[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3263-S3274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to move to table the following amendments en bloc, and the 
ordering of the yeas and nays be in order, with one show of seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to clarify his request to 
make sure that the request does not include the tabling of several 
amendments listed en bloc.
  Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, what we are trying to do is make sure 
the motions to table on each of these amendments will be in place. They 
can be called up separately.
  I modify my unanimous-consent request to make that clear.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, then, now that the 
unanimous consent has been modified, will the Chair restate it, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding that the 
Senator has requested to move to table each individual amendment en 
bloc, and to order the yeas and nays en bloc, but that the votes would 
actually be taken individually. Is that correct?
  Mr. HATCH. That is correct. I now move to table the following 
amendments.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am still reserving my right to object.
  Mr. HATCH. Sure.
  Mr. LEAHY. Those votes would occur beginning this afternoon, is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding that they 
would take place this afternoon.
  Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with that understanding I now move to table 
the following amendments and motion and ask for the yeas and nays: The 
Kennedy amendment No. 267, Nunn amendment No. 299, Levin amendment No. 
273, Levin amendment No. 310, Levin amendment No. 311, Pryor amendment 
No. 307, Byrd amendment No. 252, Byrd amendment No. 254, Byrd amendment 
No. 255, Byrd amendment No. 253, Byrd amendment No. 258, Kerry motion 
to commit to budget committee.
  The Nunn amendment is as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Excuse me--that is right. I withdraw that last statement. 
Just the amendments I read the numbers for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to personally chat with the 
distinguished Senators from Georgia and Louisiana. I have listened to 
their comments carefully and will agree that we would take the 
amendment of the distinguished Senator from Georgia, as modified--
hopefully by a voice vote. It will save us all time but nevertheless to 
accommodate the distinguished Senator. And hope that would, of course, 
allow us to proceed from there.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank my friend from Utah and my friend from Illinois, 
and also Senator Craig and Senator Lott and others who have worked hard 
making this amendment acceptable.
  The Senator from Washington State, Senator Dorgan, and I have had 
some conversations also. Some of the language in this amendment now as 
is modified has been suggested by the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. President, I think this is enormously important, as I said. I 
will not repeat my remarks but I appreciate the fact that the managers 
of the bill have agreed to accept this amendment or to recommend its 
acceptance to the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
amendment. Assuming as I do assume that the amendment will be part of 
this constitutional amendment, then I will vote for the final passage 
on the constitutional amendment and I urge my colleagues to join in 
that effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are a number of Senators who have 
expressed concerns about a voice vote on this amendment. Given the fact 
that it has been the subject of debate and people are on record on this 
amendment during the course of the last several weeks of debate, I 
suggest that we have a rollcall, just to provide Senators the 
opportunity to express themselves on this amendment.
  [[Page S3264]] But that is consistent with the unanimous-consent 
request. I urge we do that.
  At this time I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for 
yielding the time. Twelve years ago I was a member of the House Ways 
and Means Committee when we wrote a piece of legislation called the 
Social Security Reform Act, one of the most significant, important, and 
useful things we did during the entire decade of the 1980's. We raised 
payroll taxes on both the employees and employers, we did a whole 
series of things to make the Social Security system work for, we 
thought then, 50 years. And we solved it for that period of time.
  During the writing of that bill, which I participated in, I expressed 
great concern about the fact that the surpluses that we designed to 
occur in the Social Security system would be misused unless we 
protected them. We created surpluses. This year the surplus alone is 
$69 billion and the question is, is it being protected? The answer is 
no.
  All during the discussion of this constitutional amendment, and on 
previous occasions when we have debated it, I have raised this 
question. Unfortunately, following an hour and a half discussion 
yesterday with the proponents of this legislation, it appears that this 
question will not be resolved. I indicated two concerns, one of which 
has now been resolved, for which I am appreciative: The enforcement 
issue.
 I think that resolved that concern.

  But I am also concerned about the Social Security trust fund. Does 
anyone in this room believe that it is appropriate to use Social 
Security trust funds for other purposes? That is what is happening. 
That is what will happen under the imprimatur of the Constitution if 
the balanced budget amendment is passed with this language.
  The way to correct this problem is with the Reid amendment. We had a 
vote on that and lost. The way to correct it is with the substitute 
offered by Senator Feinstein. We will have a vote on that, and I expect 
that will lose.
  The other way to correct it is for the proponents to bring up 
implementing language today, before we pass the constitutional 
amendment, which defines expenditures and receipts as not including 
Social Security, and that will solve the problem as far as I am 
concerned. Pass the Reid amendment or pass the Feinstein substitute, 
either of which will solve this problem as far as I am concerned. If 
that does not happen, when the final roll is called, I will be voting 
against this amendment, and I want people to understand why.
  This is three-forths of a trillion dollars. This is not a $10 or $20 
billion issue. It is three-forths of a trillion dollars and deals with 
the promise between those who work and those who have retired and deals 
with the agreement that we made in 1983 about how we would protect the 
future of the Social Security system in this country. We can protect it 
in this constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It is our 
decision. The will of the Senate will be expressed to determine whether 
we do that or do not. I am told that it is not possible to protect 
Social Security because there are not sufficient votes for it. If that 
is the case, then it is not possible for me to vote for this 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. If between now and the 
end of the day people say that is possible, I say, fine, let us do it 
then. And then I will revisit this issue.
  But I just want people to understand that my notion of this issue has 
not changed. It is an enormously important consideration. Social 
Security is one of the most important things this country has ever 
done. The 1983 reform act was one of the most significant pieces of 
legislation in the last decade and a half. And the question is whether 
we are going to be true to our word and stand for the solvency of the 
Social Security system for the long term.
  On the broader question, do we need a balanced budget amendment? You 
had better believe we do. We need greater balanced budget discipline, 
whether it is a constitutional amendment or whether some new 
legislative initiative. We are sinking in a sea of debt. Yes, we need 
to do this. But you do not pull yourself out of a sea of debt by 
inappropriately spending three-forths of a trillion dollars of Social 
Security revenue. One is not a tradeoff for the other.
  I will simply not vote for a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget unless this problem is solved in one of two ways: either pass 
the implementing legislation to redefine what is meant by receipts and 
outlays before we pass the constitutional amendment, or pass the Reid 
amendment as embodied in Senator Feinstein's substitute. One or the 
other is satisfactory to me. If it appears neither will be done, those 
who count votes should understand I will then vote no on the 
constitutional amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have about 8 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader.
  Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Georgia 
[Mr. Nunn] on his efforts to cure a major flaw in this constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. I shall vote for his amendment. 
Nevertheless, Mr. President, I do not feel that this amendment by Mr. 
Nunn will effectively bar the courts from intervening in cases or 
controversies that will arise outside this or even inside the article. 
Let us read the amendment. The ``judicial power of the United States.'' 
Mr. President, that language does not appear to say anything about the 
State courts. In fact, by omitting any reference to State courts, the 
language impliedly invites them to come in.

       The judicial power of the United States shall not extend to 
     any case or controversy arising under this article.

  ``Under this article.'' Suppose the case or controversy arises under 
some other article, under the takings clause, under the obligations of 
contract clause, or under the due process clause. The Supreme Court of 
the United States, if it construes a case or controversy as affected by 
this amendment, is going to take into consideration the whole document, 
the four corners of the Constitution and the other amendments thereto. 
And if there is a John Marshall on that court, he will find a way 
because, after all, the major purpose of this constitutional amendment 
is to bring into balance the outlays and receipts annually of the 
United States.
  The amendment goes on to say--Mr. President, may we have order in the 
Senate? Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will not proceed until we have order in the 
Senate, please.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will read the Nunn amendment again.

       The judicial power of the United States shall not extend to 
     any case or controversy arising under this article, except as 
     may be specifically authorized by legislation adopted 
     pursuant to this section.

  Mr. President, we say here that the judicial power of the United 
States shall not extend to any case or controversy arising under this 
article except as may be specifically authorized by legislation adopted 
pursuant to the article.
  We all know that legislation that may be adopted to implement the 
article may change from Congress to Congress. A subsequent Congress can 
amend or repeal the implementing language enacted by a previous 
Congress.
  So what we are setting up here is a situation in which uncertainty 
will continue to be a key factor in the judgments that are to be 
reached, not only uncertainty within the government itself but by the 
people. We are leaving it to the Congress to pass legislation 
authorizing thus and so, perhaps authorizing the courts to enter into 
this kind of case or that kind of case or another sort of controversy. 
So we are left with the same uncertainty with this amendment as we are 
without it.
  Mr. President, the proposed language by Mr. Nunn seeks to--and it may 
effectively do so up to a point--eliminate court jurisdiction over 
legitimate 
[[Page S3265]] claims raised under the balanced budget amendment. This 
means, in effect, that the Nunn amendment confers no right not to be 
convicted under a statute passed, for example, in violation of section 
4 of the amendment. Section 4 reads:

       No bill to increase Federal revenue shall become law unless 
     approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by 
     rollcall vote.

