[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 40 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3446-S3451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       THE DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY GAP

   Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to sound an alarm for my 
colleagues and my country about a clear and present danger to America's 
ability to defend itself against foreign enemies in the future.
   But first, a look back: throughout history, the time between major 
changes in the weaponry of war was measured in centuries. Then came the 
industrial revolution, and ever since the weapons of war have evolved 
with exponential speed. Now we are in the technology revolution and the 
pace is so furious that we would fight the gulf war today differently 
than we did just 4 years ago, simply because weapons--and related 
tactics--have changed so much.
   Nations that first perfect new weapons of war are best-equipped to 
win wars. Those left behind the curve of change must scramble mightily 
to catch up--to close the gap--or else their vulnerability will be 
exploited.
   At the beginning of this century there was the dreadnought gap. In 
1906, Britain's First Sea Lord, John Fisher, commissioned the H.M.S. 
Dreadnought. It was a technological marvel in its time; bigger, faster, 
more powerful than any other warship of its kind on the planet.
   The Germans, recognizing their vulnerability, built their own 
dreadnoughts. The English, fearing a dreadnought gap because of 
Germany's industrial prowess, sped up production and built a total of 
15 over the next 6 years. Winston Churchill objected at first, 
believing there was no dreadnought gap. Indeed, such a gap never 
materialized. However, Britain's bigger navy provided a key margin for 
victory in World War I and Churchill, writing in 1928, acknowledged 
that he ``was absolutely wrong in relation to the deep tides of 
destiny.'' He learned a lesson that served him and his nation well when 
the time came to fight the Germans again.
   In the middle of this century was the atomic bomb gap. At the end of 
World War II we were the only nation to have the atomic bomb. Russia 
scrambled to catch up, and that led to the so-called missile gap of the 
late 1950's and early 1960's. Just as Germany and England rushed to 
build dreadnoughts after 1906, the United States and Russia rushed to 
build intercontinental ballistic missiles after 1957.
   As we approach the end of the century, there is a new gap--a defense 
technology gap--and it is the gap between the technological 
capabilities of our military forces and those of any other nation on 
Earth. The clear and present danger I foresee is the narrowing of that 
gap in the next 10 to 20 years by virtue of decisions being made under 
the dome of this great Capitol building today.
   The technology gap allowed us to defeat Saddam Hussein handily and 
deters other despots from acting rashly against us today. Given the 
threats we are likely to face tomorrow, I believe we must maintain and 
increase that gap, not let it shrink.
   But the closing of the gap began last week when the House of 
Representatives voted to cut the heart out of crucial new programs 
designed to advance American technology. Five hundred million dollars 
were taken out of the Defense Department's technology reinvestment 
project [TRP] and $100 million were removed from the related civilian 
Advanced Technology Program [ATP]. The money is being shifted to pay 
for military operations in Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, and Bosnia. Additional 
cuts in the Advanced Research Projects Agency [ARPA], which runs the 
TRP and other technology programs, are being considered for the 1996 
budget.
   And just yesterday, a committee of the U.S. Senate cut more than 
$300 million from TRP and ATP and millions more from other technology 
programs in the current 1995 budget.
   Some in Congress are cutting military technology to pay for military 
readiness. What they are really doing is shrinking a real technology 
margin of victory to close an illusory readiness gap--a gap readiness 
experts say does not exist.
   Closing the defense technology gap is a tragic error we must avert. 
Disinvestment in military technology is the historical equivalent of 
Great Britain scuttling its dreadnoughts before World War I or America 
choosing not to build missiles after Sputnik. Cutting military 
technology programs is, quite frankly, one of the most thoughtless and 
harmful courses I have seen Congress contemplate in my 6 years in the 
Senate.


