[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3299-S3304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           ORDER OF BUSINESS

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my vote on the motion to table amendment 
No. 253 should have been ``no.'' I was mistaken on the sequence of the 
amendments before us today. I believe that a simple majority, as now 
provided in the Constitution, is appropriate for decisions to increase 
revenues. I do not believe that we--or future generations--should be 
constrained in the options available to keep the budget in balance.
  (Ms. SNOWE assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Utah has 15 minutes.
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, thank you. Let me thank the Senator from 
Utah for yielding. There are so many people that I would like to thank 
this evening who have been direct participants in what I believe to 
have been one of the most important debates that the Senate of the 
United States has engaged in--at least in my tenure and in the tenure 
of many of our Senators.
  I certainly would like to thank the Senator from Utah for his 
leadership on this issue and a good many others who have been directly 
responsible for bringing this most important issue and statement to the 
floor. I also thank the Senator from Illinois, Paul Simon, for his 
stalwart leadership in pursuit of the fiscal responsibility that most 
of us aspire to, which the Constitutional amendment would allow.
  But tonight, let me talk to my colleagues here in the Chamber, for I 
believe we suffer the wrong idea. Somehow tonight, those who plan to 
vote against this amendment believe that their vote against it is like 
the passage of the vote for or against a bill that oftentimes comes to 
the floor. It is not that kind of vote.
  Article V of our Constitution--the very organic document that we 
attempt to offer out an amendment to tonight--says this very clearly: 
``The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it 
necessary, shall propose an amendment.''
  So tonight we are not voting on an amendment to pass it or to fail 
it. We are voting on an amendment to propose it to the citizens of this 
country, to allow them to decide what the organic law of this land will 
be about.
  And anyone who suggests tonight that they will stand in opposition to 
this amendment stands in opposition to the right of the people of their 
State to say, ``Yes, we support it,'' or ``No, we don't.'' And that is 
the fundamental issue.
  So I ask you to search your soul tonight and decide whether you, as a 
Senator of the U.S. Senate, are going to stand in the way of the 
citizens of your State, if you know better than they, if you really 
have a better vision than the average citizen of this country that 
supports you and elects you and sends you to this Congress to represent 
their interest.
  But in this instance, you are not allowed to do that. You are not 
allowed to say, ``I know better.'' What you can say is, ``I propose.''
  Let us allow tonight the right of the citizens to decide. The 
Constitution is a basic document. It protects the people's right. 
Tonight we want to protect the people's right against an overburdening 
debt structure that has denied this country the kind of economic 
freedom that all Americans are entitled to.
  I ask all of you to join with us tonight in proposing to the citizens 
of this great Nation a constitutional amendment for their decision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague and prime cosponsor of this amendment, the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, and my colleagues, first, let me pay 
tribute to Senator Byrd, who is a very worthy foe and certainly one of 
the most distinguished Members of this body.
  I also appreciate the leadership of Senator Hatch on this, Senator 
Craig, and my colleagues on this side, Senator Heflin, Senator Robb, 
Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Exon, Senator Campbell, and I should be 
mentioning others.
  If we had a proposal in here that said, two decades after we balance 
a budget, we are going to have an average increase in income of every 
American of 36 percent, we would vote for it overwhelmingly. And yet 
that is precisely what the General Accounting Office says will happen 
if we balance the budget in this country.
  Data Resources, Inc., one of the two top econometric forecasters in 
this country, says if we balance the budget, the prime rate will go 
down 2.5 percent and we will have an increase in national income of 2 
percent. CBO says at least 1 percent growth in income. The Wharton 
School in Philadelphia says the prime rate will go down 4 percent. We 
have an opportunity to do these things that can help our economy 
immensely. And I hope we do not muff that opportunity.
  I heard a reference from Senator Byrd to history. It is important to 
remember that Thomas Jefferson, in 1787, said, ``If I could add one 
amendment to the Constitution, it would be to prohibit the Federal 
Government from borrowing.''
  And remember the rallying cry of the American Revolution--taxation 
without representation.
  What are we doing to our grandchildren and generations to come? If 
that is not taxation without representation, nothing is.
  And talk about history, I have not heard one opponent talk about 
economic history here. I have not read one editorial talking about 
economic history. The reality is the history of nations is that when 
they pile up debt and they get around 9, 10 or 11 percent of deficit 
versus national income, they start monetizing the debt. They start the 
printing presses rolling.
  CBO says we are headed for 18 percent. We can take a chance that we 
will be the first nation in history to go up 18 percent without 
monetizing the debt, but we are taking a huge, huge gamble.
