[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3314-S3318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    BREAKING THE SPENDING ADDICTION

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I wish to thank several people, and then I 
would like to take a couple of minutes for a brief comment on what has 
just taken place.
  I wish to thank Senator Hatch, who has been great to work with, who 
has been a real leader on this. Senator Craig came over from the House 
and was like a breath of fresh air working on all of this. Senator 
Thurmond through the years provided leadership.
  On our side, Senator Heflin was very helpful. I have to acknowledge a 
former Senator who helped prior to this time, Senator DeConcini; my 
colleague from Illinois, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun has been superb; 
Senator Campbell; Senator Robb. And I also want to pay tribute to the 
leader of the opposition, with whom I sincerely differ on this, Senator 
Byrd. He is a powerful and highly respected opponent.
  I also want to thank Congressman Charlie Stenholm and the House 
Members for all the work they did, and very specifically Aaron 
Rappaport from my staff, and all the other staff members on my staff 
and the other staffs who spent so much time on this.
  Mr. President, this is a sad day in the history of our Nation. We 
have narrowly missed the opportunity to give generations to come a 
brighter future. Presented the chance to break our addiction to 
economic gluttony, by the narrowest of margins, we have determined that 
we do not have the will to kick the habit. Like a pregnant woman whose 
child to be will suffer from a cocaine addiction, we cannot summon the 
will to break our debt addiction even though we know it will harm our 
children.
  We will break our addiction sometime in the future, the Senate said 
in 1986, when it also failed to pass the balanced budget amendment by 
one vote. The national debt then was $2 trillion. We can solve our 
problem without a constitutional amendment, voices on the Senate floor 
urged then and, of course, we have not. Now the debt is $4.8 trillion 
instead of $2 trillion, and the attractive siren song of the opposition 
is the same.
  It would have been easier to break the habit in 1986 than in 1995, 
and it is easier in 1995 than it will be in 1999. Each year, the grip 
of the addiction grows, and each year we spend more and more on 
interest and less and less in ways that help the most vulnerable in our 
society.
  We are headed toward monetizing our debt and devaluing our currency, 
the steps nations take historically as they pile up too much debt. No 
nation has come close to accumulating the amount of peacetime debt that 
we have. When and if monetizing our debt occurs, everyone in our 
society will suffer.
  Ironically, among those who will suffer the most are those on Social 
Security, because of the devaluation of the U.S. Treasury bonds which 
secure the Social Security retirement trust funds. I say ironically 
because much of the opposition to the balanced budget amendment has 
been mounted in the name of Social Security. The threat to Social 
Security is the debt, and the real way to protect Social Security is 
this balanced budget amendment. Instead of giving our economy a lift 
with lower interest rates that come with the reduced deficit, the 
Senate has made a decision to stumble along and have higher interest 
rates.
  There are at least two proposals to move us on a glidepath toward a 
balanced budget by the year 2002 without a constitutional amendment. I 
probably will support one of them, though it is unlikely the goal will 
be achieved without the discipline of the constitutional amendment. But 
even if the goal is achieved, because there is not the long-term 
assurance to the financial markets that a constitutional amendment 
offers, interest rates will not be reduced as much. The Nation will pay 
a staggering interest penalty for which we will get nothing other than 
higher interest rates. Those who purchase bonds combine the need for a 
small profit margin plus a hedge against inflation. We have just 
increased the cost of the hedge against inflation.
  Because the trade deficit is tied into the budget deficit, we will 
continue to export more American jobs, and our standard of living, that 
could rise significantly, will at best move up modestly, perhaps 
decline. With higher interest rates there will be less investment that 
would create more industrial and construction jobs.