                     The Nature of the Future Threat

   Defense spending must meet not only current needs; it must take into 
account the national security threats of our future. That future is 
less predictable than it was during the cold war, when we knew who, 
where, and how capable our enemy was at all times.
   The end of the cold war has given us all hope that democracy and 
free markets will spread around the globe. And there have been 
tremendous success stories to celebrate. But the absence of a single 
superpower rivalry has also unleashed a stream of aggression and 
hostility and countless thousands have died in this post-cold-war world 
at the altar of nationalism, ethnicity, race, religion, and plain, old 
anarchic terrorism.
   Over the short term--5 to 10 years--the United States faces 
potential threats in the Persian Gulf and the Korean Peninsula. Known 
and unknowable challengers loom more ominously on a 10-, 15-, and 20-
year time horizon. The danger of a revived, nationalistic Russia is 
clearly a possibility.
   Russia is still armed to the teeth, and the latest intelligence 
tells us it is moving ahead with major modernization programs in its 
most advanced weapons systems--submarines and aircraft. It is resource 
rich with a highly educated population. In the hands of a dictatorial 
government, it could resume a threatening world role once again. That 
is America's worst nightmare and, as unlikely as it seems to us today, 
consider how many unlikely changes have occurred in world history in 
just the last 5 years.
   China is taking Russia seriously with a major modernization program 
for its military forces--a program that could make China a superpower 
in the next century. In response to the buildup in China, India is 
quickly developing its military. And Japan, in the next century, may 
well be forced to do the same. Other nations in the Asian rim have 
growing economies, are technologically advanced, and thus are capable 
of emerging as a threat to the stability of that region and to our 
interests there.
   Add terrorist groups, the proliferation of ballistic missile 
technology, radical fundamentalist movements, despotic regimes, and the 
potential proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons to 
the list, and it is easy to see that the future is fraught with perils 
for our Nation.


                        The Technology Deterrent

   Given those dangers, and given the fact that the United States is 
the biggest target in sight, how can we best protect ourselves?
   Thanks to the lessons of the gulf war, we know a big part of the 
answer lies in our advanced military technology, which can deter or, if 
necessary, defeat any challenger, whether it be a superpower, a rogue 
nation, or a terrorist group.
   But we cannot rest on our gulf war laurels, content that today's 
weapons are enough to protect us for decades to come. Our next 
adversary, for example, may have access to detailed satellite 
photographs, making a tactic like General Schwarzkopf's ``Hail Mary'' 
movement of troops around Iraqi forces much more difficult. Or the 
enemy may possess missiles more capable than the Scud. The next gulf 
war will be far different than the last.
  [[Page S3447]]  Those Members of Congress bent on cutting technology 
programs are repeating the error of so many former great powers: with 
their emphasis on readiness to the detriment of technological research 
and development, they are preparing to fight the last war all over 
again, not preparing for the enemies and wars of the future.
   Our best defense is to stay as far ahead of any possible challenger 
as possible. The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. 
William Owens, says we need a high technology umbrella to protect us 
from the enemies of our future just as the nuclear umbrella protected 
us in the recent past. The nuclear umbrella deters other nuclear 
powers, like Russia, from attacking us. But because we are unlikely to 
use nuclear weapons against a nonnuclear nation, it is the high 
technology weapons in our arsenal that can keep them at bay, or defeat 
them if they strike.


                      The Battlefield of the Future

   And if they strike, we can defeat them with our technologically 
advanced forces because we are changing the fundamental concept of the 
battlefield. The struggle for information is supplanting the fight for 
geographical position as the key goal on the battlefield, and that is 
where we can enjoy a huge advantage. Army Chief of Staff Sullivan says 
that the new battlefield will be a digitalized battlefield, one that 
can lift the fog of war for commanders and infantry alike.
   Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Shalikashvili and Admiral Owens are 
contemplating the development of an electronic integrated system-of-
systems to give us dominant battlefield awareness where real-time 
intelligence will lead to virtually instantaneous response. No more 
lengthy Scud hunts. No more service computers that cannot talk to each 
other.
   The digitalized battlefield will also allow for decentralization of 
command, giving officers on the scene much greater ability to make the 
right decisions in response to the rapidly changing events of battle.
   And that is just one of a hundred different technology avenues we 
must pursue. We are on the verge of a revolution in defense technology 
that will dwarf the impact of the dreadnought, the airplane, the tank, 
and the missile--a revolution that will not occur to our advantage if 
we fail to invest in military technology today. For innovation cannot 
occur on demand. It is a long-term process--yet a rapidly changing 
process as well. That means even a 1- or 2-year interruption in 
research and development funding will have terrible consequences down 
the road. A year is a lifetime in the field of high technology.