  Of course, the Constitution requires that bills that raise revenues 
originate in the other body. If a person is convicted under a criminal 
statute that originates in this body, but the contents of which 
criminal statute result in an increase in revenues, then the defendant 
who seeks relief will do well on the basis of a bill which raises 
revenue--even though it was a criminal statute under which he was 
indicted and convicted--which did not originate with the other body.
  The Nunn amendment confers no right not to be convicted under a 
statute passed in violation of any of the sections of this amendment.
  The Nunn amendment may, in certain cases, take away the right of an 
injured citizen to challenge any cuts in benefits--mandated by law--
ordered by a President who is seeking to enforce the amendment by 
impounding funds. As to due process, this amendment is writing the due 
process clause out of the Constitution, as far as such claims are 
concerned. I have already indicated that citizens could be convicted of 
a crime in violation of the Constitution, or taxed in violation of the 
Constitution. Yet, Congress would have the power to deny these citizens 
access to the courts in which to vindicate their rights.
  The courts could refuse to hear challenges to unconstitutional 
actions. It is unclear, Mr. President, whether this amendment can be 
raised as a defense. While the amendment seeks to bar plaintiffs from 
access to the Federal courts to claim a violation of their rights, it 
is not clear whether the proposed language also would bar governmental 
actors--for example, the President of the United States--from raising 
the balanced budget amendment as a defense. Here is an example: Suppose 
the President cuts Social Security. The plaintiff might sue, but he 
does not sue under the balanced budget amendment but under a statute. 
The President raises the defense that the balanced budget amendment 
justifies his action. How would a court rule? Would the court rule that 
the case should be dismissed because of the balanced budget amendment? 
But then, all the President has to do to escape scrutiny is to invoke 
the amendment. Would the court rule that the plaintiff wins because the 
court has no power to review the defense? Then other plaintiffs could 
bring similar actions and the budget would go unbalanced.
  Mr. President, let us say that the Nunn amendment is effective in 
barring intervention by the Federal courts into cases or controversies 
arising ``under this article.'' Even then, the result could be a shift 
to the President of unreviewable power to impound funds. The Federal 
courts would be barred by this amendment from reviewing the President's 
action, despite the Framers' view that the power of the purse should be 
left in the hands of the Congress, the closest representatives of the 
people. And if Congress should respond to presidential impoundment by 
granting the courts the power to review such actions, then the courts 
would again be embroiled in the budget process and, quite possibly, in 
the unseemly role of a conscripted ally of one branch against the 
other.
  So, Mr. President, even if this amendment is effective in 
accomplishing the goal that the distinguished Senator from Georgia 
seeks, it seems to me that it creates a greater impetus to the flow of 
legislative power and the control of the purse from the legislative 
branch to the President. The amendment provides that the courts, in 
essence, may be authorized to intervene based on implementing 
legislation that may be passed or may not be passed and may be changed 
from Congress to Congress. And thus, it gives authority for the 
Congress to transfer legislative powers to the courts.
  Subsequent legislation to implement the article may be vetoed. That 
would require two-thirds of both Houses to override the President's 
veto. Even if it becomes law, a subsequent Congress can change the law. 
The provision may be read as granting Congress the power to confer 
sweeping legislative powers over taxing and spending priorities on the 
courts, in the guise of implementing legislation.
  This is a mess. Congress may very well, in implementing legislation, 
decide just to hand the whole mess over to the courts of the land. Such 
legislation would abdicate Congress' fundamental responsibility over 
taxing and spending and transfer it to unelected judges, and thus 
decrease the accountability of the Federal Government to the taxpayers. 
The courts would be blamed for making the tough choices, though it may 
be two, three or four, five years down the road. But by then the 
fingerprints of the proponents of this amendment would be cold, and the 
mess would be left in the hands of the courts. The courts would be 
blamed for making the tough choices, which should be the responsibility 
of the elected officials.
  Assuming, Mr. President, that the amendment would be effective in 
stripping court jurisdiction and assuming further that Presidential 
impoundment is not the result--and those are large assumptions--the 
amendment would be an empty promise inscribed in the fundamental 
charter of our Nation.
  Mr. President, the proponents of this amendment have thus far tabled 
all amendments. Their ears have been deaf to the pleas of those 
Senators who have sought to protect the Social Security trust fund. 
There was no give on that amendment. There was no give on amendments 
that would deal with the ups and downs, the rises and the falls in the 
economy--no give on that. But suddenly, here comes an amendment that 
the proponents on the other side of the aisle seem to be willing to 
take. What about all of the other amendments that they have rejected?
  If the Nunn amendment is included in this overall constitutional 
article, then the balanced budget constitutional amendment as amended 
goes back to the House. If the House does not accept the Nunn language, 
then the balanced budget amendment will go to a conference. The whole 
balanced budget amendment may then be rewritten in that conference. 
When that conference report comes back to the Senate, it may not look 
like the balanced budget amendment that is presently before the Senate. 
Senators would certainly not have the opportunity to debate at length a 
conference report on a constitutional amendment that had been 
measurably changed in the conference process.
  Mr. President, I see many slips between the cup and lip in connection 
with this amendment. It is well-intentioned. I intend to vote for it. 
But, Mr. President, it demonstrates the farce that we are about to vote 
on later today--the farce in the form of this constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget. It is a mess! It is a ``quick fix'', and there 
is no way to fix this quick fix. The Nunn amendment clearly 
demonstrates that.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Utah has 38 minutes under his control.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, today the Senate stands poised to 
vote on one of the most important measures that will come before this 
Congress. Indeed, for many in this Chamber, the vote on the balanced 
budget amendment will be the most important vote they cast in their 
career, and I urge each of my colleagues to support it.
  As I have stated on this floor before, I chose a career in public 
service because, throughout my life, the public--through government--
helped broaden my opportunities. I am fundamentally committed to 
ensuring that future generations have the same opportunities I enjoyed. 
Every child born in this country--whether black or white, whether rich 
or poor--should have the chance to achieve his or her dreams. Every 
person should have a chance to contribute to society, to the maximum 
extent their talent or ability will allow.
  Government should play an active role in expanding people's 
opportunities. The Government should invest in technology and 
infrastructure, in job 
[[Page S3266]]  creation and training, and in education, in order to 
raise the people's living standards. The Government should help 
unemployed Americans get back on their feet, should help those who want 
to work to find jobs, should ensure that high-quality, affordable 
health care is available to all Americans, and should protect our 
environment. Government is not the enemy of society; it should be a 
partner, an instrument of the people's will, and a facilitator of our 
public interest. But if the Government does not get its fiscal house in 
order--if we don't act now to stop our runaway deficit spending--the 
Government will have little money left to provide for the public 
interest. Only the holders of the treasury bonds will be assured of any 
Government assistance.
  As I learned through my work on the Entitlements Commission, unless 
we get the deficit under control, we will be leaving our children--and 
our children's children--a legacy of debt that will make it impossible 
for them to achieve the American dream of living a better life than 
their parents.
  There is simply no way to get around the fact that our present 
spending trends are not sustainable in the long term. In 1963, 
Mandatory spending--the combination of entitlement programs and 
interest on the national debt--comprised 29.6 percent of the Federal 
Budget. By 1983, that number has almost doubled, to 56.3 percent. Ten 
years later, in 1993, mandatory spending was 61.4 percent of the annual 
budget. Let me underscore that: today, mandatory spending--
entitlements, plus interest on the national debt--comprise almost two 
thirds of the entire Federal Budget.
  But what about the future? If we don't act now, by the year 2003--8 
years from now--mandatory spending will comprise 72 percent of the 
Federal Budget, 58.2 percent for entitlement programs, and 13.8 percent 
for net interest on the national debt. Obviously, if we are spending 72 
percent of budget on mandatory spending, there is not much left over 
for defense, education, or infrastructure.
  Consider this example. In real terms, AFDC benefits have actually 
declined since 1970. The significance of that fact should not be lost 
on anyone. We are spending ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole, yet 
people are not better off as result.
  I have heard many opponents of the balanced budget amendment question 
the need to tackle the deficit immediately. America is not, they 
maintain, in the midst of a budgetary crisis. In the short term--the 
next 7 years--that's perhaps true. The country can probably continue on 
its current irresponsible path for a few years into the next century. 
But, after that, it will no longer be possible to ignore the basic 
demographic and health care cost trends driving the increases in 
Federal spending. We simply will not be able to continue on our current 
path, and expect the Federal Government to function as a partner of the 
people well into the next century. And, if we wait to act until crisis 
comes, any action we take will be that much more painful, and that much 
less effective.
  The entire Federal deficit for the current fiscal year--estimated at 
$176 billion--represents the interest owed on the huge national debt 
run up during the 1980's. This year, and next year, the budget would be 
balanced if not for the reckless supply-side economics that caused the 
deficit to balloon from its 1980 level of about $1 trillion to its 
current level of more than $4.7 trillion. If we had acted in 1980 to 
tackle the deficit, rather than adopting programs that merely fed its 
rapid growth, the problems we face today--in terms of demographics, and 
the aging of the baby boomers--would seem much more manageable. In 
1980, interest on the debt was $75 billion--that is a lot of money, Mr. 
President, but it is nowhere near the $950 billion we currently pay. 
How much better off we would be if, in 1980, congress had possessed the 
courage to make the difficult choices, and balance the budget. Not 
passing the balanced budget amendment will not make our problems go 
away. Our ability to meet our priorities will be much greater if we 
enact the balanced budget amendment now, if we tackle the tough 
problems now, instead of waiting until the country is on the brink of 
financial ruin. If we need any convincing about the need to address the 
deficit now, in 1995, we should just look at the consequences of our 
failure to address it then, in 1980.
  But I disagree that deficit spending is the most effective way to 
accomplish that. In 1966, when our deficit totaled $3.7 billion, 2.6 
percent of our budget went toward funding long-term investment. Now, 
with our budget deficit about to hit $268 billion, our long-term 
investment has shrunk to 1.8 percent of the budget. The reason, I 
think, is obvious--more and more of our funds must be devoted to paying 
interest on the debt, leaving less and less for investment.
  I have heard opponents of House Joint Resolution 1 state that we 
should not be tinkering around with the
 Constitution. Well, I couldn't agree with them more. The years I spent 
studying law at the University of Chicago gave me a deep appreciation 
for the Constitution. I believe the U.S. Constitution to be the finest 
exposition of democratic principles ever written. I make that statement 
fully aware that, in its original form, the Constitution included 
neither African-Americans nor women in its vision of a democratic 
society. But it changed to better realize the promise of America. The 
beauty of the Constitution is that it can, through a deliberate, 
cumbersome and sometimes painful process, be amended to reflect the 
changing realities, and meet new challenges faced by our Nation. This 
current problem--the problem of our growing fiscal disorder--is too 
important not to act on today. Who could be opposed to affirmatively 
stating in the Constitution that current generations must act 
responsibly, so that future generations will not be forced to bear the 
burden of their irresponsibility? What could be more important than the 
fiscal integrity of our Nation? As another of our Founding Fathers, 
Thomas Jefferson once said, ``We should consider ourselves unauthorized 
to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them 
ourselves.'' Why is that proposition not important enough to be 
included in the Constitution?