  Is it impossible to kick the debt habit? No. But each year that goes 
by it becomes more difficult and at some point it becomes politically 
impossible. I do not know where that point is nor does anyone else. We 
have done today what most addicts do--postpone the tough decision. 
Future generations will not look upon this day with pride.
   [[Page S3315]] I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I associate myself with the excellent 
remarks of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I do not think 
anybody could have said it better. I do not think anybody could have 
said it more clearly. I personally feel he has done us a great honor in 
making these remarks and in pointing out the future of our country--
what we are going to go through if we do not ultimately pass this 
balanced budget amendment--I would say within the near future.
  I also want to pay tribute to him for his stalwart steadfastness in 
standing up for this balanced budget amendment. It has not been easy 
for him on his side of the floor, with only 13 other of his 47 Democrat 
colleagues. I know what he has gone through. I pay tremendous tribute 
to him as one of our great leaders for this cause at this time.
  Mr. President, I also would like to pay tribute to my colleague 
Senator Craig for the long hours and efforts he has made as the leader 
of our rapid response team. He has worked tirelessly his whole 
congressional career, both in the House and here in the Senate, to try 
to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
  There are many others who are too numerous to mention. The 
distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, has 
been our leader on the balanced budget amendment ever since I got here. 
Senator Heflin on the other side of the floor, Senator Exon, who worked 
so hard, and many, many others. I do not want to leave anybody out, but 
let me leave it at that.
  I want to pay tribute to my colleague from West Virginia. Unlike, I 
think, a number of others--a number of others--he has sincerely 
believed in his position and he has advocated it with force and with 
strength and, frankly, deserves credit for winning this battle. I want 
to pay tribute to him as a floor leader and an acknowledged master of 
floor debate and as somebody for whom I have a great deal of respect. I 
do so because of the way he has conducted himself and the way he has 
handled his side of the debate in this matter. You have to have respect 
for opponents who believe in what they are doing.
  But having said that, if there is something I feel particularly badly 
about, it is that a handful of Senators and the President have won this 
battle and the American people have lost. That is my opinion and I 
acknowledge that. Everybody knows how sincerely I feel about this issue 
as well. The people have lost this skirmish today. But this battle is 
not over.
  I just want the American people to understand that one of the things 
I feel worst about in this whole debate is that some have tried to 
bring Social Security into the debate to frighten our senior citizens, 
as though that was really a part of this debate. I do not think there 
is a senior citizen in this country, not one that I know of who cares 
for his or her country, who does not understand that when you are 
talking about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, you can 
have no mere statutory programs exempted from or referred to in the 
text of the basic governing document of our country. It has never been 
done, and it is not right. If you attempt to carve out a special 
exception to the basic law of the land for a specific group of 
statutory beneficiaries, you will divide the country and hurt everybody 
else who does not belong to that special interest group. Ironically, in 
this case, you would hurt those beneficiaries too. The biggest threat 
to Social Security is our Government's profligacy. And an exemption for 
Social Security would lead some to try to use the trust fund to pay for 
other popular programs or create a loophole to keep deficit-spending. 
And it would keep the debt going up, which would ultimately harm those 
on fixed incomes and risk the viability of the trust funds.
  Having said that, I do not think there is a senior citizen in this 
country presently on Social Security, who understands the importance of 
our country and how to keep it great, who would not be willing to 
sacrifice to keep it great if they were so called upon. And I believe 
they would not want to have a specific carve-out of any statutory 