  The Declaration of Independence. We are making, every year as we add 
to the deficit, a declaration of dependence. We now owe roughly $800 
billion in our bonds to other countries. If the Simon family gets too 
deeply into debt, we start losing our independence; and if a nation 
does, it starts losing its independence.
  Senator Dodd and I are old enough to remember 1956, when three nation 
friends of ours--Israel, France, and Great Britain--went in and seized 
the Suez Canal, which President Nasser had taken. They did it because 
they were our friends; thought they could get by with it, and it was 
just before an 
[[Page S3300]] election. President Eisenhower said, ``This is wrong.''
  But something else happened we did not know about, or most of us did 
not know about until sometime later. The United States threatened to 
dump the British pound sterling. And without firing a shot, the troops 
of Great Britain, France, and Israel withdrew.
  We are in that situation.
  Talk about American foreign aid. We now spend twice as much in 
foreign aid to the wealthy through interest and bonds than we do in 
foreign economic assistance to poor people. This year, the current 
estimate is $339 billion on interest, 11 times as much on interest as 
education, twice as much on interest as all our poverty programs 
combined, 22 times as much on interest as foreign economic assistance. 
It gets worse each year, and it will continue to get worse unless we 
pass this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMON. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator.
  Mr. SIMON. I would simply point out, is there going to be pain if we 
pass this? Yes. But it is very interesting, there were polls by the 
Wirthlin Group which showed 76 percent of the population favors this, 
and 53 percent said they favor it, but they also believe it is going to 
cause them pain.
  The American people are yearning for leadership. Tonight, my friends 
in the Senate, let us give it to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished Budget Committee chairman, Senator Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Hatch, for 
yielding me 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam President, fellow Senators, this is a historic night. We have 
never been so close to putting our Nation's fiscal house in order as we 
will be in 40 minutes. It is on our shoulders, but I can tell you that 
our children and grandchildren, whether they are present, whether they 
are listening, whether they are capable of listening or they are too 
small, they will either thank us tonight for doing something for them 
or they will wonder where we were when they needed us most.
  The truth of the matter is there are many risks, but the status quo 
will not work. For those who come to the floor and raise the risks of a 
balanced budget, the risks of this amendment, they should be asked what 
are the risks of doing nothing. I am convinced that the status quo, 
with reference to fiscal policy for our Nation, means that the legacy 
for our children is very close to zero.
  I want to close by quoting Laurence Tribe, a very liberal 
constitutional scholar. He was testifying on the balanced budget. I 
asked him whether or not it made sense to do something like this. And 
listen carefully to what he said:

       Given the centrality in our revolutionary origins of the 
     precept that there should be no taxation without 
     representation, it seems especially fitting in principle that 
     we seek somehow to tie our hands so we cannot spend our 
     children's legacy.

  That is the issue. Do we spend our children's legacy or do we leave a 
legacy to them? Plain and simple. That is the issue.
  I thank the Senator for yielding, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Nebraska, the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend and colleague, the manager of the bill.
  Let me be brief. I just want to say that I have listened to what 
Senator Simon just said about the debt that continues to consume 
America. Even if we pass this in the next half-hour--which I hope and 
urge we do--we are still at least 8 years away from beginning to cut 
down the national debt. That shows how far we are behind the curve.
  I just wish to say, Madam President, that it has been a real 
experience in working with the many people on both sides of the aisle. 
I hope we have the 67 votes in the next few minutes when we cast this 
historic vote. I think this amendment must be approved.
  I yield back the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no remaining time.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as a Member of the Senate, I have had the 
great honor of voting on many historic bills, but few in the history of 
the Senate are as significant as this one. It is so rare that we have a 
vote that so dramatically and directly affects the future of our 
children and our grandchildren. This vote is clearly a vote for future 
generations.
  This vote is especially significant because of who it will help and 
who it will hurt. It will help our children and our grandchildren. By 
removing the onerous burden of debt that we have been accumulating on 
their shoulders, we are helping to level the generational playing 
field. It will restore the American dream for another generation of 
Americans.
  Who does this vote hurt if we prevail? For starters, the politics-as-
usual crowd, the special interest groups, and those with vested 
interests in the status quo, all those groups who keep feeding at the 
trough and who think the gravy train will never run out of gas.
  The balanced budget amendment means no more pork for the special 
interests. And while I am at it, I want to give the special interests 
and those with vested interests in the status quo one piece of advice: 
Pack your bags and hit the road. The show is over.
