[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 35 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3102-S3108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator--except for that 
interruption--be permitted to complete his remarks today, and then the 
Senator from Missouri be able to complete his remarks, and the Senator 
from Florida be able to complete his remarks and then the Senator from 
California be able to complete her remarks, in that order, following 
the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my fear that this amendment as it is 
currently drafted--and I want to emphasize that--begins the process 
that may permit an erosion of Government's ability to protect certain 
interests of every American based on a concept of majority rule. It 
begins to institutionalize a particular judgment, an economic judgment, 
against a whole set of other judgments which may, at some point in the 
not too distant future, be the majority view or general interest of the 
country, but not sufficient to gain 60 votes--but, nevertheless, 
sufficient to have 51 votes. They could be precluded from then 
representing those interests. That is, I think, upon reflection, a 
genuine threat to the notion of the democratic process.
  I do not question the sincerity or the intention of those who believe 
that this is a bad idea whose time has come. But, Mr. President, I 
think we have to wonder whether we are not on a very dangerous path to 
fundamental changes in how we govern without the due process that our 
democracy demands.
  The potential of minority rule on an issue as fundamental as raising 
revenues, I think, begins a dangerous process of beginning to dissolve 
whatever is left of America's spirit of community by limiting our 
ability to make decisions that go beyond city limits and State borders, 
and that may, in fact, be very unpopular, but we have to, if we are 
going to serve the Nation, preserve the flexibility and capacity for 
that kind of unpopular decision to be made.
  So this debate is not really about specifically spending cuts. It is 
not about good economic policy. It is about the proliferation into the 
Constitution itself of a particular philosophy of the moment that 
almost suggests that the concept of community is lesser than the 
concept of individual interests. I do not believe that, Mr. President. 
I think if we are going to maintain the community the Founding Fathers 
conceived of, then you have to maintain the majoritarian approach.
  Mr. President, an awful lot of people a lot wiser than me have, 
frankly, found fault with this amendment based on that perception; that 
there is a shift in the balance of power between the branches of 
Government and that that is dangerous.
  Walter Dellinger, an Assistant Attorney General, testified that:

       Should the measure be enforced by the judiciary, it would 
     produce an unprecedented restructuring of the balance of 
     power between the branches of government. If it proves 
     unenforceable, it would create quite a different but equally 
     troubling hazard by writing an empty promise into the 
     fundamental charter of our Government. It would breathe 
     cynicism about our Government and diminish respect for the 
     Constitution of the United States and the rule of law.

  He goes on to say that,

       The Constitution, as written by the framers, did not 
     contain choices. It rather empowered people to enact the 
     choices,

specifically, the kind of choices that I read that we have sworn to 
make in section 8 of article I.
  He argues that a balanced budget amendment simply declares that 
outlays shall not exceed expenditures without ever explaining how this 
desirable state of affairs is going to come about and without 
specifying who among the Government officials should be empowered to 
ensure that the amendment is not violated or, if violated, how the 
Nation is brought into compliance.
  The distinguished Harvard law school professor, Archibald Cox, 
opposes such an amendment for four reasons.
  First, he said,

       The amendment would damage the Constitution by introducing 
     matters foreign to its fundamental and traditional purposes. 
     It would undermine confidence in the Constitution by holding 
     out an appearance of guarantees that will surely prove 
     illusory. It would spawn disputes and charges of violation 
     without providing either the means of resolving disputes or 
     remedies for the actual threatened violations, except to 
     bring in the courts. And that exception,

he said,

     [[Page S3103]] brings me to the last point, that the 
     amendment risks bringing the courts into a field for which 
     they are totally unequipped by experience.

  On the politics of this amendment and the ruling of the majority on 
political issues, Professor Cox said,

       Deciding whether or when to balance the budget or whether 
     or when to risk a deficit calls for a judgment of policy, the 
     kind of political judgment wisely left by the Founding 
     Fathers to the majoritarian processes of representative 
     government.

  Mr. President, constitutional scholars have lined up against this 
amendment and have presented powerful arguments that raise serious 
questions about the impact of what we are about to do.
  Another scholar, Kathleen Sullivan, expressed concerns about placing 
economic theory in the governing document of the Nation. She said, ``I 
oppose the amendment because I believe it would seriously undermine our 
established constitutional framework if it were adopted and enforced. 
Either way,'' she said, ``these constitutional harms would far outweigh 
the meager benefits the amendment is likely to bring about in advancing 
its distinguished sponsors' entirely worthy goal of achieving national 
fiscal discipline.'' She goes on to quote Justice Holmes, saying that:

       He was right when he warned: ``The Constitution ought not 
     embody a particular economic theory, be it that of Spencer or 
     Keynes.''

  And about majority rule, she quotes Madison from Federalist 58, who 
argued that ``requiring the supermajority to pass ordinary legislation 
turns democracy on its head.''
  Mr. President, the scholar that I was commenting on, Kathleen 
Sullivan, said about the issue of majority rule that in Federalist 58, 
Madison himself said that requiring a supermajority to pass ordinary 
legislation turns democracy on its head, and she jokingly but 
accurately pointed out the single most predictable consequence of a 
balanced budget amendment might well be a period of full employment for 
lawyers.
  Mr. President, I believe Prof. Charles Fried of Harvard Law School 
has made one of the most compelling arguments against this amendment as 
it currently appears before the Senate. He said:

       Majority rule is the rule that best expresses democracy. It 
     best expresses it for health care, for defense, for the 
     writing of criminal legislation with death penalties and for 
     the passing of budgets--whether in surplus, in balance, or in 
     deficit. To put this all more practically, the balanced 
     budget amendment would just make it that much harder to 
     govern, giving those who want to put obstacles in the way of 
     government new opportunities for obstruction.