  Last year I had the honor of reading George Washington's farewell 
address to the Nation on the floor of the Senate. In that address, Mr. 
Washington left us with some words of wisdom that, I believe, support 
the notion of a balanced budget amendment. I would like to quote those 
here today:

       As a very important source of strength and security, 
     cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use 
     it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by 
     cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely 
     disbursements, to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much 
     greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the 
     accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasion of 
     expense, by my vigorous exertions, in times of peace, to 
     discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have 
     occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the 
     burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to take head on the political 
implications of this debate, because it is an important political 
question for the Congress. I am not a signatory of the Contract with 
America. Indeed, I agree with Senator Byrd; the only contract with 
America that matters to me is the U.S. Constitution.
  But I want to be clear that this issue is not a partisan one. It 
reflects philosophical differences that have little to do with party 
lines. The senior Senator from my State of Illinois, Senator Simon, has 
been one of the chief advocates of the balanced budget amendment for 
years. Senator Simon's liberal credentials are without question. He is, 
and has always been, a Democrat--he was at one time even a candidate 
for our Presidential nomination. so this is not a Republican versus 
Democrat debate. Nor is this a battle of the conservatives against the 
liberals. I am proud to call myself a liberal, for the simple reason 
that I believe government has a positive and constructive role to play 
in promoting the public good. I do not believe government is the enemy 
of progress. I believe it can promote progress. In my lifetime, I have 
seen firsthand the positive contributions a commitment to the American 
dream of equality and opportunity can make, I would not be here but for 
the struggles of people of good will to make the American dream a 
reality. And it is precisely because I so value their struggles that I 
believe we must take the steps that a commitment to 
[[Page S3267]] providing opportunity requires. We have a duty to use 
our decisionmaking power in a manner that preserves freedom and 
opportunity for all Americans, not only in this generation, but in 
every generation to come.
  Poor people are not helped by the deficits and out-of-control 
spending habits we cannot seem to shake. Its interesting as I listen to 
the debate that swirls around the issue of the balanced budget 
amendment and Social Security. The reason that debate is so intense, 
Mr. President, is that current recipients of Social Security--and even 
those of us in the baby boom generation who will be collecting checks 
in the not so distant future--have an absolute expectation that Social 
Security will provide for us in our retirement. The same cannot be said 
for those in our younger generations. When you speak to people who are 
my son Matthew's age, they have absolutely no faith that Government 
will be there for them when they need it, that it will help them enjoy 
retirement security or affordable health care or a high standard of 
living. And why should they, Mr. President? Since my son was born in 
1977, he has never seen a balanced budget. He has no idea what it means 
to live under a Federal Government that spends within its means. He has 
heard politician after politician promise to balance the budget, yet 
has only seen the deficit skyrocket.
  That cynicism grows deeper and deeper every day, despite 
pronouncements of politicians that a brighter day is just around the 
corner. The fact is, with current budget trends, a brighter day is not 
around the corner. What lies ahead, if we fail to act, is slower 
economic growth, greater debt, fewer options and higher taxes. The time 
has passed for us to realize that by failing to act, we are indeed 
making a choice--a choice that involves throwing away most of our 
options for dealing with our fiscal problems. The only way we will be 
able to turn current budget trends around is to face reality with the 
help of the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. President, I want to take this debate back to the beginning--to 
the Constitution. The Constitution states, in its preamble:

       We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more 
     perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
     Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the 
     general Welfare, and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to 
     ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this 
     Constitution for the United States of America.

  Mr. President, I believe that this constitutional preamble sets the 
stage for the vote we will soon cast on this balanced budget amendment, 
and tells us the direction in which we should go.
  This Constitution gives Congress the power to protect Social 
Security, to respond to fiscal emergencies, and to foreclose judicial 
interference in budgeting. It gives us the power to do everything 
necessary to respond to concerns that have been raised in opposition to 
this balanced budget amendment.
  Unfortunately, absent the balanced budget amendment, the Constitution 
does not give us what we now lack--the will to make the difficult 
decisions necessary for us to get our fiscal house in order. That is 
what the balanced budget amendment is calculated to do. It will impose 
on Congress the fiscal discipline to do what we should have done years 
ago, what George Washington exhorted us to do in his farewell address 
to the Nation, and what the preamble to this Constitution tells us to 
do.
  This is not a partisan debate, or at least it shouldn't be. The 
essence of this debate boils down to whether each individual Senator, 
regardless of party, believes we have a fundamental obligation to our 
posterity, and a fundamental obligation to the American people, to 
abide by the Constitution that we are all sworn to uphold.
  Mr. President, I call upon my colleagues to take the pledge by voting 
for this amendment that we will deficit spend no more, that we will be 
responsible for the debts that we incur, that we will be responsible 
for the budgets we pass, and that we will be responsible to future 
generations, and not saddle them with debt. I call on my fellow 
Senators to transcend the hysteria and fear that has fueled the 
opposition to this balanced budget amendment, and respond instead to 
our hopes, and to the responsibility that we are given as Members of 
this U.S. Congress to get our fiscal house in order, to discharge our 
debts, and not to ungenerously throw upon posterity the burdens which 
we ourselves ought to bear.
  Mr. President I thank the Senator from Utah for his yielding, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I will be brief. My views are already known 
to most of the Members of this body. I support the balanced budget 
amendment reluctantly--as a bad idea whose time has come. What I really 
support are the balanced budgets this amendment seeks to achieve.
  I support the amendment because I do not believe we are ever going to 
have the will to actually balance our budgets without it and that out 
failure to do so puts our future in doubt and demands extraordinary and 
uncommon action by this Congress.
  Let me begin by saying that I endorsed this amendment more than a 
decade ago, not because I believed then or now, that it will, in and of 
itself, bring our budget into balance, but because it establishes both 
a call to action and a destination--and because it takes away an excuse 
for not making the hard choices we are going to have to make with or 
without the amendment. It forces us to confront--head-on--the fiscal 
disaster we have created, and it will force an essential discipline in 
our budget process that has been sadly absent.
  President Clinton deserves enormous credit for the $500 billion 
deficit reduction package, which passed this body in 1993. It took 
courage and he did not have the bipartisan help he deserved. But it was 
not enough.
  Mr. President, during the course of this debate, I have heard many 
thoughtful and sincere arguments in opposition to this amendment.
 This morning, I would like to address just two of them--whether or not 
the amendment will result in deep cuts to important programs and 
whether or not the amendment is worthy of constitutional consideration.

