[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 34 (Thursday, February 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2995-S3034]
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.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know that my colleague, Senator 
Kerrey from Nebraska, has come to the floor to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent that, after he speaks, it then be in order to 
call up a motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this debate is about amending the U.S. 
Constitution. If we approve the proposal as offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Utah and others--as the House already has--
it will be up to the States of this country to ratify or reject what 
would become the 28th constitutional change in 206 years.
  The Constitution of the United States represents the greatest 
democratic achievement in the history of human civilization. It--and 
the self-evident truths which are its bases--has guided the decisions 
and the heroic sacrifices of Americans for two centuries. Its precepts 
are the guiding light and have been a shining beacon of hope for 
millions across the globe who hunger for the freedoms that democracy 
guarantees. It has served not only us, it has served the world, as 
well.
  It is not, Mr. President, a document, therefore, to be amended 
lightly. Indeed, my strongest objection to this proposal is that it 
does not belong in our Constitution; it belongs in our law.
  In addition to this argument, I also intend to suggest that the 
political will to enact changes in law to balance our budget--which was 
missing from many previous Congresses--now appears to be here.
  In fact, I wish the time taken to debate this change in our 
Constitution was instead spent debating the changes needed in the 
statutes that dictate current and future spending. This does not mean, 
Mr. President, I agree with those who have complained about the length 
of time we have spent on this proposal. This complaint is without 
merit.
  This great document should not be amended in a rush of passion. It is 
evident from the Constitution itself that its authors intended the 
process of amendment to be slow, difficult, and laborious. So difficult 
that it has been attempted with success only 17 times since the Bill of 
Rights. This document is not meant to be tampered with in a trivial 
fashion.
  As I said, the proposed 28th amendment to the Constitution is 
intended to affect the behavior of America's congressional 
representatives. In that regard, it is unique. Except for the 25th 
amendment, which addresses the issue of transfer of power, other 
amendments affecting the behavior of all Americans by limiting the 
power of Government, protecting public freedoms, prohibiting the 
majority from encroaching on the rights of the minority or regulating 
the behavior of the States.
  This would be the only amendment aimed at regulating the behavior of 
535 Americans, who the amendment assumes are incapable of making the 
difficult decisions without the guidance of the Constitution's hand. 
That theory is grounded in the assumption that Congress and the public 
lack the political will to balance the budget.
  Specifically, the proposal contains 294 words. It would raise from a 
simple majority to three-fifths the vote necessary in Congress for 
deficit spending. It would set a goal of balancing our budget by the 
year 2002.
  The amendment empowers Congress to pass legislation detailing how to 
enforce that goal, but does not itself specify enforcement measures. 
The only answer to the question of what will happen if Congress and the 
President fail to balance the budget is that nobody knows. The only 
mechanism our country has for enforcing the Constitution is the courts. 
So the amendment's ambiguity prevents the serious possibility of 
protracted court battles which give unelected judiciary unwarranted 
control over budget policy.
  The proponents of this amendment sincerely believe our Constitution 
needs to be changed in order to force Members of Congress to change 
their behavior, which supporters argue they will not do because they 
are afraid of offending the citizens who have sent them here in the 
first place. On that basis there is a long list of constitutional 
change they should propose, including campaign finance reform, lobbying 
reform, and term limits, just to name a few.
  Mr. President, I support the goal of a balanced budget, and have 
fought and am fighting and will continue to fight to achieve it. 
However, desirability of a goal cannot become the only standard to 
which we hold constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments must 
meet a higher standard.
  The Constitution and its 27 amendments express broadly our values as 
a Nation. The Constitution does not dictate specific policies, fiscal 
or otherwise. We attempted to use the Constitution for that purpose 
once, banning alcohol in the 18th amendment, and it proved to be a 
colossal failure. Fundamentally, we should amend the Constitution to 
make broad statements of national principle. And most importantly, Mr. 
President, we should amend the Constitution as an act of last resort 
when no other means are adequate to reach our goals.
  We do so out of reverence for a document we have believed for two 
centuries should not be changed except in the most extraordinary 
circumstances. We have used constitutional amendments to express our 
preference as a Nation for the principles of free speech, the right to 
vote and the right of each individual to live free.
  The question before Members today is whether the need for a balanced 
budget belongs in such distinguished company. While I oppose this 
amendment, Mr. President, I understand the arguments for it. I have had 
the privilege of serving here for 6 years and I am entering my seventh 
budget cycle as a consequence. Every time the President of either 
party, since I have been here, has sent a budget to this body it has 
been greeted with speeches and promises and rhetoric about the need to 
balance the budget. And each time, those speeches and promises and 
rhetoric have been greeted with votes in the opposite direction.
  Many of those whose judgment I most respect in this body support this 
amendment, including the senior Senator from Nebraska, whose reputation 
as a budget cutter needs no expounding by me. I am sympathetic. Clearly 
something is wrong with a system which so consistently produces 
deficits so large.
  The question for me is not whether something is wrong, but precisely, 
what is wrong? Do we run a massive deficit because something in the 
Constitution is broken? Were the Founding Fathers mistaken in assigning 
the elected representatives of the people the task of setting fiscal 
and budget policy? And is a constitutional amendment, as opposed to a 
statute requiring a balanced budget, the only workable solution? If the 
answers to these questions were yes, then a constitutional amendment in 
my judgment would be appropriate. But my answer in all three of these 
questions, is a resounding no.
  If, on the other hand, the problem lies in the behavior of the 535 
individuals whose actions produce the deficit, as opposed to the 
document that governs it, then a constitutional amendment is both an 
inappropriate and ineffective means for balancing the budget. If a 
simple statute rather than an 
[[Page S2996]] amendment will work, we should leave the Constitution 
alone.
  Supporters of the amendment note we tried statute in 1985 in the form 
of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law and that law failed miserably. 
Therefore, the argument goes, a more powerful tool than ordinary 
statute--in other words, constitutional amendment--is necessary. The 
assumption, apparently is that a constitutional amendment mandate would 
provide the legal and the political cover needed to cast the tough 
votes in a climate in which the political will for doing so does not 
exist.
  But the fact is, Mr. President, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings failed not 
because it was a statute as opposed to an amendment, but because the 
political will to balance the budget did not exist in 1985. Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings set deficit targets to set up on a glidepath, a term we 
are hearing again today, to achieve zero deficits by 1991.
  The deficit target for 1986 was $172 billion. We end up $222 billion 
in the hole. President Reagan's budgets did not even meet the Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings targets in that year, much less a balanced budget. And 
even though Gramm-Rudman-Hollings provided the legal and political 
cover for deficit reduction, neither Congress nor the President has the 
stomach for it. Now we are attempting to find in the Constitution what 
we could not find in ourselves.
  I believe, Mr. President, that 1995 and 1985 are two very different 
times. I have heard the American people say loud and clear in this last 
November election that not only does the will to balance the budget 
exist, it thrives. We all know that the political will to balance the 
budget exists today to a much larger degree than it did in 1985. In 
fact, there is much more enthusiasm than existed even in 1994. The 
political dynamic has changed in this Congress. I believe the political 
will now exists to make the tough choices.
  To illustrate this change, consider our attitude toward spending cuts 
today. A year ago when a bipartisan coalition of Senators offered and 
fought for an amendment which would have cut $94 billion in spending 
over 5 years, the administration argued against it, saying our economy 
would enter a recession. But since the election, Mr. President, the 
same administration opponents are scrambling to propose cuts that are 
larger than the ones that they opposed just a little over a year ago.
  There are far more Senators and Representatives today who are 
prepared to vote for spending cuts than there were last year. And there 
is evidence of a willingness to form bipartisan coalitions in the 
beginning to tackle the problem, including our most politically charged 
problem, Federal entitlements.
  So I say that after the rhetoric for and against this amendment is 
over, let Senators get to work to show Americans we have the courage 
this amendment presumes that we lack. While it is true that the 
President's recently submitted budget does little to reduce the 
deficit, the stomach for the tough choices does exist in this body. If 
the appeal of a balanced budget amendment is simply the legal or 
political cover it provides for the tough choice, a statutory change 
would provide the same cover. If the presumption behind the amendment 
is that the political will to balance the budget does not exist, then 
make no mistake, those who lack that political will can find a way to 
circumvent this amendment.
  An amendment to the Constitution of the United States is a powerful 
weapon, not one to be taken lightly. This weapon can be disarmed with 
60 votes in the Senate, only 9 more than it takes for deficit spending 
today.
  And beyond all the legal maneuvers, there is no cover for tough 
decisions but the courage to make them. So I simply am not convinced a 
balanced budget amendment is necessary. It assumes a structural flaw in 
our Constitution that prevents the 535 Members of Congress from 
balancing the budget. In fact, there is no such flaw in the 
Constitution. To the extent such a flaw exists, it is in the 535 
Members of Congress themselves, not the document that governs us.
  The fact is, we can balance the budget this year if we wanted to, and 
we can by statute direct the Congress to balance the budget by 2002, 
2003, or any other date that we choose.
  Furthermore, I believe this debate is misdirected. The balanced 
budget amendment tells us what to do over the next 7 years but ignores 
the following 20, the years which ought to command our attention.
  A balanced budget by the year 2002 still ignores the most important 
fiscal challenge we face: The rapid growth in entitlement spending over 
the next 30 years. The year on which we ought to be focused is not 
2002, but 2012 when the baby boomer generation begins to retire and 
places a severe strain on the Federal budget.
  Our biggest fiscal challenge is demographic, not constitutional, and 
the amendment before us does not and cannot address it. Unfortunately 
and conveniently, this demographic challenge is kept from our view, not 
by an incomplete Constitution, but by a budgeting process that 
discourages long-term planning.
  The budget the President sent us tells us what to do for the next 5 
years--5 years, Mr. President. The balanced budget amendment tells us 
what happens over 7 years. Five- and seven-year spans are completely 
inadequate when the most difficult budget decisions we need to make 
deal with problems we will face 20, 25 and 30 years down the road, when 
the aging of our population propels entitlement spending out of 
control.
  The most important recommendation of the Bipartisan Commission on 
Entitlement and Tax Reform is that we began to look at the impact of 
the budget over 30 years, rather than just 5 or 7. The reason that our 
country looks very different and our current budgets look very 
different viewed over that span is, as I said, not one of our 
Constitution, not, indeed, even one of our statute, but one of 
demographics.
  We can see the trend in the short-term. The big four entitlement 
programs--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal retirement--
will consume 44 percent of the budget this year. Mandatory spending 
will consume 65 percent. By 2000, it will be 70 percent. By 2005, the 
number is 78 percent. Those numbers, Mr. President, are straight from 
CBO. If we project further, we see that by 2012, mandatory spending 
plus interest on the national debt will consume every dollar we collect 
in taxes. By 2013, we will be forced to begin dipping into the surplus 
of the Social Security trust funds to cover benefit payments, a 
practice that will go on for no more than 16 years before the trust 
fund goes bankrupt in the year 2029.
  These trends have nothing to do with the Constitution, political will 
or pork barrel politics. They have to do with the simple fact that our 
population is getting older while the work force gets smaller. My 
generation did not have as many children as our parents expected and, 
as a consequence, the system under which each generation of workers 
supports the preceding generation of retirees simply will not hold up 
much longer.
  Indeed, long-term entitlement reform, coupled with a reasonable 
reduction in discretionary spending, including defense, would reduce 
interest rates dramatically and achieve the goal of this amendment 
without tampering with the Constitution.
  In this context, I need to address the role of Social Security in 
this debate. I have heard speaker after speaker come to the floor on 
both sides of the issue and announce their support for this program. I 
agree with them all. Social Security is one of the most, if not the 
most, important and successful Government programs we operate. Social 
Security should not and, indeed, does not need to be used to balance 
the budget. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Social Security 
will start running a deficit in 2013, due, as I mentioned earlier, to 
the retirement of the baby boomer generation and the fact that more 
retirees will be drawing from the trust funds while fewer workers 
contribute to it.
  The general fund currently borrows against the surplus, and when 
Social Security begins running a deficit, the decisionmaking capacity 
of future Congresses will be limited, because large amounts of the 
general fund will have to be used to repay the money we are borrowing 
from the trust fund today. That situation will tempt future Congresses 
to run Social Security in deficit if it is exempted from deficit 
calculations. That development would, of 
[[Page S2997]] course, only further jeopardize the program.
  Even today, our decisionmaking capacity is already limited by the 
growth of entitlement spending. In 1963, a little more than 30 years 
ago, spending on entitlements and interest on the national debt 
consumed 30 percent of our Federal budget. This year, entitlements and 
net interest will devour 65 percent. The present budget assumes 66 
percent for next year and by 2000, the number will be 70 percent.
  Mr. President, that is the problem that we face. That is why we are 
forced year after year after year to come and cut domestic 
discretionary programs, whether it is defense or nondefense. The 
pressure is coming from entitlement programs that are consuming a 
larger and larger percent of our budget inexorably by the year 2013, it 
will be 100 percent, converting the Federal Government into an ATM 
machine.
  The result is a question of fairness between generations. Today there 
are roughly five workers paying taxes to support the taxes of each 
retiree. When my generation retires, there will be fewer than three 
workers per retiree. Unless we take action now, the choice forced upon 
our children will be excruciating. Continue to fund benefits at current 
levels by radically raising taxes on the working population or slash 
benefits dramatically.
  Finally, Mr. President, as we debate this amendment, I hope we keep 
our eyes on a larger prize in blind reference to the idea of a balanced 
budget. Our goals should, in my view, be economic prosperity. I support 
deficit reduction as a means to that end. Deficit reduction is 
important not as an abstract ideal but as an economic comparative. I 
believe in balancing the budget because it is the surest and most 
powerful way to increase national savings. And increased national 
savings will lead to increased national productivity which in turn will 
lead to higher standards of living for the American family.
  There is no short cut to savings and no substitute that will get 
results. Increased national savings mean lower long-term interest rates 
and increased job growth in the private sector. The balanced budget 
amendment assumes that a balanced budget is always the best economic 
policy. A balanced budget, Mr. President, is usually the best economic 
strategy, but it is by no means always the best strategy for this 
country. Downward turns in the economy complicate the picture. Downward 
turns will result in lower revenues and higher spending so there will 
be times, although very few of them, when a strict requirement for 
balancing the budget harms the economy by requiring the collection of 
more and more taxes to cover more and more spending in an economic 
environment which makes revenue collection more difficult in the first 
place.
  As I say, I believe those times are few and far between. But the 
Constitution is too blunt an instrument to distinguish between good 
times and bad. The American people hired us to do that job, not to cede 
it to a legal document that cannot assess the evolving needs of our 
economy.
  The bottom line for me as we debate this amendment is whether it 
moves us toward achieving the correct goals and whether, if it does, we 
need to amend the Constitution to get there.
  My answer to the first question is mixed. I believe a balanced budget 
is an important goal, but only as a component of an overall economic 
strategy which recognizes that skyrocketing entitlement spending is the 
most serious fiscal challenge we face.
  My answer to the second question is more certain. I believe that once 
we set those goals, we can achieve them by statute or, more 
importantly, by changing our own behavior rather than changing the 
Constitution. My respect for this document precludes me from voting to 
tamper with it when I am not convinced that we must. This proposal for 
a 28th amendment does not command for me the same reverence in which I 
hold the 1st amendment or the 13th or the 19th and, therefore, Mr. 
President, while I will continue to fight for its admirable goal, I 
will vote no on the balanced budget amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for me to call up motion No. 3 at the desk and that it be 
considered as one of my relevant amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if I might, it 
is my understanding that there are two unanimous consent requests which 
deal with two amendments of the Senator from Minnesota. I wonder if I 
might make those requests and see if they are suitable to the Senator 
from Minnesota, and we can proceed in that manner.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that will be fine with me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that purpose?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreements

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Wellstone be recognized to call up his motion dealing with homeless 
children; and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the 
following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone; 15 
minutes under the control of Senator Hatch; and that following the 
conclusion or yielding back of time, the majority leader, or his 
designee, be recognized to table the Wellstone motion; and that that 
vote occur at 3 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following the disposition of the Wellstone motion dealing with homeless 
children, Senator Wellstone be recognized to call up his filed motion 
No. 2, and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the 
following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone, 15 
minutes under the control of Senator Hatch, and that following the 
conclusion or yielding back of time the majority leader or his designee 
be recognized to make a motion to table the Wellstone motion, and that 
vote occur in the stacked sequence to begin at 3 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                            Motion to refer

  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from 
Arizona and I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me for my colleagues----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend for just a moment 
while the clerk states the motion, please.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] moves to refer 
     House Joint Resolution 1 to the Budget Committee with 
     instructions to report back forthwith House Joint Resolution 
     1 in status quo and at the earliest date possible, to issue a 
     report, the text of which shall be as follows:
       ``It is the sense of the Committee that in enacting the 
     policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion 
     in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, 
     Congress should take no action which would increase the 
     number of hungry or homeless children.''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the clerk. The motion is self-
explanatory, it is very reasonable, and it is very important.
  What this motion says is not that we should delay the vote on the 
balanced budget amendment. We will have that vote. This is not a part 
of that constitutional amendment at all. This is just simply a motion 
which says we will go on record through the Senate Budget Committee 
that in whatever ways we move forward to balance the budget, whether 
this constitutional amendment is passed or not --there is really no 
linkage here--we will go on record, and I would like to again now go 
through the operative language, it is the sense of the Senate to the 
Budget Committee:

       That in enacting the policy changes necessary to achieve 
     the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction necessary to 
     achieve a balanced budget, Congress should take no action 
     which would increase the number of hungry or homeless 
     children.

  [[Page S2998]] That is what this motion says. One more time, it is 
not an amendment to this constitutional amendment. It does not put off 
the date that we vote on this amendment. I simply ask that the Senate 
go on record through the Budget Committee that if this amendment passes 
or even if this amendment does not pass, we will take no action which 
would increase the number of hungry or homeless children.
  Mr. President, I have been in the Chamber from the beginning of this 
session with just this amendment which has received, I think, 43 votes. 
I do not understand why the Senate is not willing to go on record on 
this question.
  Mr. President, this motion is essentially a statement by the Senate; 
it is a request to colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we 
speak boldly and we speak directly, as we understand children are the 
most vulnerable citizens in this country.
  Every time I hear one of my colleagues talk about how we have to 
reduce the deficit--and by the way, sometimes people get confused 
between annual deficit and this huge debt we have built up--and that we 
cannot put this deficit on the shoulders of our children and our 
grandchildren, the best thing we can do for the children of our Nation 
is to balance the budget, I say to myself, fine, I agree. I am a 
father. I am a grandfather. But what about the vulnerable children in 
the United States of America today?
  Why cannot the Senate go on record--it is a sense of the Senate--that 
we certainly understand as we go forward with deficit reduction we will 
not do anything which would increase hunger or homelessness among 
children in our Nation. Is that too much to ask? What possibly could be 
the reason for voting no?
  Senators are talking about how we have to balance the budget for the 
sake of the children of the future. How about the lives of children 
living now? How about children right now who happen to be among the 
most vulnerable group in this Nation?
  The context is important. The Food Research and Action Center in 1991 
estimated that 5.5 million children under 12 years of age are hungry at 
least one day a month in the United States of America. Second Harvest 
estimated that, in 1993, emergency food programs served 10,798,375 
children. The U.S. Council of Mayors found that, in 1994, 64 percent of 
the persons receiving food assistance were from families with children. 
Carnegie Foundation, late 1980's--68 percent of public schoolteachers 
reported that undernourished children and youth are a problem in 
school. By the way, I talk to teachers in Minnesota who tell me the 
same thing.
  Children are among the homeless in this country and indeed families 
with children are a substantial segment of the homeless population. The 
U.S. Council of Mayors estimates that, in 1994, 26 percent of the 
homeless were children, based upon requests from emergency shelters. 
That is a pretty large percentage of the homeless population. And, in 
1988, the Institute of Medicine estimated that 100,000 children are 
homeless each day.
  Mr. President, what does it mean that children are hungry? In 
comparison to nonhungry children, hungry children are more than three 
times likely to suffer from unwanted weight loss, more than four times 
as likely to suffer from fatigue, almost three times as likely to 
suffer from irritability, and more than 12 times as likely to report 
disease.
  Mr. President, let me discuss the context one more time. I have been 
in this Chamber from the beginning of this session with this basic 
proposition, either in amendment form, or now, in the most reasonable 
form possible; as just a motion, a sense of the Senate that would go to 
the Budget Committee. It is not a part of the constitutional amendment. 
This motion merely has us going on record that as we move toward a 
balanced budget, which we are all for as well as deficit reduction, we 
are not going to take any action that would increase the number of 
hungry or homeless children in America. Will the Senate not go on 
record supporting this?
  I hear Senators say that they are going to make these cuts; that is 
the best thing they can do for our children and our grandchildren. What 
about these children? One out of every four children in America is 
poor.
  Children's Defense Fund came out with a study last year--this data is 
accurate and I wish it was not. I wish this was not the reality. One 
day in the life of American children, three children die from child 
abuse. One day in the life of American children, nine children are 
murdered. One day in the life of American children, 13 children die 
from guns. One day in the life of American children, 27 children, a 
classroomful, die from poverty. One day in the life of American 
children, 63 babies die before they are 1 month old. One day in the 
life of American children, 101 babies die before their first birthday. 
One day in the life of American children, 145 babies are born at very 
low birthweight, less than 5.5 pounds--yet the House of Representatives 
yesterday voted to block grant and cut Women, Infants and Children 
programs. Cut nutrition programs--that was the vote in the House 
yesterday.
  One day in the life of American children, 636 babies are born to 
women who had late or no prenatal care. One day in the life of American 
children, 1,234 children run away from home.
 One day in the life of American children, 2,868 babies are born into 
poverty. One day in the life of American children, 7,945 children are 
reported abused or neglected. One day in the life of American children, 
100,000 children are homeless.

  I hope my colleagues are not bored by these statistics. These are 
real people. These are children in the United States of America. These 
children, all of these children, are our children.
  Moments in America for children? Every 35 seconds a child drops out 
of school in America. Every 30 seconds, a child is born into poverty, 
every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty. Every 2 minutes a child 
is born low birth weight. Every 2 minutes a child is born to a woman 
who had no prenatal care. Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for 
alcohol-related crime. Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for drug-
related crime. I have given this figure before: Every 2 hours a child 
is murdered and every 4 hours a child takes his or her life in the 
United States of America.
  Mr. President, I received a letter from Ona. I do not use last names 
because I never know whether citizens want to have their names used or 
not. Ona is 8.

       My name is Ona and I go to public school and I'm 8. My 
     class has 26 kids in it and only three of them, Iman, Jasmin, 
     and me bring lunches to school. Twenty-three kids in my class 
     depend on the school lunch and now you want to cut those 
     programs. Which do you think is more important, cutting the 
     debt or having poor helpless children having nothing to eat? 
     Senator, that's not right because almost my entire class 
     depends on school breakfast and school lunch, and if you cut 
     these programs they will starve. How do they explain to a 
     starving child, oh, we are cutting the debt. It will be good 
     for you.

  She is 8 years old. How come my colleagues do not get this?

       How do they explain to a starving child, oh, we are cutting 
     the debt. It will be good for you. Life is already hard 
     enough for us with pollution, crime and disease. I hope you 
     change your mind.

  Ona, you do not have to ask me to change my mind. And she is so 
right.
  Some of my colleagues say this is just a scare tactic. Prove me 
wrong. I will give you a chance at 3 o'clock today to prove me wrong. 
``This is just a scare tactic.'' Who is kidding whom? Look at the 
headlines:
  ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts.''
  ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing.''
  Washington Post, front page story:

       House Republicans, wielding their budget-cutting axes more 
     forcefully than at any time since taking power, yesterday 
     proposed slashing some $5.2 billion of spending approved by 
     previous Democratic Congresses * * *.
       Included in the lengthy list of cuts voted out by five 
     appropriations subcommittees during a hectic day of meetings 
     were rural housing loans, nutrition programs for children and 
     pregnant women * * *.

  Let me repeat:

       * * * nutrition programs for children and pregnant women, 
     spending on urban parks, and assistance to the poor and 
     elderly for protecting their homes against the cold.

  That is right. They want to eliminate LIHEAP, Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program. I have spent time with families in Minnesota--it is 
a cold weather State--who depend on 
[[Page S2999]] LIHEAP. You are going to cut their energy assistance so 
they have a choice between heat or eat?
  It is time to get a little bit more real with people in this country 
about what this agenda translates into. Another headline, ``House Panel 
Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' Washington Post, 
Thursday, February 23, 1995.
  I have been saying that this would happen from the beginning of the 
session and I have had people on the other side of the aisle say we are 
not going to do that. ``We care as much about children as you do.'' 
Prove me wrong. You get a chance to vote on this today.
  The article reads:

       After a full day of beating back Democratic amendments to 
     restore the programs or soften their impact on welfare 
     recipients, Chairman William Goodling said his committee will 
     complete work today on a bill that will abolish the school 
     breakfast, lunch and other nutrition programs for women and 
     children and replace them with a block grant to the States.
       The Republican measure would freeze the amount of money 
     given to States for child care at $1.94 billion a year, the 
     current level. Representative George Miller [who is right] 
     charged that because the number of needy children is expected 
     to increase, the freeze would cut off child payments for more 
     than 377,000 children in the year 2000.
       By contrast, funding for the school lunch and nutrition 
     programs would be allowed to grow by $1.87 billion over 5 
     years. But committee Democrats said this was grossly 
     inadequate and would fall $5 to $7 billion short of what is 
     needed.