                            ARPA and Dual Use

   Our current technological superiority has not evolved accidentally 
or overnight. The Department of Defense's secretive Advanced Research 
Projects Agency [ARPA], one of the least known, yet most important 
offices in the Pentagon, has been successfully promoting new technology 
for the military for the 37 years since President Eisenhower set it up.
   In retrospect, it was a truly visionary Presidential accomplishment, 
and it is probably no accident that Eisenhower, like Churchill, 
approached this issue of military technology as a man who knew what it 
was like to order other men into battle. He knew this investment in 
technology would one day save lives--and it has.
   What has ARPA done? Most of its efforts are classified, and it has 
purposely never recorded its history. But, by carefully investing in 
the private sector like a high-technology Johnny Appleseed, ARPA has 
helped bring about supercomputing, desktop computers, the internet--
formerly ARPAnet--stealth technology, composites, a global positioning 
system, laser technology, high resolution imaging, advanced acoustics, 
smart weapons, and even the ubiquitous computer mouse, which has 
burrowed its way into millions of American homes and offices.
   What is most obvious about this list is the multitude of ways in 
which military technology has been adapted for civilian use. In fact, 
technology developed for the military has revolutionized the lives of 
all Americans--the way we work, the vehicles we drive, the homes we 
live in. Technology that was designed to protect our way of life has 
evolved to transform our way of life. That is what the term ``dual 
use'' is all about--the use of technology for military and civilian 
purposes.
   But times are changing--tables are about to be turned. President 
Eisenhower founded ARPA, but also warned that a military industrial 
base could swallow our economy. The opposite is now occurring. The 
defense technology base that was spawned by defense investment is now 
being swallowed by our civilian technology base.
   For example, the computer was invented to help the military design a 
better way to mount an artillery attack, and it was improved when we 
needed to target our missiles. The military funded the development of 
computers and became the biggest market for computers. But today the 
Department of Defense has but a fraction of the computer market.
   For the first time in human history advances in technology are 
occurring far more rapidly in the civilian sector than in the military. 
In a sense, we have gone from beating swords into plowshares to 
creating the plowshares first. Part of the reason is the widespread 
dissemination of technology among the population. The demand for new 
and better appliances, cars, and entertainment systems is enormous 
compared to the demand for better jets, tanks, and ships. The existence 
of that demand opens the door for cooperation between government and 
industry when a technology is of interest to the military and civilian 
markets.
   Government dollars can be leveraged by private investment to produce 
more than could otherwise be accomplished under the auspices of the 
defense spending alone. In other words, potential civilian applications 
for military technology creates a multiplier effect on every Federal 
dollar we invest. Economies of scale then drive down the cost of the 
product and the contributing technology. The bottom line is this: Dual 
use literally gives us more bang for our buck. It is a genuine win- win 
situation--a win for our economy and for the defense of our country.
   Perhaps most important: if our Government fails to use some of its 
defense spending to promote private sector technological development, 
the momentum of change in the design of the tools of war stalls and 
shifts elsewhere, and we risk losing new advances to the defense 
establishments of other nations, nations whose interests might be 
inimical to our own.
   For the question is never, ``Will we be able to invent new weapons 
of war?'' The question is, ``Who will invent the new weapons of war?'' 
If we cut back on technological investment, such as is happening in 
Congress today, we will not always be able to answer that question with 
the words, ``Made in the U.S.A.''
   This state of affairs can be summarized in three points:
  First, the Defense Department must be involved in the exploding 
civilian technology world to meet its military technology needs.
  Second, the United States, for military and economic reasons, must 
have the goal of maintaining the American advantage in civilian 
technology markets.
  Third, collaboration between the civilian and military technology 
sectors can work because the applications for civilian and military use 
are easily transferable.


