal, dedicated public servants just trying to enforce what is a 
ridiculous set of incomprehensible, massive laws. We can make it 
simpler. We could put a lot of the tax lawyers out of business and a 
lot of the tax accountants out of business and get more revenues in the 
process because people would feel more like paying them because they 
would be treated fairly.
  However, we will not do it because we do not have a fiscal mechanism 
in the Constitution that requires us to do it, or at least point us in 
the right direction.
  This Washington bureaucracy has grown every year. I get a kick out of 
some saying how much they are going to cut it back. It just goes on and 
on at tremendous cost, to the point where welfare in this country, by 
the time we get our tax dollars set aside for welfare to the people who 
need them, you have 28 percent of the dollar left, 28 cents on a dollar 
because it is eaten up right here in the bureaucracy because we will 
not do anything about it. We have these people standing around saying 
we will do it; we have the guts to do it. And invariably they are the 
very same people who are against this amendment. They do not want to do 
it.
  Oh, I should not be so harsh. There are some who really do want to do 
it, but they just do not have the capacity to do it, and I think we all 
know who they are. We have to get Washington put together. We have to 
restore the American dream and give our kids a chance. We have to give 
our grandchildren a chance.
  If there is any big, bloated, amorphous mass I would like to put on a 
diet, it would be this Federal budget, and I think we would all be 
better off. We would have more money with which we would be able to do 
more things. We could expand businesses, have more jobs, actually have 
more revenues if we just got incentives restored again.
  I said early in the debate that the Federal Government could really 
stand being anorexic for a while. It would probably do this country 
good. We could cut the fat, cut the waste, get rid of a lot of things 
that really do not work, and reform and improve those things that do.
  Now, if people do not think I know what I am talking about, when I 
became chairman of the Labor Committee back in 1981, the youngest 
committee chairman in the history of a major committee, my ranking 
member was none other than Ted Kennedy, the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts, with six other very liberal Senators. So there were 
seven liberals on the Democrat side. We had seven conservatives on my 
side, plus two liberal Republicans whose hearts, in many ways, were 
with the liberal Democrats on the committee.
  [[Page S2810]] But we were challenged to cut back on the most liberal 
committee in the Senate's jurisdiction, the most liberal committee in 
the Senate. We were challenged to cut back on spending. We went to 
work. We block granted in part six of the seven block grants. We worked 
to refine and reform the thousands of programs that they had in that 
committee. We cut that committee's multibillions of dollars of 
budgetary jurisdiction by 25 percent in real terms over the 6 years I 
was chairman, with all of those liberals on the committee. And I have 
to give Senator Kennedy and others a lot of credit for helping us to do 
it. They were willing to work with us. They knew we had the majority 
and they were fair. But we cut that jurisdiction 25 percent in real 
terms over those 6 years. And if every other committee in the Congress 
had done that, we would have had a $150 billion surplus by the end of 
those 6 years.
  So I know what I am talking about. It can be done. And do you know 
what else? Even though we cut the jurisdiction 25 percent in real 
terms, because we went to work and reformed the system, reformed those 
thousands of programs, we actually got more money to more people in 
better ways than ever before. You cannot tell me we could not do with a 
good haircut of the Federal Government today in all of these programs.
  Almost all of them are well intentioned, almost all of them are well 
meaning. The fact of the matter is that we are unwilling to do what 
needs to be done, and the reason we are is not because we are awful 
people or we are not good people or that it is just Democrats or just 
Republicans. It is both of us. Frankly, it is because we do not have a 
fiscal mechanism that encourages us to do it.
  Now, this balanced budget amendment is that fiscal mechanism. It is 
not perfect. I have said it is not. There is nothing that is perfect in 
the eyes of all 535 Members of Congress. There is no way you can do 
that. But it is as perfect as we can get--worked on for a decade or 
more, about 14 years, by Democrats and Republicans. I know; I have been 
right in the middle of those negotiations every step of the way. And 
nobody in particular should be able to take complete credit for it or 
blame for it.