programs--no matter how important--in the text of the Constitution. We 
just don't do that in the Constitution. To make Social Security part of 
this debate in the way it was by some, I felt, was beneath the dignity 
of the Senate. Some were sincere, I will acknowledge that. But let us 
be clear, for three or four decades now we have taken Social Security 
funds and counted them as receipts to the Federal Government in the 
budget system, we certainly have since President Johnson established 
the unified budget system--under both Democrat and Republican Senates 
and Presidents. For people to make Social Security and the unified 
budget a political football I think was just plain, downright wrong. To 
frighten our senior citizens for mere political purposes is despicable.
  Having said that, just so everybody in this country understands, this 
is only battle No. 1. This is not over. We lost today, 66 to 34. We had 
99 percent of all Republicans in both Houses voting for the balanced 
budget amendment. One percent did not. Less than 33 percent of the 
Democrats voted for it. So we have a clear delineation, as far as I am 
concerned. But I praise the 14 Democrats who did vote for it here today 
because they are heroes, in my eyes.
  The reason the vote was 65 to 35 is because our distinguished 
majority leader, knowing that this war is not over, over the balanced 
budget amendment, he had to switch his vote and vote ``no'' so that he 
could make the procedural motion to reconsider the vote so that the 
amendment can come back again--perhaps before the end of this year, 
certainly before the end of next year.
  This is just vote one on the balanced budget amendment. There 
definitely will be another vote. And if the American people understand 
this issue and they really want to do something about it, they should 
start letting those who voted against the amendment know how they feel. 
They should start letting them know now. I call on all senior citizens 
to start telling their representatives and the special interest 
lobbyists, ``Quit playing games with Social Security, and do what is 
right for the country,'' and if they do so and we pass the balanced 
budget amendment, Social Security, as the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois has wisely spoken, will then be secure.
  The only way to make Social Security secure--it seems to me the only 
way--is to keep a strong economy. And with business as usual--without 
the balanced budget amendment--we are not going to be doing that.
  Mr. President, an effort such as the one we have been involved in 
over the past month requires the time, talent, and commitment of a 
large number of people. While I cannot name them all, I would like at 
this time to extend my gratitude to the Senators and staff who were so 
instrumental on this.
  Let me first thank our majority leader for his pivotal role.
  Senators Simon, Craig, and Thurmond, of course, have my admiration 
and my thanks.
  I am also especially proud of all of our new Senators who have 
graciously and effectively played a major role: Senators Lott, 
Domenici, Coverdell, and Smith, and all 11 of our new Senators, 
Senators Abraham, Ashcroft, DeWine, Frist, Grams, Inhofe, Kyl, 
Santorum, Snowe, Thomas, and Thompson have also joined in leading our 
effort over this past month. And Senator Nunn has been, as always, a 
studious and effective proponent.
  Finally, I would like to single out some of the staff members who 
worked so long and hard on this matter: David Taylor (Dole); Aaron 
Rappaport and Susan Kaplan (Simon); Damon Tobias and Alan Kay (Craig); 
Thad Strom (Thurmond); Andrew Effron (Nunn); Bill Hoagland and Austin 
Smythe (Domenici), and David Hoppe and Alison Carroll (Lott).
  Lastly, Mr. President, I would like to thank the very special people 
who have worked with me on this issue: Shawn Bentley; Larry Block; 
Sharon Prost; Mark Disler; Manus Cooney; Steve Tepp; Jason Adams, and 
Steven Schlesinger. They have all worked long and hard hours in the 
most dedicated fashion, and I love them for their devotion to duty and 
our country.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  [[Page S3316]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will not detain the Senate. Mr. President, 
I do not expect to take 7 minutes. However, I ask unanimous consent 
that, in the event I should need an additional 2 minutes, I not be 
interrupted and that I have them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. President,