  Do Members know who else is hurt by the balanced budget amendment? 
You may find this hard to believe--everyone in this Chamber. Gone are 
the days when politicians can take the easy way out. Gone are the days 
when politicians can say ``Pass it; we will worry about how to pay for 
it later.'' We can no longer pass anything that we cannot come up with 
the money for. It is called accountability, and it starts right here, 
right now.
  That is why I am so proud to have been a part of this debate. And 
when I see my grandchildren I can look them in the eye and tell them 
that today marks a new beginning in their lives. I can smile, knowing 
that when it comes time for them to go to college, to train for a 
career, to buy a house, to raise a family, they will be able to do so. 
The American dream will live on for another generation.
  To the President of the United States, I have a caution for him: Mr. 
President, you have joined forces with the special interests. Let me 
ask you one simple question. How can you look your daughter, Chelsea, 
in the eye after what you are trying to do here? How can you justify 
the trillions of dollars of red ink that you and others who are voting 
against this have subjected the children of America to?
  Madam President, over the next several months, we will be working 
late into the evening, examining every single line of the Federal 
budget, searching for waste, fraud and abuse, cutting programs that 
have outlived their usefulness, and finding the money for those that 
still work. It will all be worth it. For our grandchildren, it is worth 
it.
  Madam President, I want to thank everybody who has participated. I 
want to pay tribute to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for 
the dignified manner in which he has conducted his opposition to this 
amendment. I want to pay great tribute to my friend from Illinois, 
Senator Simon, and to my friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, and all the 
others who have worked so hard on this floor, especially those 11 
brandnew Senators. They have made a real difference here. They have 
shown Members that this is the new way.
  Adopting this amendment is what we have to do. We have to do so to 
have a future for our children and grandchildren. We can no longer 
afford to spend this country into bankruptcy. I want to thank all of 
the loyal and dedicated staff people and those who have worked so hard 
during this debate and in preparation for it.
   [[Page S3301]] And above all, I thank all those who will vote for 
this amendment this evening. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. It is 
one of the most important votes we will ever cast. Our national life 
depends upon it. The salvation of this country depends on it. And the 
future of our children depends on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair now recognizes the Democratic 
leader, who has the next 15 minutes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, this has been a good debate. It has 
been a long and historic debate. But it has not been a debate about a 
balanced budget.
  No one supports the current debt or deficit. Every Senator believes, 
as I believe, that deficit spending must end. We heard the figures. We 
have debated how we got to this point. We have noted all of our efforts 
so far. I have not heard anyone argue for doing nothing. The debate has 
been about how we achieve what we all say we want, and over what time 
period, and whether or not to accomplish what we say we all want, we 
amend the Constitution for the 28th time.
  During this debate, we have heard many who have argued eloquently 
that there is no purpose in amending the Constitution for this reason. 
Our colleague, the senior Senator from New York, emphasizes over and 
over again that while 1 machine can do the work of 100 men and women, 
no machine can replace the need to take fundamental responsibility.
  No provision in the Constitution can create a formula for automatic 
deficit reduction. Nothing we do here will embolden Senators to make 
decisions which we are otherwise unable to make for ourselves.
  This debate has also underscored the role the Federal Government 
plays within our economy. No one can deny that fiscal policy has 
moderated the extraordinary consequences of a deep recession.
  This countercyclical strategy employed since World War II has had 
profoundly positive consequences for the economy during our lifetimes. 
We have seen them. We have seen the charts. We have seen all of the 
arguments made on the other side, and nothing will dissuade me that the 
fiscal policy initiated since World War II has had the desired result.
  Many who will vote no today will do so out of legitimate fear that 
our ability to counter economic downturns will be severely 
jeopardized--severely jeopardized--with the passage of this amendment.
  There are also many who believe that fiscal policy should never be 
written into the Constitution because it does not belong there. They 
have argued that, like the thousands of other amendments proposed in 
200 years, this, too, should be defeated.
  Many Members have listened to the logic of many of these arguments 
and appreciate each and every one. Many Members have also decided that 
the time has come for a balanced budget amendment--that the question of 
a constitutional amendment is before Members for a good reason.