  Mr. President, I have to tell you something. It is the hope of 
millions out there in America, a high percentage of people who may be 
with the balanced budget amendment and we can get this mess under 
control.
  I just hope with everything I have that we can get those 15 Democrats 
that we need to vote with us--15 out of 47. That is all we need. Go 
ahead, 32 of you vote against it, but 15 of you we need to pass this 
balanced budget amendment. That is all; 52 out of 53 Republicans are 
going to vote for this. That is really something. I think we will get 
those 15, and we may even get more. I am going to do everything in my 
power to see that we do so that we have to face the music, so that we 
have to face reality, so that we have to understand more than ever 
before it is time to quit selling the future of our children and our 
grandchildren down the drain. I want them to have at least close to the 
opportunities that our generation had when we were coming up and not 
born in poverty. I just want them to have the same chance.
  I notice the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is here. I did not 
mean to take so much time. I will be happy to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BENNETT). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about my concerns 
regarding the context in which we find ourselves debating the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget this year. I would like 
to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to elaborate on those 
concerns and to announce how I will vote when this matter comes to a 
vote, finally, next week.
  Mr. President, during the time I have served here in the Senate, from 
January 1983 until the present, one of the great shortcomings in our 
national policy has been our failure to pursue sound fiscal policy. 
During the 1980's and continuing now into the 1990's the Federal 
Government, each year, has operated substantially in deficit.
  During the last 12 years there have been several serious efforts to 
deal with that problem and I have supported each of those. The deficit 
reduction efforts in 1987, 1989, 1990, and 1993 have all had my 
support. Those were deficit reduction efforts under President Reagan 
and President Bush, and now under President Clinton.
  If another serious deficit reduction effort occurs, as I hope it will 
during this term of my service in the Senate, I expect to support that 
as well. I share the goal of most Americans to reach a balanced budget 
at the earliest possible date.
  But the question we have to answer is: Will the passage of this 
amendment in the context it is presented today advance our prospects 
for achieving sound and fair fiscal policy, or retard those prospects?
  As I stated yesterday, the amendment comes to us in a very 
politicized environment where many of its proponents clearly see the 
amendment as a way to advance their political agenda of less taxation 
for certain taxpayers.
  In the much discussed Contract With America the Republican leadership 
in the House of Representatives promised to pass the balanced budget 
amendment with a three-fifths supermajority requirement for any tax 
increase. That supermajority requirement was not in fact included in 
the amendment sent to the Senate by the House in the form of House 
Joint Resolution 1. However, those who put the Contract With America 
together have not abandoned their commitment.
  There are troubling indications that the effort still goes forward 
not only to reach a balanced budget, which we all support, but to reach 
it in a particular way, and to reach it in a way that shields certain 
Americans from sharing equitably in that pain.
  I discussed at length yesterday the House rule adopted before the 
balanced budget amendment was sent to the Senate--which requires three-
fifths supermajority vote to raise income tax rates and income tax 
rates alone.
  Under the House rule other taxes can still be raised by a simple 
majority--taxes that impact many of the people I represent most 
heavily--the working families of my State.
  The gas tax, for example, the social security tax, various excise 
taxes. In order for a bill to become law it must pass in both houses.
  This House rule gives the minority in the House a veto over efforts 
by either house to use the income tax our most progressive tax to raise 
revenues for deficit reduction.
  This rule undermines genuine efforts at deficit reduction. The 
purpose of this rule is clearly to protect individuals and corporations 
in the upper tax brackets and to regain any increases in revenue to 
occur by increases in regressive taxes that affect middle income 
families most directly.
  I proposed yesterday to amend the proposed constitutional amendment 
to correct this problem--but unfortunately my amendment was defeated.