  Mr. President, those who oppose this amendment because it will lead 
to painful cuts are arguing not against the amendment, but against 
actually balancing the budget. None of the choices are easy.
  But to oppose this amendment because of the difficult choices it will 
force, is to say to the American people that we do not have the will to 
govern responsibly and live within our means.
  Making these choices means establishing essential priorities for our 
Nation, identifying effective programs, that provide hope and 
opportunity for our people, programs that defend our freedom at home 
and abroad, and programs that invest in a better tomorrow for our 
children and our grandchildren.
  Protecting these priorities means: saying ``no'' to less critical 
spending; and having the fortitude to turn to the revenue side when we 
cannot responsibly cut spending any more; and refusing to enact new tax 
cuts we cannot afford and tackling entitlement reform, the 800 pound 
gorilla of the 21st century.
  If we do not, Mr. President, if we continue on our present course and 
speed, entitlements and interest on the debt--and nothing more--will 
absorb the entire tax revenue base of the Federal Government by the 
year 2012. It will absorb all of it, with nothing left for national 
defense or any other Federal program.
  How then do we invest in our children?
  Interest payments on the national debt will not ever put a single 
poor child through college. Interest payments on the national debt will 
not ever provide nutrition for a disadvantaged pregnant woman, special 
education for a child with disabilities, or the only hot meal of the 
day for a 6-year-old living in poverty.
  I support this amendment, reluctantly, Mr. President, not because I 
want to endanger programs that provide real opportunity for our 
children, but because I fear for the strength and security of the world 
we leave them, and their children if we do not act today.
  [[Page S3268]] A child born today will be 17 years old--a senior in 
high school--the year entitlements and interest on the debt begins to 
absorb all our tax revenue.
  What kind of a nation will that child inherit? Will it even resemble 
the world of unlimited possibilities that our parents left us?
  Today, we make that decision, Mr. President. Today, we decide the 
future of the class of 2012. Today, we either begin to assume the 
responsibility for our own debt or we leave it to our children and our 
grandchildren.
  Our Founding Fathers would be dismayed to know that we have reached 
the point where amending their Constitution is necessary to protect the 
strength and security of future generations of Americans. And if we had 
governed with the political courage of our forefathers, we would not be 
facing a fiscal crisis of such enormous proportion.
  But I would argue, Mr. President, that paying our own bills is not a 
trivial matter. Protecting our ability to invest in the kind of America 
we want for our children, is not a minor academic argument. Tripling 
our debt in 15 years is not an inconsequential act. Mr. President, $6 
trillion is not trivial.
  To me our own lack of will in paying our bills trivializes our 
Constitution--and this institution--far more than a balanced budget 
amendment.
  To the children graduating from high school in 2012, an amendment to 
balance our Federal budget will be more important to the kind of 
country they inherit than the last amendment we added to the 
Constitution. That amendment, the 27th, ratified in May, 1992, required 
intervening elections before congressional pay raises go into effect.
  The legacy of debt we leave our children, can never be trivial nor 
inconsequential. It violates a sacred obligation that has passed 
through generations of Americans, an obligation which has endured since 
the birth of our democracy and the adoption of our Constitution. That 
obligation is to leave a future brighter than our past. If we do not 
act today we are violating that obligation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I thank the manager.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are down to our last half-hour. It is my 
honor to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina, who was the first to ever fight for a balanced budget 
amendment on our side and who deserves a lot of credit if this 
amendment passes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have seen the national debt and 
deficits rise because, in large part, the Federal Government has grown. 
It has grown tremendously out of reason.
  The first $100 billion budget in the Nation occurred in 1962. This 
was almost 180 years after the Nation was founded. Yet it took only 9 
years, from 1962 to 1971, for the Federal budget to reach $200 billion. 
Then, the Federal budget continued to skyrocket: $300 billion in 1975, 
$500 billion in 1979, $800 billion in 1983, and the first $1 trillion 
budget in 1987. The budget for fiscal year 1995 was over $1.5 trillion.
  Federal spending has gripped the Congress as a narcotic. It is time 
to break the habit and restore order to the fiscal policy of the 
Nation. It is incumbent upon this body to send the balanced budget 
amendment to the American people for ratification. I am pleased that we 
have reached agreement to vote on final passage today.
  I want to say this: The federal debt is $4.8 trillion. How did it 
come about? Big government, big spending, not following sound fiscal 
policy at all. The annual interest on this debt--the annual interest we 
pay for which we get nothing, it just goes down the drain--$235 
billion. That is the second largest item in the budget.
  The average annual deficit for each year during this decade has been 
$259 billion. It is unreasonable. How are we going to stop it? I have 
been here 40 years. We have balanced the budget only one time in 32 
years. The budget has been balanced only eight times in the last 64 
years. When are we going to stop it? When are we going to stop spending 
more than we take in? When are we going to stop putting this debt on 
our children and grandchildren and generations to come.
  I say to Members that we must take action. Today is the day to do it. 
Today is the day to pass this amendment and let the American people 
know we mean business and we are going to protect this country. We have 
to protect it from this big spending just like we have to protect it in 
time of war. Either can ruin this Nation.
  Now, I want to mention this: The leadership in both houses have 
stated that Social Security will be protected in the implementing 
legislation once the balanced budget amendment is adopted. I have long 
supported our senior citizens and believe that the promise of Social 
Security is not to be broken. The Federal debt is the greatest threat 
to Social Security. Adoption of the balanced budget amendment and 
strong language in the implementing legislation will ensure the 
viability of Social Security.
  The Senate should pass this amendment. My home State of South 
Carolina has a balanced budget requirement. We have abided by it for 
years. We do not run any deficits. Why? Because we have the mandate of 
a balanced budget by constitutional provision. That is what we are 
trying to get here. We also have a statute.
  I say to Members, if we do not pass this amendment today, we will 
miss a great opportunity. There is no one piece of legislation we can 
pass this year or any year to come that is more important than this 
balanced budget amendment. I hope we pass it today. It is for the good 
of America. It is for the good of our country. We ought to do it 
without delay. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Tennessee for 1 minute.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, there is nothing more basic to human nature than 
looking out for the interests of those we bring into this world. Yet we 
are not doing that in this country. On the contrary, we are creating an 
economic disaster for the next generation, a debt that they will never 
be able to dig out of and the prospects of living in a second-rate 
country.
  We are doing this not because of some great depression. We are doing 
this not because of some great war. We are doing this not because of 
some natural disaster. We are doing this simply because we have lacked 
the will to make the tough decisions.
  Mr. President, through the history of the course of this country, in 
times of crisis, leaders of both parties have banded together to face 
that crisis and overcome it. We must do so again this very day because, 
indeed, it is a crisis we face. We must do so by passing this balanced 
budget amendment.
  The people's voice could not be more clear on this matter. They have 
spoken in the polls. They have spoken through their legal, elected 
representatives in the House. They stand ready to speak again in State 
legislatures throughout this Nation once we have done our duty. Let it 
not be said that it was the Senate of the United States of America that 
stifled the strong, clear voice of the American people. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, Robert Louis Stevenson once said, ``These are my 
politics: To change what we can to better what we can.'' With today's 
vote, we have the chance to do both.
  Like so many other times in this great Nation's history, we are 
standing today before the American people on the cusp of monumental 
change. We have inherited the challenges and the responsibilities of 
leadership of previous generations of Americans, Americans who have 
stood in this Chamber and voted for difficult votes that molded the 
image of their generation.
  In this century alone we had women's suffrage, the declaration of 
World War II, and civil rights laws. Each of these events ended the 
status quo of one generation and ushered in a new beginning for the 
next.
  The prophetic nature of this debate cannot be understated in the 
annals of America's history. This is a defining moment for our 
generation. This is our chance to be remembered for what is just and 
right in our time. This is our last chance to roll back the years of 
indebtedness.
  This legacy of debt is not just an imbalance between revenues and 
expenditures. It is an imbalance between trust and responsibilities. 
The last time the 
[[Page S3269]] Congress balanced its budget was when America put a man 
on the noon.
  If there is one thing that we have learned in the last 26 years, it 
is this: We cannot balance our budget in the absence of a stronger 
force than politics.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, outside the Senate Chamber on the Capitol 
grounds, the debt clock is ticking: an additional $9,600 every second, 
$576,000 every minute, $35 million every hour, and $829 million every 
day. That is nearly $1 billion in additional debt the Federal 
Government is accumulating each and every day. It is a catastrophe 
waiting to happen.
  The choice before the Senate today is clear. We can defuse that time 
bomb of debt by passing the balanced budget amendment and begin to make 
the tough decisions necessary to put our Nation's fiscal house in 
order, or we can bury our collective heads in the sand and pretend that 
spending $1 billion a day beyond our means will not have devastating 
economic consequences.
  But we ought to be honest with the American people: Without the 
balanced budget amendment, there is no plan to balance the budget--not 
in 5 years, not in 10 years, or ever. The budget that President Clinton 
submitted to the Congress earlier this month proposes $200 billion 
deficits as far as the eye can see. The President has no plan to 
balance the budget.
  Although the new Congress is poised to make significant cuts in 
spending, there is no assurance that when the pain begins to be felt in 
a few years, it will not opt to mitigate pain by resuming Federal 
borrowing as Congresses in the past have done. That is why Gramm-Rudman 
failed several years ago. It is why nothing less than the balanced 
budget amendment will succeed in the future.
  Mr. President, this is a debate about the future, about preserving 
what is best in America. It is about protecting senior citizens on 
Social Security. It is about letting our families keep what they earn. 
It is about protecting our children's future.
  I am hopeful today when this day ends the U.S. Senate will have 
passed the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the passage of a balanced budget amendment 
will do more to bring about the fundamental change that the American 
people voted for in 1994 than anything else that we can do. This is a 
vote about our future. This is a vote about our children.
  Let me share some sobering facts. When my parents graduated from high 
school in the early 1940's, the debt on each child that graduated was 
about $360 dollars. By the time my wife and I graduated in the mid-
1960's it was up to $1,600. When my children, Patrick and Jill and 
Becky, graduated in the mid-1980's, it was up to almost $9,000.
  If we continue to go the way we have been going, by the time my 
grandson, Albert, graduates in the year 2012, it will be up to almost 
$25,000.
  Mr. President, this is a defining moment. We vote today to change the 
Government. We vote today to carry out the mandate that was given to 
this Congress in 1994.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today to urge the 
passage of House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution. I am profoundly convinced that the future of our 
Government, indeed the future of our country, depends upon reaching a 
measure of financial responsibility. I am equally convinced that 
failure to pass this amendment will result in continued deficit 
spending and added burdens of debt and interest payments.
  As Members of this body, we are honored to be trustees in the area of 
public policy for those who we represent, for the people of the United 
States. The financial stewardship of this Congress has not met the test 
of fiscal and moral responsibility.
  I am persuaded that the people of Wyoming demand that Congress 
respond to their voice in November. They called for smaller Government, 
less expensive Government. The test of good Government is the 
responsiveness of that Government to the will of the people. We have 
that opportunity today.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we see here 11 freshmen who were elected 
in the last election, and sophomores who are with us. You do not see 
this many Members in the Senate--at least I do not usually when I have 
gotten up to speak.
  We are here because we got the message. We are here because the 
American people sent us on a mission. They sent us on a mission to make 
Government leaner, smaller and more efficient, and this balanced budget 
amendment is the vehicle by which all of that happens.
  If this does not pass, all those things that the people voted for on 
November 8 will not happen. But let me tell you something, the balanced 
budget amendment will pass. Oh, it may not pass today --I think it 
will--but it may not. But it will pass. The people who will stand in 
the way of this balanced budget amendment today will not be around long 
to stand in the way the next time. It will pass. It is just a matter of 
when.
  It is a matter of when we are going to be able to look in the eyes, 
as I do, of my 2-year-old little boy and my 3-year-old little girl and 
say that ``it is time to look out for your future, too. It is time that 
someone stands up and cares about you and your opportunities.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, at the State capital building in St. Paul, 
MN, lawmakers presented Gov. Arne Carlson with this petition yesterday. 
It says:

       We, the undersigned officials, duly elected by the citizens 
     of the great State of Minnesota, commit our support to 
     congressional passage of the balanced budget amendment and 
     its ratification by the Minnesota State Legislature.

  Our petition is signed by 81 representatives on the Federal and State 
level, Republicans and Democrats, who are concerned that this debt that 
we are heaping onto the backs of our children is not just wrong, it is 
criminal.
  I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed into the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the petition was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              MINNESOTANS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

                       (As of February 25, 1995)

       We the undersigned officials, duly elected by the Citizens 
     of the Great State of Minnesota, commit our support to 
     congressional passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment and 
     its ratification by the Minnesota State Legislature:
       United States Senator Rod Grams.
       Governor Arne Carlson.
       U.S. Representative Gil Gutknecht (IR-1st CD).
       U.S. Representative David Minge (DFL-2nd CD).
       U.S. Representative Collin Peterson (DFL-7th CD).
       U.S. Representative Jim Ramstad (IR-6th CD).
       State Senate Republican Leader Dean Johnson.
       State House Republican Leader Steve Sviggum.
       State Senator Charlie Berg (DFL-District 13).
       State Senator Joe Bertram, Sr. (DFL-District 14).
       State Senator Florian Chmielewski (DFL-District 8).
       State Senator Dick Day (IR-District 28).
       State Senator Steve Dille (IR-District 20).
       State Senator Dennis Frederickson (IR-District 23).
       State Senator Paula Hanson (DFL-50).
       State Senator Terry Johnston (IR-District 35).
       State Senator Sheila Kiscaden (IR-District 30).
       State Senator Dave Kleis (IR-District 16).
       State Senator Dave Knuston (IR-District 36).
       State Senator Cal Larson (IR-District 10).
       State Senator Arlene Lesewski (IR-District 21).
       State Senator Warren Limmer (IR-District 33).
       [[Page S3270]] State Senator Bob Lessard (DFL-District 3).
       State Senator Tom Neuville (IR-District 25).
       State Senator Ed Oliver (IR-District 43).
       State Senator Gen Olson (IR-District 34).
       State Senator Mark Ourada (IR-District 19).
       State Senator Pat Pariseau (IR-District 37).
       State Senator Martha Robertson (IR-District 45).
       State Senator Linda Runbeck (IR-District 53).
       State Senator Kenric Scheevel (IR-District 31).
       State Senator Dan Stevens (IR-District 17).
       State Senator Roy Terwilliger (IR-District 42).
       State Senator Jim Vickerman (DFL-District 22).
       State Representative Ron Abrams (IR-District 45A).
       State Representative Hilda Bettermann (IR-District 10B).
       State Representative Dave Bishop (IR-District 30B).
       State Representative Fran Bradley (IR-District 30A).
       State Representative Sherry Broecker (IR-District 53B).
       State Representative Tim Commers (IR-District 38A).
       State Representative Roxann Daggett (IR-District 11A).
       State Representative Steve Dehler (IR-District 14A).
       State Representative Jerry Dempsey (IR-District 29A).
       State Representative Ron Erhardt (IR-District 42A).
       State Representative Don Frerichs (IR-District 31A).
       State Representative Jim Girard (IR-District 21A).
       State Representative Bill Haas (IR-District 48A).
       State Representative Tom Hackbarth (IR-District 50A).
       State Representative Elaine Harder (IR-District 22B).
       State Representative Mark Holsten (IR-District 56A).
       State Representative Virgil Johnson (IR-District 32B).
       State Representative Kevin Knight (IR-District 40B).
       State Representative Le Roy Koppendrayer (IR-District 17A).
       State Representative Ron Kraus (IR-District 27A).
       State Representative Philip Krinkie (IR-District 53A).
       State Representative Peggy Leppik (IR-District 45B).
       State Representative Arlon W. Kindner (IR-District 33A).
       State Representative Bill Macklin (IR-District 37B).
       State Representative Dan McElroy (IR-District 36B).
       State Representative Carol Molnau (IR-District 35A).
       State Representative R.D. Mulder (IR-District 21B).
       State Representative Tony Onnen (IR-District 20B).
       State Representative Mike Osskopp (IR-District 29).
       State Representative Dennis Ozment (IR-District 37A).
       State Representative Erik Paulsen (IR-District 42B).
       State Representative Tim Pawlenty (IR-District 38B).
       State Representative Dick Pellow (IR-District 52B).
       State Representative Walt Perlt (DFL-District 57A).
       State Representative Jim Rostberg (IR-District 18A).
       State Representative Alice Seagren (IR-District 41A).
       State Representative Steve Smith (IR-District 34A).
       State Representative Doug Swenson (IR-District 51B).
       State Representative Howard Swenson (IR-District 23B).
       State Representative Barb Sykora (IR-District 43B).
       State Representative Eileen Tompkins (IR-District 36A).
       State Representative H. Todd Van Dellen (IR-District 34B).
       State Representative Tom Van Engen (IR-District 15A).
       State Representative Barb Vickerman (IR-District 23A).
       State Representative Charlie Weaver (IR-District 49A).
       State Representative Steve Wenzel (DFL-District 12B).
       State Representative Gary Worke (IR-District 28A).