  But we also question the wisdom of the amendment that is now 
presented to the Senate, and we are deeply troubled by the attitude of 
many of our Republican colleagues that we take this amendment or there 
will be no amendment at all. We are troubled, really, for three 
reasons: First, it is our belief that this ought to be our very best 
effort. We cannot come back later as we can with statutes. We cannot 
come back later and say, if we could only change that phrase or that 
paragraph or even that word. That is not something we can do with the 
Constitution. We will have to admit that we made mistakes in drafting, 
and, if we have, we will have to live with them for all time. This is 
going to be with us a long, long time. Even the prohibition amendment 
was with us for 13 years, long after we came to the conclusion that it, 
too, was a mistake.
  Second, this debate has been politicized, unfortunately. The RNC has 
used this debate as a membership drive. In fact, in my State of South 
Dakota, they are interrupting ads with programs, there are so many 
these days. The practical ramifications of this amendment, as well, as 
currently drafted, are profound, and we ought to realize that. We ought 
to understand the ramifications of this particular language, regardless 
of how we view the constitutional amendment itself. Let Members look at 
this language. Let Members examine this draft, and let each and every 
one ask, are we prepared, tonight, to put it into the United States 
Constitution?
  This amendment could pass by 70 votes, yet it will fail perhaps by 
two tonight. Why? Not because two-thirds of a majority opposes the 
concept of a balanced budget amendment--I am sure that two-thirds and 
more support it--but because some of us have a grave concern about the 
specific draft our Republican colleagues tonight insist upon, a draft 
which is filled with promise but devoid of details.
  That was the reason I offered, many weeks ago, the Right to Know 
amendment requiring that we spell out the details, insisting that we 
know how we get from here to there, recognizing the importance of a 
blueprint, of a glidepath, knowing that, as you cannot build a house 
without a blueprint, you cannot balance the budget without one, either.
  Today the chairman of the Finance Committee indicated that Medicare 
and Medicaid may be cut by $400 billion over the course of the next 
several years. This is a detail that happens to be very important, that 
we recognize may be part of the mix. If we are not willing to spell it 
out, if we are not willing to put on paper the details, then, indeed, I 
think we are asking for a pig in the poke, and we are asking for it in 
the U.S. Constitution.
  The Republicans promise, even though they are unwilling to spell it 
out, to leave Social Security untouched. But while they argue we need 
to put a balanced budget requirement into the Constitution for purposes 
of certainty, they are unwilling to do so for Social Security. Without 
the promise in writing, we cannot require future Congresses to comply 
with our expectations.
  I will predict tonight, if this amendment passes, that the Social 
Security trust fund will be used, and that is wrong. The American 
people oppose it. We have made a commitment to them now for over 60 
years. We compound the deficit reduction problem, and we mask the size 
of the deficit, but we invite the cynicism of the American people all 
over again. If we are prepared to reduce the deficit using Social 
Security trust funds, what confidence should they have in us with any 
future decision, after we have made the commitment that has stood for 
this long?
  In my view, the amendment is also especially lacking when it comes to 
enforcement and the role of the courts. Something this important should 
not be unresolved. In spite of the best efforts of the senior Senator 
from Georgia, as written, it is very likely we will see a 
constitutional crisis as Congress and the courts face off on the very 
question of jurisdiction in the years ahead.
  It is also unfortunate that the Federal Government cannot be allowed 
to function budgetarily like virtually everyone else does. We should 
not treat investment and operating costs alike, and yet that is exactly 
what we will require as a result of the actions taken in this body now 
for the last several weeks.
  No one does that at any level of Government, no one does that in 
business, no one does that in their family budgeting. We should not do 
it either. And yet tonight, by the action taken on this amendment, we 
will be, if indeed the amendment passes, requiring the Federal 
Government to do something no one else does.
  Madam President, the bottom line, regardless of whether we are 
talking about Social Security, a capital budget, the right to know, 
enforcement, or any one of a number of the issues that we have raised 
for the last several weeks, the bottom line is this: We can do better. 
This is not the best we can do. This is a shoot-now-ask-later approach, 
and we will regret it. That could destroy the very fabric upon which 
this Nation was built. And I hope--I just hope--that we all come to the 
realization of what the stakes are as we cast our vote tonight. It is, 
as others have said, one of the most critical votes we will cast, a 
vote which could change not only the budget but the economy and the 
perception of the very Constitution itself. Let us take care to do it 
right. Let us defeat this amendment and go back to the drawing 
[[Page S3302]] board before it is too late. Future generations are 
counting upon us tonight to do just that.