  So with that defeat, we are faced with a proposed constitutional 
amendment being presented while the House has in place a rule which 
makes it clear that middle-income families will likely see their taxes 
raised to balance the budget--but unlike that wealthy individuals and 
corporations will share in that sacrifice to the same extent.
  A second troubling indication that the balanced budget amendment is 
seen by its proponents as a device to pursue a political agenda to 
advantage certain groups in our society--is the commitment of the 
Republican leadership in the House to bring the proposed constitutional 
provillion four three-fifths supermajority requirement for tax 
increases to the House floor for a vote prior to April 15 of next year.
  And in fact yesterday there was a colloquy here on the Senate floor 
where the Senator from Utah agreed to proceed here in the Senate with 
hearings on a constitutional amendment imposing that same supermajority 
requirement for tax increases.
  So the context in which we are considering this amendment has changed 
from what it was in previous Congresses. We now are not just talking 
about how to balance the budget, we are now talking about writing into 
the constitution, provisions which will determine whose ox will be 
gored as we proceed to balance the budget. In this context and with 
these ground rules in 
[[Page S2811]] place the people whose ox will be gored are the working 
people--those who pay the most gas taxes, the social security taxes, 
and those who pay excise taxes.
  What are the consequences that would flow from the balanced budget 
amendment in this new environment with this new change in the House 
rules.
  I believe we can predict 3 consequences from proceeding with the 
amendment given percent ground- works.
  First, with a three-fifths super- majority requirement in 
place to raise income taxes it will be much more difficult for us to 
reach the goal of a balanced budget by 2002. As I stated yesterday, 
almost all the experts who have looked at the issue seriously agree 
that a balanced budget will only be reached as other deficit reduction 
efforts have been achieved, with a combination of spending cuts and 
revenue increases. And with this provision in place those revenue 
increases will come from regressive taxes, rather than from the only 
progressive tax we have, the income tax.
  Second, if we do take steps to reach a balanced budget, with that 
supermajority for income tax increases in place, most of the burden of 
deficit reduction will fall on working families who can least afford to 
carry that additional burden.
  And the third consequence is that States like my home State of New 
Mexico with relatively low per capita income will be those most badly 
hurt.
  At this very time our State legislature in Santa Fe is struggling 
with the question of a gasoline tax. A balanced budget amendment 
adopted, with the House Rule in effect protecting incomes taxes from 
change, almost certainly insures that we in Washington will be adding 
substantially to the gas tax as one of the only available sources of 
revenue. The same can be said of Social Security taxes and other 
regressive taxes.
  Mr. President, if I represented a wealthy State with many high income 
taxpayers, I could see an argument for why I should vote for the 
amendment--in spite of the House rule. But my State is not wealthy and 
we have very few taxpayers who will be treated fairly under this new 
set of ground rules.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President when the final vote is called on the balanced budget 
amendment next week I will vote ``no.''
  I will do so because I believe we should leave the question of how to 
achieve sound fiscal policy to a vote of a majority here in Congress at 
any particular time. We should not try, by rule or other provision, to 
determine how future Congresses choose to reduce the deficit: We should 
not dictate whether they cut spending or raise taxes. We should not try 
to predetermine for future Congresses which group of taxpayers will pay 
the taxes and which group will suffer the spending cuts.
  The Framers of the Constitution were wise to limit the use of the 
supermajority requirement in the Constitution. They chose to leave the 
Constitution neutral as to how we accomplish sound fiscal policy at any 
particular time in our history. We are well advised to defer to their 
good judgment on that subject, to cease our efforts to solve this 
problem by changing the Constitution, and, instead, to solve it as all 
previous generations have, by demonstrating the political courage to 
make unpopular decisions about spending cuts and taxes.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. Dorgan addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold his quorum call 
request?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I withhold.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand the Senate is near the 
completion of its business today. I will not take a great length of 
time, I was intending to offer today an amendment but I was intending 
to offer an amendment today and now obviously I intend to offer an 
amendment when we reconvene, whenever that might be, on this 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  I spoke the other day on the floor of my concern about the process by 
which we are selecting a new Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office. I made it clear when I spoke that it is not my intent to 
tarnish the image of the person who apparently has been advanced as the 
one to be selected. I do not know the person. I do not have a judgment 
about the person's qualifications because I have not met with that 
person. But I certainly have a judgment about the way this process has 
worked and I am concerned about it, and sufficiently concerned that I 
want the Congress to be able to evaluate this appointment in a more 
considered way.