       The way a crow
       Shook down on me
       The dust of snow
       From a hemlock tree
       Has given my heart
       A change of mood
       And saved some part
       Of a day I had rued.

  I congratulate the Senate today. The debate has been constructive, 
the occasion has been historic, and the issue has been decided in favor 
of the sanctity of the Constitution of the United States of America.
  The debate has been full and extensive, in the best tradition of the 
Senate, and such debates have become more infrequent in recent years. I 
believe the outcome is the right result because of the thoroughness and 
length of the debate. I hope that this indicates a return to the long 
tradition of real debate on great national issues.
  There was no way to cure the ills of this amendment. It was fatally 
flawed from the outset. There is virtually no way such an amendment can 
be written without rearranging the carefully constructed balance of 
powers hammered out by the giant intellect and wisdom of the Framers 
over 200 years ago, or jeopardizing our Nation's economic or national 
security in times of crisis or peril.
  There are no statutory fixes that can solve the Social Security trust 
fund problem or any of the other many difficulties inherent in the 
language of this constitutional amendment. Statutes can never cure a 
constitutional amendment's flaws. The Constitution supersedes all 
legislation that is inconsistent therewith. It is the final arbiter, 
regardless of what promises are made or what legislation is enacted.
  So, this unwise and dangerous proposal has been rejected, as it 
should have been. The proposal has never been well understood by the 
people. It seems simple, and espouses a worthy goal, but it neither 
guarantees a balanced budget nor tells the people how one will be 
achieved.
  We hear claims that 80 percent of the American people want this 
amendment. But the proponents conveniently ignore the deeper probing of 
those polls, which show that the 80 percent figure is a hollow number, 
which dissolves when questions about how the amendment would actually 
be applied are posed. People do not want the Social Security trust fund 
to be raided. And it has become clear that the trust fund would be 
looted, should this amendment ever scar the Constitution. The amendment 
was and is a seductive, but false and dangerous promise--nothing more.
  We have before us, now, both a responsibility and an opportunity with 
the defeat of this constitutional amendment. We have a responsibility 
not to delay serious progress on deficit reduction, as the amendment 
would have allowed us to do. We also have an opportunity to put 
partisan bickering aside and begin to take steps to get our fiscal 
house in order. That is what the American people truly want to see. 
They want us to put the posturing and bickering aside and get down to 
business together.
  So, I eagerly await the majority's plan for deficit reduction. And, I 
trust that every Senator on this side of the aisle is ready to play a 
cooperative and constructive role in developing a plan that can become 
a reality. This has been a bruising debate, but it is time to let the 
fires cool, and come together for the Nation. Let us begin.
  Before I close, I want to commend Senator Hatch for his fair and 
judicious handling of this matter.
  I also wish to again express my admiration for the statesmanlike 
leadership of Senator Tom Daschle. His is a bright and courageous 
spirit. And, Senator Mark Hatfield has written his own ``profile in 
courage,'' as have Senators Dorgan, Conrad, Bingaman, Hollings, 
Feinstein, and Ford. Senators Dodd, Sarbanes, Moynihan, Boxer, Kennedy, 
Reid, Levin, Bumpers, and Johnston have helped greatly to clarify and 
enlighten the debate on this side of the aisle, as have many others.
  But, a special word should go to Senator Paul Simon. A more sincere 
proponent of this proposal is not to be found. Today's outcome was not 
a loss for the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois. His belief 
in this solution, his absolute commitment to his cause, and his gentle 
and fair deportment throughout this debate have added nothing but 
additional lustre to the fine legacy he leaves here in the Senate. I 
thank him for being the man that he is. I am proud to serve with him, 
and deeply honored to call him my friend.

       I shall be telling this with a sigh
       Somewhere ages and ages hence;
       Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
       I took the one less traveled by,
       And that has made all the difference.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
letter dated March 1, 1995, to the distinguished majority leader along 
with an accompanying compromise proposal concerning Social Security 
which I and four of my colleagues delivered to the distinguished leader 
yesterday afternoon at 5 o'clock. Had we voted on this proposal, we 
could have passed the balanced budget amendment in a flash.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 1, 1995.
     Hon. Robert J. Dole,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: We have received from Senator Domenci's 
     office a proposal to address our concerns about using the 
     Social Security trust funds to balance the Federal budget. We 
     have reviewed this proposal, and after consultations with 
     legal counsel, believe that this statutory approach does not 
     adequately protect Social Security. Specifically, 
     Constitutional experts from the Congressional Research 
     Service advise us that the Constitutional language of the 
     amendment will supersede any statutory constraint.
       We want you to know that all of us have voted for, and are 
     prepared to vote for again, a balanced budget amendment. In 
     that spirit, we have attached a version of the balanced 
     budget amendment that we believe can resolve the impasse over 
     the Social Security issue.
       To us, the fundamental question is whether the Federal 
     Government will be able to raid the Social Security trust 
     funds. Our proposal modifies those put forth by Senators Reid 
     and Feinstein to address objections raised by some Members of 
     the Majority. Specifically, our proposal prevents the Social 
     Security trust funds from being used for deficit reduction, 
     while still allowing Congress to make any warranted changes 
     to protect the solvency of the funds. The prior language of 
     the Reid and Feinstein amendments was not explicit that 
     adjustments could be made to ensure the soundness of the 
     trust funds.
       If the Majority Party can support this solution, then we 
     are confident that the Senate can pass the balanced budget 
     amendment with more than 70 votes. If not, then we see no 
     reason to delay further the vote on final passage for the 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Byron L. Dorgan.
     Ernest F. Hollings.
     Wendell H. Ford.
     Harry M. Reid.
     Dianne Feinstein.
                                                                    ____