  I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senate 
majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, do I understand the Democratic leader 
retains the remainder of his time? Are there additional requests?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I was anticipating others who may ask 
for time, but if there is no other request for time, I yield it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator yielding back?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate majority leader is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, the Senator from South Dakota asked 
earlier for 1 minute, which I am prepared to allow.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, for those who follow this debate, we have 
had 19 days of consideration. We have had 115 hours 54 minutes of 
debate. That does not include votes or quorum calls or morning 
business, where a lot of the morning business was directed at the 
balanced budget amendment. So we have had a lot of debate. I just say 
that for the Record for some who think maybe we have not been on this 
long enough.
  My view is we are down to about one vote--one vote. Maybe it is 68; 
maybe it is 66. I think we do stand at the crossroads in American 
history. I think this vote is one of the most important many of us will 
have cast in decades because now we have an opportunity to do it, and 
we have not had that opportunity before. In fact, this may be the 
single most important vote we cast in our careers.
  I will say at the outset, and I think the figures I quoted indicate, 
we do not take amending the Constitution lightly. This certainly has 
been considered at length. Everybody has had an opportunity to say just 
about everything they wanted to say. I think we also must understand 
that there was never a more serious time when Washington needed the 
discipline, when Congress needed the discipline, that the Constitution 
and only the Constitution can impose.
  We heard a lot of talk about laws that were passed, and we passed 
since 1969--the last time we passed a balanced Federal budget--we 
passed seven different laws containing balanced budget requirements. 
And despite all the speeches and the good intentions and everything 
else that went with it over the past quarter of a century, the Federal 
debt has grown each year and every year.
  Why is it so important to balance the budget? There are probably a 
lot of reasons that have been stated on this floor from people who 
oppose and people who support the balanced budget amendment. Oh, it is 
important to balance the budget and maybe it is even important to vote 
for the balanced budget amendment if you are in a tough race for 
reelection. But in 1969, the American taxpayers paid $12.7 billion for 
interest on the national debt. This year interest on the national debt 
will devour a staggering $234 billion, more than all the Government 
spent on agriculture, crime, crime fighting, veterans, space and 
technology, infrastructure, natural resources, the environment, 
education and training--all of that and more was spent for interest on 
the debt.
  We have gone through this debate where some are trying to scare 
America's senior citizens, but by doing what we hope we can do in about 
20 minutes, by passing a constitutional amendment with 67 votes, we 
take the opposite view, that we are protecting the very programs that 
they try to scare seniors with--Medicare and Social Security.
  What they fail to mention is the national debt threatens every 
program. Every program is threatened--Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security, agriculture, nutrition programs, you name it. If the debt 
continues to escalate, as it will, each year interest payments are 
going to be larger and larger and consume more and more of its share of 
the Federal dollar.
  According to President Clinton's budget, interest on the debt is 
going to consume 16 percent of every Federal dollar. And anyone who is 
still not convinced need look no further than President Clinton's 
recent budget, which essentially gave up on ever balancing the budget 
and ever balancing the Nation's books.
  In 1992, Candidate Clinton seized on the $292 billion deficit, the 
highest in history, and he campaigned against the deficit. He was 
successful. He agreed to cut it in half. Now, 2 years into his 
administration, his own budget abandons the pledge, predicting a 
deficit of $196.7 billion next year and roughly $200 billion a year 
through the year 2000. In each of the next 5 years, the amount the 
Federal Government collects in taxes is projected to rise, but spending 
will go up much more.
  The picture only gets worse in the next century when the deficit is 
projected to rise to $421 billion--$421 billion--by the year 2005. So 
we are going to double it, we are going to double it if we fail to take 
action in the next few moments.
  If there was any message last November--and different people heard 
different messages; some did not hear any message at all and some are 
here, and some will be voting. There was a revolution last November. 
The American people said, ``Stop. Stop. Wait a minute. We want less 
Government, we want to rein in Government, we want to dust off the 10th 
amendment, we want to return power to the States and power to the 
people, and one way to do that is to rein in Federal spending and not 
increase Federal taxes.''
  So the American people--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, voters 
generally--sent us a message. I am not certain what the precise message 
was, but I think the general message was, as I stated, ``Rein in the 
Federal Government.''
  I believe adoption of this amendment is a big step in that effort. If 
we are ever going to rein in the Federal Government, rein in spending, 
we need help. We do not have the will in this body to do it. Oh, I have 
heard all the speeches, and then I checked the voting records and they 
do not match.
  Oh, I hear speeches. I hear speeches at night when I cannot sleep.
  People on the Senate floor say all we have to do is make these tough 
decisions. But then when the tough decision comes, oh, that is too 
tough, or it is not tough enough, or any other excuse to duck. We 
cannot wait for statutory changes. We cannot count on them. They have 
not worked, as I said, since 1969. I think the American people want us 
to stand up to the special interests and they want us to do the right 
thing.