  This is not just the usual appointment. It is not just a run-of-the-
mill appointment. The head of the Congressional Budget Office, in 
effect, becomes the referee on a wide range of budget questions and on 
a wide range of scoring issues. As all of us know, how a proposal is 
scored can have an enormous impact on whether or not that proposal 
meets with favor or disfavor in the U.S. Senate. For example, one might 
say, ``I have a certain budget proposal that recommends certain 
things.'' And CBO says, ``Well, we would score that in a dynamic way, 
or a static way.'' You would reach very different results perhaps. So 
you develop scoring rules, and how you select the people to perform 
these duties is very, very important.
  I can remember in 1981, the first year I served in the Congress, in 
which we had some very dynamic scoring by the Office of Management and 
Budget. David Stockman, a fresh, new face, was selected to head the 
Office of Management and Budget. They came up with a strategy that 
said, ``Well, if we do the following things, we will produce enormous 
new revenue, and we will balance the budget by 1984.'' He subsequently 
wrote a book after he left the Government that said none of that was 
realistic and it was a horrible mistake. I have sometimes used quotes 
from his book because he gave an interesting insight into what the 
mindset was when they were using these dynamic scoring approaches to 
come up with these results. It seemed wildly unrealistic at the time 
anyway. But, nonetheless, dynamic scoring was used to justify a new 
fiscal policy.
  The point is we have been through periods where people have developed 
new scoring approaches, new devices, that have been unrealistic and 
have caused this country great problems and left us with significant 
debt and deficits. Especially given this constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget and the vigorous battles that will occur, I am sure, 
over budget resolutions that come before the Senate, our referee, the 
Congressional Budget Office, must be led by someone who commands 
universal respect, someone whose methods do not lead to questions about 
judgment.
  Again, I do not know the circumstances of the person who has 
apparently been tapped to be the new Director of the CBO. So I do not 
know whether that person meets this test. But I do know this: We have 
had people who have led the Congressional Budget Office--Alice Rivlin, 
Rudy Penner, Bob Reischauer--all of whom, Members of the Senate would 
almost universally say, are people at the top of their field whose 
impartiality allows them to call them as they see them. These previous 
Directors have, I think, received nearly universal respect and support.
  The selection of these three Directors was generally a process in 
which the two parties together make a judgment. In fact, I am told--I 
will not recite the chapter and verse on this, I will do that later--
that previously the minority had difficulty with several candidates, 
and really, said, ``Well, this is not acceptable to us.'' And that just 
meant that candidate did not go forward. That was the way it was 
because there was a need to develop a consensus on a candidate.
  I am told that this process on this candidate resulted in an 
announcement in the House of Representatives, of who the appointee 
would be, prior to the ranking minority member in the House Budget 
Committee ever meeting the person. That is not a process, it seems to 
me, that is consultative. That is not a process in which both sides 
have come together to jointly figure out who has the stature and the 
ability and the authority to do this job.
  So I am concerned about the process. I do not think this is the right 
process. I really think with the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office, there ought to be a resolution of approval by both the House 
and the Senate. I know 
[[Page S2812]] that is not the current circumstance. But I intend to 
offer an amendment that would require that. I hope very much that at 
this juncture the majority would not appoint a Director at this point 
until I have had an opportunity to offer the resolution. I probably 
will offer it and discuss it on this amendment, although it would be 
better to offer it to the very next bill that comes to the floor of the 
Senate after the balanced budget amendment.