  It is block granted but it is bait and switch. It is block granted 
with cuts and, in addition, it is no longer an entitlement. So during 
more difficult times such as recession, if there are additional 
children who now need the assistance, those who are receiving 
assistance will have their assistance cut or some will be cut off the 
support. It is simple.
  ``House Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.''
  ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition, 
Housing.''
  Including the Women, Infants, and Children Program.
  I have had some colleagues say to me this is just a scare tactic. But 
it is not. Because this is precisely where the cuts are taking place.
  Mr. President, may I have order in the Chamber?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend until the Sergeant at 
Arms has restored order in the galleries, please.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I wish that I did not have to come to the floor with 
this motion.
  I wish that this was not real. But the evidence is crystal clear. All 
you have to do is look at the state of children in America today. They 
are the most vulnerable citizens, the most poor. I am just saying to my 
colleague, can we not go on record that we are not going to pass any 
legislation or make any cuts that will increase hunger among children?
  Then I look at what has happened on the House side. They are cutting 
nutrition programs--cutting nutrition programs--the very thing that my 
colleagues over here said we will not do. And what people now say is do 
not worry about the House. The U.S. Senate is a different body, and it 
is. We are more deliberative. We do not ram things through. We are more 
careful. But now what I have to say to some of my colleagues is two or 
three times I have come to this floor and asked you to please go on 
record that we will not do anything that would increase hunger or 
homelessness among children. And each time, you voted no.
  Mr. President, The Children's Defense Fund that reported on where 
this balanced budget amendment will take us--I do not have the chart I 
usually have with me. But, roughly speaking, if you include in this 
package the baseline CBO projections plus tax cuts, which do not make a 
lot of sense when you are trying to do deficit reduction, broad-based 
tax cuts, plus increases in the Pentagon budget, it is about $1.3 
trillion that needs to be cut between now and the year 2002.
  Mr. President, if Social Security is off the table--and it should 
be--if you are going to have to pay the interest on the debt and if 
military spending is going up, then it is pretty clear what is left. 
When you look at what has been taken off the table and what has been 
left on the table, it is crystal clear that you are going to have to 
have, about 30-percent cuts across the board. It may be that veterans 
programs will not be cut 30 percent. I hope not. But you basically have 
higher education; you have Medicare and Medicaid; you have veterans; 
and you have these low-income children's programs.
  Yesterday in the House, they are talking about cutting the Women, 
Infants, and Children Program, and the school lunch program. They are 
talking about eliminating the low-income energy assistance program. 
That is for low-income people in cold-weather States like Minnesota. I 
visited with those families. These issues are real to them.
  But when Senator Feingold and I came out on the floor of the Senate 
last week, and we had a very reasonable motion, that the Senate would 
go on record through the Budget Committee that we will consider $425 
billion of tax expenditures, many of them loopholes, deductions and 
outright dodges for the largest corporations and financial institutions 
in America, they voted it down.
  So I understand what the Children's Defense Fund understands, that on 
present legislative course, this is where we are heading: By year 2002, 
7.5 million children lose federally subsidized lunches, 6.6 million 
children lose their health care through Medicaid, 3 million children 
lose food stamps, and 2 million young children and mothers lose 
nutritional assistance through the WIC program. This is a very 
destructive way to ensure that our children are not burdened by debt.
  May I repeat that? This is a very destructive way of assuring that 
our children will not be burdened by debt, to cut into the very 
nutrition programs that benefit children right now who are so 
vulnerable in the United States of America, all for the sake of making 
sure that our children in the future are not burdened by debt.
  I wish my colleagues were as concerned about the children right now 
as they are about the children in the future.
  Mr. President, I might ask the Chair how much time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has approximately 
20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is interested in responding, 
then I will yield the floor for a moment and reserve the rest of my 
time.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be 
recognized to call up his amendment No. 301 following the remarks of 
Senator Hollings today, and that time prior to a motion to table be 
limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Byrd, 
30 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch, and that following the 
conclusion or yielding back of the time, the majority leader or his 
designee be recognized to make a motion to table the Byrd amendment, 
and that vote occur in the stacked sequence beginning at 3 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. President, we are now--let me take a few minutes--in our 25th day 
since this amendment was brought to the floor. Twenty-five days have 
expired since we started debating the balanced budget amendment. As you 
can see, I have added one more day, the 25th. This red line all the way 
from there over to here happens to be the baseline of $4.8 trillion, 
which is our national debt. It is $18,500 for every man, woman, and 
child in America, plus it is going up every day. Each day that we have 
debated this balanced budget amendment, I just want the American people 
to understand that our national debt has gone up $829 billion. We are 
now in the 25th day, and our national debt has been increased since we 
began this debate $2.736 billion.
  I do not care who you are. You have to draw the analogy between Rome 
[[Page S3000]] under Nero, as he fiddled while Rome burned. 
Fortunately, we do have a vote next Tuesday. We will decide this one 
way or the other, whether we are going to put a mechanism into the 
Constitution that will force Members of Congress to at least look at 
these details and do something about it. We will make it more difficult 
for them to spend more and to take more. It does not stop them, but it 
certainly makes it more difficult.
  What I have to say is that predicted opponents of the balanced budget 
amendment are trotting out a series of sympathetic Government 
beneficiaries and attempting either to exempt them from the balanced 
budget amendment or use them to argue against not just the amendment 
but indeed against balancing the budget at all.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator understands that this is a motion. It is 
not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. 
This has no linkage. This is simply a sense-of-the-Senate to the Budget 
Committee that when it comes to balancing the budget, we will go on 
record that we will not increase the number of hungry and homeless 
children. That is all this motion says.
  The Senator speaks to that, and that is why I asked the question.
  Mr. HATCH. I understand. This motion, in my opinion, is just another 
in a parade of exemptions which the opponents of the balanced budget 
amendment have tried to tack on. I know the Senator is sincere. I have 
worked with him ever since he has been here. He has a great deal of 
sincerity with regard to the people who are in difficulty and have 
difficulty, and especially the homeless. But I think, in that sense, it 
is just as inappropriate as the other motions that have been brought to 
the Senate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes, I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, does the Senator understand that this 
is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment and, in that sense, 
it is not an exemption? It just simply asks us to go on record, through 
the Budget Committee, that we will not do anything that would increase 
more hunger or homelessness among children. Does the Senator understand 
that?
  Mr. HATCH. I do.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is all I am asking.
  Could the Senator tell me, does the Senator know, during this period 
of time, how many more hungry or homeless children there have been in 
the United States of America?
  Mr. HATCH. I do not think anybody fully knows.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. But is it not interesting that we do not know what we 
do not want to know. Why do we not know?
  Mr. HATCH. I disagree with the Senator that I do not want to know. I 
think the Senator knows my whole career has been spent helping those 
who are less fortunate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator does. I certainly do understand that. That 
is why I asked the Senator from Utah, who is probably one of the 
Senators I consider to be a really good friend.
  Let me ask the Senator, why is this an unreasonable proposition, 
given the headline ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing,'' what is 
going on on the House side right now, and given the fear of so many of 
the people that are working down in the trenches with children, that we 
both admire, about where these cuts are going to take place?
  This is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment. This is 
just a sense of the Senate. Why is it so unreasonable, since we will 
have the vote on Tuesday--no more delay--why is it so unreasonable for 
me to ask the Senate to go on record that we will not make any cuts 
that will increase hunger or homelessness among children? Why does the 
Senator from Utah not support this, since he cares about this certainly 
as much as I do, and others?
  (Mr. KEMPTHORNE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HATCH. Let me try to answer the Senator.
  Mr. President, the Founders gave Congress the power to spend money. 
They did not go on record as being opposed to action which would 
increase the number of homeless children or any other budget policy 
issue. They understood that the Constitution establishes the processes 
and the procedures under which our Government operates or would operate 
from that point on. Which policy choices may be made under those 
procedures do not belong in the discussion of the great principles of 
our Constitution.
  We are talking about a constitutional amendment that could save our 
country, because our country, as we can easily see, is going more and 
more into debt to the point where interest against the national debt is 
now consuming 50 percent of all personal income taxes paid every year.
  Now, I know my colleague is concerned about the homeless--so am I--
and so many others, from child care right on through to people with 
AIDS.
  I testified yesterday in favor of the Kennedy-Hatch Ryan White bill, 
which, of course, provides money for the cities with hardcore AIDS 
problems. So I feel very deeply about these issues.
  But I feel very deeply that those moneys are not going to be there if 
we keep running this country into bankruptcy. And if we think we have 
homeless people now, wait until you see what happens as that interest 
keeps going to the point where it consumes all of our personal income 
taxes. It is now consuming half of the personal income taxes paid in 
America today. We are going up, as this balanced budget amendment debt 
tracker shows, as this debate continues. We are already up to $20 
billion, almost $21 billion, in the 25 days that we have debated this 
amendment.
  Now, Mr. President, I am concerned about it. Of course, we will do 
what we think is best for the children of America and for the homeless 
of America. But the least thing we can do for them is to pass the 
balanced budget amendment so they have a future, so that Members of 
Congress, most of whom are altruistic and want to do good for people, 
have to live within certain means, have to live within the means of 
this country.
  You know, if you think about it, if we pass the balanced budget 
amendment, then I think we will have an answer to the question why a 
child born today will pay an extra $100,000 in taxes over his or her 
lifetime for the debt that is being projected to accumulate in just the 
first 18 years of that child's life. And there will be another $5,000 
in taxes for every additional $200 billion deficit.
  Mr. President, our President has sent us a budget that for the next 
12 years projects $200 billion deficits a year. That is billion, with a 
``b.'' Every year that happens, these children's taxes will go up 
$5,000 more. They will become more tax debt owing, $5,000 more for each 
year there is a $200 billion deficit. So if it is 12 years, that is 
$60,000 more on top of the current $100,000 they are going to be 
saddled with because of the way we have been handling situations.
  Mr. President, most Government programs have beneficiaries with some 
political popularity or power or attractiveness. And that is why they 
receive benefits in the first place. But this kind of thinking, that we 
should spend for these worthy beneficiaries whether we have the money 
or not, is precisely why we have the colossal national debt that we do.
  And I am just pointing to the balanced budget amendment debt tracker, 
which just shows the 25 days of increased debt, $21 billion so far.
  The power of the tax spenders has always been built on appealing to 
an attractive, narrow interest and that power has always outweighed the 
more diffused interest of the taxpayers and of our children, who cannot 
yet vote whose moneys we are spending in advance.
  Mr. President, this is business as usual, and it is what the balanced 
budget amendment is designed to end. The purpose of the balanced budget 
amendment is to ensure that Congress takes into account increased 
taxes, stagnant wages, higher interest rates, and the insurmountable 
debt that we will leave to our children if we keep spending the money 
that we do not have.
  [[Page S3001]] The parade of special interest groups embodied by so 
many of the amendments which have been offered against this balanced 
budget amendment, including this one, is to take the focus off our 
children's future and put it on the short-term interest of another, 
perhaps worthy, special interest group. There are thousands of special 
interest groups in our country. I wish we had enough money to take care 
of all of them and to do it in a way that would give them dignity and 
would help them to find their own way, would empower them to be able to 
make something of their lives. There is no question that all of us want 
to do that.
  But we are never going to do it--we are going to have more homeless, 
we are going to have more children bereft of what they need, we are 
going to have less of a future for them--if we do not pass this 
balanced budget amendment and get this spending under control.
  Make no mistake, those who keep bringing up these amendments for 
special interest groups, who are needy and whom we all want to help, in 
order to kill this amendment by 1,000 cuts, I think their efforts ought 
to be rejected. And that does not mean that they are not sincere or 
they are not good people or they are not trying to do their best.
  I find no fault with my friend from Minnesota in worrying about those 
who are homeless. I do, too. But if we are really worried about them, 
then let us get this country's spending practices under control so that 
this country's economy is strong so we can help them. I am willing to 
do that, and I have a reputation around here for trying.
  I think the Senate should get on with its business of weighing each 
of the interests presented to make choices among all the worthy 
programs within the constraints of the revenues we are willing to 
raise, like reasonable economic actors.
  Our problem today is, because we do not have a balanced budget 
amendment, people do not care how much they spend of the future of our 
children. They can feel very good towards themselves that they are 
compassionate and considerate of those who need help. But what they do 
not tell is the other side of that coin--that all of us are going to 
need help in the future if this country's economy becomes less than 
what it is, and it has no other way to go if we do not start getting 
our spending under control.
  So I suggest that, in spite of the sincerity of my friend from 
Minnesota, we vote down this amendment, as we have had to do, in order 
to preserve this concept of a balanced budget in the Constitution.
  This is our last chance. This is the first time in history, the first 
time in history, that the House of Representatives has had the guts, as 
a collective body, to get a two-thirds vote--which is very, very 
difficult to do--to pass the balanced budget amendment.
  The reason they have is because of the budget-courageous Democrats 
and Republicans who decided the country is more important than any 
special interest. And that we have to get the country under control and 
spending practices under control if we are really going to help the 
special interests, many of whom are worthy interests.
  On the one hand, I commend the distinguished Senator for his 
compassion and his desire to help people. On the other hand, I have 
difficulties with those who have brought up these amendments because 
every one of these amendments would make the balanced budget amendment 
less important.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I find the remarks of my good friend 
from Utah to be very important. I want to come back to a couple of 
basic points because I really believe that the vote on this motion is a 
real moment of truth here.
  First of all, Mr. President, this is not an amendment to the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That is not what they 
are voting on.
  This motion just says that we go on record we will not take any 
action which will increase the number of hungry or homeless children. 
It is that simple. I did not say we should balance the budget. I did 
not say we should not have serious deficit reduction. We have to make 
choices. It is a question of whether there is a standard of fairness. I 
want the Senate to go on record.
  Second of all, Mr. President, my colleague from Utah talked all about 
the Constitution, and therefore this is no place for a discussion of 
hunger and homelessness among children, because it is a different order 
of question. I might remind my colleague that the Preamble of the 
Constitution says: ``We, the people of the United States, in Order to 
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general 
Welfare.'' I would think that children are a part of how we promote the 
general welfare. Do not tell me that being on the floor of the Senate 
and talking about children does not have anything to do with the 
founding documents of our Nation. We talk about promoting the general 
welfare, I assume that includes children.
  The third point, Mr. President, I heard my colleague use the words 
``special interest'' more than once. Children are special interests. We 
are all for the future, and we are all talking about we want to make 
sure that our children and grandchildren do not have to carry this 
debt. How about the children now?
  Now, Mr. President, I do not have such a fancy chart but the facts 
remain. Every 5 seconds a student drops out of school; every 30 
seconds, a baby is born into poverty; every 2 minutes a baby is born at 
low birthweight; every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had no 
prenatal care; every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol-
related crime; every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a violent crime; 
every 7 minutes a child is arrested for a drug crime; every 2 hours a 
child is murdered; every 4 hours a child commits suicide.
  I spoke about 100,000 homeless and 5 million hungry children earlier.
  I hear my colleague talking about our generosity. We cannot talk 
about our generosity. We have abandoned many children in the United 
States of America. I might add we devalued the work of many adults that 
work with those children. That is what these statistics say. And now, 
rather than investing more in our children, we are cutting programs.
  Three children die from child abuse; 1 day, 9 children are murdered; 
1 day, 63 babies die before they are one month old; 1 day, 101 babies 
die before their first birthday; 1 day, 145 babies are born at very low 
birthweight. And I can go on and on.
  Mr. President, why do we not juxtapose these figures, these 
statistics about children in America today, with the headlines in the 
Washington Post, ``House Panels Vote Special Funding Cuts, Republicans 
Trim Nutrition, Housing''; ``House Panel Moves To Cut Federal Child 
Care, School Lunch Funds.'' I do not really think my colleagues can 
have it both ways.
  Let me get right down to the essence of this motion. We have these 
figures. We have the Children's Defense Fund which has been the 
organization most down in the trenches with children. I have State-by-
State variations. I could read from every State--Idaho, Minnesota, 
Utah--about the projected cuts, because we know there will be cuts in 
these programs. We have to cut somewhere.
  Now, I came on to the floor of the Senate during the Congressional 
Accountability Act, and I had an amendment that came from Minnesota 
that essentially said before we send the balanced budget amendment to 
the States, let Senators lay out where we will be making the cuts. It 
was voted down. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, had a similar 
amendment. It was voted down.
  My colleagues will not specify where they will make the cuts, but 
when Senator Feingold and I said how about oil company subsidies, 
pharmaceutical subsidies, or $425 billion in tax holes, loopholes, 
deductions, and sometimes outright dodges, would we consider that in 
how we would balance the budget? No. That was the vote.
   My colleague from Utah says we have to make difficult choices. That 
is true. I am for cutting the Pentagon budget. I do not think military 
contractors are in a position where they cannot afford to tighten their 
belt. They are not being asked to tighten their belt. Nor 
[[Page S3002]] are we going after tax dodges and loopholes and 
deductions, and we have a bidding war on tax cuts. So there we have 
$1.3 trillion. We will not specify where we make the cuts, but we know 
what is left.
  I am saying to my colleagues, we cannot have it both ways. Do not, 
one more time on the floor of the U.S. Senate, say to me or say to 
children in this country, that this is just a scare tactic. I wish it 
were just a scare tactic. Or this is just a political strategy to get 
people on record.
  What I am saying to my colleagues is, is it too much to ask that we 
go on record saying to our Budget Committee, as we go forward with 
deficit reduction and as we go forward to balancing the budget which we 
are all for one way or the other, we go on record, we are not going to 
do anything that will increase hunger, homelessness among children? 
Know why my colleagues will not vote for this Mr. President? Because 
that is what we are going to do.
  The reason my colleagues will not vote for this is because that is 
precisely what we are going to do.
  I do not understand for the life of me why I cannot get the U.S. 
Senate on record on this very fundamental basic question. We cannot go 
forward with deficit reduction. I do not want to let colleagues say he 
is just doing this motion because he is not in favor of deficit 
reduction. That is not true. I voted for huge deficit reduction. I want 
to see all sorts of cuts. I would like to see the oil companies tighten 
their belt. I do not hear anything about that. But, no, I do not want 
to see the most vulnerable citizens being hurt.
  Mr. President, I have heard a couple of colleagues talk about the 
last election.
 And the people voted for change. People voted for change, but not this 
kind of change. There is too much goodness in the United States of 
America to cut nutrition programs and school lunch programs and child 
care programs, all in the name of deficit reduction. That is not where 
people in the United States of America want to see the cuts. My 
colleagues need to understand that.

  So, Mr. President, I come out here determined because I have a real 
sense of trepidation. I know what is going to happen with these 
programs. I know the majority leader was out on the floor saying we 
care as much about children as the Senator from Minnesota. I know my 
colleague from Utah says that.
  I now say prove me wrong. Prove now this afternoon that this is just 
a scare tactic. I want to be wrong. Prove this afternoon that this is 
just some political strategy. Let us go on record, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, that we are serious about deficit reduction, we are 
serious about balancing the budget, because I think we all are. And 
what we are going to do is go on record this afternoon, not with an 
amendment to this constitutional amendment--that is not what this is. 
This is just simply a motion to go on record that when we make these 
cuts, we are not going to do anything to increase hunger or 
homelessness among children. I do not understand why I cannot get 100 
votes for it.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is finished 
with his remarks, I will be pleased to yield him some of my time if he 
needs it, or I will yield back my time.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to agree to that, to yield back time on 
both sides. And then the votes are to be stacked, as I understand it, 
beginning at 3.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is scheduled to occur at 3 o'clock.
  Mr. HATCH. Then I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, is it appropriate for me to table and ask 
for the yeas and nays with the understanding that the vote not occur 
until 3, or should we just wait until then?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. First we must announce the result of the 
request for the yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays, with the understanding that it will not be voted 
upon until 3 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur beginning at 3 o'clock 
today.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. For a few moments, I will 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the next 
amendment, let me just say a few words about the impact of the deficit 
on the average American.
  We need to stop talking and start working on getting our fiscal house 
in order by passing the balanced budget amendment and working together 
to balance the budget.
  The American people want and need us to do this. Our large national 
debts and the yearly deficits that help it grow hurt real people, 
average working people all over the country--everybody. Continuing down 
the path we are on will only make matters worse for all of us and all 
of our children and grandchildren.
  Recently, the Washington Post ran an article by James Glassman, who I 
believe did an excellent job of stating in an understandable way how 
and why the deficit hurts the average working American. He called his 
discussion the ``Plain English Guide to the Federal Budget,'' and it 
began with the sage assertion that ``big deficits can make you poor.''
  That is it in a nutshell, Mr. President. For all of those of you who 
are listening to the debate, you should know this and tell your 
Senators that you want them to pass the balanced budget amendment to 
stop making you poor. ``Big deficits can make you poor.'' Mr. Glassman 
explained, ``they tend to retard the growth of the private sector, 
raise interest rates, and weaken our economy.''
  That is exactly why we need the balanced budget amendment, because 
Congress' fiscal madness is destroying the ability of the working 
American to make enough money to survive.
  Every year, hard-working Americans pay the price for our profligacy. 
The tax foundation has calculated that in 1994, the average American 
worked from January 1 to May 5 just to pay his or her taxes. They did 
not get to keep 1 cent of the money they earned until May 6. Put 
another way, in an 8-hour work day, the average American works the 
first 2 hours 45 minutes just to pay his or her taxes. This is bad 
enough but that is not the end of the story.
  The increasing Federal debt will force us to raise taxes to 
astronomical rates just to keep the country solvent. The National 
Taxpayers Union has estimated that a child born today will pay on 
average $100,000 in extra taxes over the course of his or her lifetime 
just to pay for the interest on the national debt which accumulates 
during the first 18 years of that child's life. Just think, by the time 
a child becomes old enough to vote, there will already be a $100,000 
tax bill looming on his or her horizon if we do not get it under 
control, and that is only to pay the interest on the debt accumulated 
in that child's first 18 years.
  The National Taxpayers Union has also determined that for every year 
we endure another $200 billion deficit, it costs the average child over 
$5,000 in additional taxes over his or her lifetime--every year we do 
that.
 Mr. President, the budget submitted by President Clinton, as I have 
said earlier, projects $200 billion deficits for each of the next 5 
years, actually each of the next 12 years. By conceding defeat on 
deficit reduction, President Clinton is condemning every child in 
America just over the next 5 years to an additional $25,000 in extra 
taxes--in that child's next 5 years.

  When a child born this year is 10 years old, in fiscal year 2005, the 
CBO's conservative projections show that the 
[[Page S3003]] deficit will top $400 billion, more than twice today's 
levels. That year alone, this child will be socked with a $10,000 tax 
bill just to pay interest on the deficit--that year alone. The debt 
will reach nearly $6.8 trillion or 58 percent of our GDP. Now, that is 
the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, Economic and Budget Outlook 
for fiscal year 1996 to the year 2000.
  But the bad news about the debt does not end there either. The 
Competitiveness Policy Council has shown that the rising budget 
deficits have led to a 15 percent decline in real wages in the last 15 
years, and the National Taxpayers Union has further calculated that in 
the next 45 years, unless we get our spending under control, after-tax 
incomes will rise over the total 45 years by a cumulative meager $125. 
That is all we will gain over 45 years is another $125.
  Mr. President, these deficits are strangling middle-class Americans 
throughout our country. How can people be expected to bear the burden 
of stagnating wages and higher tax bills and rates? We simply cannot 
continue blindly down this road to economic oblivion.
  Why act now? Why? Because so much is riding on our vote. Next 
Tuesday, this is going to be the most important vote in the eyes of 
many in this century.
  If we do not act, just think of the fate we are leaving to our future 
generations. As Senator Daschle said last Congress when he voted in 
favor of the balanced budget amendment, ``We are leaving a legacy of 
debt for our children and grandchildren.''
  Every child born in America today comes into this world, as I have 
said, over $18,500 in debt. That is what they are born with, and that 
is growing.
  In President Clinton's fiscal year 1995 budget, it was estimated that 
for children born in 1993, the lifetime net tax rate will be 82 
percent. The net tax rate is the estimate of taxes paid to the 
Government less transfers received, if the Government's total spending 
is not reduced from its projected path and if we do not pay more than 
projected. The 82-percent figure for our children stands in stark 
contrast to the 29 percent net tax rate for the generations of 
Americans born in the 1920's and the 34.4-percent net tax rate for the 
generation born in the 1960's. Now, that comes right out of the Clinton 
administration 1995 budget generational forecasting. That is this 
administration.
  It took our Nation 205 years, from 1776 to 1981, to reach a $1 
trillion national debt. It took only 11 years to quadruple that figure. 
Today, the national debt stands at more than $4.8 trillion. Citizens of 
other nations, like Argentina, Canada and Italy, have faced stagnant 
and lower living standards when their governments ran up huge debts. 
Our future generations face higher interest rates, less affordable 
housing, fewer jobs, lower wages, and a loss of economic sovereignty.
  Now, we must get Government spending under control. The only way to 
do that is to change the way Congress does business with a permanent 
unavoidable rule. That rule will be the balanced budget amendment that 
we are debating here--bipartisan consensus, Democrat-Republican 
amendment. It will force Congress to consider the costs as well as the 
benefits of every program in the Federal Government. We will lower the 
unbelievable amount of Government spending and bring the deficit under 
control.
  All other attempts to balance the budget have failed and failed 
miserably. We went through all of the statutes that we have tried to 
use. Every one of them has failed. Every year the debt grows 
relentlessly, sapping the life out of the American economy as it does. 
Under the President's latest plan, the debt will grow another $1 
trillion in the next 5 years. This is not an attempt to reduce the 
deficit. It is a recognition that unless we change the budget process 
to eliminate Congress' spending bias, it is impossible to reduce the 
deficit.
  Mr. President, we now have the opportunity to make a historic change. 
We can pass the balanced budget amendment and preserve the future for 
our children, our grandchildren, and this country. So I urge my 
colleagues to support the balanced budget amendment so that we and our 
children will have a prosperous tomorrow. As we have said, every day 
while we talk about the debt, we leave our children and our 
grandchildren in debt a shocking amount, $829 million each day. This 
must end and it must end soon.
  Mr. President, let us stop talking and start acting to bring this 
country to fiscal sanity. Let us pass the balanced budget amendment and 
send it to the States for ratification and get along on this business 
of balancing the budget.
  In just the 25 days we have been debating this amendment, our 
national debt has gone up almost $21 billion, and it is going up every 
day right on through February 28. I am hoping there will be a 
liberation day February 28 when this balanced budget amendment passes, 
and it will be the beginning of liberation and freedom, more freedom 
than ever before because it will mean that Congress will have to get 
spending under control and live within its means over a period of time. 
This balanced budget amendment will be the mechanism by which we will 
get Congress to do that which it should have been doing all of these 
years.
  We have only balanced the budget once in the last 36 years, and I 
suggest, Mr. President, that this is our time to really strike out and 
do what is right and liberate Americans from the crushing burden of 
national debt and these deficits that occur every year.
  I notice the distinguished Senator from Minnesota is prepared to go 
ahead, so I will yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will shortly call up my motion. I, 
first of all, just want, in the debate time we have, to respond to some 
of the words of my colleague from Utah.
  Mr. President, as far as liberating the people of this country, we 
have, roughly speaking, a CBO baseline of $1 trillion plus we have to 
cut to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. Then for reasons that 
escape me, there have been proposals to raise the military budget by 
some $82 billion over 5 years plus--not cut, increase. Then in 
addition--all of it has to do with, I guess, political popularity--
there has been a bidding war on tax cuts. So what we are saying to 
people is we are going to balance the budget by 2002, but we are going 
to increase the Pentagon budget and, by the way, one of the ways we can 
balance the budget is by cutting your taxes more.
  That is pretty amazing. But, by the way, Mr. President, this is a 
foolproof formula for political success in the very short term. That is 
to say, we can say to people in the country, ``We call on you to 
sacrifice. What we would like for you to sacrifice by way of deficit 
reduction is to let us cut your taxes further.'' It is not surprising 
people say we would be pleased to make that sacrifice. Of course it 
does not work out that way. That adds to the deficit.
  So when I hear my colleague talk about liberating people, I want to 
be clear. This is the credibility gap. We have heard on the other side 
of the aisle, roughly speaking, about $277 billion of budget cuts, to 
reach $1.481 trillion worth of cuts. That is a pretty huge credibility 
gap. Over and over again some of us have tried to get everybody to be 
honest and straightforward about where these cuts are going to take 
place. For a while at least a good many of us talked about how our 
State legislatures should know what cuts are going to be made. I was on 
the floor with a resolution that came from my State. The State wanted 
to know how these cuts would impact Minnesota. We talked about: 
Legislatures should know, people in the country should know. But we do 
not know. We are voting for this balanced budget amendment without our 
own Budget Committee laying out any kind of projections.
  The reason I mention all this is that people may agree in the 
abstract but not in the specifics. For example, we have no separation 
of capital budget from operating budget. My family does not cash flow 
our mortgage. We do not cash flow the car we buy. Families separate 
capital budgets from operating budgets. Over 40 legislatures do but we 
do not.
  Then in addition we were not willing to specify where the cuts would 
take place. We were not willing to take Social Security off the table 
in terms of what might be considered deficit reduction. And we are 
going to raise the 
[[Page S3004]] Pentagon budget. And we are going to have tax cuts. And 
we do not want to touch any of the subsidies that go to large oil 
companies or all the rest.
  We will see whether people feel liberated. I guess the way we are 
going to get from $277 billion to $1.481 trillion is to cut Federal 
child care, school lunch programs, and to cut child nutrition programs. 
By the way, that is not what people in the country are for. There are a 
whole lot of other choices we can make instead. So I just want to 
remind my colleagues I think it is not so simple as it seems.


                            Motion to Refer

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I now call up my motion No. 2, which 
has been previously filed and is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone]
        moves to refer House Joint Resolution 1 to the Budget 
     Committee with instructions to report back forthwith House 
     Joint Resolution 1 in status quo and at the earliest date 
     possible, to issue a report, the text of which shall be as 
     follows:
       ``It is the sense of the Committee that in enacting the 
     policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion 
     in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, 
     Congress should take no action which would result in 
     significant reductions in assistance to students who want an 
     opportunity to attend college.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is not an amendment to the 
constitutional amendment. This has nothing to do with the vote Tuesday. 
It is not linked to this constitutional amendment, but it does make it 
clear that the Senate should go on record that we will take no action 
that will result in significant reductions in assistance to students 
who want the opportunity to attend college.
  Just yesterday the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor-HHS 
slashed a student aid grant program, an education program for dropouts 
and homeless people, and the vocational education grant program. Please 
remember all those who signed the Contract With America have signed a 
document that says they intend to support cuts in student aid.
  This motion really comes from my own background as a college teacher. 
So many of us talk about the importance of doing a good job of 
representing the middle class. My prior amendment dealt with hungry and 
homeless children. I think they are a very special interest. They do 
not have a lot of people lobbying for them here. But now I really am 
talking about the middle class. I would just like to say to my 
colleagues, there really is nothing more important that we could do to 
do well for the people we represent, including middle-class people, 
than to make sure, through good public policy, that higher education is 
affordable.
  What this amendment says is we go on record we are not going to take 
any action that will result in reductions in assistance to students who 
want an opportunity to attend college. I do not think that is too much 
to ask.
  I was a college teacher for 20 years and I had an opportunity 
teaching--I guess you could say 5 generations of students. You know, 
you count them 4 years at a time. I had an opportunity to see how a 
spark of learning, if ignited, can take a student from any background 
to a life of creativity and accomplishment. The worst thing we could do 
would be to pour cold water on that spark.
  We always talk about higher education as key to a successful economy, 
to a literate, high morale, trained work force. That is true. I also 
think John Dewey, the great educational philosopher, was right that 
higher education, for that matter K-12 education, is critical to 
representative democracy because we have to have men and women who can 
think on their own two feet, who have conceptual tools that they can 
use to understand the world that they live in and who understand the 
courses of action that are available to them to contribute to our 
country and to their communities.
  But if you talk to families in Idaho or Minnesota or Utah or Wyoming, 
I know that listed among their top three concerns is how are we going 
to be able to send our sons and daughters on to college? I want to be 
very clear. I spend a lot of time on campuses and all too often I will 
meet students who sell their plasma at the beginning of the semester to 
buy a textbook. Let me repeat that. All too often I meet students who 
sell plasma at the beginning of the semester to buy their textbooks. 
All too often I meet students who are working 40 hours a week while 
going to school--that is not uncommon. That is why it takes many 
students 6 years to complete their undergraduate work rather than 4 
years.
  I think the nontraditional students have become the traditional 
students. Students are no longer out of the ``Brady Bunch.'' They are 
no longer 19 years of age and living in the dorm. I think almost the 
majority of students are older, they have gone back to school, many of 
them are single parents, many of them have children. It is terribly 
important that we go on record that we will not take any action that 
could result in significant reduction to assistance to students who 
want an opportunity to attend college.
  I do not think that is too much to ask.
  I remember a gathering at Moorhead State, Moorhead, MN. A student 
said to me, in front of everyone, ``You know, my mother and father, 
they told me that the college years would be the best years of my 
life.''
  Then he looked at a really crowded forum. He looked at everybody, and 
he hesitated, and he said, ``These are not the best years of my life. I 
am working three minimum-wage jobs, 40 hours a week, and trying to go 
to school. These don't feel like the best years of my life.'' This 
whole question of how we make higher education affordable is key to 
what our Nation is all about, which is a nation of opportunity for 
every person from every background.
  The total cost of attending a 4-year public institution averages 
about $7,600 a year. The average cost to go to a 4-year private 
institution is around $16,000 a year. Tuition alone has increased more 
than 120 percent over the last 10 years.
  Mr. President, today I am going to be formally requesting of the 
General Accounting Office that they do a study of the increase in 
tuition costs, the magnitude of it, and the way it affects our young 
people, or not so young people.
  At this cost, higher education is out of reach for many middle-class 
families. For the 1993-94 academic year, students borrowed a record 
amount, $23 billion, from federally guaranteed loan programs, and the 
average loan exceeded $2,700 annually. By the way, understand that 
because the whole ratio of grants to loans has shifted to the loans, 
students graduate in enormous debt when they are getting ready to start 
out their life.
  I feel very, very lucky. It was just a matter of accident of when I 
was born that I was able to go to the University of North Carolina. 
Above and beyond wrestling, and I think I had some academic 
scholarship, I was able to receive a National Defense Act low-interest 
loan because I was going to go into education. I did not graduate 
saddled with that kind of debt. But that is not the case today.
  Krista--I will not use her last name--is a sophomore who will be 
graduating from community college and going to Mankato State University 
to get a B.A. She is 24 years old and married. She writes:

       I do not receive State or Federal grants, nor do I receive 
     any scholarships. In order to pay for my 2 years at a 
     community college, I had to take out over $5,000 in student 
     loans. Last year, I was receiving help through the State 
     Work-Study Program. When that was cut, I suffered again. I 
     realize that part of education is receiving some debt and 
     that it should not be a free ride. But neither should it be a 
     weight tied around my neck. So I ask that whatever decision 
     you make, you consider that many students like myself are 
     choking with this weight.

  Congress should go on record. We will not do anything that will 
result in significant reductions to students who want an opportunity to 
attend college. Is that too much to ask; that we go on record on this 
basic question that affects a huge, broad section of the population?
  As I said earlier, the typical student these days is not the Brady 
Bunch kid who graduates from high school and goes straight on to 
college: 45 percent of the student bodies these days are over 25 years 
of age; 45 percent of the students are over 25 years old. In fact, 
nearly 20 percent of all students are 
[[Page S3005]] older than 35, and many of them are single parents.
  Mr. President, many of them are students of color. And by the way, we 
want to talk about, with welfare reform, single parents being able to 
be on their own and going to school.
  It has to be affordable. We cannot be cutting these grant programs 
and low-interest loan programs. But we are going to. You bet we are 
going to, because there is no other way we can get to $1.481 trillion 
by 2002. We know it. I hear discussion about we want to take this debt 
burden off the shoulders of the young. What are we doing to the young 
right now?
  Denise, from a suburb of Minneapolis, writes:

       I am a 29-year-old single parent, currently enrolled as a 
     junior at the University of Minnesota. Because of the 
     excellent support of financial aid and other programs, I have 
     been successfully maintaining a 3.76 GPA.

  That is pretty good. That is out of 4.0.

       Before returning to school, from the time my son was 6 
     weeks old, I worked as a medical assistant making $9 an hour. 
     Without the needed assistance, the rug would be pulled out 
     from under me. I cannot make it otherwise. Don't cut grant 
     and loan assistance that would deny me my opportunity to 
     pursue my higher education and my dream in life, Senators.

  That is what Denise writes.
  Sandra, from St. Louis Park, another suburb:

       I am devastated at the idea of any financial aid cuts. Not 
     only would I need to drop out of college--I am a sophomore--
     but it would leave me with only two options. First, I could 
     obtain an entry-level position; second, I could remain a 
     public assistance recipient for awhile. At any rate, the best 
     I could do for myself and my son in society is to maintain at 
     the below-poverty level.
       I faced these obstacles after a miserable divorce, which 
     left me without home or money or even credit to plan for the 
     future. I have goals not only for myself, but to be allowed 
     to contribute and replace whatever I have used. By the time I 
     graduate in 1997, I will be financially independent. 
     Likewise, I am setting an example for my son to achieve 
     independence and pride, which are invaluable to our society.