  Professor Fried points out a balanced budget amendment would give 
``Any president a far better claim to impound funds than that which was 
asserted some 20 years ago by President Nixon,'' because the 
President's warrant would be drawn from, as President Nixon said it 
was, inherent powers of the Presidency. He could point to the 
Constitution itself and then he could argue it is his duty to do so.
  Mr. President, it is not inconsequential if the President of the 
United States is permitted to impound. We will have created yet another 
shift in the balance of power, which I believe Members here would want 
to think twice about, no matter who is in the Presidency or which party 
controls the White House.
  Professor Fried says passage of this amendment would inevitably 
involve the courts in what he calls ``subtle and intricate legal 
questions, and the litigation that would ensue would be gruesome, 
intrusive, and not at all edifying.''
  He argues, Mr. President, against this amendment and I think everyone 
knows that Prof. Charles Fried, former solicitor general, is certainly 
one of the more conservative members of the legal profession. He argues 
against this amendment as ``Undemocratic and against the spirit of the 
Constitution.'' He says that when our Constitution withdraws a subject 
matter from majority rule, as it does in the Bill of Rights and the 
14th amendment, it does so because there are things which no government 
may ever do. It may never abridge freedom of speech, no matter how 
strong the majority, and therefore it is withdrawn from majority rule.
  His point is this: In no issue on which it is legitimately in the 
purview of this Government to rule is anything but a simple majority 
ever required with respect to policy issues.
  Mr. President, majority rule ought to be held as the sacred standard 
of this body. If not, then we embark on a course that could be 
dangerous, indeed.
  Dr. Fried said something that gave me pause beyond what I have 
quoted. In a most dramatic and compelling statement before the 
committee that summarizes the fundamental flaws of this current draft 
of the balanced budget amendment, he said something that I hope would 
give each person some pause no matter what their position on this 
amendment is.
  It is a particular perspective about what we are about to do. 
Professor Fried said:

       A balanced budget in any form, if it is workable, is a bad 
     idea. The reason is simply that the political judgments 
     underlying the amendment, sound and important though they 
     are, are just that--political judgments--and as such they 
     should not be withdrawn from the vicissitudes of ordinary 
     majoritarian politics that the Constitution establishes as 
     the general rule for our public life as a Nation. I am not 
     entitled to have my bias against Government spending 
     enshrined in the Constitution to frustrate the will of my 
     fellow citizens expressed by a majority of our 
     representatives.

  I think that is a simple but powerful observation that goes to the 
heart of what is about to happen here, if this amendment is passed. We 
will enshrine a national bias against a particular choice of fiscal 
policy for all time; notwithstanding, however, that the political 
landscape may change.
  The Constitution, Mr. President, as we all know, survives beyond each 
person here. And it ought to remain the same beacon of democracy that 
it has been for all time. It should not be a hodgepodge of popular 
gimmicks from one generation to the other. It should not become a means 
of addressing every difficult problem that we face as a people, and as 
a Nation. And it certainly should not be used as a cover for the 
unwillingness of Congress to exercise the will that it has the power to 
exercise today.
  So, Mr. President, it is my hope that those few people who may remain 
undecided will think hard, in the hours ahead, about the weight of the 
Constitution and the history that we, in the Senate, are responsible 
for. It is my hope that, in the end, people will choose not to burden 
the Constitution with this particular moment's idea, but rather to come 
to the floor of the U.S. Senate prepared to do what we have the power 
to do today.
  I would close simply by repeating what I said previously: I am 
prepared to stay here now--through the next months--with an 
understanding that we will not have a filibuster, but that we will come 
up with a budget that sets us on the course to a balanced budget. Let 
51 votes decide. If the American people decide that they are unhappy 
with that judgment, then the next election can be about just that.
  We should not continue to use the process of delay for a small 
cluster of people on either side of the fence to frustrate the capacity 
of this body to make a judgment in the interests of the country, 
whether that judgment may be correct or incorrect. It is not for a 
small group to decide now that the judgment cannot be made at all. That 
frustrates the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
  Mr. President, we do not have to pass an amendment. We could just get 
60 people to sign a letter, each of them saying, ``I am committing, 
this year, to passing a balanced budget over the next 7 years, 10 
years, 15 years and guaranteeing that the expenditure line and the 
revenue line of this country are turned around and brought together at 
some point in time.''
  It seems to me that all we have to do is read the Constitution of the 
United States, once again. All we have to do is understand that 
whatever increased moral authority people believe they will get by 
passing this amendment, if the courts are not able to make the 
judgment--if the courts are, God save us all-- but if they are not, 
this will ultimately hinge on whether we have to enforce section 6 to 
make this real. That comes down, to an exercise of the very same 
constitutional power we have today, when each Member swore here to 
uphold the Constitution, provide for the common defense, and promote 
the general welfare, and when we swore we would exercise our power 
[[Page S3104]]  under section 8 to pay the debts and provide for the 
common defense and general welfare of the United States.
  We have the constitutional authority and power today. We lack the 
will. I hope the American people understand that this gimmick will not 
provide for the will that each of us should have come with to this 
institution in the first place.
  Mr. President, I repeat: I am prepared for the first time to vote for 
a line-item veto. I am prepared to vote against the tax cuts with the 
exception of education, which I think is critical, and I am prepared to 
pose further cuts than are currently on the table.
  But I am also prepared to find revenue, if it is needed, in an effort 
to be real about this and avoid the continued gimmickry which 
frustrates the will of the American people.
  Mr. President, are we at the moment that we should turn to the 
amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senators are 
recognized now for the purpose of offering amendments. The Senator from 
Massachusetts reserved the right to offer an amendment before the hour 
of 3 o'clock, the Senator from California reserved the right to offer 
an amendment, and the Senator from Utah.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my motion be 
called up and I ask unanimous consent that reading of the motion be 
dispensed with and that the motion be set aside for further 
deliberation at a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the motion reads as follows:
                            motion to commit