                  The Technology Programs at Issue: TRP

   The technology reinvestment project [TRP] has been the first victim 
of the technology disarmament now underway in the House and the Senate. 
Developed by ARPA during the Bush administration, TRP investments are 
cost shared at least 50-50 with industry, competitively selected, 
industry-led and aimed at meeting civilian and military needs.
   A brief review of current TRP investments gives us a clear idea of 
how important they are to our national security:
   Head mounted displays: Infantrymen cannot walk around with desktop 
computers. With lightweight, head-mounted displays they can retain full 
mobility but have a full computer display of the battlefield and 
realtime intelligence and targeting data before their eyes. If you saw 
the movie ``Aliens,'' you know what I am talking about. But this is an 
alien concept only if we cut 
[[Page S3448]] off funding and allow another nation to pick up the ball 
we drop.
   Uncooled infrared sensors: Desert Storm was launched as a night 
attack using infrared sensors as the basis for high-speed-attack 
operations. Our military needs to own the night and a new generation of 
cheaper, much more portable uncooled infrared sensors are an enabling 
technology being developed by a TRP team that will give us even greater 
control of the nighttime battlefield than ever before.
   Item: Advanced information flow: Military command and control must 
process an exploding amount of intelligence data immediately to the 
battlefield for response. But limited communications capacity now clogs 
our ability to transmit, process, and act on that data. A TRP team is 
developing digital communications command and control equipment to 
burst massive new amounts of data through the interpretation and 
response pipeline at 10 gigabits per second, a 400-percent improvement 
over today's best equipment. That could mean the difference between 
life and death, victory and defeat on the battlefield.
   Item: Single chip motion detectors: By reducing motion detection to 
a single chip accelerometer which can withstand accelerations up to 
30,000 times the force of gravity, weapons guidance and navigation 
systems can be made significantly lighter and more sensitive. This will 
lead us, for example, to newer, more advanced versions of the cruise 
missiles and smart weapons that were so important to us in the gulf 
war.
   Item: Autonomous all-weather aircraft landing: The efficiency of 
military aircraft is still limited by night and weather conditions. 
Operations at secondary fields are curtailed in these conditions if a 
full ground control system is absent, or if these facilities are 
disrupted or damaged. Basing aircraft at a small number of primary 
bases is not a good alternative because our command of the air becomes 
more vulnerable. A TRP team is working on placing all-weather air 
traffic and landing control systems into every cockpit, making aircraft 
independent of ground control availability and weather conditions.
   Item: Turboalternator: Army gas-guzzling battle vehicles require a 
vast and vulnerable logistics chain and limit battlefield operations. 
The next war may not be fought next to Saudi oil refineries. A TRP team 
is developing a turboalternator so main engines can be switched off but 
all equipment and sensors can continue to operate during silent watch 
modes. This multiplies fuel efficiency and also makes detection through 
infrared emissions and engine noise much more difficult.
   Item: Composite bridging: Military operations continue to be 
controlled by terrain: every stream or ravine that must be crossed 
creates a potential strong point for enemy defenders and disrupts the 
mobility that gives U.S. forces much of their edge. Every time our 
engineer forces have to bring up cumbersome, heavy bridging equipment 
for a crossing, enemy defenders can rally and our mobility is 
disrupted. A TRP team is developing superlight, superstrong composites 
for portable bridges to multiply the mobility of our battlefield 
forces.
   Item: Precision laser manufacturing: Precision laser machining 
technology, by making aircraft parts microscopically precise, can make 
aircraft engines much more efficient. A TRP team, working with higher 
power density, more focused laser beams, and variable pulse formats, 
aims to double the life of military aircraft engines and sharply 
improve fuel efficiency and therefore range. Other beneficiaries 
include shipbuilders, airframe makers, engine makers, and a wide range 
of manufacturing technologies.
   These are some of the new technologies we need for future 
battlefield dominance. And with a little imagination, we can envision 
even more revolutionary developments. Imagine a tiny helicopterlike 
device equipped with video cameras, flown by the dozens behind enemy 
lines, stealthily hovering throughout enemy territory, identifying the 
specific location of artillery, sniper nests, tanks, and serve as a 
guide for smart bombs launched from far away.
   Imagine a sublaunched, fast-moving robot that can find and 
neutralize enemy mines at sea, safeguarding and speeding up the 
movement of our Navy.
   Imagine lightweight, full body armor to make soldiers virtually 
invulnerable to small arms fire, dramatically improving our ability to 
control urban environments.
   Such is the stuff of science fiction today, but like Leonardo Da 
Vinci and H.G. Wells, we need to realize that what is today's fiction 
can be tomorrow's fact. In fact, some Defense Department programs are 
looking into aspects of the exotic technologies I just described.
   We must admit to ourselves we are no longer in the age of the 
backyard tinkerer when it comes to high technology weapons of war. No 
more Wright Brothers working out of a garage. The new weapons will come 
only after substantial investment by the Government and private 
industry, working together to safeguard the economy and security of our 
Nation's future.
   That is why the drastic cuts in or cancellation of TRP, ATP, and 
other technology programs is akin to marching onto a field of battle 
and stripping our soldiers of their weapons. The survival of the 
soldiers of our future--soldiers to be drawn from the ranks of our 
children and grandchildren--depends on the development of technologies 
to help them control the battlefields of our future.
   Failure to develop those technologies can only provide comfort to 
future enemies.