  Sandra is saying to us: Senators, please, when you do your deficit 
reduction, and I want you to, and you go to balance the budget, whether 
this amendment is passed, please do not make any significant reductions 
in higher education programs that would deny me my opportunity to 
attend college.
  Our Federal commitment to higher education should be strengthened, 
not cut. But we are going to cut it. In 1990, about 5 million students 
received Federal student aid under one or more Federal programs. In the 
1993-94 academic year, about 3.8 million students received Pell grants, 
4.5 million received Stafford loans, 991,000 received supplementary 
education opportunity grants, 697,000 received Perkins loans, 713,000 
received Federal work-study awards, and 650,000 received State student 
incentive grants.
  Most of this financial aid is based upon need. Pell grants are 
targeted to the neediest students and the campus State programs give 
financial aid offices the flexibility to respond to unique student 
needs. And they are needed. These programs help low-income and middle-
income families. Of the Pell grants awarded to dependent students, 
those who are financially dependent on their parents, 41 percent go to 
students with families with incomes less than $12,000 a year and 91 
percent go to students with families of incomes below $30,000. This is 
a critical lifeline program. Among Pell recipients who were financially 
independent, 73 percent have incomes below $12,000 a year.
  I could go on and on. Let me just assure you that all the low-
interest loans and on campus work-study programs are all targeted 
toward students that come from low- and moderate-income families.
  Mr. President, we say that we are for the young and we are for 
opportunity. We cannot give lie to that commitment. We have to be 
willing to make some investment. I just have to tell you, Mr. 
President, the most shortsighted thing we could do would be to now cut 
in these very programs.
  By the way, there is a huge difference in the future of those who go 
to college and those who do not. I could go through the statistics. But 
I do not think I will because I think we all know. If you graduate from 
college, you have a much better chance than if you graduate from high 
school, a much better chance to be able to do well economically for 
yourself and for your family.
  Mr. President, if there is anything to the American dream--I can say 
this as a son of a Jewish immigrant from Russia who loved books and 
ideas--the biggest thing in our family was that children go on to 
higher education; they could do better than their parents; they could 
have a rewarding life.
  But let us be clear about it. We are going to have to cut $1.4 
trillion from the budget. We have to pay the interest on the debt. I 
think there is a commitment to not touch Social Security, as there 
should be. We are going to increase the Pentagon budget. We are going 
to do the tax cuts. So where else is there to cut?
  If you just take what is left on the table, you would have to cut 30 
percent across the board from domestic discretionary spending. I do not 
know whether that is going to be Medicare or veterans' benefits. It 
looks from the House for sure that it is going to be nutrition programs 
and child care programs.
  I do not know whether it is going to be Pell grants, Stafford loans, 
what loan programs, but it is going to happen--30 percent across the 
board, maybe more in some, maybe less in others.
  So let us talk a little bit about what this means.
  Pell grants would be slashed by one-third, from a maximum of $2,230 
to $1,560. Alternatively, if we did not do that, we could just slash 
the number of students receiving Pell grants. So some 1.1 million 
students would not receive Federal aid at all to attend college.
  Mr. President, there are proposals to no longer exempt the interest 
that students accumulate--I believe Chairman Kasich of the House Budget 
Committee said--while they are at college or university. Find out how 
the students in Idaho or Minnesota like that. Interest that accumulates 
on their loans while in school will no longer be forgiven, and then 
that gets added on. I think for a typical family that ends up to over 
$3,000 more in interest.
  Mr. President, the campus-based programs also would include 
supplementary education opportunity grant programs. And the contract 
talks about the termination of some of these programs. That is $583 
million. The work study program, that is $616 million; and the Perkins 
Loan Program, that is $176 million. If these programs are cut, that is 
a $1.4 billion cut in financial aid.
  So, Mr. President, let me go back to this motion. Let us be 
straightforward. Are we going to, in balancing this budget, put into 
effect deep cuts in a Pell Grant Program which right now is hugely 
inadequate in relation to those students that need this grant 
assistance? Are we going to put into effect deep cuts, 30 percent or 
more, in needs-based, work-study or low-interest loan programs? Is that 
what we are going to do?
  Well, Mr. President, my motion just simply says that we go on record, 
a sense of the Senate that we will take no action that would result in 
significant reductions in assistance to students who want the 
opportunity to attend college. That is what this motion says.
  Mr. President, might I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 25 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are other Senators here. I do not 
know whether they want to speak on this or not. I have more to say on 
this.
  I think the Senator from Wyoming wants to respond.
  Let me just reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate that from my friend 
from Minnesota.
  I have listened with great interest. I yield myself 11 minutes of the 
remaining time of the floor manager and would share with my colleague 
from Minnesota that I had not intended to come by, but I was moved by 
his comments. His remarks were very heartfelt. They were very sincere. 
I have no doubt that he speaks from the heart 
[[Page S3006]] when he expresses these concerns about the Nation's 
children, and that has been the subject of the morning's activity.
  The reason I came here, Mr. President, is that all of us share these 
passions, all of us share these pent-up feelings. And yet those 
passions and feelings led me to almost precisely the opposite 
conclusion reached by my friend from Minnesota.
  I look at our Nation, I look at our Federal budget, and I see the 
injustice done to America's children. I see a Federal Government that 
spends 11 times as much per capita on the elderly as we do on the 
children. I see a Government unresponsive to the needs of children. We 
see these poverty rates for children surpassing poverty rates for any 
other group. I am completely in agreement with the Senator from 
Minnesota when he decries the diversion of national resources from the 
children.
  But I will tell you what is happening to children in this country. 
What is happening is we have gone from a society that used to channel 
its resources toward the young into one which channels resources away 
from them. If you want to know why we do not devote the proper share of 
resources to our children, it is very simple. It is because of 
exploding spending in other parts of the Federal budget is paralyzing 
our ability to make proper choices.
  Here is a statistic, and I shared it the other day: In the year 
2013--and this scenario was agreed to by 30 of the 32 of us on the 
Entitlements Commission--due to the growth in entitlements, every penny 
of Federal revenue under current law will only be sufficient to fund 
entitlements and interest on the debt.
  That is not a dry statistic. It means something. It means this 
country is depriving itself of the ability to make decisions how to 
provide for transportation, education, and child nutrition.
  All of this leads to one issue. What are we going to do with Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal retirement? This is not about 
defense or spending on highways or education. It is about writing 
checks from one generation to another.
  Some powerful statistics have been shared by the Senator from 
Minnesota. May I share just a few of my own. Here is one: The national 
debt is 48,000 bucks per taxpayer. Assuming 100 million taxpayers, that 
will soon be 50,000 bucks a taxpayer, with a national debt of $5 
trillion.
  Children now come into life owing that when they are born. That is 
the burden we place on them. We pay more than $200 billion a year to 
finance the debt. What could that do for child nutrition, for 
vaccination, for education? It is not there. It is gone. Went out the 
window. An interest payment.
  Also, I do not find the argument compelling that we should simply 
give up on a balanced budget amendment and continue to add to that 
burden. And we will always give up, because we will come to this floor 
and vote for everything our constituents ask us to bring home. We are 
like pack horses. They just load us with requests for funding, and we 
come out here and we load the money home.
  Here is another statistic for you. The elderly make up 12 percent of 
the Nation's population. What percent of the Federal entitlement 
spending do they receive? The answer is 60 percent. Not 60 percent to 
the most needy population group--children--but 60 percent going to this 
other relatively smaller group, the 12 percent of our country who are 
senior citizens.
  And here is one for you. If you are a millionaire, a millionaire over 
the age of 65, these are the various Federal entitlements you can 
receive. You can get Social Security, Medicare, an extra tax deduction, 
senior nutrition programs, and other subsidies under the Older 
Americans Act. That is if you are a millionaire--and those keep coming 
after you receive your entire lifetime contributions in Social Security 
back, plus interest.
  We act around here as if there are no consequences to what we do. I 
wish I had not served on the Entitlements Commission, and yet I am very 
pleased I did. I admire Senator Kerrey and Senator Danforth so very 
much.
  So the reaction from everybody I talk to is, ``Well, OK, I do have 
some ideas. Where are they? Why don't we means test part B premiums so 
that a millionaire pays as much for the benefit as the working class 
taxpayer?''
  On, no, we could not do that.
  What are we going to do when two people are paying in and one person 
is taking out of the Social Security system? How long do you think 
people are going to stand still for that?
  So the inevitable result of shoveling so much of our Nation's 
resources in the direction of one politically organized, powerful voter 
group--the seniors--is precisely why we are here in this situation.
  It is a situation where there is nothing left for the children. That 
is precisely why we must stand up to the endless pressure to lavish 
entitlement benefits even on wealthy seniors. I am not talking about 
needy seniors portrayed as foraging out of garbage cans in alleys, but 
whether upper income beneficiaries should receive those ever-increasing 
Government benefits.
  I implore the body to free itself from illusions about our Federal 
budget situation. We cannot hold entitlement benefits for the wealthy 
sacrosanct on one day--when they now make up the majority of the 
budget--and come on hard the next to decry the lack of help for our 
children. That simply does not add up.
  In the year 2040 what fraction of the national payroll taxes will be 
needed simply to support two programs, Social Security and Medicare 
under current law? The answer is 38 to 53 percent before we collect a 
penny of income tax.
  Anyone truly concerned about the welfare of the children should come 
here and explain why we should fail to means test Medicare part B, why 
we should give full Social Security COLA's to millionaires--when COLA's 
were never part of the original contract. Remember these are the 
programs sucking it up. So, explain that to our children, why we should 
continue to do this to them.
  When I am joined by Senators who are ready to do this kind of work, I 
will feel more heartened in the cause. Then I guess there is another 
thing. I heard the letters read, and they are poignant.
  Let me tell you one from real life. My wife's father worked on the 
railroad in Greybull, WY. He died when she was 16. Her mother and the 
two other children had only their home. So their mother went to 
Laramie, the home of the University of Wyoming, and became a house 
mother at the Kappa Sig house. My wife Ann and her twin sister Nan 
worked their way all the way through college. So did their brother Rob. 
The sisters worked as waitresses, and they worked as cabin girls at 
dude ranches. She bought all of her own clothes and necessities, worked 
for everything she obtained, and earned all of her own money, and never 
thought of herself as a victim. It is called going to work to achieve 
something you can achieve.
  Now we have an entire country waiting for the Federal Government to 
make them whole. And we can all read stories like those shared. It is 
now a nation of victims. The greatest victims are the children, and the 
greatest reason for that is because there is not one on the floor who 
will take on the senior citizens of America who--regardless of their 
net worth or their income--are pulling the temple down.
  I have no further remarks at this time. I reserve the remainder of 
the time for Senator Hatch.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my colleague 
from Wyoming.
  Part of the reason I have so much respect for the Senator is because 
of his directness. I must say to my colleague, at the moment I find 
myself in profound disagreement with his remarks.
  First of all, given what the Senator from Wyoming has said, he ought 
to support both of these motions. It sounds like we are in agreement on 
at least one part of the equation. I really appreciate the fact that he 
has come out here and said that there is a huge disconnect between our 
rhetoric and the speeches we give and our support of young people.
  I think the Senator from Wyoming has been clear about that. In a 
sense I think he would be supportive especially of the first motion--
that is No. 1--which makes it clear when we sort out these priorities 
and make the tough decisions, the most vulnerable citizens are the 
homeless and hungry children. There is nothing the Senator from Wyoming 
said that would prevent him 
[[Page S3007]] from supporting that motion. Everything he said, I 
think, would make him want to support that.
  Second of all, my own view about these deficits and this debt that we 
have built up, is that I at least can say that when we went back to the 
early 1980's and decided that we would go forward with what President 
Bush once called voodoo economics, what was called euphemistically, the 
Economic Recovery Act, huge tax cuts for the wealthiest, dramatic 
increases in the Pentagon budget. And remember, all of that was going 
to lead to productivity and jobs--this was the Laffer curve--and it 
would reduce deficits.
  It did not work out that way, did it? We really got ourselves into a 
mess. I was not here during that time. We have to work ourselves out of 
that mess. I must say I think the 2002, I think that the direction we 
are going in right now does not add up.
  Now, Mr. President, getting back to the issue here. I appreciate my 
colleague's concern about children because before I was told that I was 
out here for the special interests. I think children are a very special 
interest. I disagree that our only choice is between older people, 
elderly citizens and the children.
  My colleague said this way, now we get to the stereotype of the 
greedy geezers that are out there in the golf courses living high on 
the hog.
  Mr. President, I believe--and it is off the top of my head--that the 
average income of a man 65 years of age and over is $15,000 a year. For 
a woman, it is $8,000 a year. Now, Mr. President, that is hardly the 
profile of these older people, that they are the problem.
  I was at a gathering in Rosedale, Fairview Senior Center, the other 
day. I think it was a very interesting gathering. I asked the people 
there--and of every gathering of senior citizens--what are the top 
three issues you care about. They always put children at the top. We 
are talking about the children and the grandchildren of the elderly in 
this country.
  It is not true that the elderly are so wealthy and have such high 
incomes. I would say to my colleague here that if we want to talk about 
why there should be a subsidy on part B Medicare for older people 
making incomes of $100,000 a year and over, I agree. The problem is 
there are not very many older people that make $100,000 a year and 
over. It just is not true.
  Senator Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota said the test of a society and 
a government is the way we treat people in the dawn of life, children; 
the way we treat people in the twilight of their lives, the elderly; 
and the way we treat people in the shadow of their lives, those 
struggling with an illness or a disability and those who are needy or 
poor. I believe that.
  The choices are not between our going on record that we will not do 
anything that will increase hunger or homelessness among children, or 
going on record to do anything that would cut programs that enable 
people to be able to go on and afford higher education, versus we have 
to cut benefits for the elderly across the board.
  Mr. President, there are other options. We did not need to get into 
this bidding war on tax cuts. But we have. And the projections on 
that--and again I am speaking off the top of my head--I believe it was 
$500 billion, up to 2002 and then another $700 billion beyond. Going in 
the opposite direction of deficit reduction.
  I would say to my colleagues, if you are so concerned about deficit 
reduction, why are you talking about these broad-based tax cuts? Mr. 
President, there are other choices. It is not children versus the 
elderly. I do not accept this tradeoff. I do not believe a rigorous 
analysis supports this tradeoff. We do not have to be increasing the 
Pentagon budget. We could be cutting it.
  I cosponsored a bill with Senators Bumpers and Bradley that dealt 
with about $30 billion in military cuts over 5 years based on some GAO 
studies of some wasteful weaponry. Weapons and programs that make no 
sense. But the military contractors are not being asked to tighten 
their belts.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me just say two other things. First, 
Senator Feingold and I have examined a book from the Joint Tax 
Committee, I say to the Senator from South Carolina, it must have been 
this thick on tax expenditures, some of which go back before 1950, some 
of which are necessary, but many of which are just outright tax dodges 
for corporations in America, and the U.S. Senate would not vote for a 
motion that said we should at least consider some of these subsidies.
  And, second, even though we do not need to get into the debate today 
about single payer, which the General Accounting Office and 
Congressional Budget Office said would save over $100 billion in 
expenses every year with universal coverage, I must remind my 
colleagues that the big entitlement programs that are skyrocketing are 
health care programs, but the insurance companies did not like that. I 
introduced a bill that dealt with the Medicare entitlement program, but 
rather than cut it, it was a way of really being able to afford these 
programs.
  So let us not have some false choice in dichotomy out here on the 
floor that a Senator from Minnesota can only come out here fighting for 
children and fighting for affordable higher education if that Senator 
from Minnesota is willing to say, ``We've got to have deep, drastic 
cuts in programs that support elderly citizens in this Nation.''
  No. 1, it is not true that they have such high income and wealth, and 
they are all greedy geezers out on the golf course. That is a cultural 
stereotype and, two, those are not the only choices. I just outlined 
four other options, none of which are being considered.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me make one other point and then I 
will yield the floor to the Senator from Montana, reserving, after 
that, the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, let me one more time focus attention on these two 
motions. The first motion is a motion to refer to the Budget Committee 
a sense of the Senate that when we do deficit reduction and balance the 
budget that we are not going to do anything to increase the number of 
homeless and hungry children. This is not an amendment to the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget at all. It does not say 
the vote on the amendment is put off. It is separate. It just says when 
we do the deficit reduction and move forward to balancing the budget--
all of us are in favor of doing that; not all are in favor of this 
constitutional amendment --that we go on record that we are not going 
to do anything to increase hunger and homelessness. I say to my friend 
from South Carolina, part of reason I do this are these headlines: 
``House Panel Moves to Cut Child School Lunch Program,'' ``House Panel 
Trims Nutrition Programs and Housing Programs,'' the WIC Program.
  The second motion is very similar. It is not an amendment to the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It is just a sense of 
the Senate that we go on record ``that we take no action that would 
result in significant reductions in assistance to students who want an 
opportunity to attend college.''
  My colleague from Wyoming talked about how he heard me read some 
letters from students in Minnesota and he thought too many students 
were viewing themselves as victims. I do not think that is what the 
students are saying.
  The alarm clock has gone off, students and young people in the 
country; it is time to get engaged because you need to understand there 
are going to be deep cuts on the present course in Pell grants and low-
interest loans, not in a lot of other areas that I mentioned. The only 
way you are going to be able to do something about it is to get 
involved in politics.
  We need to have an education day all across this Nation, within the 
next month, where all congressional delegations are called back home--
Democrats and Republicans alike--and meet with younger people, college 
students, high school students, teachers, parents in which we need to 
go on record as to whether or not we are or are not going to support 
affordable higher education.
  They are not feeling like victims, I say to my colleague from 
Wyoming, Mr. President. That was not the point of those letters. What 
those letters were saying is, we want you to do a good job of 
representing us, and we believe that one of the most important 
[[Page S3008]] issues for us--and I hear it from the parents as well--
is to make sure higher education is affordable. Of course, we are 
willing to contribute; of course, we do, but we feel like that is some 
thing that is a part of what this country is about: Affordable 
education. That is all that meant. That is all this motion is about.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Montana, after 
which I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wonder if I can have 6 minutes of the 
time of the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That will be fine.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for the purpose of introduction of a bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of S. 465 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair, and I deeply thank my good friend from 
Minnesota for so graciously yielding the time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Montana for his fine work.
  Mr. President, I wonder whether or not the Senator from Utah might 
want to respond. We will wait for just a moment.
  I do not think, Mr. President, there is any reason to repeat 
arguments, but I wish to wait for my colleague.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, again, I understand what my colleague is 
trying to do, but I just have to say, well, here we go again, another 
exemption. We have already seen various proposals to exempt veterans, 
Social Security, homeless children, capital expenditures, and here is 
another one, college tuition. When will it end? I suppose next Tuesday 
it will end.
  Mr. President, these are all very important groups. I feel very 
deeply about all of them collectively myself. But all these proposed 
exemptions demonstrate exactly what the problem is. We cannot reduce 
the deficit because there is no incentive to do it. Every time we try, 
somebody brings up another exemption that they want to take care of or 
another special interest group, all of which have merit, all of which 
have meaning. But that is why we need a balanced budget amendment--free 
from special interest exemptions and loopholes--to get this country's 
fiscal house in order.
  The balanced budget amendment that we propose here is a bipartisan 
consensus, Democrat-Republican amendment that we have worked on for 
decades. We have brought a vast majority of people in both Houses 
together on it. For the first time in history, the House of 
Representatives has passed it by the requisite two-thirds vote. It has 
not been easy. Everybody knows that. But what it does is it sets rules 
within which we will have to set priorities.
  This debate about priorities, it seems to me, should wait until after 
the balanced budget amendment passes. Then we will get serious about 
the priorities that have to be made. No one wants to harm anyone who 
relies on governmental assistance--nobody, least of all this Senator. 
None of us does. But we must make choices among priorities, and we must 
make these choices among priorities within the constraints of our 
resources. We no longer can afford to just throw money at everything. 
Priorities are going to change from year to year. So every year after 
we pass this amendment, every year we will debate priorities. Some are 
going to fare very well, as you know--in fact, most all of them will. 
But the fact of the matter is we will have to debate them, and we will 
have to set fiscal constraints for the first time since I have been 
here, and to me that is pretty important. I think it is to anybody who 
looks at it.
  However, that debate will only come after we pass this balanced 
budget amendment. It is the only way. I think almost everybody knows 
that here.
  Now, the distinguished Senator, for whom I have great feeling as a 
person, as a compassionate individual, is arguing for some pretty good 
interest groups here. He is arguing for some good exemptions. On the 
other hand, no exemption is good if it takes away from somebody else, 
if it makes it more difficult to help others who may be just as needy, 
if not more so.
  The best way to handle this is with a balanced budget amendment that 
sets a mechanism in place, that shows us how to do it and has a rule to 
it and reason to it that makes us make priority choices. It is the fair 
way to do it. It is the only way to do it, and that is what this 
balanced budget amendment does. So I hope our colleagues will vote for 
the balanced budget amendment next Tuesday. I do hope we will vote down 
these two motions to defer because I think they just point out more 
than anything else, or at least as much as the other amendments why we 
need a balanced budget amendment.
  I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time if the 
distinguished Senator from Minnesota is.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I might respond, I must say that the Senator's last 
remark makes me extremely nervous, when he states these motions--again, 
these are not amendments to the constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget--these motions really make the case for why we need a balanced 
budget amendment.
  The Senator said a little earlier that no one wants to hurt the most 
vulnerable citizens, so I do not know why a motion that we go on record 
as we move to balancing the budget we are not going to do anything to 
increase hunger or homelessness among children makes the case for a 
balanced budget amendment.
  My colleague from Utah keeps talking about these exemptions, and I 
just would say to my colleague, if the proponents of this amendment 
would have provided some detailed analysis as to where we are going to 
make the cuts, then I would not have to be in the Chamber saying let us 
at least go on record we are not going to do this to children or we are 
going to make sure that higher education is not affordable, let us make 
sure of that. If there was a detailed analysis, there would be no 
reason for any of us to come out to the floor to make these motions.
  There is no detailed analysis. We have tried over and over again to 
get Senators to step up to the plate. They have been unwilling to do 
so. The credibility gap is huge--so far I have heard $277 billion of 
budget cuts outlined by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 
That takes us a little bit toward $1.481 trillion, not very far.
  Mr. President, I have to say one more time the Senator from Nebraska 
[Mr. Kerrey] said it well. We can go forward every single year with 
more deficit reduction. I voted for I think the largest deficit 
reduction we have had probably in the last decade and a half. I stepped 
up to the plate and we can do much more on deficit reduction and we can 
balance the budget. I do not know that it can be done in 2002. I think 
that is an unrealistic date. I think it is a political date. But we 
absolutely have to do it.
  Mr. President, you do not need to have a balanced budget amendment in 
the constitution, locking us into all these cuts without telling 
anybody in the country what we are going to do in order for us to step 
up to the plate every single year and do the necessary deficit 
reduction.
  I might add, there is another deficit.
   There is an investment deficit, especially in education and children 
and young people. We can do that now.

  Finally, I do not understand this discussion about special interests. 
My view is that, yes, children and young people are very special 
interests. But, I say to my colleague, it simply is not the case--I 
hope he is not arguing: Look, the reason we cannot vote for these 
motions is we know we are going to make cuts in this area because we 
have to make cuts in this area if we are going to balance the budget.
  That is not true. We do not have to make cuts in these areas if we 
are going to balance the budget. Mr. President, $420 billion of tax 
expenditures--we do not have to raise the Pentagon budget, we do not 
have to do all the tax 
[[Page S3009]] cuts. There are lots of other ways to balance the budget 
as opposed to focusing on the young, focusing on education, or focusing 
on the most vulnerable citizens.
  My final point. The reason I have been so insistent today on the 
floor of the Senate about these motions--and I am going to wear my 
political science hat for a moment; I am a political scientist--is my 
sad but true judgment that all too often the actual deficit reduction 
and cuts are made based upon the path of least political resistance. 
Those citizens who do not have a lobbyist, do not make the large 
contributions, are not the heavy hitters, are not the big players, are 
the very citizens who are asked to tighten their belts. The very 
citizens we ask to tighten their belts are the very citizens that 
cannot.
  I have been out here saying we ought to consider cutting subsidies 
for oil companies, subsidies for pharmaceutical companies, all sorts of 
other subsidies for large corporations and financial institutions and 
the silence on the other side of the aisle has been deafening. It has 
been voted down.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to.
  Mr. HATCH. I think the Senator makes a good point, but it is a good 
point for the balanced budget amendment, that if there are subsidies to 
large corporate America and other entities that he disagrees with, we 
will have to look at those. That is why I think, to be honest with you, 
we need the balanced budget amendment.
  Is my colleague prepared to yield back his remaining time? I am, too.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I have about 15 seconds left.
  Let me be clear. Neither of these motions say anything about voting 
for or against the balanced budget amendment. I hope my colleagues will 
support me on the question if the choices we have to make are we are 
not going to take any action which would increase the number of hungry 
or homeless children and we are not going to make higher education not 
affordable for young people who want to go on to colleges and 
universities. That is all it says. It is a sense of the Senate. We 
ought to be able to vote for that right now, advocates for the balanced 
budget amendment and those who are opposed.
  I yield the remainder of my time if I have any time to yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is up.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time and I move 
to table the amendment and will ask for the yeas and nays with the 
understanding that the vote will be at another time.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me acknowledge my respect and 
friendship for the distinguished Senator from Utah. He has worked hard 
on this issue, but I rise today to speak out against the particular 
language in section 7 of the amendment that includes Social Security 
revenues in its definition of receipts.
  I have supported and would continue to support a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution if we did not have to breach the contract 
of 1935 with respect to Social Security.
  Taking Social Security out of deficit calculations is not just 
another attempt to carve out exemptions. There are no special taxes for 
education. There is no special tax for women, infants and children 
feeding. There are no special taxes for law enforcement. However, the 
Social Security tax is exclusively levied for the benefit of future 
recipients.
  So the matter of excluding Social Security funds from deficit 
calculations should not be confused or distorted. In 1983 we received 
the Greenspan Commission report and increased FICA taxes on middle 
America. If we had come at that time and said: These taxes will be used 
to pay for defense or welfare or foreign aid, that legislation would 
have been killed immediately. If you said these taxes were going to be 
used for the deficit, people would have said: ``Wait a minute. We are 
talking about the Social Security deficit. We are not talking about the 
overall Government deficit.''
  Mr. President, I voted three times for a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution and have worked as hard as anyone to get the bills 
paid. It has not always been easy, but I am quite willing to stand on 
my record. In the 104th Congress, the very first bill passed was 
designed to put the Government under the same rules and regulations 
that the average citizen has to abide by.
  In that regard, Mr. President, many of the laws that we enact here in 
Washington require Americans to tell the truth. As part of the statutes 
of the United States, we have the Truth in Fabrics Act, the Truth in 
Furs Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Lending Simplification 
and Reform Act, the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, the Truth in 
Negotiations Act for Military Procurement, the Truth in Savings Act, 
the Truth in Securities Act, and others as well. But, much to my 
chagrin, the fact of the matter is that we do not have a Truth in 
Budgeting Act.
  Like Fred Astaire, we tap dance all around a particular issue with 
fancy dance steps until we are left like an octopus that is cornered--
with nothing left to do but to squirt out the dark ink of confusion and 
escape to the next election.
  I graduated from truth in budgeting and I know the issue. As a young 
Governor elected back in 1958. I was only 36 years of age, and we were 
the second lowest per-capita income State. I realized at that 
particular time that no one was going to invest in Podunk. To attract 
investment and create jobs, we had not only to pay our bills but we had 
to guarantee they would stay paid. To do it, we raised taxes. I could 
hear all of the arguments bandied about: It falls on the middle class; 
it is the regressive; we have a poor State, and shouldn't be raising 
taxes.
  But I was not granted the luxury of choice. I had to raise taxes and 
suffer the consequences. That in part led to my defeat in 1962 when I 
ran for the Senate. But in public life, I think you ought to lose a 
good election like that. It is the most instructive lesson you can 
learn. I remember that election better than the six times since that I 
have been elected to the U.S. Senate.
  But as Governor of South Carolina, I had a little provision that 
intrigued the folks at Standard & Poors and Moody's. We had put in a 
rule that required the comptroller to issue a certificate to the 
Governor for each quarter that the expenditures were within the 
revenues. If the books were not in balance, the Governor was required 
by law to cut spending straight across the board. The bond agencies 
said, ``We had not heard of that.'' They called me a few weeks later 
and said that South Carolina would qualify for a AAA credit rating.
  While some may think that a constitutional amendment is an iron-clad 
guarantee, I know from hard experience that such is not the case. We 
have an amendment to the South Carolina Constitution that was enacted 
in 1895 that says, in effect, ``The budget shall be balanced.'' It was 
a constitutional provision quite similar to what we are debating, but 
it was honored more by violation than by conformance.
  Specifically, with respect to truth in budgeting, there is an old 
legal maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity. He who comes in 
the court of equity must come with clean hands. I have asked my 
colleagues to show me their plan to balance the budget. But in seeking 
this equity, I have also done equity. I have put in my own so-called 
budget, which I proposed in January. I have put it in the Record 
several times and would now ask unanimous consent that it again printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Hollings Releases Realities on Truth in Budgeting

       Reality No. 1: $1.2 trillion in spending cuts is necessary.
       Reality No. 2: There aren't enough savings in entitlements. 
     Have welfare reform, but a jobs program will cost; savings 
     are questionable. Health reform can and should save some, but 
     slowing growth from 10 to 5 percent doesn't offer enough 
     savings. Social Security won't be cut and will be off-budget 
     again.
       [[Page S3010]] Reality No. 3: We should hold the line on 
     the budget on Defense; that would be no savings.
       Reality No. 4: Savings must come from freezes and cuts in 
     domestic discretionary spending but that's not enough to stop 
     hemorrhaging interest costs.
       Reality No. 5: Taxes are necessary to stop hemorrhage in 
     interest costs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1996            1997            1998            1999            2000            2001            2002     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deficit CBO Jan. 95 (using trust funds).             207             224             225            253             284             297             322 
                                         ===============================================================================================================
Freeze discretionary outlays after 1998.               0               0               0            -19             -38             -58             -78 
Spending cuts...........................             -37             -74            -111           -128            -146            -163            -180 
Interest savings........................              -1              -5             -11            -20             -32             -46             -64 
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total savings ($1.2 trillion).......             -38             -79            -122           -167            -216            -267            -322 
                                         ===============================================================================================================
Remaining deficit using trust funds.....             169             145             103             86              68              30               0 
Remaining deficit excluding trust funds.             287             264             222            202             185             149             121 
5 percent VAT...........................              96             155             172            184             190             196             200 
Net deficit excluding trust funds.......             187              97              27            (17)            (54)           (111)           (159)
Gross debt..............................           5,142           5,257           5,300          5,305           5,272           5,200           5,091 
Average interest rate on debt (percent).             7.0             7.1             6.9            6.8             6.7             6.7             6.7 
Interest cost on the debt...............             367             370             368            368             366             360             354 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Figures are in billions. Figures don't include the billions necessary for a middle-class tax cut.                                                