                               Article --

       Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.
       Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held 
     by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of 
     the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such 
     an increase by a rollcall vote.
       Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays 
     do not exceed total receipts.
       Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which 
     [[Page S3317]] causes an imminent and serious military threat 
     to national security and is so declared by a joint 
     resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House, which becomes law.
       Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the 
     United States Government except those derived from borrowing. 
     Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States 
     Government except for those for repayment of debt principal. 
     The receipts (including attributable interest) and outlays of 
     the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Funds (as and if modified to 
     preserve the solvency of the Funds) used to provide old age, 
     survivors, and disabilities benefits shall not be counted as 
     receipts or outlays for purposes of this article.
       Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning 
     after its ratification, whichever is later.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have included this information at this 
point because it marks the first opportunity that we have had to clear 
the record. I would like to clarify what I think were misleading 
statements made earlier by some of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. Mr. President, in 1982 I worked with the distinguished 
Senator from Utah and voted for a balanced budget amendment that time. 
It was not identical to the balanced budget amendment voted on today.
  Mr. President, I am a senior citizen as is my colleague, Senator 
Thurmond. We, at age 72, have to take the benefits. And I can tell you, 
our contemporaries are not worried about receiving our benefits, 
because the books show almost one-half trillion dollar surplus in 
Social Security reserves. Indeed, seniors are more concerned about the 
fight to come on Medicare. So let us put to rest the notion that we are 
trying to frighten senior citizens. Rather, what we are attempting to 
do is to try and keep a solemn trust with middle America. Everybody 
says we need to do something for middle America. It is middle America 
that is paying for me to receive Social Security benefits now, and it 
is middle America who, come their time in the next century, will be 
taxed again when they become eligible to receive benefits.
  The issue here should be about stopping government deficits and not 
simply moving the general fund deficit over to the Social Security 
deficit. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
specifically articulated the latter idea. Indeed, my friend, the 
Senator from Mississippi said on ``Face the Nation'' on February 5:

       Nobody--Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, 
     moderate--is even thinking about using Social Security to 
     balance the budget.

  Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Mississippi. But the 
actions of some of my Republican friends seem to indicate otherwise. 
Like John Mitchell, the former Attorney General, used to say, ``Watch 
what we do, not what we say.'' Just last evening on ``Larry King 
Live,'' the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, said:

       I think we ought to balance the budget counting Social 
     Security first, and then if we want to balance it without 
     counting it, do it second.

  Clearly, this statement reflects an intent to use Social Security 
surpluses.
  In addition, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator 
Domenici, has said: ``You can't leave the biggest American program off 
budget.'' However, my friend, the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico, voted to leave it off budget both in committee in July 1990 and 
later on the floor in reference to the Hollings-Heinz amendment which 
passed 98 to 2, and was signed into law by President Bush.
  I ask unanimous consent that the law be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Budget Enforcement Act

                      Subtitle C--Social Security

     SEC. 13301. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF OASDI TRUST FUNDS.

       (a) Exclusion of Social Security from All Budgets.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 
     shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, 
     receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
       (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President,
       (2) the congressional budget, or
       (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.
       (b) Exclusion of Social Security From Congressional 
     Budget.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and 
     revenue totals of the old age, survivors, and disability 
     insurance program established under title II of the Social 
     Security Act or the related provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals 
     required by this subsection or in any other surplus or 
     deficit totals required by this title.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Next, Mr. President, I refer to Senator Grassley of 
Iowa who said:

       The leadership of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate have promised not to touch the Social Security 
     retirement program for at least 5 years.

  Do they have it in mind after 5 years? On March 1, my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Craig said:

       Without access to the Social Security surpluses, you would 
     create a much higher hurdle in trying to balance the budget.

  That is true, but not requiring that higher hurdle means that you are 
going to use Social Security funds.
  Finally, on February 5, 1995, the distinguished majority leader, 
Senator Dole said:

       I also believe that we can't keep Social Security off the 
     table forever.