                               Conclusion

   The movement to slash defense technology is being led by the 
``techno-nothings.'' When it comes to the complex interaction between 
Government and the private sector in technological research and 
development, the techno-nothings do not understand the lessons of 
history and they do not see the perils and opportunities in our future.
   They cannot see or touch a weapon of the future and so they cannot 
justify spending money to develop it. They say they do not like 
Government picking winners and losers, but they do not understand that 
we need to have Government and business work together, sharing costs 
and talent, to bring about the defense and civilian technologies our 
citizens will want and need in the future.
   It is a good thing that our predecessors in this Capitol building 
did not have to see a jet fighter before investing in its development, 
and did not decide to wait until the private sector invented it on its 
own.
   They did not have to see or even understand the atomic bomb before 
spending millions on its creation, and did not decide to wait until 
scientists built one on their own.
   They did not have to see and touch cruise missiles, Patriot 
missiles, stealth fighters, radar, lasers, and the whole panoply of 
weapons we now possess before allocating resources to their research 
and development.
   We owe our survival to their foresight. Will we lose our liberty to 
myopia?
   There is, I admit, not much of a constituency fighting for these 
programs, because we are dealing with the future, not the present. That 
makes investment in military technology a hard sell; not to the private 
sector, which wants the partnership, but to those political forces that 
cannot see much beyond the next election.
   We need to go about the business of creating technological change 
the way some of our ancestors created the great pyramids, cathedrals, 
and other monumental architectural triumphs of the past: They started 
those works knowing they would not survive to see them finished, but 
pressed on with the knowledge that generations yet to come would 
appreciate what they did.
   We must press on with such knowledge ourselves, lest we be, as 
Churchill said, ``absolutely wrong in relation to the deep tides of 
destiny.'' Those tides are now tides of technological change and it is 
our destiny--our duty--to recognize there can be no turning back.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader is 
recognized under the previous order.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the President.
              [[Page S3449]] THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin this morning by going back 
to the debate yesterday and making a couple of remarks with regard to 
those who spent the better part of an entire month on the floor 
debating this issue.
  The manager on the Republican side, the distinguished Senator from 
Utah, was a gentleman. He did an outstanding job and gave everyone the 
opportunity to be heard, and to discuss the issue, in a way that I 
think fits the Senate. It was, as the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia said yesterday, a very good debate, a rigorous debate, a 
bruising debate in many cases but, certainly, one that afforded 
everyone the opportunity to be heard, to present their case, to make 
their positions well known. That was due in no small measure to the 
manner in which the distinguished Senator from Utah managed the 
legislation the entire time that it was pending on the floor.
  Let me also commend the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois 
for his tenacious approach to the debate, and also for conducting 
himself in a very admirable way. I know that often, as take our 
positions, we sometimes allow our own personal views to mask what in 
other ways would be a very legitimate discussion of issues. Certainly, 
the Senator from Illinois, as he conducted himself throughout this 
debate, did not allow whatever personal views he may hold with regard 
to the positions taken by other Senators to distract him from 
conducting himself in a way that I thought was extraordinary.
  Certainly, the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], and his leadership on 
this issue was also extraordinarily commendable.
  I hope that as we take on these issues, as difficult and as fractious 
as they become sometimes, we can maintain civility, and that we can 
find ways with which to disagree without being disagreeable. I know 
there are a lot of strongly held views and a lot of temptation 
sometimes to get personal, to be negative. But I think that the course 
of this debate was one of our better moments. It was an opportunity for 