------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Nondefense discretionary spending cuts            1996    1997 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space station...........................................   2.1     2.1  
Eliminate CDBG..........................................   2.0     2.0  
Eliminate low-income home energy assistance.............   1.4     1.5  
Eliminate arts funding..................................   1.0     1.0  
Eliminate funding for campus based aid..................   1.4     1.4  
Eliminate funding for impact aid........................   1.0     1.0  
Reduce law enforcement funding to control drugs.........   1.5     1.8  
Eliminate Federal wastewater grants.....................   0.8     1.6  
Eliminate SBA loans.....................................   0.21    0.282
Reduce Federal aid for mass transit.....................   0.5     0.1  
Eliminate EDA...........................................   0.02    0.1  
Reduce Federal rent subsidies...........................   0.1     0.2  
Reduce overhead for university research.................   0.2     0.3  
Repeal Davis-Bacon......................................   0.2     0.5  
Reduce State Dept. funding and end misc. activities.....   0.1     0.2  
End P.L. 480 title I and III sales......................   0.4     0.6  
Eliminate overseas broadcasting.........................   0.458   0.570
Eliminate the Bureau of Mines...........................   0.1     0.2  
Eliminate expansion of rural housing assistance.........   0.1     0.2  
Eliminate USTTA.........................................   0.012   0.16 
Eliminate ATP...........................................   0.1     0.2  
Eliminate airport grant in aids.........................   0.3     1.0  
Eliminate Federal highway demonstration projects........   0.1     0.3  
Eliminate Amtrak subsidies..............................   0.4     0.4  
Eliminate RDA loan guarantees...........................   0.0     0.1  
Eliminate Appalachian Regional Commission...............   0.0     0.1  
Eliminate untargeted funds for math and science.........   0.1     0.2  
Cut Federal salaries by 4 percent.......................   4.0     4.0  
Charge Federal employees commercial rates for parking...   0.1     0.1  
Reduce agricultural research extension activities.......   0.2     0.2  
Cancel advanced solid rocket motor......................   0.3     0.4  
Eliminate legal services................................   0.4     0.4  
Reduce Federal travel by 30 percent.....................   0.4     0.4  
Reduce energy funding for Energy Technology Develop.....   0.2     0.5  
Reduce Superfund cleanup costs..........................   0.2     0.4  
Reduce REA subsidies....................................   0.1     0.1  
Eliminate postal subsidies for nonprofits...............   0.1     0.1  
Reduce NIH funding......................................   0.5     1.1  
Eliminate Federal Crop Insurance Program................   0.3     0.3  
Reduce Justice State-local assistance grants............   0.1     0.2  
Reduce export-import direct loans.......................   0.1     0.2  
Eliminate library programs..............................   0.1     0.1  
Modify Service Contract Act.............................   0.2     0.2  
Eliminate HUD special purpose grants....................   0.2     0.3  
Reduce housing programs.................................   0.4     1.0  
Eliminate Community Investment Program..................   0.1     0.4  
Reduce Strategic Petroleum Program......................   0.1     0.1  
Eliminate Senior Community Service Program..............   0.1     0.4  
Reduce USDA spending for export marketing...............   0.02    0.02 
Reduce maternal and child health grants.................   0.2     0.4  
Close veterans hospitals................................   0.1     0.2  
Reduce number of political employees....................   0.1     0.1  
Reduce management costs for VA health care..............   0.2     0.4  
Reduce PMA subsidy......................................   0.0     1.2  
Reduce below cost timber sales..........................   0.0     0.1  
Reduce the legislative branch 15 percent................   0.3     0.3  
Eliminate Small Business Development Centers............   0.056   0.074
Eliminate minority assistance score, small business                     
 interstate and other technical assistance programs,                    
 women's business assistance, international trade                       
 assistance, empowerment zones..........................   0.033   0.046
Eliminate new State Department construction projects....   0.010   0.023
Eliminate Int'l Boundaries and Water Commission.........   0.013   0.02 
Eliminate Asia Foundation...............................   0.013   0.015
Eliminate International Fisheries Commission............   0.015   0.015
Eliminate Arms Control Disarmament Agency...............   0.041   0.054
Eliminate NED...........................................   0.014   0.034
Eliminate Fulbright and other international exchanges...   0.119   0.207
Eliminate North-South Center............................   0.002   0.004
Eliminate U.S. contribution to WHO, OAS, and other                      
 international organizations including the United                       
 Nations................................................   0.873   0.873
Eliminate participation in U.N. peacekeeping............   0.533   0.533
Eliminate Byrne grant...................................   0.112   0.306
Eliminate Community Policing Program....................   0.286   0.780
Moratorium on new Federal prison construction...........   0.208   0.140
Reduce coast guard 10 percent...........................   0.208   0.260
Eliminate Manufacturing Extension Program...............   0.03    0.06 
Eliminate coastal zone management.......................   0.03    0.06 
Eliminate national Marine sanctuaries...................   0.007   0.012
Eliminate climate and global change research............   0.047   0.078
Eliminate national sea grant............................   0.032   0.054
Eliminate State weather modification grant..............   0.002   0.003
Cut weather service operations 10 percent...............   0.031   0.051
Eliminate regional climate centers......................   0.002   0.003
Eliminate Minority Business Development Agency..........   0.022   0.044
Eliminate Public Telecommunications Facilities Program                  
 grant..................................................   0.003   0.016
Eliminate children's educational television.............   0.0     0.002
Eliminate national information infrastructure grant.....   0.001   0.032
Cut Pell grants 20 percent..............................   0.250   1.24 
Eliminate education research............................   0.042   0.283
Cut Head Start 50 percent...............................   0.840   1.8  
Eliminate meals and services for the elderly............   0.335   0.473
Eliminate title II social service block grant...........   2.7     2.8  
Eliminate community services block grant................   0.317   0.470
Eliminate rehabilitation services.......................   1.85    2.30 
Eliminate vocational education..........................   0.176   1.2  
Eliminate chapter 1 20 percent..........................   0.173   1.16 
Reduce special education 20 percent.....................   0.072   0.480
Eliminate bilingual education...........................   0.029   0.196
Eliminate JTPA..........................................   0.250   4.5  
Eliminate child welfare services........................   0.240   0.289
Eliminate CDC Breast Cancer Program.....................   0.048   0.089
Eliminate CDC AIDS Control Program......................   0.283   0.525
Eliminate Ryan White AIDS Program.......................   0.228   0.468
Eliminate maternal and child health.....................   0.246   0.506
Eliminate Family Planning Program.......................   0.069   0.143
Eliminate CDC Immunization Program......................   0.168   0.345
Eliminate Tuberculosis Program..........................   0.042   0.087
Eliminate agricultural research service.................   0.546   0.656
Reduce WIC 50 percent...................................   1.579   1.735
Eliminate TEFAP:........................................                
    Administrative......................................   0.024   0.040
    Commodities.........................................   0.025   0.025
Reduce cooperative State research service 20 percent....   0.044   0.070
Reduce animal plant health inspection service 10 percent   0.036   0.044
Reduce food safety inspection service 10 percent........   0.047   0.052
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................  36.942  58.407
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  Mr. President, the 49er's did not go to the Super Bowl in Miami last 
month, take their seats in the grandstand there in the Joe Robbie 
Stadium, and start shouting, ``We want a touchdown, we want a 
touchdown.'' They got down on the field and they scored the touchdown.
  Similarly, we are the Government, and now it is our duty, our 
responsibility to act.
  When we tried to move the ball downfield 2 years ago with the largest 
deficit reduction package in our history, we could not get a single 
vote on the other side of the aisle in the House and in the Senate.
  Likewise, when those on the other side of the aisle start to 
criticize the President by saying--``Where's his courage? He's waving 
the white flag,'' it is truly the pot calling the kettle black.
  (Mr. KYL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is high time we had some truth in 
budgeting.
  Look at the record that I have made here of some 110 proposed 
spending cuts, eliminations, or retrenchments of different programs. 
You will see the savings that it gives in 1996 and 1997.
  I struggled, taking some of the CBO cuts, the Concord Coalition cuts, 
the Kasich spending cuts and others. And you will see there are 110 of 
them here, amounting only to $37 billion in the first year and $58 
billion in the second year. This 2-year projection is important because 
it underscores the fact that the Congress will have to have further 
cuts next year and each year thereafter to stay on the glide path. 
Thus, the reality is that you are not going to balance the budget from 
spending cuts and growth alone.
  Aversion to higher taxes is usually a necessary, healthy impulse in a 
political democracy. But when the alternative becomes self-evidently 
threadbare and groundless, as has the growth argument, we are no longer 
dealing with legitimate skepticism, but with what amounts to, in the 
words of David Stockman, ``a demagogic fetish.''
  We will have to do the best we can on spending cuts. We will have to 
freeze spending. That is what President Clinton had in his budget along 
with spending cuts of $144 billion.
  We will have to close tax loopholes and prevent the transitional rule 
crowd from putting in $200 million for airlines out in St. Louis. That 
provision was part of GATT but had nothing to do with international 
trade. We have to curb such practices and tell the American people the 
truth.
  I once took a lie detector test, but the after first question--I 
flunked. They asked a question, and I started my answer, ``Well, in my 
humble opinion,'' and the needle just went right off the chart. 
Luckily, the fellow gave me a second chance and after 2 hours I passed.
  Well, here we go with the truth. We have to have taxes. This 
predicament did not develop overnight. President Bush was a good man 
but he was misled on the critical need to bring the deficit under 
control. I made my own efforts appearing before the Finance Committee 
and introducing a value-added tax for the deficit and debt.
  Today, with a 5-percent value-added consumption tax and $1.2 trillion 
in spending cuts over 7 years, we can put Government back into the 
black by the year 1999 and start paying off our $4.8 trillion debt. You 
do not have to wait for the year 2002.
  I have just been informed that the proponents of the constitutional 
[[Page S3011]] amendment have the votes. Assuming that to be true, 
people tell me, why don't you go along now and save your record? Mr. 
President, I want to save my record. That is why I am talking. We have 
a record of a contract started in 1935. We have a record of a trust. I 
want to save that record.
  Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not believe they have the votes yet. 
They may have them in the final analysis but I do not believe they have 
them yet.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will try to move along so the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia can be heard here.
  Mr. President, we need truth in budgeting. We should tell the 
American people that the big lie in the land is the slogan ``I'm 
against taxes'' because the simple fact is that we are raising taxes $1 
billion a day through interest payments on the gross Federal debt.
  When the Simon amendment came up in 1993, I was not an original 
cosponsor, but I had supported the amendment in 1986. I voted for the 
Simon amendment believing at the time that the Hollings amendment 
passed in 1990 which took the Social Security trust fund off-budget 
excluded these funds from deficit calculations. When my amendment 
passed the Senate by a vote of 98 to 2, I believed, as similarly 
asserted by the distinguished majority whip, Senator Lott, that: 
``Nobody, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, moderate, is 
even thinking about using Social Security to balance the budget.''
  But Mr. President, unbeknownst to me, just 13 days before the vote, 
Senator Gramm of Texas, who has been a leader on budget matters, 
introduced a bill to balance the budget. Later on in the year, I had my 
staff scrutinize it; they found this particular provision which I wish 
the Senator from Utah would listen to this:

       Exclusion from budget, section 13-301 of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1990 is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following: ``This subsection shall apply to 
     fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2001.''

  I found this provision particularly interesting because back on July 
10, 1990, Senator Gramm had been the lone dissenting vote when I 
introduced the Hollings amendment to take Social Security off-budget.
  I ask unanimous consent at this particular time that rollcall vote in 
the Budget Committee be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  1990 Hollings Motion To Report the Social Security Preservation Act

       The Committee agreed to the Hollings motion to report the 
     Social Security Preservation Act by a vote of 20 yeas to 1 
     nay:
       Yeas: Mr. Sasser, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Riegle, 
     Mr. Exon, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Simon, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Wirth, 
     Mr. Fowler, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Robb, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
     Boschwitz, Mr. Symms, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kasten, Mr. Nickles, 
     and Mr. Bond.
       Nays: Mr. Gramm.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Having voted against my amendment in the Budget 
Committee, having proposed to amend section 13301 of the Budget 
Enforcement Act, I said, ``Heavens above, I better start checking this 
thing.'' I soon recognized that the Constitution preempts statutory 
law, and that the amendment to take the Social Security Trust fund off-
budget would be constitutionally repealed by the language of this 
balanced budget amendment.
  John Mitchell, the famous Attorney General of the United States under 
President Nixon, said, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' And what 
do they do? When I argue about these things, I go right to the author 
of that particular Simon balanced budget amendment. I refer to the 
Monday, February 20, roll call, by the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois and I quote:

       One paradox is that some Democrats during the Senate debate 
     that is now underway are offering amendments that would 
     imperil both the balanced budget amendment and Social 
     Security by taking Social Security off the budget. These 
     waivers are being offered in the name of protecting--

  That is a true statement, they are offered to protect Social 
Security.

       * * * Sponsors of these amendments have an argument that is 
     superficially popular.
  We are not trying to make it popular; we are trying to make it law.
       Opening a Social Security loophole in the balanced budget 
     amendment also invites abuse by future Congresses undermining 
     confidence in the integrity of Social Security.

  Now, my dear colleagues, who is opening a Social Security loophole? 
It is open right now. It is right there. What section 7 does is create 
the loophole. Whoever votes for this language is opening the loophole. 
``Invites abuse by future Congresses.'' Mr. President, I am not talking 
about future Congresses. I am talking about this present Congress that 
is willing to abuse the Social Security trust now. I have told them 
time and time again, you have Hollings' vote if you put in the Social 
Security trust fund exemption.
  That is clear as a bell. They know it. But they think they have the 
votes. My distinguished colleague from West Virginia thinks otherwise. 
I hope he is right.
  My friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici of 
New Mexico, and the former Senator of New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, of 
the Concord Coalition, are both on the Strengthening of America 
Commission and have put out a proposal to balance the budget. Remember 
John Mitchell. ``Watch what they do, not what they say.'' Here is what 
they say in their plan. I quote:

       The goal of the plan is to balance the unified budget 
     without using the Social Security surplus by the year 2002. 
     America would then be saving its Social Security surplus, 
     helping to avoid a fiscal train wreck 25 years from now when 
     the general fund must begin repaying the Social Security 
     trust fund. Continuing to divert Social Security surplus to 
     fund current spending instead of building up reserves for the 
     future is bad fiscal policy and bad social policy.

  Mr. President, when the same gentleman took to the floor here last 
week and, he instead talked about including supplementary security 
income under the rubric of Social Security. He noted that under the 
law, SSI is administered by the Social Security group. True. However, 
he further claimed future Congresses might include SSI outlays as part 
of the Social Security trust fund.
  Now, we live in the real world. Any Senator who is fool enough to try 
and finance welfare with Social Security trust funds would make a quick 
exit from the political scene. They will not need a term limitation 
bill to be passed. He would be run off the floor of the Senate or House 
of Representatives. I do not believe he could get a single cosponsor or 
Senator to support him. But even if he did, he would have to get 60 of 
them because a 60-vote point of order would lie against such a change.
  I read here where the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire--and I 
read here from a release. It is reported about their particular news 
conference last week, talking about Senator Tsongas, former Senator 
Tsongas, and former Senator Rudman, and I am just reading the report. I 
will give you the quote.

       Both former Senators emphasized the need for Social 
     Security to remain on the table in the budget cutting 
     process.

  Now, that is the report. And here is the quote from Senator Rudman.

       ``To try to fool the American people by setting Social 
     Security aside is delaying the inevitable,'' said Rudman, who 
     added that protecting entitlement spending from cuts would 
     result in the need for ``unworkable'' cuts in the nondefense 
     discretionary spending and aid to state and local 
     governments.

  Here again they raise the straw man. We are not talking about fooling 
anybody about the inevitable. We are talking about the fraud that is 
being exacted on the people of America, and particularly people paying 
into Social Security this minute. The young woman who is paying in now, 
her money will be spent under Section 7. Then when she gets eligible in 
the year 2020, 2025, they will have to tax her a second time.
  I quoted earlier from Senator Rudman. Let me now quote from the other 
co-founder of the Concord Coalition, Paul Tsongas, who was even 
harsher. And I quote:

       ``Those who vote to exempt Social Security are voting to 
     kill the balanced budget amendment,'' said Tsongas, co-
     founder of the Concord Coalition and anti-deficit Group. 
     ``They are putting their own reelection ahead of the future 
     of their children and grandchildren.''

  [[Page S3012]] Who is putting their future ahead of the children and 
grandchildren? Anybody who votes for section 7 of the present balanced 
budget amendment joint resolution proposal, that's who. they are the 
ones, ``putting their own reelection ahead of the future of their 
children and grandchildren.''
   I have worked in the vineyards for a long time trying to restore the 
discipline of a balanced budget in the U.S. Government. I obtained it 
at the State level. I voted for it in 1968-69 when we called over to 
Marvin Watson and we cut $5 billion more. Do you know the entire budget 
in 1968-69, for the Great Society, for the war in Vietnam, was $178 
billion? Now we are up to $1.6 trillion. But we gave Richard Milhous 
Nixon not only a balanced budget but a $3.2 billion surplus.
  I got together with Senator Harry Byrd in 1978. We put into law the 
Byrd amendment which was later amended by the Reagan crowd. We took 
Social Security off-budget under President Bush, and now they are 
asking me to repeal that law by voting for section 7 of the balanced 
budget amendment.
  No way. The Social Security surplus is now almost $500 billion. By 
the year 2002 we are supposed to have a $1 trillion surplus. But 
instead, we keep spending it for foreign aid, for welfare, for all 
these other things that you can possibly think of in the budget except 
Social Security.
  Here is Robert M. Ball. I ask unanimous consent that this entire 
letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   Robert M. Ball,
                                  Alexandria, VA, January 5, 1995.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: Last month the Entitlement 
     Commission, appointed jointly by the President and the 
     Congress, held its final meeting without coming to agreement, 
     but with many Commissioners issuing statements of their 
     individual views. I have been and remain greatly concerned 
     about the misinformation about Social Security that has 
     accompanied discussion of this last meeting and which 
     persistently accompanies so many discussions of Social 
     Security financing. Since most of my career has been devoted 
     to Social Security policy and administration, I feel 
     obligated to do what I can to set the record straight.
       First, a word about my experience. I was U.S. Commissioner 
     of Social Security under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and 
     Nixon, and after leaving government I have continued to give 
     advice on Social Security to both the Congress and the 
     Executive Branch. I was a member of the statutory Advisory 
     Councils in 1979 and 1991 and am a member of the current 
     Advisory Council that is now studying the program and that 
     will report its findings and recommendations later this year. 
     I was also a member of the small negotiating group from the 
     Greenspan Commission which worked out the agreement with the 
     White House that led to the 1983 Amendments.
       The Entitlement Commission looked at many programs in 
     addition to Social Security, and frequently in its 
     presentations lumped everything together, but it also, 
     correctly, made separate proposals and separate cost 
     estimates for Social Security. There was a consensus that 
     Social Security was adequately financed for a long time, but 
     not for the full 75 years for which the estimates are 
     traditionally made. What the Commission did not say, however, 
     is equally important.
       The Commission did not find that Social Security benefits 
     would have to be drastically cut or contribution rates 
     greatly increased to bring the program into long-run balance. 
     True, some Commission members talked this way, one referring 
     to Social Security as ``unsustainable,'' and
      the plan proposed by Chairman Kerrey and Vice-Chairman 
     Danforth would, over time, have resulted in benefit cuts 
     of over 40 percent for workers earning the average wage 
     (partly offset by a compulsory government saving plan, 
     also included in their recommendation). Such drastic cuts 
     were necessary in their plan because they nearly doubled 
     Social Security's estimated shortfall by cutting the 
     employee contribution, and then, in addition, greatly 
     over-financed the program, using the surplus to show a 
     smaller deficit in the rest of the budget.
       But at the same time that Senators Kerrey and Danforth 
     submitted their preferred plan, they demonstrated that Social 
     Security could be brought into long-range balance with much 
     more moderate changes. The alternative they presented to the 
     Commission avoided any contribution increases and brought the 
     program into balance entirely by benefit cuts. Over the long 
     run, cuts for the average worker would have reached 15 
     percent. Had they depended partly on contribution rate 
     increases (which would not have been necessary until some 25 
     years from now), the benefit reductions, of course, could 
     have been cut in half, or reduced even more.
       Four points about Social Security financing are critical 
     for an informed debate about Social Security's future:
       First, Social Security is adequately financed for the next 
     20 to 25 years and consequently, as has been indicated by the 
     President and the Congressional leadership, no changes in 
     Social Security are needed for the next few years. However, 
     it would be desirable soon thereafter to balance estimated 
     income and outgo over the whole 75 years for which the 
     estimates are made.
       The Trustees of the Social Security funds estimate that the 
     funding provided under present law will produce a continued 
     build-up in the Social Security Trust Funds until about 2020 
     when the official estimates start to show a decline in the 
     funds and later on a shortfall. Although there is plenty of 
     time to await studied consideration of the best course of 
     action (including the recommendations to be made by the 
     current Advisory Council), it would bolster public confidence 
     in the program to put in the law soon changes to be effective 
     later that would eliminate the estimated long-run deficit.
       Second, there are many ways of bringing Social Security 
     into long-range balance within the principles of the program 
     and avoiding most of the 15 percent benefit cut in the 
     Commission Chairman's ``modest'' alternative.
       One way to produce balance, at least theoretically, would 
     be to: (a) accept the Commission staff's estimate of the 
     saving to Social Security of an expected Labor Department 
     correction of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). (This alone 
     reduces the long range deficit by a third); (b) credit Social 
     Security with the proceeds of the 1993 tax increase on Social 
     Security benefits, just as the earlier taxing provisions 
     credited the proceeds to Social Security. (Adding this saving 
     to the CPI correction cuts the deficit in half.) In the 1993 
     change, the proceeds
      went to the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund because the Budget 
     rules would have required 60 votes in the Senate to 
     increase income for Social Security; and, (c) schedule a 
     contribution rate increase in 2020 of one percent of 
     covered earnings each for employers and employees. (This 
     change would eliminate the other half of the deficit.) 
     Such a rate increase is not trivial, but is easily 
     supportable--offsetting only about 9 percent of the growth 
     in earnings projection between now and then.
       Because the effect of the change in the CPI is uncertain, 
     and the saving in the staff estimate so large, I have 
     attached an illustration showing another way the program 
     could be brought into long-range balance with modest changes 
     and without relying on savings from the CPI revision. Of 
     course, there are many ways of combining more benefit cuts 
     with lower contribution rate increases than in the 
     illustration, including raising the first age at which full 
     retirement benefits are paid from the presently scheduled 67 
     to, say, 68. The point here is simply that the alarmist 
     rhetoric used by some Entitlement Commission members about 
     the need for major cutbacks in Social Security is completely 
     unjustified.
       Third, the estimates of long-range Social Security costs 
     and of the proposals for change take full account of the 
     retirement of the baby boomers.
       It is now commonplace among journalists to assume that the 
     decline in the number of contributors per beneficiary, which 
     begins about 2010, will cause enormous problems for Social 
     Security as future workers face an ``impossibly large burden 
     of support for retirees.'' But this new rate does not come as 
     a surprise, and its effect has been included in the Trustees' 
     Social Security cost estimates and in the estimates for the 
     Social Security changes discussed here.
       Stepping back from considering Social Security financing 
     alone, and looking instead at the basic economic question of 
     the burden of support of dependents, we find no problem at 
     all. In estimating the ability of a workforce to support 
     dependents, what counts is the ratio of all non-workers, old 
     and young, to the active workers producing the goods and 
     services on which all must depend. As the following numbers 
     indicate, the total dependency burden will never be as high 
     as it was in 1965 when the baby boomers were children.
Dependents--both those 65 and over and those under 20--per 1,000 active 
                                workers

Year:
  1965..............................................................946
  1990..............................................................700
  2010..............................................................652
  2040..............................................................791
  2070..............................................................828
         
       As economist Frank Ackerman has observed, ``If we could 
     afford to live through the childhood of the baby-boom 
     generation, we can afford to live through their retirement.''
       (4) The widespread belief that Social Security is 
     contributing to the current budget deficit and has caused 
     part of the rise in the national debt is just wrong.
       Since 1937, when Social Security first collected earmarked 
     contributions from employers and employees, $4.3 trillion has 
     been paid in and $3.9 trillion has been paid out, including 
     administrative expenses (now running at one cent for each 
     dollar of benefits). This leaves a balance of about $400 
     billion, just about right today for a contingency reserve.
       Social Security is a contributory program supported by 
     deductions from workers' earning, matched by employers (and 
     to a small 
     [[Page S3013]] extent by taxation of Social Security 
     benefits). As part of Social Security's financing plan, the 
     contribution rates are now producing surpluses and will for 
     many years. However, it would be bad policy if in order to 
     reduce the general deficit, Social Security were called on to 
     build greater surpluses than needed to finance the program. 
     Flat-rate earmarked deductions from workers' earnings are 
     justified as a way of paying for specified social insurance 
     benefits, but not as a substitute for the general taxes 
     needed to pay for other government services. Cutting Social 
     Security benefits to help meet the budget deficit while 
     imposing higher contribution rates than needed for Social 
     Security financing would be unfair and would certainly lack 
     public support. As the Commission concluded in its Interim 
     Report, any savings from Social Security changes ``should be 
     used to restore the long-term soundness of the Social 
     Security Trust Fund.''
       The Social Security program deserves the bipartisan backing 
     it has enjoyed in recent years, not just because it is 
     popular, but because it works. It is our biggest anti-poverty 
     program, and, at the same time, it is a universal retirement, 
     disability, and life insurance system, important to just 
     about everyone. Social Security is keeping 15 million people 
     out of poverty and many millions more from near poverty. 
     Today the poverty rate for senior households is about 13 
     percent, approximately the same as for the population as a 
     whole, but without Social Security, it would be about 50 
     percent, and public assistance paid for by the general 
     taxpayer would be much, much larger. Social Security requires 
     all of us--provident and improvident alike--to join with our 
     employers in paying directly toward our own future security, 
     and thus holds down the need for public assistance.

                           *   *   *   *   *


  ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN TO BRING SOCIAL SECURITY INTO LONG RANGE BALANCE\1\ 
            [Figures shown are a percent of taxable payrolls]           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current estimate of long-range deficit................  .......     2.13
Extend Social Security to the one-third of State and                    
 local employees not now covered (new hires only as                     
 was done when Federal employees were covered)\2\.....     0.23  .......
Credit Social Security with the proceeds from the 1993                  
 tax increase on Social Security benefits\3\..........     0.36  .......
Compute benefits over 38 years instead of 35 years as                   
 in present law.......................................     0.30  .......
Tax Social Security benefits for those who have                         
 incomes above $25,000 if single; and $32,000 if joint                  
 income tax filers, in the same way government career                   
 pensions and private pensions are taxed (that is, to                   
 the extent benefits exceed what the worker has paid                    
 in, computed individually)...........................     0.14  .......
Increase the contribution rate one percentage point                     
 each, for employees and employers, beginning in 2020.     1.12  .......
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................     2.15  .......
                                                       =================
Interaction among the various proposals...............     -.02  .......
Reduction in deficit..................................  .......     2.13
Deficit after changes.................................  .......        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Many other plans are easily developed, some reducing benefits more-- 
  for example, by raising the age of first eligibility for full benefits
  to 68 instead of the presently scheduled age 67--other raising        
  contributions more--for example, by moving the effective date of a    
  rate increase from 2020 to 2010. All sorts of combinations are        
  possible. The current Advisory Council is studying them all and is    
  expected to report to the President and the Congress in the fall of   
  1995. The point of this illustration is to demonstrate that Social    
  Security can be brought into balance for the long run with modest     
  benefit reduction and tax increases, all within the traditional       
  principles of the program.                                            
\2\This the last large group of employees excluded from Social Security,
  and it is only fair that they should be part of our national program. 
  There is net gain to Social Security because under present law most of
  these workers will qualify for Social Security based on earnings other
  than state and local employment and yet will be paying on less than   
  their full earnings.                                                  
\3\In the 1993 Amendments increasing the tax on Social Security         
  benefits, the proceeds were assigned to the Hospital Insurance Trust  
  Fund only because the Budget rules would have required 60 Senate votes
  to increase income to the Social Security Funds.                      

  Mr. HOLLINGS. This is dated January 5. He talked about the Kerrey-
Danforth commission, the entitlement commission, and the entire letter 
will be printed but I refer to this sentence here.

       The commission did not find that Social Security benefits 
     would have to be drastically cut or contribution rates 
     greatly increased to bring the program into long run balance.

  Later on, I read again:

       Social Security is adequately financed for the next 20 to 
     25 years.

  I read on further:

       The point here is simply that the alarmist rhetoric used by 
     some entitlement commission members about the need for major 
     cutbacks in Social Security is completely unjustified.

  Then further on I read this sentence:

       The widespread belief that Social Security is contributing 
     to the current budget deficit and has caused part of the rise 
     in the national debt is just wrong.

  Mr. President, I will have the entire letter printed. Time is of the 
essence here. We have to move along. Robert Ball has worked under 
President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon and, after 
leaving there he has been the chief adviser to the Social Security 
Administration and to the executive branch--total credibility.
  I have another item. I ask unanimous consent this article in Business 
Week dated February 20 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From Business Week, Feb. 20, 1995]

            Social Security: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Tinker

                          (By Robert Kuttner)

       Social Security is supposedly in long-term demographic 
     crisis--too many retirees living longer, not enough wage 
     earners to pay the freight. As a result, there have been 
     calls for reduced Social Security payouts, deferred 
     retirements, perhaps even means-testing. But a closer look at 
     the economic assumptions behind the Social Security Trustees' 
     Report reveals a very different sort of crisis--one that 
     calls for different solutions.
       Social Security is financed by payroll taxes. Unless we 
     raise tax rates, growth in payroll-tax receipts will depend 
     on growth in taxable wages. The trustees project likely 
     annual real wage growth of just 1% per year over the next 75 
     years. By contrast, during the past 75 years, annual real 
     wage growth was about 1.7%. Because of compounding, this 
     seemingly small difference puts the economy on a wholly 
     divergent growth trajectory. With 1% real annual wage growth, 
     Social Security will be hundreds of billions in the red. With 
     1.7% growth, the system will be in the black forever.
       Why the trustees' pessimism? Wage growth has indeed been 
     dismal during the past two decades. From 1953 to 1973, annual 
     productivity grew by 2.3%, and wages grew annually at 2%. But 
     in the slow-growth decades from 1973 to 1993, while annual 
     productivity grew at just 0.9%, real wages actually 
     declined--an average of 0.2% per year.


                              productivity

       The key question is whether coming decades will resemble 
     the fat years or the lean ones. Here perhaps is some good 
     news. First, 1973-93 had unusual demographic trends unlikely 
     to be repeated. Baby boomers and women flooded into the 
     workforce, leaving less wage per worker. Baby boomers, male 
     and female, are now more experienced and presumably more 
     productive workers. Women workers are now being paid wages 
     closer to their male counterparts. On both counts, the one-
     time depression in wages should be reversed.
       A second source of lower wages has been the galloping 
     increase in the cost of fringe benefits. Wages are subject to 
     Social Security taxes; benefits are not. Here again, the 
     recent past does not predict the future. One way or another, 
     via market forces or government regulation, the escalation in 
     health premiums will level off. The other major fringe 
     benefit, pensions, is already declining as a share of total 
     compensation.
       Third, many economists expect the boom in information 
     technology to translate, at last, into higher productivity. 
     Economic history suggests long lags between the introduction 
     of new, productivity-enhancing technology and its broad 
     economic diffusion. In addition, as Massachusetts Institute 
     of Technology economist Frank S. Levy notes, the productivity 
     gains of the 1950s showed up almost immediately in higher 
     purchasing power because they were concentrated in consumer 
     goods. The productivity improvements of the 1980s and '90s, 
     in contrast, have been in producer technologies. However, as 
     computers proliferate and information technology produces 
     productivity gains in everything from banking and retailing 
     to telephone service, these gains will likely yield gains in 
     real wages, too.