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] moves to commit 
     H.J. Res. 1 to the Budget Committee, to report back forthwith 
     and at a later time to issue a report which states that:
       ``The Congress of the United States currently possesses all 
     necessary power and authority to adopt at any time a balanced 
     budget for the United States Government, in that its outlays 
     do not exceed its receipts, and to pass and submit to the 
     President all legislation as may be necessary to implement 
     such a balanced budget, including legislation reducing 
     expenditures for federally-funded programs and agencies and 
     increasing revenues.
       ``It is the responsibility of members of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate to do everything possible to 
     use the power and authority the Congress now possesses in 
     order to conduct the fiscal affairs of the nation in a 
     prudent fashion that does not permit the federal government 
     to provide the current generation with a standard of services 
     and benefits for which that generation is unwilling to pay, 
     thereby passing the responsibility for meeting costs of those 
     services and benefits to later generations, which is the 
     result of approving budgets which are significantly deficit 
     financed.
       ``All members of the House and the Senate who vote to 
     approve submission to the states of a proposed amendment to 
     the United States Constitution requiring a balanced budget, 
     have a responsibility to their constituents to support a 
     budget plan to balance the budget by no later than 2002.
       ``The Congress should, prior to August 15, 1995, adopt a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget establishing a budget 
     plan to balance the budget by fiscal year 2002 consisting of 
     the items set forth below:
       ``(a)(1) a budget for each fiscal year beginning with 
     fiscal year 1996 and ending with fiscal year 2002 
     containing--
       ``(A) aggregate levels of new budget authority, outlays, 
     revenues, and the deficit or surplus;
       ``(B) totals of new budget authority and outlays for each 
     major functional category;
       ``(C) new budget authority and outlays, on an account-by-
     account basis, for each account with actual outlays or 
     offsetting receipts of at least $100,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1994; and
       ``(D) an allocation of Federal revenues among the major 
     sources of such revenues;
       ``(2) a detailed list and description of changes in Federal 
     law (including laws authorizing appropriations or direct 
     spending and tax laws) required to carry out the plan and the 
     effective date of each such change; and
       ``(3) reconciliation directives to the appropriate 
     committees of the House of Representatives and Senate 
     instructing them to submit legislative changes to the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House or Senate, as the case 
     may be, to implement the plan set forth in the concurrent 
     resolution, with the cited directives deemed to be directives 
     within the meaning of section 310(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, and with the cited committee submissions 
     combined without substantive revision upon their receipt by 
     the Committee on the budget into an omnibus reconciliation 
     bill which the Committee shall report to its House where it 
     shall be considered in accord with procedures set forth in 
     section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       ``(c) the budget plan described in section (a)(1) shall be 
     based upon Congressional Budget Office economic and technical 
     assumptions and estimates of the spending and revenue effects 
     of the legislative changes described in subsection (a)(2).''
                           Amendment No. 315

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from California desire to 
call up her amendment at this point?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I do desire to call up my amendment. I recognize that I have to ask 
unanimous consent to be able to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has already been granted.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to amendment No. 315 and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of this side, we have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to call up four filed motions under the majority leader's name.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call up filed motion No. 4.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. Dole, moves to 
     recommit House Joint Resolution 1 to the Budget Committee.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
motion be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The text of the motion reads as follows:
       Motion to recommit House Joint Resolution 1 to the Budget 
     Committee with instructions to report back forthwith House 
     Joint Resolution 1 in status quo and, after passage of House 
     Joint Resolution 1 and upon the request of the governors of 
     the states promptly provide, to the extent practicable, data 
     regarding how the Congress might achieve a balanced budget.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
motion be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           MOTION TO RECOMMIT

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I now call up filed motion No. 3.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for Mr. Dole, moves to 
     recommit House Joint Resolution 1 to the Budget Committee.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
motion be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the motion reads as follows:

       Motion to recommit House Joint Resolution 1 to the Budget 
     Committee with instructions to report back forthwith House 
     Joint Resolution 1 in status quo and report to the Senate at 
     the earliest date practicable how to achieve a balanced 
     budget without increasing the receipts or reducing the 
     disbursements of the federal old-age and survivors insurance 
     trust fund and the federal disability insurance trust fund to 
     achieve that goal.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
motion be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
                            motion to commit