us to debate the issues in a meaningful way, without getting personal, 
being negative, and without distracting from what is our real purpose 
in being here.
  Mr. President, the vote we took yesterday may not be the last on the 
constitutional amendment. The majority leader has indicated, as is his 
right, he is going to raise the issue again at some later date. 
Regardless of when that time may come, I think the real question now 
is: Can we as Democrats and Republicans work together? Can we find a 
way with which to put aside our differences on an amendment itself and 
commit ourselves to doing what we say we must do? We need to recognize 
that the clock is ticking, and to recognize that without some 
determination to take responsibility, to set forth a glidepath, we will 
be right back where we were a month ago, with no real progress, with no 
real substantive demonstration of our determination to resolve this 
matter 1 year from now, 2 years from now, or 3 years from now.
  So, Mr. President, I think it is very important that we recognize 
that the clock is ticking. We have 43 days, by law--43 days by law--to 
produce a budget resolution. We did that last year. We hope very much 
that we can do it again this year. It is tough. And for those who say 
we do not need a constitutional amendment to do the job, I think it is 
all the more important that we demonstrate that we can; that we are up 
to the task; that we can meet our responsibilities to make it happen 
correctly, to make it happen in the way that was foreseen when we 
passed the laws setting up this budget process.
  So within the next 43 days, we hope that a majority will come forth, 
and that we can work together to produce what we have called for on 
many occasions, a glidepath to a date certain, a time within which we 
will reduce the deficit to zero, a time within which we can be assured 
that indeed we are going to take the reins of responsibility and 
produce a balanced budget.
  When that happens, we can look back with some pride at the way in 
which this whole effort was undertaken. I hope also that we will abide 
by the law passed some time ago that stipulates that we do so without 
the Social Security trust funds. That is the law. We are required 
already to keep Social Security off-budget. So that ought to be our 
task. That ought to be the responsibility that we all grasp now as 
Republicans and Democrats. Pro-balanced-budget amendment supporters and 
those who oppose it must recognize that we have a timeframe within 
which we must produce, a timeframe that is a little more than a month 
long, which requires us, by law, to set out a budget resolution that 
provides the glidepath that we all say we want.
  Let us make it a time certain. I am not wedded to a specific date 
today. But I would agree to a time certain, a time within which we can, 
with some confidence, look to a decline of the deficit to the point 
where we can say with authority that we have taken Social Security out 
of the calculation, as the law requires; we have reduced the deficit 
annually, building on the 3-year record we have set out now, and we 
have done it within the timeframe that the law requires.
  I think the American people would look at this Congress in a very 
different way. I think they would look at us with a great deal of 
admiration if we said we are going to do what we all say we want to do. 
Certainly, this is the time to prove it. This is an opportunity for us 
to demonstrate real responsibility. It is an opportunity for us to 
demonstrate real bipartisanship. It is an opportunity for us to set 
politics aside and say this is our task, and there can be no more 
important responsibility. We are going to do it and do it in a way that 
we all can feel proud.
  So I sincerely hope, Mr. President, that everyone will accept that 
task, and that everyone will take this responsibility seriously. I 
think the majority is going to live up to their commitment. I am sure 
they will produce a resolution. I hope they will produce that 
resolution in the time the law requires.
  So our purpose in coming to the floor this morning is to say that the 
balanced budget amendment debate, for now, is behind us. It is over. 
Let us get on with the real work of doing the job, doing what we say we 
are going to do. Let us get on with making sure that we do not miss 
this opportunity. Let us get on with trying to do what we all have 
professed is the most important thing we can do, and that is set out 
the glidepath to a balanced Federal budget at a time certain. That time 
certain is in the next 43 days.
  Mr. President, I know of several of my colleagues that have come to 
the floor also to express themselves on this issue. I will yield 
whatever time he may require to the Senator from Nevada.