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, whether by fax or phone or during our 
conversations together in town halls, Minnesotans, just like the rest 
of America, are demanding action on this balanced budget amendment.
  If this Senate is going to do the will of the people as we were 
elected to do, then this balanced budget amendment will pass and the 
final vote would be 100-0. Mr. President, let us make February 28, 
1995, the day we finally take responsibility for the uncontrolled 
spending of Congress in the 1980's. Let us make February 28, 1995, the 
day that we, the Congress, keep our promise to the American taxpayers 
and deliver a balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 1 
minute.


       Three Worst Excuses Against the Balanced Budget Amendment

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, here are the three worst excuses that 
have been made against voting for the balanced budget amendment in this 
Chamber.
  Bad excuse No. 1: We do not need a balanced budget amendment because 
Congress already has the authority to balance the budget.
  Of course, we have the authority to balance the budget. What we need 
is a prohibition against doing what is wrong. The Constitution is not 
needed to protect Americans from Congress doing what is right. 
Americans need the Constitution to protect them from Congress doing 
what is wrong: Spending the money of the next generation.
  The first five words of the Bill of Rights are, ``Congress shall make 
no law.'' These words shield the people from Congress. Now we need to 
protect the rights and resources of the next generation from debts 
incurred by Congress.
  Bad excuse No. 2: Before we have a balanced budget amendment, we must 
specify every detail about how we will achieve it. When President 
Kennedy made the commitment to send a man to the Moon, he did not lay 
out the design for the Apollo spacecraft or the booster rocket. He did 
not decide which astronaut would be the first man to set foot on the 
Moon. No, President Kennedy called America to greatness, he challenged 
people to a higher standard, because it was critical to our future.
  Today, we need to challenge America to greatness again, because 
balancing our budget is essential for our future.
  Bad excuse No. 3: A supermajority requirement is undemocratic because 
it gives a minority the right to block the will of the majority.
  What is undemocratic is that this Congress spends the resources of 
the unrepresented next generation. No taxation without representation 
was the cry of our Founding Fathers, and it is my cry on behalf of 
unrepresented generations yet to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the junior Senator from 
Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The junior Senator from Tennessee 
is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, 4 months ago, I was elected to the U.S. 
Senate with the mandate to aggressively treat problems that have been 
readily diagnosed by the American people. The national debt is a 
malignant cancer growing every second of every day, consuming the 
health and vitality of this Nation.
  The future hard work and dreams of our children are being sacrificed 
every day to feed this cancer. Conventional treatment has failed.
  Congress has demonstrated a lack of discipline to rein in Federal 
spending. The President has said he will tolerate increasing the debt 
from $18,000 to $24,000 for every individual.
  But there is a cure: The balanced budget amendment.
  Clearly, we are mortgaging the future of our children if we do not 
take action today. I want the children of America to inherit a 
prosperous future, not a legacy of debt. For this reason, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the balanced budget amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will undoubtedly cast many hundreds of 
votes during my tenure in the Senate, but it is unlikely I will cast 
any more important vote than the one I will make later today.
  With that vote, I will seek to amend the Constitution of our Nation 
to require that our national budget be balanced. There are many reasons 
why I 
[[Page S3271]] will vote this way, but first among them is my 
conviction that our responsibility to secure the economic future of our 
country can only be fulfilled if we adopt this amendment.
  Last night, when I said good night to my 20-month-old twin daughters, 
I thought about the country they will inherit when they grow up. I will 
not bequeath to them and their generation a legacy of debt.
  For too long, this Congress has failed to meet this responsibility to 
future Americans. The failures have occurred on both sides of the 
political aisle, and so now the solution must be bipartisan as well.
  I call on my colleagues to provide Betsy and Julie Abraham, and the 
other children of this country, the future they deserve--a future in 
which they will have the fullest opportunity to realize the promise of 
America.
  Mr. President, I urge this Senate to adopt this amendment to the 
Constitution.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for weeks on end now we have been debating 
this issue, and I think we know what the arguments are.
  The other night I took to the floor and spent 1 hour and 10 minutes 
diffusing the 11 arguments that have been given against the balanced 
budget amendment. The bottom line is that those are not real arguments. 
The bottom line is that those individuals who are going to use 
arguments against the balanced budget amendment really do not want to 
cut spending.
  Mr. President, the American people do. Let us look at what happened 
on last November 8. Last November 8, using the two indices of the 
stimulus bill for spending hikes and the National Taxpayers Union 
rating for tax increases, virtually everyone in the House and the 
Senate that was defeated on November 8 voted for the stimulus 
increase--that is the spending increase--and was rated either a ``D'' 
or an ``F'' by the National Taxpayers Union.
  The bottom line is the big spenders and the big taxers do not want a 
balanced budget amendment, but the American people do. And we have the 
unique opportunity to give them what they asked for on November 8.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am really impressed that all 11 new 
Members to the Senate have spoken for the balanced budget amendment. It 
shows the difference between what has gone on in the past and what is 
really going to go on in the future.
  I hope our colleagues pay attention, because this is the wave of the 
future, and we have to pass this balanced budget amendment.
  I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am impressed by the unanimity of this 
freshman class. I am reminded of one great truth around here, and that 
is that people who come to Washington and stay a long time sometimes--
and I underline sometimes because it is not universal. I see many 
Members on the floor for whom it is not true--some- times lose touch 
with the people back home.
 It is always the most dangerous political thing that can happen to a 
Member of the Senate, is to lose touch. My father got to the Senate 
because his predecessor became too important in Washington to pay 
attention to the people of Utah. My colleague, the senior Senator from 
Utah, became a Senator because the man he defeated got out of touch. He 
was just reelected for a fourth term, indicating that has not happened 
to him.