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I now call up filed motion No. 2.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for Mr. Dole, proposes to 
     commit House Joint Resolution 1 to the Judiciary Committee.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
motion be dispensed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The text of the motion reads as follows:

       Motion to commit House Joint Resolution 1 to the Judiciary 
     Committee with instructions to report back forthwith House 
     Joint Resolution 1 in status quo and to issue a report 
     reaffirming the Committee's view that 
     [[Page S3105]]  this Amendment does not sanction court 
     involvement in fundamental macroeconomics and budgetary 
     questions and expressing its support of Implementing 
     Legislation which ensures a restricted role for the courts in 
     enforcing this Amendment which will not interfere with the 
     budgetary process.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
pending motion be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            motion to commit

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call up filed motion No. 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for Mr. Dole, moves to 
     commit House Joint Resolution 1 to the Judiciary Committee.

  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the motion be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the motion reads as follows:

       Motion to commit House Joint Resolution 1 to the Judiciary 
     Committee with instructions to report back forthwith House 
     Joint Resolution 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Are there further amendments to 
be called up under the unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the hour of 3 o'clock has arrived, and no 
further amendments can be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. No further amendments 
are in order.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am grateful for this opportunity to 
make remarks about the most important action that we will be taking 
during this session of the U.S. Congress: A vote on a balanced budget 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  Of course, there have been a number of reasons elevated for our 
inspection by those who oppose the amendment, and I think inspection is 
what they deserve.
  There are those who say that there are no problems with the 
Constitution, there are only problems with us as Members of the Senate. 
That is what constitutions are for. Rules are designed to correct 
problems in the way the players play the game. There are no problems 
with the rules of the basketball game, but you have to have a rule 
against fouling or the game gets out of hand.
  Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States is full of ways 
of correcting abuses which would otherwise occur--because we would have 
problems as Members of the Senate in making correct judgments--absent 
the parameters of the Constitution.
  When the Constitution of the United States starts in the Bill of 
Rights by saying ``Congress shall have no power,'' it recognizes that 
the problem may be in Congress, and that the way to correct it is to 
have a framework which forbids Congress from engaging in the abuses 
which are hurting the American people or which might hurt the American 
people.
  So for Members of this body to suggest that we do not need an 
amendment to the Constitution--because the problem is a problem of this 
body, or the individuals who populate this body, Mr. President--is to 
suggest that, ``Well, we don't need a Constitution, we just all have to 
act appropriately.''
  It reminds me of the famous phrase out of Tammany Hall: ``What is the 
Constitution among friends? Ignore it, we don't need it, we can just 
all act properly.''
  Constitutions, charters of government, are--and have been from the 
Magna Carta forward--established on the basis of an understanding that 
people will not always act properly and, therefore, we need the 
restriction, we need the confinement, we need the guidance, we need the 
direction, we need the regulation of a document that protects us from 
abuses.
  Interestingly enough, the balanced budget amendment is not really a 
protection for us against abuses. Oh, yes, we have been abused, but 
those who have been abused most dramatically are those who are not here 
yet. They are the children of the next generation. They are the 
individuals who have not yet gone to school, let alone gone to work. 
They are the people whose wages we are now spending before they even go 
to work. We are spending them to satisfy our appetite for program after 
program, for policy after policy, for interest group after interest 
group, in a wild credit card binge across America, buying votes for the 
next election to the U.S. Congress, be it the House of Representatives 
or the Senate.
  We must curtail that, Mr. President. It is suggested by our friends--
as the esteemed Senator from Massachusetts just a few moments ago 
suggested--that it is undemocratic to have a provision in the 
Constitution which would require that 60 votes in the Senate be 
required in the event you wanted to go into debt, asserting that it is 
undemocratic not to let the representatives of over 50 votes be able to 
have equal weight.
  But I am worried about the votes of the next generation. I think it 
is undemocratic for this body to encumber the next generation, to say 
to the children of the next century they will not have an opportunity 
to decide how the tax revenues of their America will be spent because 
we will spend their taxes for them now.
  We are talking about a fundamental problem here. It is a problem of 
taxation without representation and, yes, the problem is in the Senate, 
the problem is in human nature. And one of the reasons you have 
constitutions is not to say that if everyone acts at their best and 
highest level of responsibility we would not need it. The reason is 
that we know that there will be times of weakness, when in spite of all 
the good intentions, those good intentions will not lead us to do the 
right thing.
  That is why the first amendment to the Constitution says, ``Congress 
shall make no law,'' and as you get to the amendments added on through 
the amendment process, over and over again we have seen the wisdom of 
saying that Congress shall not be able to impair principles which are 
important to the future of this democracy. And that is where we are at 
this very moment in time.
  It is fundamentally important, Mr. President, that we say about the 
next generation that we will build a hedge between them and the 
spending habits of the U.S. Congress so that we in this body do not 
spend their birthright. Taxation without representation was the core, 
it was the kernel of the revolution, which grew and finally flourished 
in freedom--which has not only found its way from the Atlantic to the 
Pacific, but has found its way around the globe, nation after nation 
modeled on what we did here in America. But that revolution was a 
fundamental response to authorities somewhere else taxing us without 