                       Balanced Budget Amendment

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last year, I offered a balanced budget 
amendment which excluded Social Security from the budget. When this 
body again considered a balanced budget amendment 4 or 5 weeks ago I 
offered an amendment that excluded Social Security. After it was 
defeated, I worked with others to ensure the Social Security trust 
funds would not be looted to reduce the deficit. Of course, we know the 
result of the vote yesterday. But, Mr. President, I feel no jubilation. 
I do not feel a sense of victory as a result of having my amendment 
being one of the principal--if not the principal--reason the balanced 
budget amendment failed.
  But, in fact, the day after the vote, I feel a sense of hope, perhaps 
even anticipation, that the debate that has taken place in this body 
over the past several weeks has established at least two things in my 
mind. No. 1 is that the accumulating debt this country has is serious. 
No. 2, the American people recognize the seriousness of that debt, but 
they do not want to balance the budget using Social Security trust fund 
moneys.
  We have heard several times on this floor that 80 percent of the 
American people support a balanced budget amendment. That is true. If 
you ask that same group of people, ``Do you support a balanced budget 
amendment using Social Security to achieve a balanced budget?'' only 
about 32 percent of those people say yes. In fact, most of the polls 
show a number slightly lower than that.
  Mr. President, what was the debate on this floor about as relating to 
Social Security? Well, we established quite clearly that Social 
Security has not contributed one penny to the huge 
[[Page S3450]] deficits that this country is accumulating--not a penny. 
We further established, without any refutation, that Social Security is 
not a welfare program. Social Security, quite to the contrary, is a 
self-financing program where a person's employer pays 6.2 percent of 
their wages into a fund--we call it a trust fund--and the individual, 
the employee, pays 6.2 percent of their wages into a fund. That is to 
be accumulated during their working life, so that when they retire, 
they will have a retirement income. The average around the country is 
$640 a month. That is not a lot, but certainly, for an individual, it 
is a difference between despair and the ability to live a decent life.
  Mr. President, the issue now before us is to continue on a path of 
deficit reduction until we get to balance. I want to show this body the 
fact that while we have not done a wonderful job, we have done a pretty 
good job, and we have to do a lot better, recognizing that this will be 
the third year in a row that we have had a decline in the deficit, the 
first time in 50 years.
  We also recognize, Mr. President, that we have also had the lowest 
unemployment and the lowest inflation in 50 years, the highest economic 
growth since LBJ. And we have 120,000 fewer Federal employees than we 
had 2 years and 2 months ago. We can do a lot better. But what if we 
had not adopted the Democratic deficit-reduction plan? What would we 
have had we not done that?
  Well, Mr. President, this chart shows clearly what would have 
happened. As a result of the deficit-reduction plan that worked, we 
have had a declining deficit. It has not declined nearly enough, but a 
declining deficit. It levels off and this is, as seen on these lines at 
the bottom of this chart, what happened as a result of the hard choices 
we made.
  Mr. President, I do not think it is wrong to mention to the American 
public that we did not receive a single Republican vote to bring this 
deficit down.
  In fact, had we not adopted the tough program that we did, the 
deficit would have been huge. This is what would have happened had the 
Republicans prevailed, had the Republicans' deficit-reduction plan been 
adopted. It would not have been a deficit-reduction plan, it would have 
been a deficit increase. This red line shows what would have happened. 
And beginning next year, the budget we are adopting now, you can see 
where it would have skyrocketed.
  So, Mr. President, we have not completely dropped the ball. We have 
done some good things and the economy now is in good shape. The 
question is: Can we learn from our experiences? Can we learn from the 
debate that has taken place on the Senate floor these past few weeks? I 
hope so.
  I know, speaking from my perspective, I think the debate has been 
constructive. I join in what the minority leader, the Democratic 
leader, has said. I think the majority has allowed us to have a full 
debate on this issue. I commend and I applaud the senior Senator from 
Kansas, the majority leader of the Senate. I think he has really done a 
good job of moving this legislation through this body. I believe it has 
been a good debate. It is one that I hope we can learn from as we look 
to the future.
  I look forward to seeing what budget is going to come from the 
leadership of Senator Domenici and Senator Exon. These are two 
experienced legislators. I have not had the opportunity--I know that 
the senior Senator from New Mexico has had a death in his family and I 
know he has a lot on his mind. But I know that his experience, together 
with Senator Exon, to whom I have spoken, is going to bring out a 
budget, that will take into consideration what has been debated on this 
floor; namely, that we need to bring the deficit down and we cannot and 
we should not use Social Security to bring the deficit down.
  Mr. President, I am willing to work with my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. I agree with my colleagues, we should have a 
balanced budget. But, Mr. President, we can do that. Even though the 
balanced budget amendment did not pass, we can still do that.
  Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act says that you are not 
supposed to use Social Security. We should follow this law. Our numbers 
may not look as good as we would like them in the newspapers, but we 
could and we should have a balanced budget amendment. So, Mr. 
President, I repeat, our deficit is too big, but we also should not 
raid Social Security and try to justify using those moneys. I see my 
friend from North Dakota. My understanding is that the leader wanted to 
yield time to the Senator from North Dakota under the leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield time to the Senator 
from North Dakota?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time is available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 13 minutes 36 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President I thank the minority leader.