  Many say, oh, well this is the easy way out. You all vote for the 
balanced budget amendment. Then you go out and say, well, I voted for 
the balanced budget amendment. Then you continue to vote for all the 
spending programs.
  I do not think so. My view is, if we adopt this amendment and three-
fourths of the States ratify it, it is going to fundamentally change 
the way we do business in the Congress and all over Washington.
  So this is an amendment whose time has come. Thomas Jefferson said in 
1789:

       The question whether one generation has the right to bind 
     another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such 
     consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles 
     of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to 
     saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay 
     them ourselves.

  Now, if you think about that for a moment, this was just 1 year after 
the new Constitution went into effect. Thomas Jefferson himself was 
pondering whether a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced 
budget was needed.
  So, Madam President, the time for a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution has come. Since our first Constitution went into effect in 
1788, a total of 27 amendments have been adopted. The first 10, 
commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, made the United States a 
model for the world by limiting the powers of Government and securing 
rights for individuals and States. The Bill of Rights was proposed to 
the legislatures of the several States by the first Congress on 
September 25, 1789, and ratified by December 15, 1791.
  I think there is a common thread that runs through all the 
amendments 
[[Page S3303]] that have been adopted, whether it is the first 10, the 
Bill of Rights--there is a common thread. Most have either limited the 
power of Government or provided constitutional protection to groups of 
Americans. And I believe the balanced budget amendment would do both. 
By limiting the Federal Government's ability to borrow, it will help 
provide constitutional protection to future generations of Americans 
and those who are not adequately represented in our current system.
  Nobody has contacted me on behalf of the 5-year-olds or the 10-year-
olds or the 15-year-olds about their future. Nobody is lobbying for 
them. They are waiting for us.
  I do not believe we can continue to mortgage America's future. If we 
continue current tax-and-spend policies, we are going to saddle that 
future generation with lifetime tax rates, effective rates of more than 
80 percent. So if we want to take away representation of our children 
and our grandchildren, if we want to take away the discipline, if we 
want to have it one way in an election year and another way in the next 
year, then we can vote against the balanced budget amendment.
  As I look around the Chamber, I see Democrats and Republicans saying, 
wait a minute; it is time we act. This is a bipartisan effort. We need 
Democrats and Republicans to make this happen. It is not going to 
happen unless it is bipartisan.
  We also took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution 
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Well, I 
consider the rising debt and the interest rates to be sort of a 
domestic enemy, and I think that simple oath illustrates why the 
balanced budget amendment is so important. We have not been successful 
in the past. We have not balanced the budget in the past because the 
Federal budget never became a national priority, and if you want to 
make it a national priority, we adopt a balanced budget amendment and 
say we are going to have a balanced budget by the year 2002. That makes 
it clear to everyone in this body that balancing the budget is not only 
a national priority but also a constitutional duty and that every 
Senator will be sworn to uphold and defend this amendment to the 
Constitution. That is the way it works. That is the way it should work.
  So we have had a healthy debate, as I have said, of 115 hours, or 116 
hours, plus a lot of other morning business hours. I certainly wish to 
commend my colleague, Senator Hatch, who has been on this floor day 
after day after day, and my colleague, Senator Craig, who every morning 
in my office has had a meeting with the group to work on the balanced 
budget amendment, trying to find out what we need to address, how we 
can pick up one more vote. And if anybody ever questioned anybody's 
motives, you cannot question the motives of the Senator from Illinois, 
Senator Simon. He has been for the balanced budget as long as I have 
known him. He can go any way he wants. He is not running again. This is 
not politics to Paul Simon. This is a commitment he has made to the 
people of Illinois and a commitment he has made to his colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle. So I appreciate the efforts made by my friend 
from Illinois.
  Certainly the Senator from West Virginia deserves our thanks, 
hopefully not to overdo that. He has made a great contribution to the 
debate. In fact, I have been saying around the country that Senator 
Byrd is the expert, and I say it with admiration; he is a master of the 
game. He also understands Roman history, at least he understands it 
better than the rest of us because we never question what he says about 
Roman history. I am trying to get C-SPAN to give college credit to 
those who watch it. And it would be deserved because the Senator from 
West Virginia does understand it, and certainly he has contributed to 
this debate.