  But I, as others, am concerned and want to speak on it. I want to 
make a case about the process. My case is not a case that says this 
person is the wrong person. I do not know. But I know that whoever 
heads CBO is going to have an impact on my legislative life and an 
impact on the legislative life of everyone in this body and in the 
House. And I would like very much for the selection of the new head of 
the CBO to be a selection that represents a consensus between the 
majority and the minority; a consensus on two points:
  First, that this person is someone of great quality, who is at the 
top of the field and has the credentials to command respect;
  And, second, that this person is someone who will provide an 
impartial analysis of the type that we have been used to.
  I must admit that I, like probably the Senator in the chair, have 
from time to time had to hold my brow as I received something from CBO. 
I have said, ``Lord, I do not agree with that. That is not the answer I 
was looking for.'' But I respect Mr. Reischauer. I respect Mr. Penner. 
I respect Alice Rivlin. I do not know the current candidate. And I am 
not making judgments here. But I am making judgments about the process. 
This process is wrong. It is a flawed process when we have 
circumstances where the appointment is announced prior to the minority 
ranking member even being able to discuss particulars with the 
candidate.
  I am not going to talk about the process on the Senate side. But I do 
know that the minority on the Senate side of the Budget Committee sent 
a letter saying we think we should look further for other candidates. 
So they obviously were making some kind of a judgment. I think that we 
ought not proceed until we have responded to this as a body. I hope 
very much that prior to my offering the amendment when we return, that 
the majority will not proceed to make this appointment.
  Again, let me emphasize for the third time as I take the floor that I 
do not intend to make a judgment about this candidate at this point. I 
may at some point. But I do not know enough to make a judgment. I know 
what I have read in the papers. I have been in politics long enough to 
understand that that is not enough. I want to understand the facts. I 
want to understand the circumstances and the quality of this candidate. 
But I also want to understand that when we finish this process the 
selection of this very important person will be a selection by 
consensus among the majority and minority of the House and the Senate. 
I do not think that is the case today.
  So, I had intended to offer this amendment today and because other 
amendments took most of the day, this will be put over until next week, 
or whenever we return--I guess the first legislative day when we 
return. But I wanted to take the floor at this moment to alert my 
colleagues that I intend to do this, and to urge the majority not to 
proceed until we have had a chance to express ourselves on this issue.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the Senate's indulgence.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to talk as we end this 
third week of debate on the balanced budget amendment about the 
importance of this vote and what it really means to America.
  I have listened for the last 3 weeks to the debate, and I want to say 
that I think we are in a filibuster. I think there can be no doubt of 
it. Our leader has been patient. Senator Dole wanted everyone to have 
an opportunity to have his or her say to talk about the issue, because 
it is a major issue. It is probably the most important vote I will ever 
make in my career.
  I think the leader has given ample time for every person to talk 
about views, to differ on views, and to put in amendments. I think 
Senator Hatch and Senator Craig, who are the distinguished managers of 
this joint resolution, have been very patient. But this is a 
filibuster, and there is a fundamental difference about whether we 
should move forward with the mandate that we have to change the things 
we have been doing in Washington, or whether we are in fact doing what 
we have been doing year after year after year in this Congress--that 
is, spending beyond our means. That is what has been happening.
  We are at the end of the third week of debate. All of us who support 
the balanced budget amendment thought we would be finished, thought we 
would leave town for a 3-day recess knowing that we had done the most 
important thing we could do for the future of our children and 
grandchildren. But we are not there yet. We are not there because there 
is a fundamental difference and because many who disagree with the 
balanced budget amendment have decided to delay it through filibuster.