                                Moronic

       Offseting this optimism, however, are two other factors. 
     First, income distribution has become increasingly unequal. 
     If that trend continues, too few of the productivity gains 
     will show up in pay packets subject to payroll taxation. 
     Moreover, despite the new competitiveness and resulting low 
     inflation, the Federal Reserve seems determined not to let 
     the economy reach its full growth potential. But here the 
     solution is not to wreck Social Security. It is rather to 
     pursue policies that reverse the growing income inequality 
     and permit greater economic expansion.
       Nobody, of course, can predict the rate of wage increases 
     75 years into the future. As one expert working on the Social 
     Security actuarial assumptions confesses, on deepest 
     background: ``The whole exercise, really, is moronic.'' 
     During the past 75 years, we experienced one entirely 
     unanticipated wage collapse, the Great Depression; an equally 
     unexpected stimulus to wage growth, World War II; and a third 
     unpredicted slowdown after 1973.
       In truth, even under pessimistic assumptions, Social 
     Security will remain nicely in balance for at least the next 
     20 years. Whether the system goes into the red after that 
     depends on trends nobody can forecast with certainty. Rather 
     than hack away at Social Security, Congress should legislate 
     standby adjustments to take effect only if the doomsayers 
     prove right. We should continue to pursue economic expansion 
     and rising wages--both for Social Security and for their own 
     sakes.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will just read one sentence there, by the 
distinguished economist Robert Kuttner.

       In truth, even under pessimistic assumptions, Social 
     Security will remain nicely in balance for at least the next 
     20 years.

  We have the authorities. We know what is happening. But they have 
used this argument that Social Security is insolvent as the dark ink of 
the octopus in order to confuse people.
  [[Page S3014]] We face two arguments. One concerns discipline: 
Congress is never going to do it unless you put it in the Constitution. 
False. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article 
that I wrote last year entitled, ``From Tragedy to Farce'' which 
addresses this issue. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Charlotte Observer, Mar. 1, 1994]

  From Tragedy to Farce--If History Repeats Itself, a Balanced-Budget 
    Amendment Won't Force Congress To Be Disciplined--Just Creative

                          (By Ernest Hollings)

       Here's a terrific, no-pain solution to Washington's budget 
     deficit mess. Instead of cutting spending, raising taxes and 
     angering voters in an election year, why not zap the deficits 
     by simply declaring them unconstitutional? Why not a 
     balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution?
       Mind you, I support the balanced-budget amendment, knowing 
     full-well it alone won't balance the budget. What I oppose is 
     the cynical selling of this amendment by politicians who have 
     no intention of following through with the nasty, wrist-
     slashing work of actually balancing the federal budget.
       Recall that Congress has passed a balanced-budget amendment 
     once before. It was called Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Like 
     today's balanced-budget amendment, the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-
     Hollings amendment boldly promised a balanced budget in five 
     years' time. It, too, was embraced by big, bipartisan 
     congressional majorities and enjoyed public support. Gramm-
     Rudman-Hollings cut the deficit to a low-water mark of $150 
     billion, but was later gutted by a succession of budget 
     summits. The deficits exploded once again.
                         lessons of a crack-up

       A wise man once observed that history repeats itself, the 
     first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. The 
     balanced budget amendment could prove to be the ultimate 
     farce unless we learn from the mistake of the past. As a 
     veteran of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings crack-up of 1990, I 
     offer the following lessons.
       Follow the money. The deficit this fiscal year, $223 
     billion, is nearly the same as when we began the Gramm-
     Rudman-Hollings exercise in 1985. The difference is that, 
     after eight years of steady economizing, we have already 
     strip-mined the easy budget cuts. What's more, Congress last 
     year took the unprecedented step of imposing a hard freeze on 
     discretionary spending for the next five years. A balanced-
     budget amendment on top of this will require cuts of nearly 
     $600 billion between 1995 and 1999.
       Using the Congressional Budget Office's most recent 
     projections, to balance the budget by 1999 without new taxes 
     we would have to cut all federal spending (except mandatory 
     spending for judges' pay and interest on the debt) by $26 
     billion in 1995, $73 billion in 1996, $119 billion in 1997, 
     $162 billion in 1998, and $205 billion in 1999. This includes 
     cutting Social Security by $130 billion by 1999.
       Of course, Congress wouldn't dare cut Social Security by 
     one dollar. So exempt Social Security from cuts: now the 
     required across-the-board cuts rise from 10.7% to 14.2% in 
     1999.
       Inevitably, other programs--including veterans' benefits, 
     military pay, the Women, Infants and Children nutrition 
     program--would also be sheltered from cuts. As the burden of 
     $600 billion in cuts falls on a smaller and smaller share of 
     the total budget, reductions of 20% and up would be required 
     in unprotected areas such as law enforcement, education and 
     environmental protection.
       Beware of political chickens posing as budget hawks. Sixty-
     one senators and 271 representatives hitched a ride on the 
     Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bandwagon in 1985. But later, when 
     those same politicians were asked to cast tough votes to 
     actually cut the deficit, they lit out for the tall grass. 
     For example, in 1990 in the Senate Budget Committee, I 
     proposed a strict spending freeze to meet that year's Gramm-
     Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction target; the most zealous 
     supporters of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings joined forces to kill the 
     freeze.
       Face it, most members of Congress view a ``yea'' on the 
     balanced-budget amendment as a free vote. They get to preen 
     their deficit-hawk feathers in an election year, comfortable 
     in their belief that doomsday won't arrive until 1999.
       The rule in Washington's budget battles is: ``Fight until 
     you see the whites of their eyes.'' The theory of the 
     balanced-budget amendment is identical to that of Gramm-
     Rudman-Hollings: if you put a gun to Congress' head, Congress 
     will get discipline. The reality, however, is that when you 
     put a gun to Congress' head, Congress gets creative.
       Bear in mind that both Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and the 
     balanced-budget amendment are strictly process-oriented 
     mechanisms. Process can always be defeated by 3ore process. 
     The process of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was defeated by the 
     counter-process of the ``budget summits.''
       History now repeats itself with the balanced-budget 
     amendment. Already the cloakroom conspirators are talking 
     about ``process reforms'' that will assist in ``balancing'' 
     the budget: moving more programs ``off budget'' and creating 
     a separate ``capital budget'' to finance ``investments'' with 
     deficit spending. What's more, the balanced-budget amendment 
     expressly allows Social Security Trust Fund surpluses to be 
     siphoned off to help ``balance'' the budget; in 1999 alone, 
     we will be robbing $100 billion from Social Security. 
     ``Balanced budget,'' indeed.


                         avoid the gamesmanship

       So let us debate, pass and ratify the balanced-budget 
     amendment. But let's avoid the gamesmanship that betrayed 
     Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. If you're not for massive cuts in 
     federal spending, or for making up the difference with new 
     taxes, then hold the hypocrisy; vote no on this amendment.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. That was almost a year ago. I said at that time: Watch 
what they do, not what they say. Congress gets very creative.
  Point: Right this minute, section 7 gives them creatively $636 
billion that they will not have to find in order to comply with the 
literal wording of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Thus, in the year 2002, the budget will not be balanced. There will 
be trillions of dollars worth of IOU's in the Social Security trust 
fund. But they will say, ``we have complied literally with the 
wording.'' That is one particular creativity that you see going on now 
through the violation of the Hollings amendment--a reason for calling 
this a fraud.
   I have made the tough votes. Just yesterday I voted to table Senator 
Rockefeller's amendment to exempt veteran's programs from deficit 
calculations. I helped coauthor the WIC Program, education programs, 
but I would likewise vote against amendments to exempt them from 
deficit calculations. Those programs do not have trust funds; we do 
under Social Security.
  There are other ideas of creativity around this town. Mr. Greenspan 
has given cover to those who want to redefine CPI. Reducing it by 1 
point would forgo the need for an additional $150 billion in spending 
cuts over 5 years.
  Similarly, there's a move not to continue with the pay-as-you-go 
provisions requiring legislation outside the budget resolution to be 
deficit neutral over 10 years. When President Clinton wanted a 5-year 
rule so he did not require the 60-vote margin on GATT, I held fast. I 
said, ``We have to maintain the discipline.''
  When I offered an amendment to make the 10-year rule part of the 
Congressional Budget Act last week before the Budget Committee, 
Republicans said, ``No, no, not now, maybe a later time would be 
better.'' They are going to get it a later time, that you can be sure 
of.
  So there it is. You can see what is on course. The distinguished 
Speaker of the House said earlier this year at a town meeting in 
Kennesaw, GA:

       We have a handful of bureaucrats who all professional 
     economists agree have an error in their calculations. If they 
     cannot get it right in the next 30 days or so, we will zero 
     them out. We will transfer the responsibility to either the 
     Federal Reserve or the Treasury or tell them to get it right.

  That is what they are going to do. They are going to do away with the 
Secretary of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics because, if they 
do not do it the way we want, we will get a different referee.
  It is my hope that we will amend section 7 excluding Social Security 
so that we will pass this balanced budget amendment. They think they 
can pressure old Hollings. But I stood for the truth in public service 
all my life. I found out it paid off. Let us sober up in this town, 
speak the truth, and come under the auspices of the first thing we 
passed last month which puts Congress under the same rules as the 
people outside this beltway. Let's have truth in budgeting.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to call up an amendment at the desk.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
   [[Page S3015]] Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I have been waiting here for 4 hours to bring up an amendment, which 
I am sure the other side would only take 10 minutes to bring up and we 
could probably move to a vote.
  The Senator who is about to speak, the Senator from West Virginia, 
has been courteous enough to not object to that procedure. 
Unfortunately, the other side has objected.
  But this is an item that is timely and I think should be disposed of 
today, so I will seek unanimous consent again later on today or seek 
the floor again for that purpose. I regret that this has not been 
possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. We have a vote scheduled at 3 o'clock and time is 
allocated that would put us past that time. Could I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator yield back 7\1/2\ minutes and our side would 
yield back 7\1/2\ minutes and, therefore, we would come within the hour 
of debate?
  Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator wait a little while and let me see how I 
am going to come out? Perhaps we could work it out.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to do that.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, not a day goes by that we are not shocked by 
a violent crime described on the nightly news or in the newspaper. We 
live in a world, in a country, in cities and towns, in which violent 
crimes--murders, robberies, and rapes--have become commonplace. Within 
this body, one Senator's wife was held at gunpoint in front of her 
home, and another Senator's aid was murdered just a few blocks from 
this Chamber.
  The statistics are overwhelming. In 1993, the most recent year for 
which data are available, there were over 1.9 million violent crimes 
committed in this country. There were 24,530 murders. There were 
104,810 reported--Reported--forcible rapes. There were 659,760 
robberies. There were 1.135 million aggravated assaults. Clearly crime 
is a serious national problem which must be addressed.
  According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a violent crime 
occurs in America once every 16 seconds.
  And the stopwatch is set, as you can see, at 16. It represents one 
violent crime every 16 seconds.
  Someone is murdered every 21 minutes. A woman is raped every 5 
minutes.
  A robbery is committed every 48 seconds. One burglary is committed 
every 11 seconds. One motor vehicle is stolen every 20 seconds. One 
property crime is committed every 3 seconds.
  Today, Mr. President, Americans are over four times more likely to be 
the victim of a violent crime than they were 30 years ago. This 
increase has occurred during almost the same time period that I have 
served as a Member of the Senate. In the past three decades, the rate 
of violent crimes has increased 364 percent--eight times faster than 
the population of this country has grown.
  This crime plague is no longer confined to urban areas and large 
cities. Administrator Thomas A. Constantine, of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, said it best when he recently testified before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee:

       And this epidemic of violent crime is no longer confined to 
     big cities like New York or Los Angeles or Miami. It has 
     reached deep into our heartland. Last year, for example, 
     Indianapolis, Indiana, a city known more for its Midwestern 
     hospitality than its violence, recorded a homicide increase 
     of over 60 percent * * *. Homicides in Buffalo, New York, 
     increased by almost 20 percent from 1993 to 1994. And, in 
     Richmond, Virginia, homicides increased over 30 percent from 
     1983 to 1994.

  My own State of West Virginia has prided itself for many years for 
having the lowest overall crime rate in the Nation. In West Virginia, 
unlocked doors and evening strolls have long been the way of life, but 
that is changing, and it is a crying shame. Crime in West Virginia has 
increased threefold since the 1960's. Over the past 5 years, the rate 
of violent crime in West Virginia has risen by 11 percent, a rise 
greater than the national average. The numbers of murders, rapes, and 
assaults are climbing, and, paralleling the national pattern. Even the 
number of juvenile crimes in West Virginia is skyrocketing.
  Now in West Virginia's small, rural communities, drugs are being 
peddled, children are shooting children, women are being attacked on 
the streets in front of their homes, and families are connecting alarms 
to their bedroom windows.
  Like so many other States, West Virginia has recognized the crucial 
need to respond to rising crime rates by putting more police on the 
streets, building more prisons, and providing better resources to law 
enforcement.
  Mr. President, I have several charts that indicate the level of this 
crime epidemic and how it is breaking out among the youth in this 
Nation.
  The first chart shows that the record level of all violent crime has 
risen over the past decade. In 1985, approximately 1.3 million 
Americans were victims of violent crime. In 1993, that number had risen 
to over 1.9 million Americans. That is a 45-percent increase in just 
eight years!
  The next chart shows the number of murders committed. In 1985, there 
were 18,980, murders in the United States. In this same 8-year period 
(1985-1993), the number of murders per year had risen to 24,530. That 
is an increase of 29 percent!
  The next chart is the most alarming. For in spite of all of our law 
enforcement efforts at the Sttate and national levels, press reports 
show that juvenile crime is increasing at a breathtaking rate. From 
1984 to 1993, the juvenile arrest rate
 for murder has risen from 1,305 to 3,788. In other words, it almost 
tripled.

  Mr. President, many of the advocates of this balanced budget 
amendment have stated their intentions that defense and Social Security 
should be spared from any of the cuts that will occur under this 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget if it is, indeed, 
adopted by the Congress and ratified by the record number of States. I 
say that again: The advocates of this ill-advised amendment have stated 
their intentions that defense and Social Security should be spared. But 
it does not make any difference what their intentions may be. It is 
what that constitutional amendment says. That is where the courts would 
ultimately look. They will look within the four corners of the document 
itself, the amendment itself.
  It does not make any difference what the advocates say. It is not 
their intention to do this. It is not their intention to do that. It is 
not their intention to include defense. It is going to be exempted. It 
is not their intention to include Social Security. It does not make any 
difference what their intention is. It does not say that in the 
constitutional amendment itself. It does not say that defense will be 
exempted. It does not say the Social Security will be exempted. That is 
where one has to look to see what the amendment says and what it will 
do.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yes, I yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, during the Senator's study of this 
amendment, about what the amendment does do and does not do, during the 
course of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, we had the testimony 
of Mr. Dellinger that was similar to the kind of testimony that was had 
during the course of your own hearings about what the responsibility of 
the Chief Executive might be if this were to go into effect.
  There was very substantial constitutional opinion that a President, 
having sworn to uphold the Constitution, would therefore be required to 
actually impound the expenditures if the receipts and expenditures did 
not balance.
  This has not, really, been debated or discussed very much. I had 
hoped at some time to have an amendment to try to make sure that the 
Senate as an institution was going to have an opportunity to address 
that issue. I understand that given our situation we may have to defer 
the vote on that until Tuesday next.
  I am interested in the Senator's concern about that particular issue; 
to 
[[Page S3016]] wit, that a President, should the balanced budget 
amendment actually be ratified, would be put in a position that, having 
sworn to uphold the Constitution, that he may be compelled, himself, to 
go ahead and impound the resources or funds or appropriations, and that 
this would be something that would be a far reach from whatever had 
been thought of by our Founding Fathers or considered during the 
Constitutional Convention, which I know the Senator has talked about 
during the earlier discussion and debate.
  I just wonder whether the Senator from West Virginia, as one who 
chaired those hearings, had heard a considerable amount of debate and 
discussion about this issue, whether he had formed any opinion or 
whether he himself was concerned about the ambiguity. The reason I 
bring this up, as the Senator was just pointing out to the Members that 
there is so much that is left unsaid and so much left unstated and so 
much left up in the air, this, too, might be something that at least, 
as far as the Senator from West Virginia is concerned, would be left up 
in the air prior to consideration or prior to the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his 
question. It goes right to the heart of the matter. During the hearings 
that were conducted last year by the Appropriations Committee in 1993, 
the year before last, during those hearings several constitutional 
scholars were invited to appear before that committee. I was then the 
chairman.
  All of those constitutional scholars who appeared before that 
committee had a great concern with respect to this constitutional 
amendment. As precisely as I recall, the same amendment--I do not think 
any changes had been made in it since those hearings were held. I 
believe that it is, word for word, as it was then.
  Most all of them, if not all, were concerned about the very 
possibilities that the Senator has stated.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield, Mr. President, on this point?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President I yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have the hearings here, the excerpts. 
Here Archibald Cox, in his statement, talks about impounding funds 
under some appropriations, while continuing spending under others. 
``Probably this would be the sensible course; but it means that the 
proposed amendment would enlarge the power of the President, vis-a-vis 
the Congress.''
  That is Archibald Cox who indicated that that power would be with the 
President. And Walter Dellinger, who is a distinguished constitutional 
scholar, was asked, ``Would the amendment authorize the President to 
impound funds?''
  Mr. Dellinger said, ``Yes, I think it would.''
  And Charles Fried, who was a distinguished Solicitor General during 
the Reagan period, when asked during the course of hearings, he said 
that ``total outlays shall not exceed total revenues.''

       If in the course of a budget year earlier projections prove 
     false, this provision would offer a President ample warrant 
     to impound appropriated funds. In the past such impoundments 
     were based on claims of the President's inherent powers.

  Coming close to the point of voting on the Senator's amendment--and 
the Senator was talking about the ambiguity of this amendment, about 
what was included and what was not--at an appropriate time, I will 
offer an amendment that will make it clear, that opportunity for the 
Senate to go on record that we do not believe we should give that kind 
of a power, the power of general impoundment, to a president, if this 
were to go into effect.
  The principal reason I asked the Senator from West Virginia is 
whether he feels that this is an issue that ought to be addressed as 
well, in the course of the debate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do.
  I think there is very much a likelihood that power would be shifted 
from the legislative branch to the executive and to the courts. I can 
imagine easily the situation in which the Congress failed to enforce 
the amendment by appropriate legislation.
  By the way, the President can veto that ``appropriate legislation'' 
if he does not agree with it. I can see a situation in which the 
Congress failed to enforce and implement the article, in which case the 
counsel to the President would advise the President: Mr. President, 
this budget is out of balance. People on Capitol Hill, just like they 
were back there when they adopted the amendment with flying colors, if 
it is so adopted, they still do not have the spine that that amendment 
was supposed to implant in their frail bodies. And, consequently, Mr. 
President, it is up to you to see that this is done. We recommend that 
you impound moneys.
  The President would say: Naturally, well, I cannot do that, because 
of the 1974 Budget Impoundment and Control Act, I cannot do that.
 That would be against the law.''

  The council would say, ``Well, Mr. President, there is now a higher 
law. It has been written into the organic law of this country; 
therefore, you are bound, upholding your oath of office, to balance 
this budget.'' And the President would impound moneys.
  Of course, then matters would get into courts because some of the 
people, some of the citizens who are entitled under the laws to receive 
certain funds, certain payments from certain programs would say, 
``Well, look, the book says I'm entitled to'' thus and so. They go into 
the courts and the courts will be brought into the action. There is 
nothing in here that forbids courts to enforce this amendment, nothing 
in here that requires them to enforce it. Those constitutional 
scholars, many of those professors, as the Senator has pointed out, who 
appeared before the Appropriations Committee, so stated.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just finally, in the Senator's review of those debates 
on the power of the executive and legislative branches that took place 
at the Constitutional Convention, does not the Senator feel that this 
is really standing the whole Constitution on its head in terms of how 
our Founding Fathers view the delegate powers to the executive and to 
the legislative branches? Does this not really effectively corrupt the 
whole separation of powers, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, as 
to the taxing authority and the executive authority?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator has asked a very timely and decisive question. 
If Congress does not enforce this amendment, once it is in the 
Constitution, if it were not enforced, then that would be the other 
nightmare. One can speak of all the nightmares that would occur during 
the enforcement of this amendment.
  If it is not enforced, on the other hand, that constitutes another 
nightmare in that the faith and confidence of the American people in 
the Constitution of the United States will be damaged, and the 
Constitution will suffer thereby.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could I be correct in concluding, when Senator Johnston 
and I have an opportunity to offer an amendment that would just state, 
``Nothing in this article shall authorize the President to impound 
funds appropriated by Congress by law or to impose taxes, duties or 
fees,'' that the Senator would support that amendment?
  Mr. BYRD. I would like to read the language, but I am certainly 
supportive of the concept and would, in all likelihood, support the 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for yielding for those questions. I 
hope to have an opportunity to submit that amendment and to speak to 
the amendment and have an opportunity to vote on it. I thank the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  John Marshall said that this Constitution is intended to endure for 
ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of 
human affairs. I think we are going very much against what John 
Marshall said and we will, in my judgment, be committing a horrible and 
unforgivable blunder if we adopt this amendment.
 Furthermore, as Senators are aware, the so-called ``Contract With 
America'' contains a massive tax cut. If we exempt defense and Social 
Security from budget cuts and if we adopt the tax cuts called for by 
those who signed onto the so-called ``Contract With America,'' and if 
we pay for the interest on the national debt, then every other program 
in the budget would have to be cut by 30 percent across-the-board in 
order to achieve budget balance by the year 2002.
  [[Page S3017]] It is clear, then, that a balanced budget amendment 
would have a catastrophic impact on Federal law enforcement and our 
efforts to combat violent crime in America. In the words of the 
Assistant Attorney General, Sheila F. Anthony:

       * * * Congress should be keenly aware of the impact that 
     such an amendment could have on the essential operations of 
     the federal government in general, and of the Department of 
     Justice in particular. In a word, the impact could be 
     devastating!

  It would significantly setback any progress that this Nation has made 
in combatting violent crime, the importation of illegal drugs, and 
illegal immigration. Instead of bolstering and enhancing our law 
enforcement programs as proposed in the FY 1996 budget, we will be 
dismantling and disarming our side in the war against violent crime, 
and retreating in our efforts to control our Nation's borders.
  I think it is important to take a brief look at what has happened to 
law enforcement funding during the past few years in response to the 
rising tidal wave of crime. When I assumed the chairmanship of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee in January 1989, the Department of 
Justice budget stood at $5.4 billion. The budget for Treasury law 
enforcement bureaus was $2.083 billion. The Violent Crime Reduction 
Trust Fund did not even exist. That was just 6 years ago. And during 
that period of very tight limitations on discretionary spending--with 
the help of our subcommittee chairmen, Senator Hollings and Senator 
DeConcini, and the leadership of our authorizing committee
 chairman, Senator Biden, and the support of members on the other side 
of the aisle, such as former Senator Rudman, Senator Domenici, Senator 
Bond, Senator Thurmond, Senator Hatch, and, of course, Senator 
Hatfield--we put forth aggressive efforts to fight the war on violent 
crime.

  Last August, we sent an appropriations bill to the President that 
provided the Department of Justice with budgetary resources totalling 
$13.7 billion--a funding increase of over 250 percent in just six 
years. For the Department of Treasury law enforcement programs, fiscal 
year 1995 appropriations totaled $2.8 billion, or a 36-percent increase 
since 1989. And, we provided $38 million to the Departments of Health 
and Human Services and Education, for crime prevention programs that 
did not exist in 1989. We aggressively attacked the crime problem 
because the people were demanding that the issue be addressed. And they 
were right to demand it because their demand got results. This 
increased spending has been well worthwhile. It is providing a big bang 
for the buck, but not big enough.
  For example, look at our Federal Bureau of Prisons. In 1989, our 
Federal Prison System housed 54,000 inmates and had an operational 
budget of $1.2 billion. We made resources available to build additional 
prisons and have continued to provide increased funding for prison 
guards and support personnel to activate those prisons. The Federal 
Prison System's annual budget has doubled since 1989 to $2.6 billion. 
In 1995, our Federal Prison System will house over 102,000 inmates. In 
just six years we have doubled the number of criminals who have been 
put away under lock and key and taken off the streets so that they can 
no longer terrorize law-abiding citizens.
  But, the greatest growth in Department of Justice appropriations has 
been in Federal assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies. 
In 1989, the Congress provided $229 million in such assistance. In 
1995, the Justice Department will make available almost $2.4 billion 
for state and local law enforcement assistance programs. Much of this 
increase was provided through appropriations which funded the new 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly called 
``the crime bill.''
  Appropriations were also increased for the main investigative and 
prosecutorial divisions of the Department of Justice--the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshal, 
and U.S. Attorneys. Total funding for these bureaus has been increased 
from $2.5 billion in 1989, to $4.5 billion this year.
  For FY 1996, the President's budget proposes to continue large 
increases for the Department of Justice and Federal law enforcement. 
The budget proposes to increase the Department's budget from its 
current level of $13.7 billion to $16.5 billion. That is an increase of 
$2.8 billion in just 1 year,
 for the activation of prisons and the construction of new prisons in 
Texas, California and Hawaii. In the next 5 years, as prisons under 
construction are activated and brought on line, we will be adding 
30,000 new prison beds to the Federal system. The 5-year budget 
projections for the Federal Prison System call for the agency's 
operating budget to rise from its current level of $2.3 billion to over 
$3.5 billion. Please note, this increased requirement will occur during 
the same period that the balanced budget amendment calls for the budget 
to be balanced.

  For the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the President's 
budget request proposes an increase of $442 million or 21 percent. It 
would provide for 700 new Border Patrol agents, 680 new inspectors for 
border crossings, and 165 support staff so agents can patrol the border 
and not spend their time performing paperwork. And the budget proposes 
to increase by $170 million payments to States for the cost of housing 
incarcerated illegal aliens in State prisons.
  With respect to total law enforcement assistance to State and local 
governments, this is again the area of the largest increases in the 
President's fiscal year 1996 budget. For the Justice Department, the 
budget would increase such assistance by almost $1.6 billion or 66 
percent. The budget contains $3.965 billion for programs such as, Byrne 
formula grants, community policing, juvenile justice programs, violence 
against women, and prison grants. Again, much of this assistance--
$3.456 billion or 87 percent--would come through appropriations 
pursuant to the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established in the 
1994 crime bill.
  The President's budget has proposed that violent crime prevention 
programs operated by the Departments of Education and Health and Human 
Services be increased. In fiscal year 1996, it proposes $175 million 
for prevention programs financed through the new Violent Crime 
Reduction Trust Fund, an increase of $137 million above current levels. 
These programs will help local communities strengthen their prevention 
efforts through economic partnerships, before and after school 
programs, rape education and prevention programs, shelter grants for 
battered women, and demonstration grants.


    impact of balanced budget amendment on law enforcement programs

  Mr. President, with a balanced budget amendment in force we will 
likely not be seeing that continued enhancement of law enforcement the 
President has described in his budget proposal. Unless we exempt 
Federal law enforcement and violent crime programs, we will destroy 
everything that has been achieved since 1989. We will be sounding the 
retreat in our war against crime and backpeddling on our hard won 
efforts to protect law-abiding citizens.
  If the Federal law enforcement and violent crime reduction and 
prevention programs receive their fair share of reductions required by 
the balanced budget amendment, then the following types of impacts 
would occur:
  For example, the Federal Prison System will not be bringing new 
prison beds on-line this year. It will not be adding another 30,000 
beds and new prisons in the next 5 years as prisons are delivered by 
contractors and come out of the pipeline. We will not provide for the 
new staffing and operational requirements to operate these facilities. 
No, instead the Bureau of Prisons would have to close 37 of the 79 
existing Federal prison facilities. We would either have to let 
prisoners go, or crowd over 100,000 Federal inmates into the remaining 
facilities. Overcrowding would be at over 250 percent. Let me say that 
again. Overcrowding would be at over 250 percent.
  There has been a lot of discussion in local newspapers about 
overcrowding and violence at the District of Columbia's Lorton prison 
facilities just 20 miles south of here. That is what the future holds 
for our Federal prisons under a balanced budget amendment, with the 
balancing done on the back of non-defense discretionary programs.
  Secondly, a balanced budget amendment would severely set back, if not 
totally destroy, our efforts to combat 
[[Page S3018]] illegal immigration and control our borders. At the very 
time the Mexican peso is being devalued and the economic attraction of 
the United States is greatest, we would be letting down our guard.
  We would not be providing the increased numbers of Border Patrol 
agents and inspectors proposed in the fiscal year 1996 budget. We would 
instead be laying off or ``RIF'ing'' agents that we added during the 
past 2 years, and would go well below the staffing levels in effect 
when I took over as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The 
Border Patrol would be reduced by approximately 1,600 agent and support 
positions. INS inspectors would be cut by approximately 400 positions. 
The INS detention and deportation program would be reduced by over 500 
positions.
  The impact of reductions of this magnitude cannot be overstated. The 
lack of patrols will allow more illegal aliens to cross the border and 
reach the United States. Patrols in critical choke points such as San 
Diego, California, and El Paso, Texas, would have to be cut back. The 
staffing reductions at ports of entry would cause horrendous traffic 
jams at the border, and would have a negative impact on commercial and 
noncommercial traffic to and from Mexico and Canada. The number of 
aliens who could be detained and the number of removals which could be 
accomplished annually will drop. This would facilitate efforts by 
aliens to abscond and remain in the country illegally.
  Moreover, a balanced budget amendment would also have a debilitating 
impact on our Federal investigative and prosecutorial agencies.
  The U.S. Attorney offices across the country would have to 
significantly reduce the number and experience level of Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys. The Federal Government would have to decline to prosecute 
cases where there is shared jurisdiction with State and local laws. At 
a time when violent crime is the foremost concern of American citizens, 
the U.S. Attorneys would not have the resources necessary to prosecute 
violent offenders in a timely manner.
  The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement 
Administration are personnel intensive and would be severely impacted 
by reductions necessitated by a balanced budget amendment. The FBI 
would lose over 4,100 agents and over 5,000 support positions. The DEA 
would have to cut 2,000 positions, including almost 900 agents. Both 
the FBI and DEA would have to discontinue hiring and training of new 
agents. Both agencies would have to reduce investigative operations and 
focus solely on crimes that are Federal in nature. The FBI and DEA's 
support to State and local task forces, such as Safe Streets, would 
have to be disbanded. Finally, both agencies would have to close small 
rural offices across the country.
  Additionally, with respect to State and local assistance for law 
enforcement and prevention of violent crime, the balanced budget 
amendment would undo much of the progress made in last year's crime 
bill. We would have to make severe reductions to a number of programs, 
including community policing, grants to construct prisons, programs to 
prevent violence against women, Byrne formula grants, and crime 
prevention programs. Valuable prevention programs, like the Community 
Schools Program and the National Domestic Hotline run by the Department 
of Health and Human Services, would have to be reduced significantly. 
New prevention programs authorized from the Violent Crime Reduction 
Trust Fund, such as community programs on domestic violence, grants for 
battered women's shelters, education to prevent and reduce sexual abuse 
of runaway children--would never get off the ground.
  This would have a staggering impact on programs designed to prevent 
domestic violence and rape. For example, failing to fund the Crime 
Trust Fund programs on rape prevention would deny services to 700,000 
women in fiscal year 1996. Eliminating the domestic violence 
demonstration program would deny critical education services designed 
to prevent domestic violence to nearly 2 million Americans.
  A balanced budget amendment would also force significant reductions 
in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms at the Department of the 
Treasury. ATF would be reduced by some $116 million, or one-quarter of 
its size and personnel. Investigations of armed career felons using 
firearms to commit crimes would be substantially curtailed. This would 
result in more illegal firearms on the streets being used for illegal 
activities. The National Tracing Center, which aids in tracing weapons 
used in crimes, would be virtually inoperable. Recent gun legislation, 
such as Brady and the assault weapons ban, could not be effectively 
implemented. The balanced budget amendment would essentially undo 
everything the Congress has done in this area in the past 10 years.
 In addition thereto, even the U.S. Secret Service, with its very 
essential mission of Presidential protection, would likely be cut under 
a balanced budget amendment.


           exempting law enforcement and prevention programs

  Now, Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It provides Federal 
law enforcement, and violent crime reduction and prevention programs 
with the same protection as we assume would be accorded the Department 
of Defense and Social Security. These crime control programs, in fact, 
are defense and security programs. They are domestic defense programs 
designed to protect Americans against threats to their security and 
safety.
  Without my amendment, the balanced budget measure likely would 
debilitate Federal law enforcement and violent crime reduction and 
prevention programs. It would largely nullify the crime bill.
  My amendment protects the Senate's commitment to the war on violent 
crime, and our efforts to combat illegal immigration. It sends the 
right signal to organized crime, to drug smugglers, to those who commit 
violent crimes. And, it sends the right signal to the man and women 
serving our Nation--to FBI agents, to DEA agents, ATF and Customs 
agents, to U.S. prosecutors and Border Patrol agents out on the line. 
And, it sends the right signal to the American public that we are not 
going to undo the progress that we have made.
  As chairman of the Appropriations Committee during the past 6 years 
and as a Member of this body, I have worked very, very hard to provide 
these law enforcement programs with the resources necessary to fight 
crime.
  As I said earlier I was joined in this by the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, former distinguished Senator, Mr. 
DeConcini, from Arizona, and Senator Hatfield, the then-ranking member 
of the Appropriations Committee, now the chairman, and the subcommittee 
chairmen and ranking members of the subcommittees to which I have 
already alluded.
  Look at the record. As I have stated, enhancements in Justice and 
Treasury law enforcement programs to combat violent crime was carried 
out on a bipartisan basis. I would hope that we could continue to 
accord these law enforcement and violent crime reduction and prevention 
programs with protection on a bipartisan basis now.
  This Senator is surely not going to let this progress be undone if he 
can help it. I am not sure that I can. That would be my desire and 
hope. If it is the will of this Senate to balance the budget on the 
back of law enforcement, then we must ensure that the funding for these 
programs is protected.
  We have talked a great deal about the Constitution in this debate but 
let me take a moment here and read from another great document which 
has also been an inspiration to generations of Americans, The 
Declaration of Independence.