  Then let me just have the last word. I think everybody has said out 
here from time to time that the Constitution is a living document, and 
that is why it includes article V, which outlines the process for 
proposing and ratifying constitutional amendments. The Founding Fathers 
did not make amending the Constitution easy, and the action we take 
today, if we succeed, is not the last word. And if we fail, it is not 
the last word, because the final word of whether or not there is going 
to be a balanced budget goes outside Washington, goes away from this 
body and out to our respective States.
  I will say to those who still maybe have not quite decided which way 
to go--there may be two or three of those, maybe four--maybe you are 
not quite certain, but certainly you have some confidence in your State 
legislature, wherever it may be. Why not give them a chance? It takes 
three-fourths of the States to ratify. Why not say that we have some 
confidence in the people who live in our respective States and deal on 
a daily basis with problems that affect our constituents, too, because 
the Founding Fathers said in the final analysis it is going to be 
determined by the people, by those who are closest to the people, and 
those are the men and women who serve in statehouses around the 
country.
  I think we ought to remember that as we vote. The Founding Fathers 
did not put the final authority in the hands of Congress; they put it 
in the people, members, men and women, State legislators who are 
closest to the people.
  So I remind my colleagues as we prepare to vote here of just a few 
facts. I think many Senators referred to these earlier. Depending upon 
which poll you use--and polls change from time to time--about 80 
percent of the American people favor the balanced budget amendment. 
Now, maybe 80 percent are wrong and the 20 percent are right. It has 
happened in the past. But these polls have been consistent--71, 75, 78, 
81, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent. Three hundred Members of the 
other body voted for a balanced budget amendment, 72 Democrats and 228 
Republicans. They joined together to give us this historic opportunity. 
And I would state what every Member already knows, that adoption of 
this amendment, if it is adopted, is only the first step in securing 
our Nation's financial future. Whatever happens, we are going to have 
to make difficult choices.
  Republicans will begin work on a detailed 5-year plan to put the 
budget on a path of balance by the year 2002, and our plan will not 
raise taxes. Our plan will not touch Social Security. Everything else, 
from agriculture to zebra mussel research, will be on the table.
  So, Madam President, as George Washington reminded us in his farewell 
address:

       The basis of our political system is the right of the 
     people to make and alter their institutions of government.

  The time has come for us to exercise that right. So I would just say, 
let us get prepared for this fundamental change. It is going to come. 
If not tonight, it will come maybe next month or the next month or the 
next year. It is not going to be business as usual in Washington.
  So I just urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment--it will take 
67 of us--and send it back to the States for ratification. Let those 
closest to the people then decide if we spelled out how we will reach 
the balanced budget amendment. Let us not take that judgment away from 
them.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I move that the Senate stand in recess 
until 10 a.m.----
  Mr. BYRD. Before the distinguished leader makes his motion, would he 
explain to the Senate why we are going out and why we are not having 
the vote, as we all anticipated we would be having a vote?
  Mr. DOLE. Let me explain to my friend from West Virginia that we 
still think there is some chance of getting this resolved by tomorrow 
morning, because we could have 67 votes or maybe more.
  We have been on this now for 115 hours. I do not know how many days. 
Everybody has had a right to debate. We are up to the critical time of 
the vote. This Senator wants to make every effort he can to see if we 
can reach the 67 votes. If we fail, we will fail, and it will be 10 
o'clock or perhaps noon tomorrow morning.
  Madam President, I renew the motion.
   [[Page S3304]] Mr. BYRD. Madam President, would the Senator allow me 
5 minutes before he makes that motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate is not in order at this point.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for allowing me to have this privilege to address this question before 
he makes the motion to adjourn.
  Madam President, I think this is a sad spectacle. We have had 30 days 
of debate. Both sides have poured out their hearts, have worked hard, 
and we came to the moment that we thought we were going to have a 
rollcall vote. We entered into an agreement to that effect. Now, if we 
had known that we were going to reach this kind of a travesty, this 
Senator would never have agreed to that unanimous-consent request.
  Madam President, the Framers intended that, before the people at the 
State level should have an opportunity to ratify a constitutional 
amendment, it must be approved by both Houses of the Congress by a two-
thirds vote, and it was here that the amendment was supposed to be 
probed and examined and carefully studied before it was sent on its way 
to the States.
  Now, here is what we see: We see the sad spectacle of Senators on the 
other side trying to go over until tomorrow in order to get another 
vote for this amendment. It should be obvious to everyone that the main 
object here is to get that vote, as the distinguished majority leader 
says.