representation.
  I submit that that is exactly what we in this body have been doing by 
jeopardizing the future of the next generation. We have simply said to 
the next generation--without telling them because they are not here to 
hear us--that we are going to spend your money this way and we hope you 
are productive when you get here, because when you earn the money, it 
will be taken to pay for the excesses, to pay for the desires, to pay 
for the programs, to pay for our catering to special interests in our 
generation.
  It is time we stop that. It is true that we could stop it without an 
amendment to the Constitution, but will we--or have we?
  Over and over again in the debate, we have had it brought to our 
attention that through the eighties and even in the seventies and even 
as early as the sixties, there were resolutions of this body and there 
were laws enacted that would pry us out of the pattern of deficit 
spending--but absent a strong wall in the Constitution to protect those 
yet unborn generations, we have always managed to find our way to do 
what is expedient for the next election--not the next generation. It is 
time now for us to make such a commitment.
  The idea that the pending amendment to the Constitution somehow would 
impair us from doing all the responsible things that our colleagues 
have said they would like to do--and I commend the Senator from 
Massachusetts for his willingness to say that he will support a line-
item veto and that he will support cloture on it so that we can get 
real votes on expenditures--is inaccurate. Nothing in this proposed 
amendment, nothing in this resolution, 
[[Page S3106]]  would stop any Member of the Senate from engaging in 
that kind of responsible behavior in the next days and weeks and months 
to come.
  Mr. President, nothing in this amendment would stop this body, in 
conjunction with the House of Representatives, with the cooperation of 
the President of the United States, from implementing a balanced budget 
at an earlier time. Nothing in this proposed amendment to the 
Constitution would impair a responsible Congress from doing what it 
ought to do.
  So we have all the authority to do what is right that we have ever 
had--but our problem has not been the absence of authority to do what 
is right. Our problem is the absence of a prohibition against doing 
what is wrong. And in the absence of that prohibition against doing 
what is wrong--spending the resources of the next generation--we find 
ourselves over and over again deeper and deeper in debt.
  The President of the United States last year indicated that there 
would be reduced deficits and there would be a continuing decline in 
the level of deficits, and that commitment lasted almost a full year. 
Then this year's budget came out, and did we find ourselves with 
reduced deficits on a steady decline toward a balanced budget? No, 
there was simply a concession. The big white towel came out of the 
corner into the middle of the ring and we conceded that there would be 
deficits over $200 billion on average for the next decade, and who 
knows what thereafter.
  Again, the problem is not that we already have the authority to do 
what is right, the problem is that we are not prohibited from doing 
what is wrong. And what is wrong is spending the resources, spending 
the inheritance, spending the birthright, of the next generation. It is 
spending my kids' wages before they graduate from college. It is 
spending my grandchildren's opportunity to be productive in a world 
economy that is going to demand productivity, and if they are spending 
all of their resources on interest on our debt, if they have to tax 
people and businesses to pay for prior years' excesses--our excesses--
they are not going to be competitive in a marketplace that requires 
productivity.
  No, Mr. President. We, and they, will find ourselves sliding back 
into the backwater of the swamp of those nations that are incapable of 
being on the cutting edge.
  It is time for us as a body to make a commitment to America's future. 
It is time for us to say, yes, the budget was balanced for well over 
150 years except in time of war. It was a tacit agreement, it was an 
understanding, it was honored as if it were in the Constitution--but we 
do not have, apparently, the stature or the will or the capacity to do 
it now.
  Nothing in the proposed amendment would keep us from doing it. But 
let us just ensure that we build this firewall between the next 
generation and the spending habits of the U.S. Congress, that we build 
a bulwark and we save those grandchildren--the next generation--from 
our spending habits. Let us say that as for us, as for me and my house, 
as for the Senate, as for this Government, as for this Nation, we will 
be responsible.
  If the 1994 elections meant anything, I think they meant that the 
people of the United States rejected a Congress that was arrogant--a 
Congress so arrogant that it passed laws for other people to live by 
but that the Congress did not have to live by, a Congress so arrogant 
that it would tell State and local governments what to do, thinking 
that it had been elected to do State and local tasks as well as 
national tasks, and a Congress so arrogant that it spends the money of 
the next generation as well as the resources of its own.
  I think the people of America expect us to repudiate that behavior 
pattern, Mr. President. But frankly, they expect us to enact a 
constitutional amendment to assure them the pattern does not happen 
again. Time after time, they have listened to the U.S. Congress 
repudiate ways that were going to balance the budget. They have heard 
proposals indicating that there would be special withholdings to make 
sure that it did not happen, and time after time they have watched--
sometimes when the curtain was drawn, sometimes when it was in full 
view--they have watched the U.S. Congress, having made a solemn oath, 
having made a legal commitment in a statute, turn around and change 
that statute.
  The tragedy is that the U.S. Congress can change the rules for the 
U.S. Congress, and so a statute is not enough, a resolution is not 
enough, a sense of the Senate is not enough. The tragedy is that we can 
change our own rules, and we have changed them over and over again. 
That is the tragedy.
  However, there is also beauty, Mr. President. The beauty is that the 
U.S. Congress cannot change the U.S. Constitution by itself, and so 
where we failed as a body in the past because we were always able to 
change the rules in the law, I believe we now have a chance for success 
if we put the pending rule in the Constitution--for this is not the 
transitory whim of just a majority in the Senate.
  For this resolution to become the law of the land in the Constitution 
of the United States, it will take the ratification of three-quarters 
of the States, of the United States of America, to change it and adjust 
it. To erode it or impair it would take a similar consensus by all the 
States as well as this Congress.
  And I believe at any of those junctures during the last three decades 
when the Congress weakened, we would not have found three-quarters of 