  Mr. President, that is not the promise we made in 1983. When this 
Senator and others raised Social Security FICA taxes, we promised 
otherwise. We must keep the contract made by President Roosevelt in 
1935; we must keep the promise made back in 1983 that these taxes would 
not be used to pay for foreign aid, welfare, or any other Government 
program; and we must continue in our resolve to keep our commitment to 
middle America intact.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief because several other 
Senators want to speak this afternoon. I did want to comment and thank 
a variety of people who have worked so closely with myself and Senator 
Hatch of Utah and Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, in attempting to pass 
this important amendment, so that we can propose it to the citizens of 
our country for their consideration.
  Let me, first of all, recognize Damon Tobias on my staff, who 
literally has become ``Mr. Constitutional Amendment on the Balanced 
Budget'' as he has worked for me over a good number of years and is 
recognized for his authority and expertise in the area. Throughout all 
of these efforts for the last good number of months, he has been 
assisted by Alan Kay on my staff, and recently by a legislative fellow 
Roy Fairchild, and an intern, Dean Sorensen, who have done a 
tremendously masterful job in cooperation with all the rest of my 
staff, in being able to supply to the Senate a vast array of 
information and facts that deal with this most important issue, and to 
assemble them in a way that was readily usable so we could debate this, 
now for nearly 5 full weeks, without breaks in the debate and with 
ample material to supply the Record and to hopefully have given the 
citizens of our country ample information in making a choice that I had 
hoped we would have the wisdom to give them.
  But the vote turned out otherwise today. So we will be back again to 
revisit this issue--next week or next month or next year. And we will, 
for a very simple reason, Mr. President: There is not a Senator on this 
floor who has the right to deny the American people an opportunity to 
change their law--not our law but their law--the Constitution, the 
organic act that governs our country and, most importantly, Mr. 
President, the very law that governs us.
  I will have to admit there has been a display of knowledge here that 
verges on all knowledge and all knowing, that this is the seat of 
wisdom, and from this seat, all decisions for America and Americans 
will be made.
  I suggest to those who serve here that that will be denied. There 
will come a day--and it will be very soon--when Americans will speak 
again to those who deny them the opportunity 
[[Page S3318]] to change their Nation in a way they see fit to change 
it, to protect the Social Security system, to assure that the 
Government governs properly but, most importantly, to look to the 
future and to honor the future.
  Today we saw a Senate that looked backward. We saw a Senate that said 
that the past is better than the future. Are we going to be guardians 
of the past, or are we truly going to be the visionaries of the future? 
I suggest that the American people, in November, were talking of our 
future. They were most assuredly not talking of our past--for the past 
is $4.8 trillion of debt.
  This body--all of us, all Senators alike--has to take the 
responsibility for that debt. And today and for the last 5 weeks, we 
have struggled to give one moment of time in history to the American 
people. So they could choose how we would handle that debt. Yet, the 
central power and the central wisdom prevailed today. I suggest that it 
is not the wisdom of the American people, nor was it their wish.
  So Orrin Hatch, Larry Craig and, hopefully, Paul Simon, before he 
retires, will have an opportunity to come to the floor of the Senate 
again, once the American people have recognized that President Clinton 
denied them that opportunity today, that he once again backtracked away 
from his pledge to the American people that he would progressively and 
in a positive sense bring down the deficit. This year, in his budget 
resolution, he walked away and denied what was once a promise and a 
pledge.
  I suggest that the American people will not be denied, and they will 
have the opportunity to change the organic law like other Congresses in 
the past have seen the wisdom to allow them that choice.
  I am amazed, Mr. President; I am absolutely amazed that even one 
Senator would not allow the citizens of his or her State the right to 
make a choice. But that was denied today--falsely denied, wrongly 
denied. I suggest that those citizens, in the long-term, will not be 
denied.
  It has been a tremendous opportunity for me and for all of those 
colleagues who have joined with me in this issue and in this debate. 
And I would agree with the Senator from West Virginia, it has been a 
positive debate. It has been most constructive, and all ramifications 
of the issue have been thoroughly brought to this floor, some falsely, 
some under improper clothing or dress, some presented in ways that were 
illusionary and not fact.
  But the reality is that in the end this is an issue that will not go 
away and it will ultimately prevail.
  Mr. President, I want to thank all of those who have joined with me, 
and most assuredly my staff, for their tremendous dedication as we 
brought this issue to the floor.
  And I wish to thank the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Bob Dole, 
for offering the tremendous leadership and taking the kinds of risks 
that must be taken as a leader to allow the American people their right 
to govern us.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

                          ____________________