  But the 11 Members who have come here now, who are the most recent 
people to face the voters, come unanimously in favor of the balanced 
budget amendment. When I return home to Utah and conduct my efforts to 
stay in touch, I find, again, unanimously the voice of the people are 
demanding that we do this. So I rise to say I think the people in this 
body should listen to the people of the country who are telling us 
overwhelmingly this is what they want, and as their representatives 
here it is time for us to give them what they want.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I have only been 
around here 5 years. I am hardly considered a veteran. But I have never 
seen a more impressive display in my time in the Senate, indeed in all 
the years I have spent in the Congress, both the House and the Senate. 
This is a very personal appeal, talking about their children on behalf 
of the millions of other American children, and what this is going to 
do to them in the future. That kind of unanimity, speaking on behalf of 
the elections in November as you have, is something I hope my 
colleagues who are still on the fence will hear.
  This is much bigger than any one Senator or any one Senator's views. 
This is the American people at stake here. This is the economic future 
of America. All this talk we hear about how we are going to get it 
done, we do not need the amendment--we are not getting it done.
  This has been a crusade for me since the first day I ran for Congress 
and announced I was running in 1979. I am just proud to be with you, 
all of you, and appreciate what you have done.
  If this passes it will be because of you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the distinguished 
Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me commend my colleagues, not only 
for their statements but for their clarity, the clarity they have 
brought to this argument, that they campaigned on. They did not just 
forget their campaign promises. They are committed to cutting down the 
size of Government.
  We must pass the balanced budget amendment. Those who oppose this 
amendment will face the wrath of the people. We must force the Federal 
Government to live within its means. The Federal Government spends too 
much and taxes too much.
  Today, as we vote on this amendment, it is ironic that the Denver 
International Airport is finally opening--more than 16 months late and 
$3 billion over its original budget.
  This $4.9 billion boondoggle demonstrates why we need the balanced 
budget amendment. It demonstrates why we need less government, not 
more.
  If you have any question about the balanced budget amendment, take a 
look at the Denver airport.
  The FBI, SEC and the Denver district attorney are investigating 
allegations of fraud and public corruption involving the construction 
of DIA.
  This airport is a monument to Government waste and mismanagement. The 
FAA has already poured almost $700 million of Federal dollars into this 
white elephant. How much more will be needed to keep this airport from 
crash landing?
  In 1989, when Denver voters approved the construction of DIA, the 
politicians promised that the new airport would cost $1.7 billion and 
have 120 gates. The airport's price tax has now reached almost $5 
billion, and the airport has only 87 gates. What happened to gates 88 
to 120?
  The taxpayers have a right to know why DIA's cost increased by $3 
billion while the airport shrunk in size? Where did the extra $3 
billion go?
  The Denver airport was built on the expectation of 56 million 
passengers per year. But a total of only about 32 million passengers 
will fly in and out of Denver this year.
  It is outrageous that Denver travelers will reportedly have to pay 
$40 extra on every round-trip ticket to support this airport.
  Why was this Taj Mahal of the Rockies ever built? Why wasn't Denver's 
existing airport, Stapleton, simply expanded? Who is to blame for this 
folly?
  The new Denver airport was built with almost $4 billion in municipal 
bonds. In the wake of the Orange County debacle, the Banking Committee 
is looking into the adequacy of disclosure to DIA bondholders.
  Were bondholders adequately advised of DIA's projected revenues and 
costs? Was information about Denver's faulty 
[[Page S3272]] baggage system withheld? What is the long-term viability 
of DIA? Will DIA's bondholders be paid in full?
  The airport's bonds have a junk rating. Standard & Poor's says that 
``DIA faces major ongoing uncertainties that could lead to inadequate 
capacity to meet timely debt service payments.'' Will Denver's 
taxpayers have to pick up the tab if the airport defaults?
  As we vote on the balanced budget amendment, we must remember the 
Denver airport. We must remember what happens when taxpayers' money is 
wasted on grandiose schemes. We must force Government to live within 
its means.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this has been a very good debate. I 
appreciate our friends and colleagues and the others who have spoken. 
There are a number of others who would like to speak. Frankly, I would 
like to yield the remainder of our time to a person who I think has 
fought his guts out for this amendment, who I think has shown a great 
deal of courage, who I know has been badgered both ways, and for whom I 
have the utmost respect in this matter. That is the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes and 45 seconds.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch, Senator Craig, and 
everyone who has played a part in this. I got on the Dirksen elevator 
the other day and right after me came in Senator John Chafee and he 
said, ``What a horrible debt we are imposing on future generations.'' 
That sums it all up.
  We heard precisely the same arguments in 1986. We had $2 trillion 
worth of debt and now we have $4.8 trillion worth of debt. This year we 
will spend $339 billion on interest. We will spend twice as much as 
what we spend on our poverty programs, 11 times as much as we spend on 
education, 22 times as much as we spend on foreign economic assistance. 
In fact, we spend twice as much money on foreign aid for the wealthy in 
terms of interest on bonds that are held overseas than we spend on 
foreign aid for the poor.
  Will it be painful if we pass this? Yes. There is going to be some 
pain. There is going to be infinitely more pain for this Nation and a 
lowered standard of living if we continue to have these huge deficits. 
The pain we are asked to impose upon ourselves is small compared to 
some of the steps that, for example, Margaret Thatcher took in Great 
Britain to turn that country around.
  If you assume no change in interest rates, and every projection is 
that if we pass this, interest rates are going to go lower--but if you 
assume no change in interest rates, and no deductions on Social 
Security, it means that we can grow 1.7 percent a year in income. Put 
another way, in the year 2002, it is anticipated we will have about 
$300 billion more in income than we are spending this year. We can have 
a gradual growth, but we will have to have restrained growth.
  I have read the editorials, Mr. President, as have you, criticizing 
this. It is interesting that not a single editorial has mentioned 
economic history. Take a look at this chart right here. This is the 
latest CBO estimate of where we are going in deficit versus national 
income, GDP. Historically, as nations have come around 9 or 10 or 11 
percent, right around here, they have started monetizing the debt, 
started the printing presses rolling, started devaluing their currency. 
Those who vote against this are taking the chance that we can be the 
first nation in history to go up to this kind of debt without 
monetizing the debt. But what a huge gamble with the future of our 
country. As responsible Members of this body we should not be making 
that gamble.
  I have heard a lot of about Social Security on the floor of the 
Senate today and these past days. I want to protect Social Security. 
The only way you can protect Social Security is to make sure we do not 
devalue our currency. I think it is vital for the future of our Nation 
and our children and generations to come that we pass this 
constitutional amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The remaining time is under the control of 
Senator Byrd.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I note that we have the entire Republican response 
team on the floor here today. They are out in full numbers. I have 
thought heretofore, when only one or two members of the response team 
came to the floor, that the other seven might be compared with the 
Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, to whom Gibbon referred in his magnificent 
magisterial work, ``The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.'' But 
they are all here today. They really did not sleep as long as the Seven 
Sleepers, who slumbered 187 years, from the reign of Decius, who 
reigned from 249 to 251 A.D., until the reign of Theodosius II, who 
reigned from 408 to 450 A.D. Congratulations to the Republican response 
team. They have worked hard and acquitted themselves well.
  Mr. President, it may be of historical interest to some Senators, as 
it is to me, that on this very day 200 years ago, the Congress was 
debating public debt legislation--on February 28, 1795--just as we are 
today, on February 28, 1995.
  I will ask to include in tomorrow's Record, for the information of 
Senators, the materials pertinent to that debate, and to the statute 
that resulted therefrom.
  Mr. President, rarely have I seen in all my years in the Senate a 
measure so flawed as the one before us today. If adopted, this 
constitutional amendment will surely create more mischief, generate 
more surprise consequences, and spin-off more unfortunate crises than 
has any other single legislative proposal in the history of this 
Nation. How something that seems so simple and straightforward to the 
casual observer can be so truly diabolical and destructive in nature 
confounds conventional wisdom. But a closer look reveals the impossible 
nature of this oft-touted but little understood amendment.
  Section VI of the amendment states that ``The Congress shall enforce 
and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely 
on estimates of outlays and receipts.'' The amendment is immediately 
rendered unworkable with those 20 words in section VI. If one looks at 
the history of budget forecasts, it quickly becomes apparent--and no 
one would know this better than the distinguished Chairman of the 
Budget Committee, Senator Domenici--that forecasting budget receipts 
and outlays is not unlike forecasting the weather. Both are far from 
exact sciences, although the local weatherman probably hits the bull's 
eye with much more frequency than even our best budget prognosticators.
  Under Section VI of this balanced budget proposal, erroneous and 
changing budget forecasts would have us dealing with the budget almost 
continually. Planned spending enacted before the fiscal year could have 
to be changed one or more times during the fiscal year. In a constantly 
fluctuating economy, where outlays and receipts alter with business 
cycles, as well as with unemployment, earthquakes, fires, and overseas 
conflicts, requiring rigid end-of-year budget balance, to be determined 
by estimates is nothing short of a recipe for utter chaos. As if that 
were not enough, the problem of inaccurate estimates is compounded by 
the text of Section II. Section II requires that the limit on debt held 
by the public not be increased absent a three-fifths vote. Since an 
increase in debt closely correlates with an excess of outlays over 
receipts, the amendment actually requires Congress to take two actions 
to allow for a deficit in any given fiscal year: pass a law to increase 
the debt limit, and pass another law for a specific deficit for the 
year.
  To further elaborate on the ``shop of horrors'' which this amendment 