  I support the right of everyone to delay. That is part of the Senate 
rules. But I think it is time to call it what it is. I think it is time 
that people realize this is a delaying tactic, that we are no longer 
into substantive differences--and reasonable people can differ--we are 
into trying to delay what clearly the majority of this body wants to 
do, and that is to say that we are going to amend this Constitution and 
say to future generations: You are not going to have to pay our bills.
  Every baby that is born into this country has an $18,000 debt to pay. 
That is what we have racked up with our over $4 trillion of debt. Some 
people say, ``Let us do it by statutes. We can pass laws, we can act 
responsibly.'' And, of course, we point out that over the last 30-plus 
years we, in fact, have not been able to do that. So if you put the 
practical experience in the mix, it is clear that we are not going to 
do it by statute.
  But let us talk about what is the role of the Constitution of our 
country. The Constitution of our country should not be something that 
we can do by statute. It should be the framework of our Government. It 
should be what we think the parameters of our Government should be, not 
for the 104th Congress, but for all the Congresses in the future--
something that is so well settled in our policies that it should not be 
subject to change. That is what we are debating, whether we will amend 
our Constitution with a fundamental policy decision that should not be 
changed by future generations.
  Mr. President, that is what a balanced budget amendment is, and it 
does meet the test. It should be a fundamental policy of this country 
that we will not spend money we do not have, unless we are in a crisis, 
in a war, and that is the exception--the one exception--that all of us 
would agree to. Other than that, we are not going to spend money we do 
not have for programs that we would like, for programs that are good 
programs, but programs we do not have the money to pay for.
  It comes down to the fundamentals that every State, every city, every 
business, and every household in America understands, and that is: I 
would like to take my family to dinner tonight, but maybe I do not have 
the money to do it and I have to make that decision based on whether I 
have the discretionary money to do it. I would like to send my child to 
college. Do I have the funds to do it? I would like to have many things 
that, perhaps, I cannot afford and therefore I do not acquire. That is 
a fundamental decision that every American makes every day. The only 
American institution that really does not is the United States 
Government. That is a fundamental policy that we must put in place that 
should not change with the wind or the times--that is, that my 
priorities are more important than the priorities of future Congresses.
  I think it is very important, as we leave today for this recess, that 
the people of America understand that this is a filibuster. The people 
who are doing it have the perfect right to do it, but they are delaying 
this vote; they are delaying what I think the people of America want, 
what they have said repeatedly they want, and that is for us 
[[Page S2813]] to start the very tough process of balancing our budget 
over the next 7 years, so that by the year 2002, if we start right now, 
we will be able to then begin the adventure of being able to pay back 
the $4 trillion debt, so that we will not be in that continuing deficit 
position.
  In fact, I think that if we do not act on this in the next week when 
we get back, it is not that it will pass in time and we will not pass 
it ever again. I disagree with people that say this is our only chance. 
I think if we do not pass it this time, we will have a bigger mandate 
in 1996 and we will pass it. The difference will be, Mr. President, 
that we will have two more years of accumulating debt, and we have seen 
the charts for the last week showing every day that we have been 
debating and talking and talking in the Senate debating society, the 
debt has gone up because we have not begun to turn that ship on a 
different course.
  So if we do not do it this year, we will do it 2 years from now, 3 
years from now, because we will have the mandate. But we will have 
missed 2 years of opportunity to begin this process of responsibility 
for our future generations. That is what we will miss if we fail to do 
so.
  So as we leave these hallowed halls, I hope all of us will think 
carefully about the monumental decision that we will make next week to 
stop this filibuster, to stop the delays, to stop the nuance 
differences and say that we are going to take this first step of 
amending the greatest Constitution that has ever been written in any 
society in all of civilization; that we are going to amend it with a 
fundamental policy decision of responsible spending, to protect our 
future generations from our decisions, which may not be theirs.
  So it is a great opportunity for us, and I hope all of us will go 
home and come back next week ready to make the decision that is ours to 
make, to change the course of this country and begin the process of 
responsible governing.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded, and I be allowed to speak out of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________