       We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are 
     created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 
     certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, 
     Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these 
     Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their 
     just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever 
     any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it 
     is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to 
     institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such 
     Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to 
     them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and 
     Happiness.

  Note the words ``Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.''
  There is one murder every 21 minutes in this country. Are we 
guaranteeing 
[[Page S3019]] the unalienable right of life? There is one forcible 
rape every 5 minutes in America and one violent crime every 16 seconds 
in the United States. What about the unalienable rights of life and 
liberty in light of those chilling statistics? There is one burglary 
every 11 seconds and one property crime every 3 seconds. Have we done 
our job in protecting the pursuit of happiness? These are dismal, 
dismal numbers and they rob our people daily of their lives, their 
liberties, and their happiness.
  This balanced budget amendment and the cuts it will most assuredly 
impose upon funding that is designed to protect the life, liberty, and 
the safety of our citizens in their homes and on their streets will 
lessen our ability to provide our people with what to me is a basic 
right--namely freedom from the terror of violent crime.
  Unless we continue our strong commitment to keep the criminals off 
our streets, track them down, lock them up, and reclaim this violent, 
violent country, we will be failing in our duty to provide our people 
with their basic right to safety.
  Our children are increasingly under the influence of drug dealers. 
Our schools, in many communities, are hotbeds of crime and drug use. 
Life, limb, and personal property are daily at peril in America, and we 
owe our law-abiding citizens every effort we can muster to control the 
awful scourge of violent crime in America. The enemy within can be 
every bit as dangerous as the enemy from without. The rampant plague of 
crime threatens the very fiber of American life, and government must 
not turn away from its duty and commitment to make America's streets 
safe once again.
  It is a priority. It takes money to fight crime, money to lock up 
criminals, money to stop the drug dealers. And unless we protect our 
law enforcement effort from the deep chop of the balanced budget knife, 
that money will not flow to the cities and towns of America and the 
thugs and the criminals will win.
  Arguments rage about what government ought and ought not to be doing 
in this land, but I believe that there can be little disagreement about 
government's role with regard to battling crime and protecting law-
abiding citizens at risk from thugs and drug dealers. We must protect 
the effort we have begun. We must insulate our law enforcement efforts 
from the slash of the budget ax. The crime clock is ticking. Let us 
take this step to slow the bloody whirl of its hands.
  Mr. President, there was a time agreement on this amendment. Whatever 
time I have used, I will be happy to charge it against the time that 
was on the amendment or I will be happy to cut down on the time, if the 
distinguished Senator from Utah wishes to do so. I apologize for taking 
this amount of time. I hope I am not cutting out the time for my 
colleague on the other side of the aisle.


                           Amendment No. 301

   (Purpose: To protect Federal outlays for law enforcement and the 
               reduction and prevention of violent crime)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 301, which is at the 
desk, and which is on the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 301.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 8, strike ``principal.'' and insert 
     ``principal and those for law enforcement and the reduction 
     and prevention of violent crime.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, can I inquire how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the present agreement the time is 
charged to the amendment as offered and it is the opinion of the Chair 
that the Senator began to speak at 2 o'clock, the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time I have 
taken making my statement be charged against the time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. It is my understanding there was a desire to start voting 
at 3 o'clock?
  Mr. HATCH. That is correct. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague. 
As usual, he is always very gracious. I understand the time for the 
voting will begin at 3, so this will be the third vote.
  If I could just say a few words about the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. President, I believe my record on fighting for crime control 
legislation is equal to that of any other Member in this body. Violent 
crime is rampant in our society. The distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia has made that case, and the American people have demanded that 
we respond to this crisis as well.
  Indeed, the issue is far too important for our Nation to be used as a 
political football, and I do not accuse the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia of doing that. But I do believe that it deserves effort 
other than on the balanced budget amendment. His amendment to exclude 
spending for law enforcement and the reduction and prevention of 
violent crime in the constraints of the balanced budget amendment is in 
reality, in my opinion, a spending loophole that has very little to do 
with addressing our people's very real fear of violent crime.
  There are those of my colleagues who would argue that this amendment 
creating a crime loophole in this constitutional amendment is a 
responsible thing to do. They would have the rest of us, as well as the 
American people, believe that this loophole would not be abused. But I 
have to disagree. Let me just give an illustration here.
  When the violent crime reduction trust fund provision passed the 
Senate as a part of H.R. 3355 on November 19, 1993, it authorized that 
$22.268 billion, the anticipated savings from reductions in the Federal 
work force, be placed in a segregated trust fund over 5 years. This 
money was to be used only for crime fighting programs authorized in the 
crime bill. Moreover, discretionary spending cap reductions were 
included to ensure that the creation of this trust fund would not 
increase the budget deficit.
  Now, let me take a minute to remind my colleagues what happened to 
the trust fund provision before it returned to the Senate as a part of 
the conference report on the crime bill.
  This chart shows it. ``The Crime Bill Trust Fund Social Spending 
Spigot'' is what this particular chart is called. It shows the 
additions to the crime bill, as originally passed, both by the Senate 
and as enacted. When we got through with the Senate, we had added the 
Ounce of Prevention Council, $75 million; community schools, $400 
million; National Community Economic Partnership, $40 million; local 
crime prevention block grants $391 million; $300 million for drug 
treatment in State prisons; $900 million more for drug treatment, which 
some of our colleagues were not all that enthusiastic about but we 
agreed to. By the time it got through the House and through the 
conference committee, look at how that increased. It jumped from $2.186 
billion in social spending to $5.390 billion, and we had things in 
there like the FACES Program; the Local Partnership Act, which is just 
a gift to the cities without any restraints whatsoever; the model 
intensive grants program.
  I could go through each one of those and explain how hardly any of 
the money would go to fight crime. Look at the assistance for at-risk 
youth; $3 million for urban recreation and at-risk youth, community-
based justice grants, drug treatment of Federal prison and police 
recruitment grants.
  Look at how everything else jumped, too. These add-ons in the Senate 
all jumped again, this time immeasurably, like this one from $75 
million jumped; this one for community schools, $400 million to $566 
million; National Community Economic Partnership from $40 million to 
$271 million. Local crime prevention block grants actually went down. I 
have to give credit for that. And then the others, of course, we have a 
number of programs that were not even in the mix.
  This is precisely why we need a balanced budget amendment. Somewhere 
between the Senate and the House of Representatives we went from $2.168 
billion in add-ons, to $5.390 billion in what was really characterized 
as absolute pork barrel spending.
  Really, the Local Partnership Act was a provision--this right here, 
the Local Partnership Act--$1.622 billion was a thinly disguised 
retread of the 
[[Page S3020]] President's failed economic stimulus bill from the 
previous years. Proponents threw in the catchy phrase ``to prevent 
crime'' a few times, and, thus, managed to expropriate $1.6 billion in 
crime control funding for education, substance abuse treatment, jobs 
programs to ``prevent crime.''
  The Model Intensive Grant Program, right here, for $625 million was 
to be directed by the Attorney General to fund up to 15 model programs 
for crime prevention in chronic, high-intensive crime areas.
  The criteria for the programs were very general, allowing recipients 
to spend money on virtually anything, so long as the applicant for the 
funds claims the spending is linked to crime control, no matter how 
tenuous the link. This includes spending on ``deterioration or lack of 
public facilities,'' inadequate public facilities such as public 
transportation, as well as unemployment services and drug treatment.
  I could go through all of the rest. There are some perfect examples 
here of how much we jumped the bill from $2.186 billion to $5.390 
billion. These are excesses that we pointed out, that I think made a 
difference in the last election.
  My point is this: I know that the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia is sincere. I know that he is well-intentioned here. If we 
create a loophole like this in the name of trying to solve violent 
crime, we are not doing any better than we were before. We have shown 
you that, frankly, Congress is not serious about keeping spending under 
control. We are going to spend our country right directly into 
bankruptcy. To jump $2.186 billion, after both Senator Biden, the 
leading Democrat in the Senate, and I put our names on that bill--that 
bill would have passed overwhelmingly through both bodies. Then, by the 
time it went to the House it was larded up like never before. That is 
the reason to have a balanced budget amendment.
  The violent crime reduction trust fund created an irresponsible 
incentive to redefine programs with no clear relationship to crime 
fighting as anticrime measures in order to secure funding for them 
under this trust fund.
  By my count, the violent crime reduction trust fund became a magnet 
for at least 16 social spending programs, as shown by this chart. 
Indeed, this understates the record, because some of the worst 
boondoggles were collapsed into the Local Crime Prevention Block Grant 
Program. And as the chart also shows, an additional $3.2 billion was 
authorized to be spent out of the trust fund to pay for these programs 
in addition to the $5.390 billion.
  How much more tempting is it going to be for Congress to convert 
popular spending programs into anticrime measures when such a 
definition is the only way in which to avoid the tough choices required 
by the balanced budget amendment? This exemption will create a 
constitutional shell game.
  The example of the violent crime reduction trust fund amply 
demonstrates that when Congress is given an easy loophole to pass 
popular-sounding programs, it takes it. This is not a partisan 
accusation; it is an unfortunate fact of congressional life. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this loophole for spending under the guise of law 
enforcement, and the reduction and prevention of violent crime. This 
amendment is not about crime control, and the American people deserve 
better.
  We talk about law enforcement. We talk about civil law enforcement as 
well as criminal law enforcement. Those terms are not defined in the 
amendment. The ``reduction and prevention of violent crime.'' What does 
that mean? When is there a violent crime? We all know one when we see 
one. But on the other hand there are a number of other things that are 
called violent crime that we may think are not so violent. There are a 
lot of issues that are really not addressed by this loophole that would 
be created here.
  What does my colleague intend to bring within the definition of ``law 
enforcement''? Does he include spending for enforcement of our civil 
laws? If he says yes, then every Federal agency which has civil 
jurisdiction could be exempt; HHS, Education, et cetera. If he says no 
to it, then perhaps my colleague should have drafted the amendment to 
be a little more specific.
  What does my colleague from West Virginia intend to include within 
the definition of ``the reduction and prevention of violent crime''? 
Does he mean to include the programs contained in the 1994 crime bill? 
These programs right here? These are just some of them. Does he mean 
all of these or does he mean a whole raft of others? If so, then I 
assume he means to include the job training programs. There are 163 of 
those. Will they all be exempt from the balanced budget amendment? 
There are 163 actually currently administered by 15 departments at a 
cost of $20 billion annually; almost $25 billion, if the truth is 
known. Is that all going to be exempt from a balanced budget amendment?
  What does my colleague mean when he proposes to place in the 
Constitution a special carve-out for spending on the ``prevention of 
violent crime''? Does this include the amount spent to restore civil 
order to Haiti? Does DOD spending on interdiction fall within this 
exception? If it does, then all of these are loopholes through which 
they could drive anything.
  Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues will vote down this 
amendment. I know my colleague means well. But we are talking about the 
Constitution and we cannot afford to do this. So I hope that we can 
vote this down.
  I know the time is up.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Certainly.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope that Senators will reject the tabling 
motion. This amendment will exempt spending for law enforcement and for 
reducing and preventing violent crimes from the requirements of this 
balanced budget amendment.
  I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


              Vote on Motion to Table the Motion to Refer

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to the motion to table the Wellstone motion to refer House 
Joint Resolution 1, with instructions.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the 
Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Inhofe], and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Gramm
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inhofe
     McCain
  [[Page S3021]] So the motion to table the motion to refer was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
stacked rollcall votes by 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              vote on motion to table the motion to refer

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
motion to lay on the table the second Wellstone motion to refer House 
Joint Resolution 1 to the Budget Committee with instructions. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the 
Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Inhofe], and the Senator from Arizona, [Mr. McCain] are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Gramm
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inhofe
     McCain
  So the motion to lay on the table the motion to refer to the Budget 
Committee with instructions was agreed to.
               vote on motion to table amendment no. 301

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to table amendment No. 301 offered by the Senator from West Virginia 
[Mr. Byrd]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announced that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the 
Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Inhofe], and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--27

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Gramm
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inhofe
     McCain
  The motion to table the amendment (No. 301) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have been waiting a number of hours to 
call up an amendment pending at the desk. But I understand that the 
Senator from California has an amendment that she wishes to call up 
next.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
California be recognized to call up her amendment, and that immediately 
thereafter her amendment be set aside and I be recognized to call up an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, thank you very much.


                           Amendment No. 274

                   (Purpose: To propose a substitute)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] for herself, 
     Mr. Ford, Mr. Hollings, Mr. McCain, Mr. Bumpers, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reid, and 
     Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 274.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following: ``That the following article is proposed as an 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States which 
     shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the 
     Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-
     fourths of the several States within seven years after the 
     date of its submission to the States for ratification:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed the total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 2. The limit 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.
       ``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays 
     do not exceed total receipts.
       ``Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       ``Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       [[Page S3022]] ``Section 7. Total receipts shall include 
     all receipts of the United States Government except those 
     derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all 
     outlays of the United States Government except for those for 
     repayment of debt principal. The receipts (including 
     attributable interest) and outlays of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund used to provide old age, survivors, and 
     disabilities benefits shall not be counted as receipts or 
     outlays for purpose of this article.
       ``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning 
     after its ratification, whichever is later.''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment is a substitute 
amendment. Essentially, it is the balanced budget amendment as 
presented with Social Security excluded using the exact language of the 
Reid amendment. It is word for word the original balanced budget 
amendment excluding Social Security.
  It is cosponsored by Senators Ford, Hollings, McCain, Bumpers, 
Mikulski, Harkin, Kohl, Daschle, Reid, and Dorgan.
  Mr. President, I believe this substitute amendment plays a pivotal 
role as a vehicle to pass the balanced budget amendment.
  We hope to debate it further and take the vote on this on Tuesday.
  Let me just point out that as it currently stands, the balanced 
budget amendment essentially would utilize about $705 billion of FICA 
tax revenues--those are taxes paid for retirement--for purposes of 
masking the debt and balancing the budget. Many of us do not believe 
this is right. We do not believe it is morally right, and we do not 
believe it is ethically right.
  The only way to protect Social Security, to keep it out of the 
balanced budget amendment, is by exempting it through this substitute 
constitutional amendment. As I previously stated, the exact words of 
the Reid amendment are included and incorporated within this substitute 
balanced budget amendment.
  We will be speaking and arguing further for it, I hope, on Tuesday.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Under the previous order, the 
amendment is temporarily set aside and the Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 291

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 291.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 8, after ``principal.'' insert ``The 
     receipts and outlays of the Tennessee Valley Authority shall 
     not be counted as receipts or outlays for purposes of this 
     article.''

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment is fairly 
straightforward.
  Last week, Mr. President, we had a debate and a vote on a motion I 
proposed which would have had the effect of nullifying the provisions 
of the committee report to the Judiciary Committee which created a 
special exemption for the Tennessee Valley Authority Power Program. The 
TVA was the only Federal program mentioned in the entire committee 
report that was given this kind of special treatment.
  Although we did not prevail, my motion received bipartisan support. 
Since that time, a number of Members have come up to me and told me 
that it was right to pursue what I like to call this constitutional 
pork. Members who were both for and against the balanced budget 
amendment appear to have been taken aback at the audacity of the TVA 
supporters to insert this kind of provision into the actual legislative 
history of the constitutional amendment.
  A number of organizations supporting the balanced budget amendment, 
such as the National Taxpayers Union, the Concord Coalition, and the 
Citizens Against Government Waste have also indicated that they did not 
agree with the idea of placing this language in the committee report 
for only one special program. Some said it was just plain wrong to do 
it.
  Nonetheless, Mr. President, I recognize that the proponents of the 
balanced budget amendment are determined that no amendments or motions, 
with the exception of the Dole second-degree amendment with respect to 
Social Security and the right-to-know amendment, would be adopted. That 
has been an open goal that has been achieved thus far.
  Mr. President, what I propose to do is to offer this amendment which 
tracks the language that was placed in the committee report that 
exempted TVA from the balanced budget amendment and then urge that my 
amendment be rejected. In other words, this is an opportunity for the 
Senate now to go on record to oppose this special treatment provided 
for the TVA in the committee report and, at the same time, in no way 
would disturb the balanced budget amendment itself. The Senate would 
simply go on record showing that we do not want this kind of protection 
guaranteed for one program and not others.
  By offering this amendment and asking that it be rejected, the entire 
Senate would have the opportunity to reject the committee language and 
therefore nullify its impact as legislative history when the courts get 
around to interpreting the balanced budget amendment and, for that 
matter, when this Congress or future Congresses get around to balancing 
the budget.
  So, Mr. President, our action to reject this amendment does not 
answer the question of whether TVA should have any of its subsidies cut 
when the Congress gets around to try to achieve a balanced budget 
amendment. What it does say, and all it says, is that the TVA should be 
on the table just like every other Federal program, including Social 
Security, which, at this point, is still on the table.
  If Congress decides, as some TVA proponents claim and as is stated in 
the language of the committee report, that the electric Power Program 
is paid for entirely by the ratepayers, then Congress can act 
accordingly at that time. If they win that argument, so be it.
  If, however, Congress decides that the appropriations to TVA for its 
stewardship program is subsidizing its Power Program, or if Congress 
decides that the TVA ought to pay for the overhead cost of selling its 
debt obligation and low-interest loans, or if Congress decides there is 
some other inappropriate subsidy, then it will be free to make those 
decisions.
  The point is, these are issues that Congress needs to decide, not as 
a part of the process of proposing a balanced budget amendment, but as 
a part of the process of making the tough choices. These options should 
not be curtailed or limited because the TVA proponents have been 
successful in slipping favorable language into the committee report at 
an earlier stage.
  Mr. President, yesterday morning, as we went into session, I had a 
chance to hear Chairman Hatch resume the debate on the balanced budget 
amendment. This is what the chairman said the principal justification 
for the balanced budget would be. He said, ``The balanced budget 
amendment would introduce an element of competition into the spending 
process;'' that every program would have to compete. He said programs 
will not be allowed to simply show that they by themselves are 
meritorious, but they are going to have to show they are meritorious in 
the context of the whole budget picture. He said it will not be enough 
for a program just to show that it is worthy, but that it has to be 
worthy compared in the context of the whole; that it actually is a 
priority item.
  It was this very rhetoric, Mr. President, that encouraged me to 
return to this subject and to make sure that the Senate as a whole is 
clear about its intent on this matter and not just let it be decided by 
some committee language which the courts would feel constrained to 
respect.
  Mr. President, I understand that there may be some on the other side 
of this issue who will argue that the Senate's rejection of this 
amendment should not be interpreted as rejecting the committee report 
language, but rather simply an expression of the view that the language 
referring to the TVA should not be in the Constitution itself.
   [[Page S3023]] Mr. President, just so the legislative history is 
clear on the issue, I am the author of this amendment and the intent of 
the author of the amendment is crystal clear. The TVA should not have a 
special status carved out for it under the balanced budget amendment. I 
am seeking to have the Senate reject this amendment so the full Senate 
can go on record as saying that TVA, like other programs, is going to 
be on the table when Congress starts cutting Federal subsidies to 
achieve a balanced budget.
  Notwithstanding what other statements the proponents of the language 
inserted in the committee report may make, the author of the amendment 
intends the vote to serve as a repudiation of the notion that the TVA 
has some special protected status. And I trust that those who seek to 
use legislative history as a guide in interpreting the amendment, 
should it be ratified, will give due weight to the author of the 
amendment.
  So, Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue to 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreements

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
occur in relation to the amendment No. 274 on Tuesday, February 28, at 
2:15 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the 
vote occur in relation to amendment No. 291 on Tuesday, February 28, in 
the stacked sequence to begin at 2:15 p.m., and that the pending motion 
to table be vitiated and Senator Dorgan be recognized to move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President it is my intention to move to table 
amendment 291.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, with his motion to 
table, is his intent the same as my intent on the previous motion to 
table, which is to make it clear that the Senate does not seek to 
exempt the Tennessee Valley Authority from the balanced budget 
amendment and to override the committee language to that effect?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator states it correctly; that is exactly the 
intent of my motion to table.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur on Tuesday under the 
previous order.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the parliamentary procedure is that there is 
time for debate or discussion of the amendment just moved to be tabled?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Pastore time has expired, so debate can be 
on any topic at this particular time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask recognition then, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin is to be 
commended for his efforts on this issue. He cares about it deeply, and 
I understand that. Furthermore, he has used a unique parliamentary 
situation in an attempt to achieve the outcome that he desires. 
Unfortunately for him and fortunately for me and for the other 
supporters of the TVA exemption, he has come close but has not 
succeeded in his quest. For reasons that I will go into in a minute, 
his amendment simply will not work.
  The Senator from Wisconsin has proposed through four different 
amendments to change the legislative history on this particular matter. 
Because he is reasonably confident that the supporters of the balanced 
budget amendment will vote down the motion that he proposes, the Senate 
will have gone on record as being opposed to excluding TVA or like 
agencies from the balanced budget amendment.
  He has gone on record as saying he will vote to table his own 
amendment, from which he now has backed up and had a neutral Senator, 
so-called neutral Senator, come in and move to table.
  For an answer to why he would do such a thing, let us look at the 
amendments he proposes. Each amendment would add the following sentence 
to the end of section 7 which otherwise describes House Joint 
Resolution 1 as covering all receipts and all outlays of the United 
States except borrowings. Amendments 291 and 292 are identical and they 
say:

       The receipts and outlays of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     shall not be counted as receipts and outlays for the purpose 
     of this article.

  Amendments 293 and 294 are identical, and I quote:

       The receipts and outlays of all quasi-Federal agencies 
     created under authority of Acts of Congress shall not be 
     counted as receipts and outlays for the purposes of this 
     article.

  Each amendment would have the effect of creating an exemption to the 
general coverage language of House Joint Resolution 1. Nos. 291 and 292 
would exempt all receipts and outlays of TVA; 293 and 294 would exempt 
all receipts and outlays of quasi-Federal agencies.
  All of the Feingold amendments are broader than the scope of the 
legislative history contained in the Judiciary Committee's report.
  Now, Mr. President, let me repeat that. We are talking about 
developing legislative history here. All of the Feingold amendments are 
broader--broader--than the scope of the legislative history contained 
in the Judiciary Committee's report and extend its exemption to funds 
for which no exemption justification has been provided. That is the 
fact.
  Amendments numbered 291 and 292 would exempt all funds of TVA.
   TVA operates with two distinctly different kinds of funds. Let me 
repeat that. TVA operates with two distinctly different kinds of funds. 
It receives appropriations from Congress to cover its nonpower 
programs. These are like funds received by all other Federal agencies 
and there is no reason why they should be specifically exempted. The 
funds of TVA's electric power program are an entirely different matter 
and it was only these funds to which the committee's legislative 
history was directed. The legislative history of the committee was 
directed only at the electric power program.

  You can hear all you want to hear and you can say all you want to 
say, but the committee legislative history is very, very narrow. 
Amendments Nos. 293 and 294 would expand the exemption to all funds. 
That is the Senator's amendment, now, of quasi-Federal agencies. First 
the term quasi-Federal agency has no meaning, absolutely no meaning. It 
is only a phrase, loosely used to refer to agencies which in some way 
or another may not fit the speaker's view of what is an ordinary 
Federal agency. Moreover, the term does not address the more important 
issue of how the agency is financed. Even an agency which might be 
regarded as quasi-Federal may have certain funds 
[[Page S3024]]  which should not be exempted from the balanced budget 
amendment. As noted above, TVA itself is an example of two separate 
funds, one from the utility, the ratepayers, and the other one that is 
appropriated by the Congress.
  Do any of the amendments have merit? Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 
would have merit if their inserted sentence were modified to read as 
follows: The receipts and outlays of the electric power program of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority shall not be counted as receipts and outlays 
for the purpose of this article.
  As so modified, they would expressly state the intent of the language 
contained in the Judiciary Committee's report.
  The Feingold amendments as currently written could be defeated while 
still reaffirming the meaning of the legislative history in the 
committee report. The Feingold amendments can be defeated while still 
reaffirming the meaning of the legislative history in the committee 
report.
  I do not know how many judges are going to be looking at the 
legislative history and see the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, 
did not move and was not allowed to move to table these amendments. I 
hope I have that much authority that, boy, they will see whether 
Senator Ford moved to table or not. But, boy, that is great. You have a 
lot of influence, want to influence the court--legislative decisions in 
the future. It is right interesting procedure.
  The Feingold amendments as currently written could be defeated while 
still reaffirming the meaning of the legislative history in the 
committee report.
  Amendments Nos. 293 and 294 certainly should not be adopted. The term 
quasi-Federal agency has no clear meaning. I want to reinforce that. 
These amendments would make open-ended exemptions for an uncertain 
group of Federal agencies--an uncertain group--regardless of their 
budget impact on the taxpayers.
  Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 also should not be adopted since they 
would exempt all TVA programs, not just the one program, the power 
program, for which an exemption makes sense. Indeed, the amendments 
appear to be a somewhat disingenuous attempt to get supporters of the 
balanced budget amendment to back an exemption for ordinary 
appropriations-funded programs. In contrast, the language of the 
Judiciary Committee makes it very, very clear--a clear distinction 
between those two entirely different kinds of programs.
  Let us look at why the TVA power program should be exempted. The TVA 
power program is financially independent from the rest of Government. 
Just take that one sentence. The TVA power program is financially 
independent from the rest of Government. It survives only on the 
revenues it receives from sales of electric power. Those revenues 
supply the funds to pay its expenses. Those revenues are also the only 
security for power program borrowing. Take those two things and look at 
them very closely and think about them very closely. It survives only 
on revenue it receives, and the revenue it receives pays its expenses 
and is the only security for the funds it borrows.
  Power bonds are, by law, neither obligations of nor guaranteed by the 
U.S. Government. Power bonds are, by law, neither obligations of nor 
guaranteed by the U.S. Government. Taxpayer funds are not used for the 
power program. Even capital and operating expenses for TVA's 
multipurpose dams are allocated to power and nonpower, and the power 
program pays its share.
  TVA power program activity is not driven by Presidential or 
congressional policy decisions. It is driven only by the needs of the 8 
million persons and businesses who rely on it as their sole source of 
electric power. Its annual receipts and its expenditures are governed 
only by what is necessary to meet their electric power needs, both 
today and in the future. Although the power program's annual budget is 
included in the President's and the congressional budgets, its 
inclusion is for information purposes only. It does not require 
congressional approval or congressional action. In other words, the TVA 
power program budget is a budget estimate. It is not a budget request.
  Another way of looking at why the TVA power program should be exempt 
is to examine what could happen if it were not exempt. A low tax 
collection year or one in which entitlements or appropriations were 
large could result in TVA's being unable to borrow the funds necessary 
to build or maintain generating plants to ensure a continued supply of 
electric power to a large area of this country, in spite of the fact 
that taxpayers are not responsible for paying off these bonds.
  Finally, as Congress seeks to reduce Federal mandates, should it add 
a new mandate for persons in one region of the country who happen to 
receive their electric power without a taxpayer subsidy from TVA? It 
makes as much sense for Congress to control Wisconsin Electric's annual 
budget as it does to control that of the TVA power program.
  Let us look at the difference now between this proposal and Social 
Security. The level of Social Security receipts is determined by a 
Congress-approved tax rate. The level of Social Security outlays are a 
function of a Congress-approved benefits scheme. In contrast, TVA's 
power program budget is provided to Congress each year for 
informational purposes only. It does not require congressional approval 
or action.
  So, in conclusion, I and other supporters of the TVA exemption are 
voting to table this amendment, not because it would reaffirm the 
report language, but because this amendment goes too far. It goes way 
beyond the scope of the Judiciary Committee statement about TVA. Some 
parts of TVA are like all other Federal agencies and should be included 
in the budget just as any other, and we do not object to that. However, 
as I have stated previously, the funds of TVA's electric power program 
are an entirely different matter, and it was only those funds to which 
the committee's statement was directed and that is the committee 
legislative language.
  For these reasons, and these reasons alone, I am voting to table the 
amendment by my colleague from Wisconsin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I think at the outset it is appropriate 
to state that what we are dealing with here is a straw man. An attempt 
is being made to make it appear that a Government spending program is 
being exempted from the balanced budget amendment. Of course, everyone 
understands that--with the statute that we are dealing with and with 
the language that they are dealing with--that is not the case. Now we 
are arguing among ourselves as to who gets to beat up the straw man 
first and who gets to put the first wound on him and the straw man that 
we all know is going to be defeated. That is the process that we are 
involving ourselves here in this historic moment when we are trying to 
address the real issues concerning a balanced budget amendment. It is 
unfortunate but true.
  Mr. President, as I understand it, the Senator from Wisconsin has now 
offered an amendment which he wants to have defeated. I am happy to 
lend my assistance. I believe we have now reached an illogical 
extension of this debate by some of those who oppose the balanced 
budget amendment. In an attempt to defeat the balanced budget 
amendment, amendments are now being offered that even their sponsors 
want defeated.
  After failing a few days ago to exclude language from the committee 
report, the Senator from Wisconsin now proposes to include the language 
in the Constitution of the United States with yet another amendment. I 
find this strange even by Washington, DC standards. If as much effort 
had gone into balancing the budget over the last few years as has gone 
into this exercise, we would not need the balanced budget amendment.
  In the lowest courts of record of this Nation, involving the most 
insignificant boundary line dispute or intersection fender bender, one 
who submits a pleading attests that it is made in good faith and that 
there is reason to believe that there is merit in the matter that is 
being asserted. Apparently, that rule does not apply when it comes to 
offering an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  [[Page S3025]] We are debating and will soon be voting on one of the 
most important matters to ever come before this Congress, and 
amendments such as these trivialize this process. While there is no 
logic to this maneuvering, the purpose is clear--to hamstring and 
defeat the last clear chance we have in this country to develop some 
fiscal responsibility in our governing process. The purpose of such 
amendments is first and last to defeat the balanced budget amendment. 
Such amendments are not designed to ensure that spending projects are 
covered by the balanced budget amendment. Rather they are designed to 
ensure that no spending program whatsoever is restrained by a balanced 
budget amendment.
  As I understand it, what brought about this momentous issue was 
language in the Senate Judiciary Committee report which stated:

       Among the federal programs that would not be covered by 
     S.J. Res. 1 is the Electric Power Program of the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority.