offers, let us discuss for a moment the principle of majority rule. 
This amendment would, for the first time, I believe, overturn the 
principle of majority rule. The budget of this Nation and critical 
economic decisions that relate to that budget could, at the most 
critical of times, be placed in the hands of a minority. Minorities are 
not elected to control the Nation's policies. Majorities are charged 
with that duty. Yet, this amendment would actually hand a minority the 
power to determine economic policy, and it would hand that power over 
during times of domestic or foreign economic crises, natural disasters, 
international turmoil, recessions, 
[[Page S3273]]  or other economic emergencies. That makes no sense. It 
makes no sense at all.
  Moreover, the amendment's wording in section II--``The limit on the 
debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased. . 
. .,'' allows the Federal Government to keep borrowing from the trust 
funds, including the Social Security trust fund, because ``debt held by 
the public'' refers to externally-held debt, not internally-held debt. 
So, we can keep putting IOU's into the trust funds and borrowing to 
mask the true size of the deficit, without ever having to make good on 
our IOU's. In the case of the Social Security trust fund, when the baby 
boomers reach retirement age and the revenues in the trust fund drop 
because fewer people are working and paying into the fund and more 
people are drawing benefits out of the fund, how will we ever be able 
to replace the nearly $3 trillion which we have borrowed?
  The amendment is so full of flaws, so reflective of flabby thinking, 
so arrogant in its disregard for the traditional checks and balances 
and separation of powers, that its consequences could be nothing short 
of a calamity.
  The amendment so blurs and smudges the historical balance among the 
three branches that it renders our traditional constitutional structure 
to a mere shadow of its former clarity. Congress's traditional power of 
the purse is seriously hamstrung by the yearly supermajority 
requirements to waive the provisions of the amendment, and by the 
possibility of unchecked impoundments of appropriated funds by the 
Executive. The President's flexibility on budgetary matters is also 
seriously impaired because he must present a balanced budget every year 
whether he deems it wise or not.
  The courts will either gain tremendous power over both branches and 
over matters of budget policy or be rendered largely impotent, 
depending upon how the implementing legislation, if there ever is any, 
is written, and depending upon the course of events. One thing is 
certain: uncertainty will reign.
  One additional thing is certain. The ghost of John Marshall was not 
looking over the shoulders of the authors of this most unfortunate 
amendment.
  There is no reason to spoil our grandest historical document with 
this macabre twisting of the balance of powers. We can begin to address 
budget deficits right now by passing legislation to further reduce the 
deficits, and without waiting on any constitutional amendment to 
provide us cover for the hard choices we were elected to make.
  Political cover has its place and can be helpful in some situations, 
but this cover is far too costly. Destroying the Constitution is too 
high a price to pay for political cover.
  We can cut the deficit without this amendment. But, I fear that the 
paramount concern of some is whether, absent this amendment, they can 
vote to cut deficits and be reelected. That is hardly a noble reason to 
proceed to rewrite our carefully preserved national charter, preserved 
for us with blood and protected through the statesmanship and the 
courage of the past membership of this and the other body through 200 
years of time. It is now up to the Members of this current Senate to 
live up to the standard of patriotism and courage set by our 
predecessors on important and critical matters throughout our history. 
There will be no more important vote any of us will ever cast.
  Before this day has passed, each of us will be tested as to strength 
of character and fealty to our sworn oath as Senators.
  I hope, Mr. President, we will not, in this critical moment, be found 
wanting. The amendment will have consequences which no one can 
predict--no one. We have tried to explore some of those consequences 
throughout the 30 days of debate which have been consumed on this 
proposal. But it seems that the more one studies the amendment, the 
more flaws become apparent.
  I am confident that should we go on another 30 days, additional flaws 
and problems would very likely be found. However, here we are at the 11 
hour, witnessing desperate--desperate --last-minute efforts to salvage 
this amendment through a cut-and-paste process designed only to win 
votes and to somehow shove this extremely perilous proposal through the 
Senate. Have we lost all of our senses? What other flaws are we writing 
into the Constitution with this quick editing process which is 
currently going on on the Senate floor? What other checks and balances 
are we compromising with this insane bidding war for votes?
  So here we are at the last minute, the 11 hour, the 59th minute of 
the 11 hour, and there is this hurried, desperate effort to find a way 
to garner another vote. Cut and paste. Change. We see this frenetic 
exercise being carried on here, all the hurry at the last moment now to 
try to patch over some of the flaws that have been brought to light.
  Careful consideration has been thrown to the four winds, and all that 
seems to matter at this point now, Mr. President, is a victory for the 
proponents, at all costs. We are not filling in a crossword puzzle. We 
are not trying this word or that word out to win a prize. We are 
writing a constitutional amendment. John Marshall said: ``Let us not 
forget that it is the Constitution we are expounding.'' I add my own 
modest footnote by saying that it is the Constitution that we are 
amending. We are writing a constitutional amendment--something that 
will affect the representative democracy for generations of Americans 
through the coming ages. I regret the rather tawdry attempt at the 
last-minute tinkering being made to try to salvage a proposal that is 
so flawed that it ought to be immediately rejected by the Senate. I 
hope that we will come to our senses and defeat this patched-up, 
pulled-together ``Frankenstein'' before it is too late.
  Mr. President, on March 2, 1805--that is only 2 days away from being 
exactly 190 years ago--Aaron Burr, after he had presided over the 
impeachment trial of Samuel Chase and before leaving the Senate Chamber 
for the last time, spoke to the Members of that body over which he had 
presided for 4 years. The speech was one which left many of the 
Senators of that ancient day in tears. As we come to a close of this 
debate very soon, his closing words should ring in the ears of today's 
men and women who serve in this body. Aaron Burr said, with regard to 
the U.S. Senate: ``This House is a sanctuary--a citadel of law, of 
order, and of liberty; and it is here--it is here, in this exalted 
refuge--here, if anywhere, will resistance be made to the storms of 
political phrensy and the silent arts of corruption; and if the 
Constitution be destined ever to perish by the sacrilegious hands of 
the demagogue or the usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies 
will be witnessed on this floor.''
  Mr. President, the decision which the Senate will make before this 
day's sun has set can very well turn out to be the prophetic end of 
Burr's words. I have cast 13,744 votes in this Senate since I came to 
the Senate, now going on 37 years ago. This does not include the more 
than 400 votes that I cast in the other body before I came to the 
Senate. But barring none, this is the most important vote of my 
political career on Capitol Hill. It is important, because we are 
tampering with the Constitution of the United States, an immortal 
document that has served us well over a period of 206 years. And we are 
reaching a critical point in the history of this country and in the 
history of the Constitution when we face the awful prospect of an 
amendment, which has been rushed through the other body in 2 day's 
time, and which has the support all over this country of the 
overwhelming majority of the American people--because they have not 
been duly informed of its contents and of the ramifications that will 
flow from its adoption and ratification. It is said that there is only 
one vote that stands between the Senate and the Constitution and that 
awful end which Burr prognosticated which would be witnessed on this 
floor. ``If the Constitution be destined ever to be destroyed by the 
sacrilegious hands of the demagogue or the usurper, which God avert, 
its expiring agonies will be witnessed on this floor.''
  Mr. President, I pray to God that Senators will rise to the 
occasion--I have seen this Senate demonstrate courage and character 
before, and I hope it will do so today--and that Senators will cast 
their vote to protect for their children and their children's children 
throughout all the ages to come, 
[[Page S3274]]  this unique Constitution that was written by those 
illustrious men, like Hamilton and Madison and the other Framers who 
sat in Philadelphia in 1797, lacking only 2 years, Mr. President, of 
being 210 years ago.
  Mr. President, I close with the urgent plea that we remember 
Marshall's admonition. Let us not forget that it is a Constitution that 
we are expounding and let us not forget also, Mr. President, that it is 
a Constitution that we are amending.
  God save the United States of America! God save the Constitution of 
the United States! May this Senate rise to do its duty in order that 
our children may have cause to honor the memories of their fathers as 
we have cause to honor the memory of ours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 
just 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I know time has expired. I asked for 30 
seconds to express my very profound gratitude to the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia for his powerful statement on behalf of the 
Constitution.
  I know of no Member of the Congress who has a deeper, more enduring 
dedication to the Constitution than does the Senator from West 
Virginia. I take his wise and moving words to heart. I am privileged to 
serve with him. I want to thank him for standing resolutely on this 
floor day in and day out and eloquently championing the basic, 
fundamental document of our Republic--the Constitution--which has 
served us so well for 206 years.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 30 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I just want to join my colleague from 
Maryland in commending our beloved colleague from West Virginia.
  However the Senate decides this afternoon, I can speak with a great 
deal of certainty that the children, grandchildren, great 
grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren of the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia will indeed be proud of how he has stood for 
his country and has stood for the Constitution. I am deeply proud to 
stand with him.
  I have cast no vote in the past 20 years that will be as important as 
the one I cast this afternoon. I am proud to cast my vote along with 
that of the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from West Virginia in 
defending our Constitution from this assault.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I wish to express my thanks to the Senator from Maryland 
and the Senator from Connecticut for their constant and vigilant 
defense of our Constitution of the United States against this assault 
that is being made on the Constitution.
  I thank them for their vigor, for their constant diligence, and for 
their spirit of defense of a great Government.

                          ____________________