the States willing to weaken with them. Not on your life. The people of 
America would have said, stay the course. Let us make sure we maintain 
our commitment to a balanced budget.
  It is time for us to enact the balanced budget amendment because it 
would stay the course, Mr. President.
  Yes, the problem is a problem with the Congress. But the way to 
remedy the problem with the Congress is to build a wall between the 
Congress and the next generation.
  Just to take us back for a moment in history, this Nation was founded 
as a result of a commitment that it was morally wrong and politically 
improper for one group to tax another group without its consent. The 
net result of the Currency and Revenue Act of 1764, undertaken by the 
British to end the smuggling trade on molasses as well as to raise 
additional revenue, was to give British sugargrowers an effective 
monopoly on the colonial sugar market, and it irritated the colonists, 
it irritated Americans because we were being taxed without 
representation.
  The Stamp Act of 1765, well known to every schoolchild, extended to 
America a broadly based form of direct taxation that had long been in 
use in Great Britain, and the colonists simply said ``no taxation 
without representation.'' It is a principle embedded in the very depths 
of American history and in our character.
  Patrick Henry, in response to that Stamp Act of 1765, said, ``The 
colonists are entitled to all privileges and immunities of natural born 
citizens, to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding in 
and born within the realm of England''--meaning no taxation without 
representation, a fundamental guarantee as old as the founding 
documents in Great Britain.
  The Townshend duties of 1767 were passed to raise revenues on imports 
to this country, widely used imports like tea and window glass. And you 
know what happened with the Tea Act of 1773. And over and over again--
the Coercive Act of 1774. All of these became a part of the very fabric 
of American life as did our resistance to taxation without 
representation.
  And what are we doing when we have deficit spending? Are we taxing 
ourselves? No. We are taxing the next generation over and over and over 
again, thousands of dollars. Every man, woman, and child born in the 
United States comes into this world not with a clean slate but with a 
debt load. And we must make sure that when the Statue of Liberty holds 
high her lamp beside the golden door, it is not a lamp eliminated by a 
debtor nation; that it is a lamp of opportunity, not a lamp of 
responsibility to pay off the debts of previous generations.
  A rising $4.9 trillion debt amounts to taxation without 
representation. There is no other way to categorize it. I think of the 
young person, not old enough to vote, in the American Revolution, 
Nathan Hale, captured by the British. They handle him in the rough 
justice of wartime, and they decide to hang him as a traitor to the 
crown. And before he dies, he inspires us with the words, ``I regret 
that I have but one life 
[[Page S3107]]  to give for my country.'' Nathan Hale, looking to the 
future, is willing to sacrifice himself. What a contrast, Mr. 
President, to where we stand in the United States today. Looking only 
to ourselves, we are willing to sacrifice the future.
  Nathan Hale says, ``I regret that I have but one life to give for my 
country.'' In this body we say we regret we have but one next 
generation to mortgage for our appetites.
  We must cease. We cannot continue. It is beyond what free people 
should do to one another. But even more importantly, we should be 
unwilling to provide a debt load which will burden the next generation.
  Mr. President, this is the single most important responsibility we 
have. It is a responsibility that relates to the ability of this 
country and the next generation to be successful, for us to succeed 
rather than sink; for us to survive and to be a swimmer rather than a 
failure. That is what we need. We need to build a system which allows 
those who follow us to have the kind of opportunity we have enjoyed.
  We have already talked about the fact that those on the other side of 
the aisle have said to us there are no problems with the Constitution, 
there are only problems with Members of the Senate. The truth of the 
matter is that is what Constitutions are for, to make sure that problem 
areas that are inherent in human nature do not find their way into 
policy. Let us keep those flaws out of policy and let us stop this 
practice of spending the next generation's resources before they are 
born.
  Those opposed to the pending amendment have also complained that it 
requires a supermajority in order to raise the debt, or to abandon the 
principle of a balanced budget. They say such a requirement is 
undemocratic, that we should just be able to spend more than we take in 
if we have an even majority or a bare majority. In my judgment, what is 
undemocratic is to keep obligating the next generation, to keep 
obligating those who are yet unborn by spending their money.
  The real tragedy is that the U.S. Senate--in all of its attempts to 
come up with a way to curtail spending, to stop itself from its 
spending binge, after setting enactment after enactment, after 
expressing itself over and over again--has each and every time 
subsequently come along and undone the deal, taken apart the framework 
and said we are going to let ourselves go, now that we are really 
hungry.
  The problem is the Senate and the House, with a law, a mere statute, 
cannot bind the next Congress. What is an even bigger problem, though, 
is that while we as a body cannot bind the next Senate, we can bind the 
next generation to debt. So while we cannot bind ourselves to 
discipline, we continue binding the next generation to debt, over and 
over and over again. It is time for us to remedy that by enacting the 
kind of framework, the firewall, the bulwark, the barrier between the 
spending habits of the U.S. Congress and the well-being of the next 
generation of American citizens.
  Mr. President, there have been those who have said we do not need 
anything to do with economic policy in the Constitution. As a matter of 
fact, it was one of the distinguished Members of this House who said 
the U.S. Constitution is decidedly not a charter of economic policy. 
For the first time it would be writing into the Constitution economic 
policy.
  I went through the U.S. Constitution, seeking to find specific areas 
where we talked about things that would have direct economic impact. It 
is almost impossible to find a part of the Constitution that does not 
have economic impact. I submit, whether you are talking about section 
8, which provides for us to be able to pay our debts, or whether you 
are talking about section 7 of article I, that talks about bills for 
raising revenue that shall start in the House of Representatives, or 
whether you are talking about the ability to raise and support armies 
but no appropriation of money can last for more than 2 years.
  That is an interesting part of our Constitution, to find in article I 
the language, and I read it:

       To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money 
     to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years.

  The idea that we would not commit future generations, we would not 
commit too far in advance, that we would not place a burden on those 
who were not represented in the Congress is intriguing--could it be 
that 2 years is the length of a congressional term? You would expect 
that the next Congress would not have to live under the debt or the 
requirement of the previous Congress.
  My view is, when it comes to spending, is that we have always been 
willing to be pretty close about spending. We do not allow the Senate, 
for instance, which is not elected every 2 years, to be the originators 
of spending measures. Spending measures must originate in the House of 
Representatives, where the people are face-to-face with their 
Representatives every 2 years.
  The Constitution is full of economic considerations. I went through 
it. The next page has more underlining, and the next one even more to 
highlight economically related items in the Constitution. More text is 
economically related than is not.
  As a matter of fact, this entire document--the Constitution--is full 
of things that relate to our economy. The amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution which provided for the progressive income tax is a matter 
having perhaps the most direct economic impact of any single event in 
the history of the United States, and is part of the Constitution. The 
suggestion that something, because it has economic impact, does not 
belong in the Constitution of the United States is hollow, it is empty, 
because there are sections following sections, and sections upon 
sections and there are subsections and there are amendments and 
subparts of amendments that all relate to economic considerations. The 
very structure of the Constitution has to do with the economy of the 
United States.
  Mr. President, one of the things you need to have for a good economy 
is a stable government. And we have the most stable government of any 
government in the world. Why? Because it is in the Constitution that we 
have two Houses, and that one of the Houses is the Senate, and that by 
design it does not have the same willingness to make quick changes as 
the House, and that it would be a brake--or a more deliberative body 
than the House--while the House is very closely associated with the 
people, and perhaps more responsive to moods or fads in society which 
nevertheless might be good public policy.
  We have had this joint way of doing things which has led to 
governmental stability. Is there an economic provision in the 
Constitution? It provided a basis for a sound economy. Without it, I 
wonder whether the United States would have flourished to the extent 
that we have flourished, economically or socially.
  In my judgment, every word in the U.S. Constitution is a word that 
provides the basis for an economy and a set of opportunities that 
define the character of this Nation. And the economy cannot be taken 
out of the Constitution.
  Of course, the balanced budget amendment is far more than just 
something related to the economy. As George Will said in his book 
``Restoration":

       Proscribing deficits is different because deficits are 
     political and moral events, not merely economic events.