  Of course, what has not been publicized very much is the following 
language; the next sentence in that report, as a matter of fact. It 
points out that since 1959 the financing of that program has been the 
sole responsibility of its own electric ratepayers, not the U.S. 
Treasury and the Nation's taxpayers. Consequently, the receipts and 
outlays of that program are not a part of the problem that Senate Joint 
Resolution 1 is directed to solving.
  This language, of course, states the obvious. The financing of the 
TVA power program is done by the electric ratepayers. There is no 
outlay of Federal funds with regard to this program. If the TVA power 
program runs short, the TVA ratepayers must make up the difference. The 
TVA does not operate like Amtrak or the Postal Corporation where 
Federal taxpayers pay the difference between receipts and outlays. The 
Judiciary Committee report language does not make the Federal taxpayer 
responsible for the TVA power program. It simply restates what has been 
true since 1959 when the TVA power program became exclusively 
responsible for its own receipts and outlays.
  Now as I understand it, the Feingold amendment tracks the committee 
report language to an extent. The Senator from Wisconsin is apparently 
under the impression that by offering his language and having it voted 
down, it will in some way negate this legislative history. Of course, 
it will not.
  In the first place, the Senator's language covers receipts and 
outlays of all TVA activities, including its nonpower activities. These 
have always been on budget and are covered by the balanced budget 
amendment, as they should be. Therefore, the Senator's language is much 
broader then the committee report language. And voting down the 
Senator's language which includes TVA's nonpower activities will in no 
way affect the legislative history that pertains only to the power 
program.
  However, even if the proposed amendment tracked the committee report 
language exactly, it would still be of no effect because, again, the 
report language simply states the fact that there are no Federal 
outlays with regard to the TVA power program. Thus it along with some 
other programs, is not covered by the constitutional amendment. If the 
Senator is under the impression that a decision by this body not to 
make such a clearly inappropriate matter a part of the Constitution of 
the United States of America in some way changes the facts contained in 
the language, then I submit that he is again sadly mistaken. By the 
same token, if someone proposed an amendment enshrining the law of 
gravity into the Constitution and it were voted down as inappropriate, 
objects would still fall to the floor when dropped.
  Therefore, since the adoption of the Feingold amendment would have 
the effect of taking the TVA nonpower program off budget, and since the 
defeat of the Feingold amendment would have none of the significance 
its sponsor wants to attribute to it, I join the Senator from Wisconsin 
in urging the defeat of his own amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me express my pleasure to the 
Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Tennessee for supporting in 
effect my motion to table and the motion to table of the Senator from 
North Dakota. That is exactly what I had hoped they would indicate. I 
believe that the only reason we are having this discussion at this 
point is quite simply that somebody pulled a fast one here in the 
committee and now we are out on the floor actually discussing it.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. For a question.
  Mr. FORD. Is the Senator aware that every amendment to the 
Constitution--this is not an accident--that TVA power was included; 
that the same statement has been in every committee report that the 
Judiciary Committee has issued on a balanced budget amendment in the 
last 10 years?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I would be happy to yield for the question.
  Mr. FORD. That is the question. Was he aware of the fact?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am aware of the fact, and I told the Senator from 
Kentucky that I just got here 2 years ago. And, yes, I confess I did 
not discover this language until this year. I did not find this little 
caper in there until now.
  Mr. FORD. It is no caper.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Had I been here 10 years ago, maybe it would have taken 
me 3 or 4 years to find it. But there it is. I wish I had found it last 
year. But fortunately I have had an opportunity to join the Judiciary 
Committee now, and my staff had more of a chance to find these things. 
We found it. It is time to get rid of it.
  Mr. President, there was an effort here to try to undo the real 
intent of the balanced budget amendment. There is an attempt, a classic 
attempt, to abrogate, to say you are for the balanced budget amendment, 
but say, of course, that it does not apply to my State, to my program. 
I think there is not a reasonable person who would not agree that this 
is part of the problem. It is always easy to support cuts if it does 
not affect your own home State.
  However, this notion of actually putting the exemption into the 
Constitution, which my opponents on this are being very candid about 
now--they are saying that is exactly what you are trying to do--is 
something new. The other side is trying to exempt TVA. It is not just 
idle talk. The purpose of the committee language is to exempt it. That 
is why they are trying to make this distinction between my motion to 
table and committee language.
  But it is not working because everyone knows what the intent is of 
the people who put it in there. And everybody knows what my intent is. 
It is laid on the record. In fact, Mr. President, today in the 
Washington Post, there is an editorial entitled ``Constitutional 
Pork.'' It is all about this problem, this committee language.
  I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Washington Post, 
dated February 23, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 1995]

                          Constitutional Pork

       Tucked away in the Senate committee report on the balanced 
     budget amendment are three sentences about the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority, the most important of which reads: ``Among 
     the Federal programs that would not be covered by S.J. Res. 1 
     is the electric power program of the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority.''
       What that means is that assuming the courts follow 
     legislative intent, the Tennessee Valley Authority--which 
     provides power to the people of the south-central states--
     would have the distinction of being the one agency excluded 
     from the impact of the balanced budget amendment. The 
     rationale for this, offered by Sens. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) 
     and Howell Heflin (D-Ala.), is that, as Mr. Thompson put it, 
     ``the financing of the TVA power program has been the sole 
     responsibility of its electric rate payers, not the U.S. 
     Treasury and the nation's taxpayers.''
       Not exactly, says Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who is 
     trying to eliminate the TVA protection. Mr. Feingold notes a 
     1994 Congressional Budget Office study which estimated that 
     raising the rates paid by TVA users to cover various costs 
     associated with land and water management in its system could 
     cut federal outlays by as much as $70 million annually. ``TVA 
     supporters know that TVA is on the short list of most deficit 
     reduction advocates,'' Mr. Feingold declares, ``and that is 
     why they want to provide it with special protection that no 
     other program of any kind in the federal government is 
     getting.''
       [[Page S3026]] Mr. Feingold surely has the better of this 
     argument. If TVA is in no way either part of the deficit 
     problem or potentially part of the solution, why do Sens. 
     Heflin and Thompson need to insist on special language 
     protecting the program? And if TVA is indeed a drain, then 
     the two senators and their colleagues in the region should 
     not be given free passes to tell their constituents that they 
     voted for a balanced budget amendment and protected the TVA. 
     If they really think the balanced budget amendment is such a 
     good idea, they should be willing to vote for it without this 
     provision, which Mr. Feingold refers to as ``constitutional 
     pork.''
       Mr. Feingold lost a vote last week on a motion to strip the 
     language in the committee report protecting TVA, though he 
     won significant Republican support. Now he plans to try to 
     call the bluff of his opponents by proposing to add specific 
     language to the amendment protecting the TVA. His hope is 
     that most senators will be too embarrassed to do directly in 
     the text of a constitutional amendment what they tried to do 
     in slippery fashion in the committee report. If the Senate 
     refused to include the TVA protection in the amendment, this 
     would create a different ``legislative history'' and 
     discourage courts forced to deal with the budget amendment in 
     the future from giving TVA priority over other programs.
       The entire episode, as Mr. Feingold notes, underscores the 
     folly of trying to deal with budget issues through a 
     constitutional amendment. A balanced budget amendment could 
     move the most basic of legislative questions (such as the 
     future of the TVA) out of the legislative process and into 
     the judiciary, which is exactly where they don't belong. The 
     Senate should surely give no special protections to the TVA. 
     Just as surely, it should vote the balanced budget amendment 
     down.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, fortunately this editorial lays out 
exactly the intent, my intent, the intent of the Senator from North 
Dakota, and that is to undo, explicitly undo, what was done in the 
committee; to say that the Senate as a whole would table such language 
that would have the effect of exempting either all or part of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky indicated that I had put 
four amendments in for possible introduction as amendments, and that is 
correct. But I have chosen one amendment and that amendment is this 
one. It is the one that, by its rejection, overrides the language of 
the committee report. It would have the effect of overriding the 
committee report by tabling the very language from the committee 
report. That is the purpose of amendment No. 291.
  It is not a disingenuous attempt. It is the only way I could think of 
to override the effect of this committee report which the members did 
not explicitly consider.
  Everybody should understand there was not a point in the process of 
the consideration of the balanced budget amendment in the Judiciary 
Committee where we all said, ``OK, let's decide if the TVA should be 
exempt or not.'' The whole process was done and the committee report 
was written, and then it was thrown in there, presumably at the staff 
level. That is how it was done. And I guess that is the way it is done 
when it is business as usual, when you are trying to protect your own 
pork but at the same time you are saying you are for a balanced budget. 
It is a lot better to do it in a quiet staff room than it is to do it 
out on the floor of the Senate or even in front of the Judiciary 
Committee. That is what was done here.
  I assure everyone who is looking at this what was done here was 
something people did not want us to know about.
  My intent is not something any judge is ever going to have to wonder 
about. The Senator from Kentucky says they are going to have to be able 
to read it and limit it some way. But I laid my intent right on the 
record. The purpose of the motion to table is to override the committee 
language that seeks to exempt the TVA. Whether it seeks to exempt part 
of the TVA or all of the TVA or something in between, the intent of the 
motion to table, as explicitly stated by the two Senators who have 
moved to table, is to override the committee language. Now, I wonder 
how a court will have any trouble figuring that out. Clearly, they know 
the difference.
  In fact, this is a very interesting proposition in terms of 
legislative history. What is being suggested here is that, even if the 
U.S. Senate as a body explicitly votes to table certain language, the 
courts are going to find the committee report to be more persuasive 
than the rollcall vote of the Members of the U.S. Senate. I doubt it. I 
would not bet the farm on that interpretation of legislative history. I 
think you will find you will come up wanting with that approach.
  So let us be clear. My intent and the whole purpose of this is to not 
allow a committee report to find its way into constitutional 
interpretation or to exempt some or all of the Tennessee Valley 
Authority.
  Let us get back to the real issue here. The real issue is: Why do I 
have to even be out here at all? Only because something was attempted 
which no one would try to do out here on the floor, to exempt one 
particular program from one particular area while everybody else has to 
compete fairly.
  So I am very happy about the way the record stands now. And I am a 
lot happier than I was when I did not have these two Senators 
supporting me on the record to override the intent of the committee.
  Mr. President, let me just say a few words about the other issue that 
has been raised about this notion that somehow the TVA has nothing to 
do with the Federal budget. That is what they are saying. This is a 
great deal, they say. We are making money on it, they say. It is a good 
thing for the Federal Government, which it may well be.
  But the point is, there are an awful lot of people that think it is a 
loser or it is time to phase it out. It was a wonderful thing when 
Franklin Roosevelt brought this forth, and it really helped that area 
of the country during the Depression, but it is not open and shut at 
all that this program is a moneymaker for our country. In fact, an 
awful lot of people think it should be one of the top items for cuts. 
That is what the National Taxpayers Union has said. That is what the 
Congressional Budget Office has said. That is what a number of pieces 
of legislation already introduced this session by Members of both 
parties and both Houses have said.
  Let me read briefly from the ``CBO Reducing the Deficit: Spending and 
Revenue Options,'' March 1994.

       Because many of TVA's stewardship activities are necessary 
     to maintain its power system, their costs would more 
     appropriately be borne by users of the power. . . Direct 
     costs to the Federal Government could be reduced by about $70 
     million annually if the TVA were to increase power rates or 
     fees to cover costs of all stewardship activities. . .

  A very different view than this view has been offered out here that 
says it has nothing to do with Federal dollars.
  Let me cite from the ``Department of Energy Federal Energy Subsidies: 
Direct and Indirect Interventions in Energy Markets,'' November 1992.

       When compared with interest rates paid by investor-owned 
     utilities, the TVA is estimated to have benefited from a 
     subsidy of $231 million in FY 1990.

  A few pages later, the report says:

       Historically, TVA was granted subsidies in the form of low-
     interest loans, debt forgiveness, and lower payments in lieu 
     of taxation.

  In fiscal year 1988, TVA received a subsidy--a subsidy, Mr. 
President--of $661.9 million in the form of lower payments in lieu of 
taxes, and that $661.9 million ``* * * can be counted as revenue losses 
to all levels of government.''
  This is real money. It is almost up to the point where, as the former 
Senator from Illinois, Senator Dirksen, said, we are talking about real 
money from the Federal Government transferred away from our ability to 
balance our budget.
  The report also says, TVA

       . . . Sells a large portion of its debt to the Federal 
     Financing Bank (FFB). . . . TVA's ability to access FFB acts 
     as a subsidy in two ways. First, TVA does not incur any 
     expenses to underwriters or marketing expense when it goes to 
     the FFB. Second, it obtains financing at lower interest rates 
     through the FFB.

  So I will concede this to my friends on this issue, this is 
debatable. Yes, it is debatable whether or not the Federal Government 
has to pay out directly or indirectly to the TVA. But there is one 
thing that is clear and it is that at a very minimum it is debatable 
and that we cannot resolve it here today and that this is not the place 
to be resolving it.
  Why are we resolving it today? Because certain Senators decided that 
they should not have to go through that same scrutiny that all the rest 
of us do, which is that later on, whether we pass the balanced budget 
amendment or not, we have to all get out here and fight and fight hard 
for our own programs and our own home States.
   [[Page S3027]] I see the Chair is from a dairy State. I am from a 
dairy State. Would it not be nice to have a constitutional exemption 
for the dairy program? But that is not the way this process should 
work, and we all know it. It is not fair. It is just not fair to exempt 
one program and let everyone else in this country have to fight like 
heck to protect the hard-working people in their home States, all of 
whom, I assure you, in every one of these 50 States, have arguments 
just as worthy.
  So this attempt to enshrine this in the Constitution is one that is a 
bit of an embarrassment, it seems to me.
  All I am trying to do here--and apparently we will prevail on this 
now--is to just get rid of it. A mistake was made by trying to do this 
in the Judiciary Committee. We all make mistakes, and it is 
understandable, certainly not the most horrible thing that was ever 
done around this place. But when you make a mistake, it is time to 
clean it up and correct it. Our motion to table cleans up the mistake 
and returns to a notion of fair play, whether the balanced budget 
amendment passes or not.
  So, Mr. President, I guess I am going to have to leave it to the 
future. We have to see if the balanced budget amendment passes. We have 
to see if it gets ratified. But some day maybe somebody will take a 
look at this record, and I guess they are going to have to decide which 
side was playing games, which side was trying to pull a fast one, and 
which side was just trying to put everybody on the same playing field.
  I am absolutely confident that when the courts look at this, when the 
Congress looks at this and, most importantly, when the American people 
look at this, they will all conclude that one side was trying to have 
their cake and eat it, too--to pose for the holy picture and say you 
are balancing a Federal budget but to still keep the pork in your own 
back yard. That is an outrageous example of trying to have your cake 
and eat it, too. All we are trying to do is clean it up.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
                  Amendments Nos. 259 and 298, En Bloc

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to call up two amendments, 
Nos. 259 and 298.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you calling them up en bloc?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I am calling them up en bloc, and I am going to debate 
both of those amendments. Then I will ask for a rollcall vote on each 
of those amendments in that sequence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THOMPSON. 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. GRAHAM. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. GRAHAM] proposes amendments 
     en bloc numbered 259 and 298.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:

                           Amendment No. 259

       On page 2, line 8, strike ``held by the public''.
                                                                    ____


                           Amendment No. 298

       On page 2, line 8, after ``increased,'' insert ``except for 
     increases in the limit on the debt of the United States held 
     by the public to reflect net redemptions from the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund''.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Would it be 
appropriate at this time to ask for the yeas and nays on amendments 
numbered 259 and 298?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They are pending. It would be appropriate.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second at this 
point. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Has the Senator called up his amendment?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I have called up the amendments 259 and 298. I have asked 
they be voted on in sequence. I am now asking that that vote be by 
recorded vote.
  Mr. HATCH. If I may, Mr. President, as I understand it, all 
amendments will be voted on after 2:15 on Tuesday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to table both amendments, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I asked for a rollcall on the yeas and 
nays on this, with the intention of then presenting a discussion on 
these amendments.
  I ask, if the Senator is going to ask for a tabling motion, that he 
withhold until after we have had an opportunity to debate the two 
amendments.
  Mr. HATCH. I leave the motion to table there and I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator be given more time if he needs to debate the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Are the yeas and nays ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not understand what the Senator from 
Utah said. A motion to table normally shuts off all debate.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that we move to table both 
amendments, and that debate continue after the motion to table, after 
receiving the yeas and nays on the motion to table.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is there agreement for time on this amendment?
  Mr. HATCH. How much time does the Senator want?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I anticipate my presentation will take 
approximately 15 to 20 minutes, and I know the Senator from Nevada, 
Senator Reid, wanted to ask some questions of my amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Finally, Mr. President, if I may ask the distinguished 
Senator from Utah how long are we planning to go tonight?
  Mr. HATCH. Not much longer, as far as I am concerned. I think after 
these two amendments, I will be happy to see if we could start to wind 
down. I understand that there may be a Kennedy amendment that will be 
offered afterwards, and a Nunn amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wanted to offer an amendment following 
the Senator from Florida with the idea that we could debate it for 
awhile, until we wanted to go out, and have it begin in the morning 
first thing.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, that will be fine. I understand that 
Senator Kennedy has an amendment, and also Senator Nunn may have an 
amendment. Any way we can work it out, I am happy. I am amenable to 
anything the Senator from Arkansas and his colleagues would like to do.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I have no objection. We will discuss this.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the two 
motions to table the two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Parliamentary inquiry. Have motions to table--with the 
yeas and nays--been ordered on each of the amendments, all up to date?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered on the Feinstein 
amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment, as well.
  Mr. President, I withhold that.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Florida yield for a moment for a 
unanimous consent agreement?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to offer 
a motion for an amendment at the desk immediately following conclusion 
of the debate on the Graham amendment.
  [[Page S3028]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being 
no objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. We have ordered the 
yeas and nays on these two amendments, on motions to table amendments 
numbered 259 and 298; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                       Amendments No. 259 and 298

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am offering these two amendments, both 
of which relate to section 2 of the proposed constitutional amendment, 
which is one of the most important, and I suggest, least understood 
provisions in this constitutional amendment.
  If I could, I would like to read the language of section 2. The very 
fact that it is the second section of this amendment, coming 
immediately after the section which states the basic principle that the 
Federal Government shall balance its revenues and expenditures, is 
indicative of the importance which the authors of the amendment attach 
to section 2. I will discuss that further in a moment.
  Section 2 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.

  Within those words, constituting one sentence of the balanced budget 
amendment, are a number of important policy considerations.
  My amendments focus on one of those policy implications which 
constitute just four words in the section. Those are the words ``held 
by the public.'' The requirement of a three-fifths vote of the whole 
number of each House is applied to raising the debt ceiling as it 
relates to that debt held by the public.
  I was curious as to what the rationale behind this provision of the 
section was, so I sought as one source of clarification the book which 
has been distributed to all Members of the Senate by the Congressional 
Leaders United For A Balanced Budget Amendment.
  In that description, the following information is given relative to 
section 2, and particularly the language ``held by the public.'' It 
states that:

       Because borrowing and increases in any limits on cumulative 
     borrowing must be enacted by law, section 2 makes the 
     amendment effectively self-enforcing.

  So this is a very important section because it makes the rest of the 
balanced budget amendment self-enforcing, self-enforcing by requiring a 
three-fifths vote to raise the limit set by law for debt held by the 
public.
  The statement by the Congressional Leaders United for the Balanced 
Budget goes on to state that by lowering ``the blackmail threshold'' 
associated with passage of the regular debt limit bill from 50 percent 
plus 1 in either body to 40 percent plus 1, section 2 increases the 
motivation of the administration and the leadership, including the 
chairs of the relevant committees, to do whatever is necessary 
legislatively and cooperatively, even to the point of balancing the 
budget to avoid facing such a difficult debt vote.
  So the purpose of this provision is to enforce the balanced budget 
amendment and, two, to create a blackmail threshold at 40 percent plus 
1; that is, if 41 Senators refuse to go along with a proposal to raise 
the limit on debt held by the public, that would be such an enforcement 
figure that collectively we will do all that we can to avoid having to 
be placed into that position. That is the rationale for this amendment.
  Mr. President, as we commence this process of possibly placing this 
language into the Constitution of the United States, let me provide, 
and I hope this is not excessively tedious, a little background 
regarding this statement of debt held by the public
  The projection of the Congressional Budget Office is that the end of 
this fiscal year, which will be September 30, 1995, the gross Federal 
debt--all debt owed by the Federal Government--will be $4.942 trillion, 
a shade less than $5 trillion. That debt can be divided in a number of 
ways, but this amendment calls for it to be divided into two sectors.
  One sector is debt held by the public, and these are some of the 
entities which constitute the public which holds the debt of the 
Federal Government: State and local governments happen to be the 
largest public holder of the Federal debt. They hold $641 billion. 
Foreign governments and private sources, $601 billion, and so forth 
throughout this analysis.
  The second sector of the national debt is debt held by Government 
accounts. These are the accounts that are not part of the debt held by 
the public. These are primarily the trust funds of the Federal 
Government whose surpluses must be invested in Federal Treasury 
obligations.
  The largest of those, of course, is Social Security, which has $488 
billion of debt of the Federal Government. We are going to talk 
extensively about that Social Security indebtedness.
  All the other Federal Government accounts, which include primarily 
those that are analogous to Social Security in that they are accounts 
designed to provide for the retirement of persons, for instance, Civil 
Service is $346 billion; military retirement, $105 billion; and then 
others of significance are Medicare, $150 billion, the Department of 
Transportation has $30 billion in its account, the unemployment 
compensation account has $40 billion. Cumulative of all these other 
accounts, excluding Social Security, is $837 billion, or a total of 
$1.325 trillion are debts of the Federal Government which are not held 
by the public, but rather by one of these Government accounts.
  With this background, I would like to talk about some of the policy 
implications of restricting to a three-fifths vote only this portion of 
the national debt. Under this amendment, it will take a three-fifths 
vote of the whole number of the Members of both Houses of Congress to 
raise the debt held by the public. The debt held by Government accounts 
can be raised by the legislative majority which we currently utilize.
  The last time we voted on increasing the national debt, which was in 
Public Law 103-66 on August 10, 1993, we voted--and this is the 
language in the statute, Mr. President--``to increase the public debt 
limit,'' not debt held by the public, but the public debt limit. And we 
increased it to $4.900 trillion. One fact that obviously creates is 
that before the end of this fiscal year, we are going to have to raise 
the debt limit because we are going to break the $4.900 trillion level 
prior to the end of this fiscal year.
  As I turn to some of the policy implications of this section 2, I 
would like to state a couple of assumptions that I am going to make so 
that if anyone would like to engage in further discussion, they would 
do so with those assumptions in mind and might wish to discuss them 
further.
  The first is primarily because we do not have projections through the 
year 2025 and beyond for these other Government accounts and, second, 
because although they are very significant, $837 billion, relative to 
the scale of the policy issues we are going to be dealing with, they 
will not substantially affect the policy considerations. To the degree 
they do affect the policy considerations, as I will explain, they make 
the concerns I am going to express even more serious. I am not focusing 
on this component, the Federal debt structure. My comments are focused 
on the Social Security borrowing.
  And second, as the statement of the Congressional Leaders United for 
a Balanced Budget indicates, I am assuming that the purpose of this 
three-fifths vote is to make it very difficult to raise the amount of 
debt held by the public; that the purpose of this is to create a 
political hydraulics that is going to make it difficult to raise debt 
held by the public and make it relatively easier to raise debt held by 
Government accounts. That is clearly the purpose of the distinction 
that has been made in this amendment.
  So let us turn to what is going to be the implication of adopting a 
balanced budget amendment with section 2 as it is currently written.
  Where are we today? As this chart demonstrates, at the end of this 
fiscal year we will have a total debt of $4.942 trillion. Of that 
amount, $488 billion is in the red zone, which is the Social Security 
trust fund. Everything else, which is the debt held by the public, plus 
the debt held by Government accounts other than Social Security, is in 
the blue zone. That amount is $4.452 trillion.
   [[Page S3029]] The constitutional amendment calls for us reaching a 
critical date in the year 2002 when we are to come into balance. The 
projection is that between now and the year 2002, we will increase the 
Federal debt by approximately $1 trillion. So, that when we reach the 
year 2002, we will have a total national debt of $6 trillion. Of that 
amount, the Social Security trust fund surpluses will be $1.40 trillion 
in the year 2002. Social Security will represent that much of the 
indebtedness. Everything else, including the debt held by the public, 
plus the non-Social Security Government accounts will be $4.96 
trillion.
  If the purpose of this is to make it very difficult to raise the debt 
held by the public, the debt held by the public will assumedly, 
essentially, stay at the same $4.96 trillion level from the year 2002. 
We have gone out to year 2028.
 But since there is no restraint in this supermajority on borrowing 
from trust funds, and particularly from Social Security, which is the 
trust fund that is going to be, of course, the one rising dramatically, 
we are going to see the debt rise to $7.098 trillion by the year 2018. 
This will occur when the surplus in the Social Security fund reaches 
its apex. We will be adding to the national debt under this amendment 
by a majority vote, an additional $2 trillion. I do not think that is 
what the public believes they are getting with this amendment, that 
they are going to get an additional $1 trillion between now and 2002 
and then $2 trillion between 2002 and 2018.

  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I have been listening to the statement of the Senator from 
Florida--and I have stated in the Chamber publicly on other occasions 
how much I appreciate the Senator's excellent work on an amendment that 
was offered regarding Social Security, but I have listened to the 
statement the Senator has made today, and it seems to me--and this is a 
question I ask the Senator from Florida--would not a reasonable person 
assume that if Congress passes a balanced budget amendment, the 
national debt would remain constant, at least not rise, because we 
would assume the budget would be in balance?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Well, that is the difference between passing a cliche and 
passing an actual constitutional amendment. This constitutional 
amendment I think virtually assures that we are going to have a 
national debt of approximately $3 trillion over the next 20-plus years 
above the national debt that we have today.
  Mr. REID. I ask the Senator further, would that be the difference 
between the amount of Social Security surplus and the normal debt, so-
called normal debt?
  Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator is absolutely correct. This is the chart that 
shows what that Social Security surplus is going to be in each year 
from 1995 to the year 2029, when the Social Security trust fund is 
exhausted and is at zero.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend a further question. Let us assume in 2018, 
when the Social Security trust fund reserves begin to diminish--and 
that is about the date I think the Senator has on the chart--what will 
be the Government's options for meeting the contractual obligations it 
has with the Social Security beneficiaries?
  Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator asked a very salient question. I might say 
before answering, it is one of the reasons we should have adopted the 
amendment the Senator offered last week because it would have 
segregated Social Security and allowed us to focus on its problems, 
which are serious, without having it commingled with the rest of the 
Federal budget. But the amendment, unfortunately, was defeated so we 
are now locked into a situation in which we are going to continue to do 
what we are doing now, which is to use the Social Security surplus to 
mask the extent of our real deficit. We are going to be taking the 
surplus of Social Security, not investing it in stocks, bonds, or other 
securities as would a traditional pension plan, including pension plans 
of State and local governments; we are going to be investing it in the 
Federal Government to finance our national debt.
  As this chart indicates, by the year 2018 our national debt will be 
$7.098 trillion and Social Security will hold $3 trillion. Three-
eighths of our total national debt will be held by the Social Security 
system. The question is, what are we going to do when we get to the 
point that Social Security begins to draw down that surplus? What we 
are going to do is either have to, first, dramatically cut spending for 
Social Security benefits or other Federal programs in order to generate 
the cash to pay for the Social Security redemptions; second, 
dramatically increase taxes to pay for the Social Security redemptions; 
third, some combination; or, fourth, continue with borrowing, but now 
we will have to be borrowing from debt held by the public because there 
will not be a Social Security alternative to draw from.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend one further question. The Senator has 
stated on this floor on a previous occasion that the surpluses that 
will be developed in the Social Security trust fund during the next 20-
plus years is on purpose. Is that not right?
  Mr. GRAHAM. The building of the surpluses, as the Senator from Nevada 
correctly states, is not as an aberration. We are doing this because 
this more or less tracks the demographics of the U.S. population. 
During the period from now until about the year 2018 or 2019, when the 
number of people going into the Social Security system as a percentage 
of the total population is relatively low--I do not know what year the 
Senator was born in Searchlight, NV. Could he inform us of that?
  Mr. REID. December 1939.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I was born almost 3 years prior to the Senator from 
Nevada. We were both born during a period of national depression. There 
were not very many people being born in either Pennsuco, FL, or 
Searchlight, NV, in those years of the 1930's. So there are not a lot 
of Americans who have birth dates in the years in which we were born.
  Conversely, I know the Senator has children who were born probably in 
the 1960's. I have four of those children. There were large numbers of 
people born in the period after World War II, in the 1940's, 1950's, 
and 1960's. Those folks are going to start retiring in about the year 
2019, and so instead of having a surplus, we are going to start to 
spend down the Social Security system and do it dramatically. In 10 
years, we will go from over $3 trillion of surplus to zero surplus in 
the Social Security system. And we are going to have the challenge--not 
us individually, but our successors here and the citizens of this 
country--to calculate how to meet that enormous obligation under this 
balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend an additional question. Why would an 
amendment to balance the budget be placed in the Constitution while 
allowing the limit on the public debt to rise to the portions 
illustrated in the Senator's previous chart? That I do not understand.
  Mr. GRAHAM. And it runs exactly counter--the answer is I cannot 
answer the question. I hope maybe some of those who are the authors 
could explain why they have done this.
  In the material that was distributed, it states, ``The purpose of 
this section is to motivate an avoidance of deficits.'' That is a 
direct quote from the materials distributed by Congressional Leadership 
United for a Balanced Budget.
  The reality is that the opposite occurs. The national debt goes from 
$5 trillion today to $6 trillion. This is going to happen in almost any 
event. But this is what is not necessary, and that is this dramatic 
increase in the national debt from $6 trillion to $8 trillion that will 
occur roughly between the year 2002 and 2018, and which is virtually 
mandated by the structure of this balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. REID. So, if I understand the Senator correctly, the Senator, 
having been Governor of one of the largest States in the Union, having 
handled billion-dollar budgets there, and having had the experience he 
has had here--including being a member of the Finance Committee--the 
Senator cannot explain to me why the balanced budget amendment is 
written the way it is?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I cannot. And there is a way to solve this problem. This 
is not a conflict which is beyond our ability to resolve.
  I suggest that the resolution is found in the amendment which is 
currently pending and that is the simple step of 
[[Page S3030]]  eliminating the phrase ``held by the public'' from the 
constitutional amendment, so that the amendment will now read:

       The limit on the debt of the United States 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.