  It boils down to an insatiable, insatiable desire to get a vote for 
victory. We are tampering with the Constitution of the United States! 
This is no place for deal-making, back-room huddles. No wonder the 
people have such a low estimation of the Congress. Going to make deals 
in the back room. I do not imply by what I am saying--I do not want to 
cast any aspersions on any Senator in particular.
  But this is a process that we have worked our way through. We were 
told there would be a vote. We have waited on a vote. Up here the press 
is gathered. They want to see the outcome of this debate.
  (Disturbance in the visitors' galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will remind the occupants of the 
galleries there will be no expressions of approval or disapproval.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this has every appearance of a sleazy, 
tawdry effort to win a victory at the cost of amending the Constitution 
of the United States.
  We have had our chances, why do we not vote? I hope we will vote, 
Madam President. Let us not wait until tomorrow. Now is the time for 
the decision. That is what we were told.
  I deplore this tawdry effort here to go over until tomorrow so that 
additional pressures can be made on some poor Member in the effort to 
get this vote. Laugh if you must. Laugh! This is no laughing matter. We 
are talking about the Constitution of the United States. We were ready 
for a vote. Obviously, the proponents on the other side felt they were 
going to lose. We cannot win them all. We cannot lose them all. I think 
it is a sad day for the U.S. Senate if this is the way that we are 
going to go about amending the Constitution of the United States.
  I thank the distinguished majority leader. I hope we will vote 
tonight.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask for 5 minutes to respond and then I will make the 
motion. This is probably, as I said in my statement, the most important 
vote we will cast around here, maybe in our careers.
  We do not take amending the Constitution lightly. But to suggest that 
somehow this is unprecedented, tawdry, whatever, in my view, is out of 
bounds. We have every right to use the rules to determine if we have 
the votes or if we can pick up votes, and I intend to do that. We have 
been on this amendment 115 hours, plus 20-some hours of quorum calls 
and votes. Nobody complained about that.
  What about the 80 percent of the American people? Do you think they 
care whether we vote at 7 o'clock or 7:30 or 10 o'clock in the morning, 
the 80 percent who want this passed? Do Members think they feel the way 
the Senator from West Virginia feels? Absolutely not.
  Now, we have some obligation to ourselves. Obviously, nobody is 
trying to put the arm on anybody around here. We have not made house 
calls. We have not knocked on the doors. We have gone in their offices. 
But we have good-faith negotiations going, and maybe they have helped. 
That is fine. If they have ended, there are still other options.
  So I just suggest, Madam President, this is an important vote. If I 
thought there was one more vote tomorrow morning or two more votes or 
three more votes next week, I would make every effort I could to secure 
those votes, just as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has 
done time after time after time in this body.
  I think the sad spectacle is that we may lose this vote, whether it 
is tonight--it is not going to be tonight-- whether it is tomorrow or 
later, where people who voted for the amendment before their election, 
vote against it after their election. What are the American people to 
think? What are the American people to think about any Member in this 
body? They sent us a loud and clear message last November, and as I 
said, nobody knows what the precise message was, but generally, it was 
to rein in the Federal Government, to give power back to the people and 
back to the States. That is what this amendment does.
  So, in my view, by postponing this vote, we will attempt to reflect 
the will of 76 to 80 percent of the American people and not the will of 
20 percent. We may fail this time. I quoted earlier statements of 
Jefferson and Washington who had a little knowledge about what the 
Founding Fathers had in mind and who suggested themselves that there 
might come a time we would have to amend the Constitution. We should 
not pile up a debt on the next generation as we continue to do.
  I want to commend, again, those who is worked on both sides of the 
aisle. This has been bipartisan, and it should be, and it still can be. 
I know the President is very strongly opposed to the balanced budget 
amendment. I know he has called Members. I know what happens when your 
President calls. We have gone through it on this side. It puts a lot of 
pressure on a Senator or a Member of Congress.
  We have tried to improve the conditions by accepting or agreeing to 
an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator 
Nunn. I just hope that all Senators will think about this overnight. 
Somebody could decide to vote the other way. We take a gamble. We might 
lose a vote. But in my view the gamble is worth taking. The risk is 
worth taking. I know the Senator from West Virginia----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOLE. No, I will not yield for a question.
  I know the Senator from West Virginia feels strongly about this 
amendment, and he has a right to feel strongly about it. It does not 
mean he is right. He might be wrong. We may be right. If we cannot 
determine that tonight or tomorrow night we will determine it the next 
time the voters have a chance to speak.

                          ____________________