  Mr. President, a balanced budget amendment would do something of 
fundamental significance. It would protect important rights of an 
unrepresented group--the next generation. If the Constitution of the 
United States is not supposed to protect the rights of the 
unrepresented--and those who are helpless--what is the Constitution 
for?
  The Constitution was indeed designed, was enacted, and was embraced 
by the American people--and has been and will be--because it protects 
us against abuses of power. It should also protect the important rights 
of an unrepresented group, as George Will puts it, the ``unborn 
generations that must bear the burden of the debts.''
  The amendment would block a form of confiscation of property, of 
taxation without representation, of confiscation without due process of 
law. As I recall from my law school training--it has been a few years 
ago--but I believe the fifth amendment has something to say about 
taking without just compensation.
   [[Page S3108]] So here we find, Mr. President, that the 
Constitution--while it is full of documents and sections and clauses 
which have an impact on economics--is not only an economic document, it 
is a political and moral document, as well. Protecting the rights of 
those individuals who need protection is part and parcel of what the 
document is all about. And protecting them from what? Most frequently, 
protecting them from the U.S. Congress. Over and over again we read it: 
Congress shall make no law; the Congress shall not impair. That is the 
language of the Constitution.
  Yes, the pending provision would have a financial and economic impact 
on this country. But it has a political and moral impact as well. It 
protects freedom. It protects freedom from debt--something certainly 
worth protecting.
  Let me just say that there is more to this amendment than protecting 
the next generation. We need it to teach the current generation. One of 
the aspects of government which is very important and fundamental to 
our society is the fact that government teaches.
  We train our children--and rightly so--that government defines what 
is legal and what is illegal. And that they had better listen to what 
the Government says. Because, if you do bad things, you will do your 
time, as well. You will ruin your life. You will impair your freedom. 
You will destroy your opportunity.
  Government is set up as the arbiter of what is legal and what is 
illegal. And children rightly begin to look to the Government as a 
moral arbiter of what is valuable, what is good, what is to be 
accepted, and what is not good, what is to be rejected. When people in 
a society look at their Government and conclude that their Government 
does not pay its debts, what does that teach? Does it teach 
responsibility?
  We as a culture have a crisis concerning people accepting 
responsibility. They look at the Government, which they have been told 
is the arbiter of right and wrong. And what do we learn? What we are 
learning from the Government is, ``Oh, don't worry about it. Just take 
the credit card and go on a binge, and hope the next generation pays 
for it.''
  The truth of matter is, we are learning irresponsibility. It not only 
destroys the character within us, but it destroys the opportunity of 
the next generation. It not only destroys their economic opportunity, 
it suggests to them the sinister failure of a moral certainty, which is 
that we should pay our own debts.
  Anyone who thinks we should abandon the idea of having government act 
as a good example for our citizens ought to take a look at the news 
magazines for the recent weeks. Take a look at Newsweek a couple of 
weeks ago, Newsweek or Time. Forgive me for not distinguishing. The 
cover story was about the absence of shame in society, about no one 
having a sense of what is right or wrong, no one having a sense of 
responsibility. Take a look at the front page of U.S. News & World 
Report today. It is about men who forsake their families, who do not 
take care of their obligations, who act irresponsibly.
  Mr. President, We preside over a Government that has forsaken the 
families of the future, which has mortgaged the next generation's 
inheritance and birthright. How can we expect our society to be moral 
and responsible when we--those who have been elected to lead the 
society--lead it with classic irresponsibility, abdicating our 
responsibility to limit ourselves to the resources we have? We just 
toss that principle away, pull up to the table, roll up our sleeves 
with knife and fork, using our card--and their credit. And we impair 
and cheat the next generation.
  This is the major challenge for those of us in the U.S. Congress this 
year. It is to reverse the concept that somehow the Congress is better 
than everyone else, that somehow the Congress does not have to live by 
the laws. We have taken a major step. In the Congressional 
Accountability Act we said we would live under the laws we passed for 
others. In the unfunded mandates law--which passed in the Senate and 
another version in the House, on which we are working to collaborate 
and work out the details--we said, yes; we are not even going to try to 
tell other people what to do through unfunded mandates.
  We need to come to a further conclusion, Mr. President, and that is 
that we are not going to spend the wages, we are not going to spend the 
resources, we are not going to continue to sustain a policy which will 
put every newborn child in America in multi-thousand-dollar debt. We 
simply have to stop it. We have to say to the American people, we are 
not so good that we can spend the next generation's money. We are not 
so wise that we can make all their decisions for them. We have to say 
with a sense of humility that it is time for us to live like the 
average family. It is time for us to have a balanced budget like the 
average family has a balanced budget.
  Some people say average families have debt. But there is no provision 
whereby any average family can impose debt on the next generation. You 
have to be able to pay it off, or you go bankrupt. No father can say, 
``My grandchildren will pay for what I am doing now.'' And should any 
father do so? Of course not. The average family has to have a plan to 
pay.
  We do not have a plan to pay. State governments, sure, they have 
debt. But they have a plan to pay. And every day, they owe less than 
they did the day before, as they are paying off the debt. If they pay 
off the debt before the asset--such as a bridge or a building--is used 
or consumed, they actually have paid for such items in advance.
  But we in Congress do not have a plan to pay. We have a plan to play. 
And the plan to play was outlined in the President's budget which came 
to us. We are playing with the next generation's resources, $200 
million--excuse me--$200 billion. I was in State government too long. 
We only had millions instead of billions. What a tragedy; $200 billion 
a year. We admit it. This is what we intend to do to you. We announce 
in advance with some pride that for the next 10 years we are going to 
keep doing it.
  It is something that we should stop. Yes, Nathan Hale said, ``I 
regret but that I have but one life to give for my country.'' We have 
been saying that we regret but that we have but one unborn generation 
to mortgage for our appetite. It must stop, Mr. President.
  The Declaration of Independence for the United States of America 
included dramatic language which talked about the fact that individuals 
were committed to providing for the future a set of opportunities that 
would allow for personal growth and development, for the achievement of 
objectives and goals.
  The last line of the Declaration of Independence for the United 
States of America is an interesting line.
  The last line reads: ``We mutually pledge to each other our lives, 
our fortunes, and our sacred honor.''
  How would we feel about the Declaration of Independence, Mr. 
President, if we were to read down through the document and come to the 
last line and it were to say, ``We mutually pledge to have a good time, 
to spend the next generation's money, and to get reelected by serving 
the special interests of today with the resources of the unborn?'' We 
would dishonor that document so rapidly, we would repudiate it so 
thoroughly. But that more accurately describes the conduct of the 
Congress in recent times.
  It is time for us to enact the balanced budget amendment. And while 
we are enacting the balanced budget amendment, it is time for us again 
to put our John Hancocks on the pledge that closed the Declaration of 
Independence. It is time for us to say that we mutually pledge to each 
other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, and by doing so, 
provide the same level of opportunities for those who follow us as 
those who went before us have indeed provided for us now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina 
for a unanimous consent request.

                          ____________________