  What that will require is that there will be a three-fifths vote 
required to increase the national debt, whether it comes from debt held 
by the public or debt held by the Social Security trust fund.
  With that approach you get a dramatically different structure of our 
Nation's fiscal future. Going back to the assumptions that I started 
with, which is that the whole purpose of the three-fifths vote, as 
stated by its authors, is to create a blackmail threshold that will 
make it virtually impossible to raise the national debt, that would 
indicate we will move to the $6 trillion level between now and the year 
2002 when the constitutional amendment becomes operative. Then there 
will be no increase in the national debt from the year 2002 into the 
indefinite future. We will plateau at $6 trillion.
  The consequence is going to be that we will see the Social Security 
trust fund continuing to generate substantial surpluses between now and 
the year 2018, which will become a larger share of our total debt. But 
at the same time we will be buying down the debt held by the public. We 
will be substituting Social Security indebtedness for debt held by the 
public. We will be doing what I think the sponsors of this amendment 
want to do. We will be releasing capital back into the country for 
productive investment.
  We will be making the Social Security system sound because we will 
not be adding an enormous amount of debt, we will be stabilizing our 
debt and placing us in a position after the year 2018 to do a graceful 
shift from Social Security back to debt held by the public and be able, 
by this borrowing from debt held by the public, to meet our Social 
Security obligations without the enormous tax or spending cuts that 
will be required if we do not adopt this amendment.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate my friend yielding for the questions. He has 
been very lucid and straightforward in his answer.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will make these questions constructive, 
as I hope they will be, because I helped craft this amendment over the 
last 5 to 6 years. We were faced with how do we deal with trust funds, 
because they are inside the budget, unique to Social Security. The law 
that created the Social Security system does not allow the trust funds 
to be invested outside Government. That is the law of the land today. 
Of course I do not think--certainly not this Senator, possibly the 
Senator from Florida--does not believe the trust funds of Social 
Security should be put at risk out in the private marketplace.
  What happens if you invest in stocks and bonds and they bottom out? 
Who comes back in and picks the system back up? That is a legitimate 
concern. I think those who were here in the 1930's when the Social 
Security system was crafted had that in mind. That was their concern.
  So here we were, faced with the situation of these revenues coming in 
as a result of the 1983 fix on Social Security, and having to deal with 
them. The Senator and I are on the Board of Trustees of the Social 
Security system. There are no others. It is the Congress of the United 
States that is pledged to keep this system solvent and secure for its 
recipients. But in come the revenues and we borrow them. We are doing 
it today and even under the Senator's amendment we will do it tomorrow.
  As a result of that understanding, as we crafted this amendment it 
was our concern, knowing that, that we cut down on the other debt that 
is out there and accumulating, recognizing this was a debt owed--it was 
a note owed so that is a debt, certainly--back to the trust funds of 
the system. But at the same time, this Government is caught in the 
dilemma that they must use those moneys. Obviously that system cannot 
earn money if the money is not borrowed from it. So we just do not 
collect it and set it off to the side and create a nonearning 
environment. We borrow it and pay back the going rate on the Treasury 
note. That is a responsibility that we have. That is what this 
amendment has in mind and why it was worded the way it was worded.
  I must say, while I find the argument of the Senator from Florida 
intriguing, we ran this through the system a good many times over the 
last 5 years to try to solve that problem, believing we have, and I am 
convinced we have. So I am curious. I mean it in all good faith, how do 
you deal with what the Senator is proposing? Obviously we are going to 
use those moneys inside Government and they will be needed, they will 
be owed at some time back to the trust fund.
  I am the baby boomer in this debate right now, whereas our colleague 
from Searchlight was not. I am one of those people who was born in 1945 
and I am in that group that is going to be in that peak. The Federal 
Government, by its commitment through the Social Security system--not 
Social Security, the Federal Government--is going to guarantee that 
because they are taking the notes out at this moment and they must pay 
them back. That is the way the system is structured under the law.
  I find it confusing in this regard. Would we not have to change the 
law of Social Security that drives the system today to get to where we 
want to get, or to where the Senator wants to get with his amendment?
  Mr. GRAHAM. No, absolutely not.
  Mr. CRAIG. Please help me there, then.
  Mr. GRAHAM. My amendment calls for the Social Security surpluses to 
continue to be invested in the Federal Government.
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to review a little of the history of how we 
got to where we are and why I think that history makes this chart the 
likely consequence of adopting the amendment in its current form. The 
difference is that my amendment will call for a stabilization of total 
Federal debt because it will require a three-fifths vote to raise total 
debt, not just the debt held by the public. And it will, therefore, 
force public debt to be displaced by the growing amount of Social 
Security.
  When Social Security was adopted, it utilized a pay-as-you-go 
financing mechanism. We took in an amount of money each year sufficient 
to meet that year's obligation. We did not have a surplus. This was a 
nonissue.
  In the late 1970's people began to recognize that we had these 
terrific demographic shifts that were going to be occurring over the 
next 30, 40 years because of the dramatically different birth rates in 
different periods of American history. So one of the key changes made 
in the 1983 reforms was to go to a surplus structure for Social 
Security, thus producing this curve.
  There was an implicit assumption in this surplus Social Security and 
that was that we were going to be operating a balanced Federal budget 
for the rest of our expenditures. The way we would be securing this 
surplus money was we would be using it to reduce the amount of public 
indebtedness. This is the chart that the 1983 Social Security reform 
was predicated upon, a balance and a cap on the total national debt and 
a substitution of public debt for Social Security debt.
  Then, beginning in the year 2018, without having added any debt in 
this period, we would be in a position to go back to the public and 
say: OK, now we have all these IOU's that the Social Security 
Administration is holding. We need to cash them in order to get the 
revenue to pay off the Social Security obligations to folks like our 
friend, the Senator from Idaho. And, we will do so without putting any 
additional strain on the Federal Government because we will not be 
increasing the amount of debt service. We will just be shifting it from 
the Social Security fund to debt held by non-Social Security entities.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield at that point?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. CRAIG. When you shift the debt from, in other words, that held by 
the Social Security trust fund to the public, where do you get the 
money to cause the shift because you have money outgoing to the 
recipient at that point? And we know that in this baby boomer scenario 
that becomes a very rapid demand level on the trust fund system.
   [[Page S3031]] Mr. GRAHAM. The way we intended to manage it, based 
on the 1983 structure, was to go to the general public with Federal 
borrowings.
  Mr. CRAIG. In other words, borrowing the money.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, in order to replace the money that we had previously 
borrowed from the Social Security fund. What worries me is in the 
purpose of this amendment, by putting a cap on debt held by the public 
with a three-fifths vote, is to preclude that substitution. Then we are 
going to have a situation in which with no additional borrowing, 
combined with a drawdown of the Social Security surplus from almost $3 
trillion to zero over a period of 10 years, the only way we can fill 
this gap is by taxation or dramatic spending cuts.
  Mr. CRAIG. In the year 2020 to 2035 when that $3 trillion worth of 
liability, if you will, of those trust fund comes due. You are talking 
about either raising taxes by $3 trillion or borrowing and raising debt 
by $3 trillion dollar.
  Mr. GRAHAM. No. I am saying I think the amendment is intended to 
preclude the borrowing option because it says you would have to have--
--
  Mr. CRAIG. Except by a three-fifths?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. That corresponds to the debt ceiling argument which 
would allow borrowing under those circumstances.
  My second amendment is going to make it easier to do that. But if the 
theory of the three-fifths vote is that essentially that is a statement 
that we are making that it should not be done--that is what the 
language of the congressional leadership stated--then that is in fact 
adhered to. When we have this drawdown of the Social Security surplus, 
no additional borrowing from the general public is permitted because it 
is capped at this level by the three-fifths margin. When we reach that 
point, and try to finance a $3 trillion indebtedness in a 10-year 
period with reliance on taxation or spending cuts or some combination, 
the consequence is going to be this train wreck, a wreck in the scale 
of which we have never quite seen before.
  Mr. CRAIG. That $3 trillion indebtedness is going to be out there in 
any scenario. Will it not be easier for the Federal Government to be 
able to deal with it if it does not have extra hundreds of millions or 
trillions of dollars that it has borrowed from the public? In other 
words, if you will turn your chart that causes you problems upside 
down, it is the same chart as the one you are showing me. The reality 
is based on the law of Social Security. The Federal Government is going 
to borrow the reserves of the trust fund and it must pay them back 
starting dramatically in the year 2020 through the year 2035. Under 
either scenario, that is reality because it is not this amendment that 
is causing it. It is the law of the Social Security System that is 
doing it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I beg to disagree.
  Mr. CRAIG. Then where is the money going at this point?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Here is the structure of the balanced budget amendment. 
Section 1 says that we will have an integrated Federal budget in which 
Social Security and all trust funds will be commingled with the rest of 
the Federal Government. That is the definition of income and 
expenditure as provided in section 7. Does the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am sorry?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Section 1 as defined by section 7 will constitutionally 
require an integrated or a consolidated Federal budget; that is, all 
sources of income, all sources of expenditures will be amalgamated for 
purposes of determining whether we have a balanced budget or not.
  Mr. CRAIG. All sources of expenditures and income. Is that correct?
  Mr. GRAHAM. So we are constitutionally requiring a consolidated 
Federal budget. That is a correct premise. I believe that is what 
section 7 says. Then with the structure of the Social Security system 
that we have, each year from now until 2019, we will have a balanced 
budget by having our regular accounts out of balance to the extent that 
we have a Social Security surplus; that is, if this amendment were to 
be operative in the year 2002 when we have a Social Security surplus of 
approximately $110 billion, every other account in the Federal 
Government can be out of balance by $110 billion and the surplus from 
Social Security will bring the total into balance.
  Mr. CRAIG. Because of the general fund, because the law of Social 
Security requires the Federal Government to borrow the money, and that 
usually is invested in the general fund account.
  Mr. GRAHAM. But we have another choice; that is, what I think we 
ought to be doing is we ought to be balancing our general revenue 
accounts and using the surplus of Social Security not to mask our 
spending but rather using the surplus of Social Security as a real 
surplus including a real surplus that will be buying down an amount of 
public debt so that when we get to the point where we have run through 
the happy days of big Social Security surplus and face the very tough 
days of having to pay off all of that surplus, we will not have added 
$12 trillion to the national debt. If you really want to have a 
conservative balanced budget amendment, it ought to be an amendment 
that says we will put a three-fifths requirement on the law to increase 
the borrowing from whatever source, Social Security, other Federal 
trust funds, or the general public. That is an amendment that would be 
truly conservative. That would be an amendment which our grandchildren 
and the Senator from Idaho would very much appreciate. That would be an 
amendment that would give them the greatest assurance that their Social 
Security benefits are going to be real when they reach the age of 
eligibility.
  All of what I have said relates to the first amendment that I have 
offered, which has the simple objective of striking the four words 
``held by the public'' and requires the three-fifths vote to apply to 
all of Federal increases in the debt limit.
  If we do not adopt that amendment----
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield before he goes to the second 
amendment for a couple of questions?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have followed the presentation both here and back in my 
office. It is a very significant and important presentation. How much 
on the average would the annual deficit be permitted to be during that 
period of the peak without it appearing as though there were a deficit 
at all? In other words, I believe the Senator said it is a $2 trillion 
peak over about a 12-year period, something like that.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does that mean basically, unless his amendment is adopted, 
that under the current wording of the balanced budget amendment that we 
could average a deficit of about $200 billion a year and mask it?
  Mr. GRAHAM. In the year 2002, which is the year that the 
constitutional amendment kicks in, Social Security will have a surplus 
of $1.04 trillion; we will say $1 trillion. During the next 16 years, 
it grows to $3.02 trillion, or roughly $2 trillion. So $2 trillion 
divided by 16.
  Mr. LEVIN. About $120 billion a year, perhaps.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I do not have my calculator, but it would be significant.
  Mr. LEVIN. So in terms of the annual average deficit, which will be 
masked in the absence of the amendment of the Senator from Florida, 
during that period there could be a $120 billion deficit per year on 
the average, which would not, in effect, violate the current wording of 
the constitutional amendment; is that correct?
  Mr. GRAHAM. That is right. And this could take place with a majority 
vote. This does not require a supermajority of the Congress in order to 
achieve this unexpected result.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think the Senator from Florida is pointing out something 
which is extraordinarily significant. I hope that those who support 
this amendment understand that, without the adoption either of the 
amendment of the Senator from Florida or the amendment of the Senator 
from California, this outcome will result.
  My second question relates to the substitute of the Senator from 
California. The Senator from Florida mentioned that Senator Reid of 
Nevada had offered an amendment the other day which was defeated, and 
that had it passed, I believe the Senator from Florida said, this 
problem would have been solved; is that correct?
  [[Page S3032]] Mr. GRAHAM. The answer is yes. Because the Reid 
amendment, now incorporated in the amendment of the Senator from 
California, would have not required a consolidated Federal budget but 
rather would have separated Social Security from it. It would have had 
to balance our budget in general accounts without being able to use 
Social Security surpluses as a mask and thus we would have avoided the 
train wreck which we are setting up for our grandchildren.
  Mr. LEVIN. And, if the Senator would further yield for a question, if 
the substitute of the Senator from California is adopted, will that 
then resolve this issue?
  Mr. GRAHAM. If the substitute of the Senator from California is 
adopted and if, as I understand it, it is the essence of the Reid 
amendment, then I would suggest that my amendments could be withdrawn.
  Mr. LEVIN. Finally, if the Senator would yield for an additional 
question. The Senator has made reference to questions and answers from 
the Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget. I have seen 
that same group referred to. I am wondering whether or not the Senator 
can tell us what the membership of that is and, perhaps, if he cannot, 
the Senator from Idaho can, because in documents which have been placed 
in the Record by the Senator from Idaho I have seen the reference to 
that group, but I do not know who is in it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I received this document from the Congressional Leaders 
United for a Balanced Budget. I do not believe it indicates who the 
members are.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Idaho has put in the Record documents 
which I have also referred to and plan on referring to tomorrow. He put 
the document in on March 1.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since the Senator from 
Florida has the floor, whether or not I might ask the Senator from 
Idaho a question without the Senator from Florida losing his right to 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Idaho could tell us who the 
individuals are that make up the Congressional Leaders United for a 
Balanced Budget, because a number of us keep referring to those 
documents that are in the Congressional Record that my friend put in 
the Record.
  Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate the Senator's inquiry and he honors me by 
that inquiry. Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget was 
originally formed by both Senators and Representatives in the early 
1980's. I chaired it in the House and the former Senator from 
California, now Gov. Pete Wilson, chaired it here in the Senate. We 
brought our staffs together and through that, along with experts we 
brought in overtime to testify on this, accumulated a base of knowledge 
and understanding of the issue.
  So the best and cleanest and appropriate answer is that it is an ad 
hoc group of both Senators today and House Members who work under 
Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget for the purposes of 
promoting this legislation that we have before us.
  Mr. LEVIN. If I could ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
proceed, would the Senator from Idaho be able or willing to provide for 
the record the membership of the group? The reason is that Congressman 
Schaefer has put into the Congressional Record the same questions and 
answers basically, and he is the prime sponsor of the constitutional 
amendment in the House of Representatives. It is basically the same 
questions and answers which he has put in as his. I think that is a 
pretty strong statement coming from the prime sponsor.
  Would the Senator from Idaho be willing to put in the Record the 
membership of the group?
  Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to. There is nothing nefarious about it 
at all. Senators come together, as do House Members, for the purpose of 
discussion and they find organizational titles. I would be happy to do 
so.
  Mr. LEVIN. May I quickly add, I did not mean to suggest anything the 
least bit untoward or nefarious at all. We have ad hoc commissions all 
the time. I know very well I will know the members and admire many of 
them, indeed all of them. I did not mean to suggest anything unusual or 
untoward.
  But we are all making reference to a group and it seems to me we 
would like to know who the members of this group are, so we can get a 
feel whether they include both sponsors and opponents of the 
constitutional amendment as to who it is that are members of the group. 
I would appreciate that list for the record.
  I thank the Senator from Florida. I want to commend him on pointing 
out some very, very significant material for all the reasons which he 
has identified. We will be masking a deficit unless we adopt either the 
Feinstein substitute or the amendment of the Senator from Florida.
  (Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I thank my friend from Michigan for his 
comments. I would say, in all honesty, that the adoption of the 
amendment as offered by the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from 
California, of which I was proud to be a cosponsor, would actually be 
the superior way to deal with this issue because it would solve the 
problem of no longer requiring that Social Security be commingled with 
the rest of the Federal budget as well as effectively rendering 
denuding the potential danger contained in section 2.
  So let me just summarize the first amendment. It is a very simple 
amendment. It strikes the phrase ``debt held by the public,'' would 
require that the three-fifths vote be applied to all increases in debt 
from whatever source, would have as its objective to avoid the addition 
of $2 trillion of debt between the year 2002 and 2018 and almost an 
assured fiscal crisis thereafter, and substitute in lieu thereof a cap 
on Federal debt after the year 2002, a substitution of the Social 
Security trust fund surpluses for debt held by the public during the 
period from 2002 to 2018, and then a reversal of that as the Social 
Security system has to redeem the IOU's that it holds from the Treasury 
in order to be able to meet its obligations.
  That is amendment No. 1, which, in our sequencing, is Amendment No. 
259.
  My amendment No. 2, unfortunately, is a much wordier amendment. Let 
me read that amendment. It would take the language of section 2 which 
says, ``The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public 
shall not be increased,'' and it inserts this phrase, ``except for 
increases in the limit on the debt of the United States held by the 
public to reflect net redemptions from the Federal Old Age and 
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
Trust Fund.''
  In essence what we would be saying is that by a majority vote, not a 
three-fifths vote, the Federal Government would be able to borrow 
funds--and this would occur based on current projections after the year 
2018--the Federal Government would be able to raise the limit of debt 
of the public by a majority rather than a three-fifths vote for the 
purpose of redeeming the IOU's the Social Security trust fund will have 
accumulated and substituting debt that would be held by the public.
  It will, in my opinion, be necessary in order to maintain this 
alternative as a means of financing the enormous transition that will 
occur in Social Security after the year 2018, without punishing 
spending cuts, tax increases, or some combination of those.
  Madam President, I hope that this body will not just take the 
position that no amendments are to be considered, that regardless of 
merit we will mindlessly mow down all proposed changes.
  I am a supporter of the balanced budget amendment. I have voted for 
the balanced budget amendment in the past. I hope to vote for the 
balanced budget amendment in 1995. I want to vote for a responsible 
balanced budget amendment. I do not want to leave to our children and 
grandchildren an enormous debt based on our failure to exercise the 
discipline which is the purpose of the balanced budget amendment.
  That is why I have been supporting it. I also do not want to leave to 
our children and grandchildren the train wreck which is going to occur 
if we have a provision that requires a three-fifths vote to raise money 
from the general public to substitute and be able 
[[Page S3033]]  to redeem the enormous borrowing that we are going to 
be making from Social Security over the next 20-plus years.
  I believe this is a dramatically more conservative approach than the 
one that is contained in the balanced budget amendment as currently 
submitted. It is the difference between having a ceiling of $6 trillion 
of national debt to one that would have national debt rising to the 
level of almost $8 trillion. If you are a conservative, if you are 
concerned about the kind of America that we will leave to the next 
generation, if you have been appalled at what we have done in the last 
15 years where the debt went from less than $1 trillion to now almost 
$5 trillion in a period of 15 years, you ought to be equally appalled 
by the prospect of a debt growing from $5 trillion to $8 trillion in 
the next 20-plus years.
  Madam President, we do not have to condemn ourselves to this future. 
We have an alternative. The alternative is either adopting the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada and now reoffered by the 
Senator from California, or as a first fallback, adopting the amendment 
which I have offered that would require a three-fifths vote for any 
increase of the national debt, thus forcing a readjustment of Social 
Security debt, for public debt, in the next period and after the year 
2018, allowing a readjustment to finance the Social Security obligation 
that we will have.
  If we do not do either of those, at least we ought to not require a 
three-fifths vote to fund this enormous debt that we are going to be 
encouraging by consolidated Federal budget using the mask of Social 
Security to balloon the national debt by an unnecessary $2 trillion, 
and then leave it to our grandchildren through taxation or spending 
cuts to finance this Social Security obligation.
  Madam President, I feel emotional about this in part because I am the 
father of four children who were born as baby boomers and will be in 
the first line of those affected by this amendment. I am the 
grandfather of four children, soon to be eight grandchildren as a 
result of births that are en route, and I do not want to have my 
children and my grandchildren turn to me 20 years from now and say 
``Granddaddy, why did you do this to me when you did not have to do 
so?''
  I believe we have the opportunity to pass a balanced budget amendment 
that will allow Members to say to our children and our grandchildren: 
We stopped this profligate Federal spending. We required Members to do 
as most other individuals, families, businesses, and governments in 
America have to do. That is, balance their books on a more or less 
yearly basis. And we did it in an intelligent way that did not require 
citizens to pay an enormous sacrifice in their generation because we 
were living off the mask of this Social Security surplus during the 
last years of our generation's life. That is what is at stake.
  As I say, Madam President, I know there is a tremendous momentum to 
say, ``Let's not accept any amendments. That is perfection. This is 
what we must adopt.'' I urge that over the next few days--and this will 
be voted on Tuesday afternoon--that there will be some serious 
consideration of the implications of this issue.
  I say to our Presiding Officer and to my colleagues that I am anxious 
to meet with any Member of this body, to meet with any group which is 
concerned about this issue, to discuss its implications, to try to 
collectively learn what it is we are doing and to determine what would 
be the most prompt path.
  These are an important 4 days that we have between now and Tuesday. I 
hope we use those days wisely.
  Thank you.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am about to propose a unanimous 
consent.
  I will be more than happy to meet with the Senator from Florida and 
respond to those questions. I know he is sincere in his effort and I 
will make every effort to accommodate him.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the votes occur in relation to the 
pending amendments numbered 259 and numbered 298 on Tuesday, February 
28, in the stacked sequence to begin at 2:15 p.m.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object, and I will not do so, will 
the vote on the amendments occur after the vote on the amendment as 
offered by the Senator from California?
  Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding that that is the stacked sequence; 
is it not? I believe that is the correct answer, yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it would come after the amendment of the 
Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GRAHAM. But would the amendment of the Senator from California 
occur prior to this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it would.
  Mr. GRAHAM. As I indicated, should the amendment by the Senator from 
California be adopted, I am prepared to withdraw my amendments, because 
they would have been solved in a larger and, I think, more effective 
manner.
  If the amendment by the Senator from California is not adopted, I 
think it becomes urgent that one, and preferably the first of the two 
amendments that I am offering, be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island for not to exceed 3 
minutes, following which the senior Senator from Virginia be recognized 
for not to exceed 3 minutes, following which the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts be recognized for 2 minutes for the purpose of laying 
down an amendment, so that the amendment would qualify for a vote on 
Tuesday, and that immediately following the laying down of the 
amendment by the senior Senator from Massachusetts, I be recognized 
again for the purpose of calling up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask my colleague if he might extend a 
little more latitude to the two Senators.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Of course. I was told by the Senator from Rhode Island 
that he thought 3 minutes each would do it. I will be happy to yield 
for a longer period. What would the Senator suggest?
  Mr. WARNER. Perhaps not to exceed a total of 12 minutes. The Senator 
from Rhode Island and I wish to address the commemorative to Iwo Jima.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I modify my unanimous-consent request to yield 12 
minutes to the two Senators equally divided.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I have a 15-second 
request. Could I ask the Senator be permitted----
  Mr. BUMPERS. I amend the unanimous consent request to allow the 
Senator from Massachusetts to go first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 267

(Purpose: To provide that the balanced budget constitutional amendment 
does not authorize the President to impound lawfully appropriated funds 
                   or impose taxes, duties, or fees)
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my 
amendment No. 267, which was previously filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself 
     and Mr. Johnston, proposes an amendment numbered 267.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       ``Section 8. Nothing in this article shall authorize the 
     President to impound funds appropriated by Congress by law, 
     or to impose taxes, duties, or fees.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is my understanding that the vote in 
relation to my amendment will occur in the sequence on Tuesday 
afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, my amendment would simply make it 
[[Page S3034]]  clear that nothing in the proposed constitutional 
amendment would authorize the President to impound funds appropriated 
by Congress by law or to impose taxes, duties, or fees.
  I ask unanimous consent that a discussion of this issue set forth in 
``Minority Views'' contained in the report of the Committee on the 
Judiciary be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


   B. The amendment would give the President broad powers to impound 
                           appropriated funds

       That the balanced budget constitutional amendment would 
     authorize the President to impound funds appropriated by 
     Congress is clear from the text of the Constitution and the 
     proposed amendment. Article II, section 3, obligates the 
     President to ``take care that the Laws be faithfully 
     executed,'' and article II, section 7, requires the President 
     to take an oath to ``preserve, protect and defend the 
     Constitution.''
       Section 1 of the proposed constitutional amendment provides 
     that ``[t]otal outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 
     total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of 
     the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by 
     law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a 
     rollcall vote.'' The amendment thus would forbid outlays from 
     exceeding revenues by more than the amount specifically 
     authorized by a three-fifths supermajority of each House of 
     Congress. In any fiscal year in which it is clear that in the 
     absence of congressional action, ``total outlays'' will 
     exceed ``total receipts'' by a greater-than-authorized 
     amount, the President is bound by the Constitution and the 
     oath of office it prescribes to prevent the unauthorized 
     deficit.
       The powers and obligations conferred upon the President by 
     the Constitution and the proposed constitutional amendment 
     would clearly be read by the courts to include the power to 
     impound appropriated funds where the expenditure of those 
     funds would cause total outlays to exceed total receipts by 
     an amount greater than that authorized by the requisite 
     congressional supermajorities.
       This commonsense reading of the proposed constitutional 
     amendment is shared by a broad range of highly regarded legal 
     scholars. Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger, who as 
     head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of 
     Justice is responsible for advising the President and the 
     Attorney General regarding the scope and limits on 
     presidential authority, testified before the Judiciary 
     Committee that the proposed constitutional amendment would 
     authorize the President to impound funds to insure that 
     outlays do not exceed receipts. Similarly, Harvard University 
     Law School Professor Charles Fried, who served as Solicitor 
     General during the Reagan Administration, testified that in a 
     year when actual revenues fell below projections and bigger-
     than-authorized deficit occurred, section 1 ``would offer a 
     President ample warrant to impound appropriated funds.'' 
     Others who share this view include former Attorney General 
     Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Stanford University Law School 
     Professor Kathleen Sullivan, Yale University Law School 
     Professor Burke Marshall, and Harvard University Law School 
     Professor Laurence H. Tribe.
       The fact that the proposed constitutional amendment would 
     confer impoundment authority on the President is confirmed by 
     the actions of the Judiciary Committee this year. Supporters 
     of the amendment opposed and defeated an amendment offered by 
     Senator Kennedy before the Judiciary Committee that would 
     have added the following section to the proposed amendment:
       ``Section   . Nothing in this article shall authorize the 
     President to impound funds appropriated by Congress by law, 
     or to impose taxes, duties or fees.''
       If the supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment 
     do not intend to give impoundment authority to the President, 
     there is no legitimate explanation of their failure to 
     include the text of the Kennedy amendment in the proposed 
     article.
       The impoundment power that would be conferred on the 
     President by the proposed constitutional amendment is far 
     broader than any proposed presidential line-item veto 
     authority now under consideration by the Congress. The line-
     item veto proposals would allow a President to refrain from 
     spending funds proposed to be spent by a particular item of 
     appropriation in a particular appropriations bill presented 
     to the President. As Assistant Attorney General Dellinger 
     testified, the impoundment authority conferred upon the 
     President by the proposed constitutional amendment would 
     allow a President to order across-the-board cuts in all 
     Federal programs, target specific programs for abolition, or 
     target expenditures intended for particular States or regions 
     for impoundment.
       The Committee majority makes two arguments to support its 
     assertion that the balanced budget constitutional amendment 
     does not give the President impoundment authority. Both are 
     wrong.
       The first is the suggestion that ``up to the end of the 
     fiscal year, the President has nothing to impound because 
     Congress in the amendment has the power to ratify or to 
     specify the amount of deficit spending that may occur in that 
     fiscal year.'' In essence, the majority asserts that there 
     will never be an unauthorized, and therefore 
     unconstitutional, deficit, because Congress will always step 
     in at the end of the year and ratify whatever deficit has 
     occurred. If true, then the balanced budget is a complete 
     sham, because it would impose no fiscal discipline 
     whatsoever.
       But if the majority is wrong in its prediction--that is, if 
     a Congress failed to act before the end of a fiscal year to 
     ratify a previously unauthorized deficit, all of the 
     expenditures undertaken by the Federal government throughout 
     the fiscal year would be unconstitutional and open to 
     challenge in the state and Federal courts (see part I.A, 
     supra). It is inconceivable that the President, sworn to 
     preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, would be found 
     to be powerless to prevent such a result.
       Second, the majority argues that ``under section 6 of the 
     amendment, Congress can specify exactly what type of 
     enforcement mechanism it wants and the President, as Chief 
     Executive, is duty bound to enforce that particular 
     congressional scheme to the exclusion of impoundment.'' The 
     fact that Congress is required by section 6 of the proposed 
     amendment to enact enforcement legislation certainly does not 
     suggest that the amendment itself would not grant the 
     president authority to impound appropriated funds. Nothing in 
     the proposed article stipulates that the enforcement 
     legislation must be effective to prevent violations of the 
     amendment. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that no 
     enforcement legislation could prevent violations for 
     occurring.
       The President's obligation to faithfully execute the laws 
     is independent of Congress's. That duty is not ``limited to 
     the enforcement of acts of Congress * * * according to their 
     express terms, * * * it include[s] the rights, duties and 
     obligations growing out of the Constitution itself, * * * and 
     all the protection implied by the nature of the government 
     under the Constitution[.]'' In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 64 
     (1890). If an unconstitutional deficit were occurring, 
     Congress could not constitutionally stop the President from 
     seeking to prevent it.


   c. the proposed amendment many also confer upon the president the 
               authority to impose taxes, duties and fees

       As discussed above, when a greater-than-authorized deficit 
     occurs, the balanced budget constitutional amendment would 
     impose upon the President an obligation to stop it. While 
     greater attention has been paid to the prospect that the 
     amendment would grant the President authority to impound 
     appropriated funds, the amendment would enable future 
     Presidents to assert that they have the power unilaterally to 
     raise taxes, duties or fees in order to generate additional 
     revenue to avoid an unauthorized deficit. See Testimony of 
     Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger, 1995 Judiciary 
     Committee Hearings at 102.
       This outcome would turn on its head the allocation of 
     powers envisioned by the Framers. No longer would ``the 
     legislative department alone ha[ve] access to the pockets of 
     the people'' as Madison promised in The Federalist No. 48. 
     Instead, intermixing of legislative and executive power in 
     the President's hands would constitute the ``source of 
     danger'' against which Madison warned.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________