             Constitutional Amendment to Balance the Budget

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday, of course, we voted on a major 
proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That was a 
vote that was difficult for a number of Members of the Senate. Most 
understood it was a very significant, serious issue, and a great deal 
of emotion existed on both sides. It was not an easy vote, I expect, 
for virtually anyone. And I suppose there are some ruptured feelings 
and relationships, at least momentarily, about some of these issues.
  But I was thinking about it last evening. In the middle of the debate 
that we had for some weeks over the question of whether we should amend 
the Constitution, a news item appeared one morning about America's 
trade deficit. That news item disclosed that in the last year, when 
figures for December were released and we had a full year's picture of 
America's trade deficit, that we had the largest merchandise trade 
deficit in the history of the world. The United States was running the 
largest trade deficit in the history of humankind. We had gone, in a 
few years--15 years--from being the largest creditor or the biggest 
banker as a country to now the largest debtor in the world.
  I thought about that in the context of the fractious debate on the 
issue of balancing the budget by a constitutional amendment. Because, 
with respect to international trade and the question of how we as a 
country do, we are a team, all of us. The entire country's future is at 
stake. Our jobs are at stake, opportunities for our children are at 
stake. And it is an international competition that we must win. There 
ought not be anyone in the congressional branch of Government that does 
not understand that we are on this team together and that we need 
policies that allow this team to win.
  Well, then we come to domestic policies, including provisions that 
would require a change in the Constitution. And what is a team, or what 
should be a team, because we are all on the same side, in international 
competition in who will have the jobs, who will have the expansion, 
where will be the opportunity and that then breaks down into a debate 
in our Chamber. And, of course, what happens in the process of trying 
to make decisions about this, emotions run high and sometimes we have 
very fractious debates. There are, it seems to me, no winners and no 
losers in these kinds of debates. Certainly, when you are dealing with 
a question of whether or how to change the U.S. Constitution one would 
expect people to feel very strongly about their points of view.
  I want to add to the comments by the Senator from South Dakota and 
Senator Reid and others that I have the greatest respect for Senator 
Hatch and Senator Simon. I think both of them did an extraordinary job. 
I have great respect for their point of view.
  My own view is that there is a right way and a wrong way to change 
the Constitution. I feel very strongly that the question of how you 
count receipts in the Constitution is very important to the future of 
the Social Security system. Because the future of the Social Security 
system will not be a future that guarantees benefits to Americans who 
deserve them and who are entitled to them unless we preserve the funds 
in the trust funds. And that 
[[Page S3451]] would not have been the case under this amendment.
  If that had been changed, it would have passed yesterday with 75 
votes. So there is no joy in that vote. And the message in that vote is 
not that the U.S. Senate does not want a balanced budget amendment. If 
that amendment had been changed, the message would have been 75--
probably more, maybe 80 votes--in favor of a constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget provided there was a guarantee that trust funds 
of Social Security be protected.
  I noted that in the Washington Post this morning they editorialized 
about this Social Security issue and said it is not an issue, because 
the fact is Social Security is now one-fourth of all spending for other 
than interest on the debt and that the deficit cannot be reduced 
without it.
  I do not agree with that. If someone believes we should reduce the 
Federal deficit by cutting Social Security benefits, they would have a 
responsibility to cut Social Security taxes because the only purpose 
for which that tax is collected is to put it in a trust fund to be used 
for only one program, and that is Social Security.
  I think the Washington Post is all wet. I am surprised to see the 
editorial. Everybody has a right to think as they think. I just 
disagree with them.
  Now, the question of Social Security that we have discussed at some 
length I hope could still be resolved. If we could resolve that, that 
constitutional amendment can be brought back and will pass by a very 
significant margin.
  I was probably 14 years old when I got a driver's license to drive my 
father's pickup truck, and my way of making some money during high 
school was to haul garbage. I would pick up the 50-gallon drums that 
had been opened at the top, used oil drums that the widows in my 
hometown of 300 people used to put their trash in and burn their trash.
  At the end of a week or two, their 50-gallon drums would be full of 
burnt trash, and somebody would have to haul it to the dump ground in 
my small town. I borrowed my dad's pickup truck. When I was 14, I had a 
garbage route. I picked up the drums and hauled the trash to the dump 
ground for half a dozen widows in my hometown. That is the way I earned 
a few dollars and got along in high school.
  All of those widows in my hometown whom I was doing a little work 
for--virtually all of them--lived on Social Security. That is about all 
they had. The difference between them, then, and those who preceded 
them 30 or 40 years prior to that, was that they reached that stage in 
life where they were in their seventies or eighties, some in their 
early nineties, and they had Social Security checks.
  It was the difference between being impoverished at age 80 with 
nothing to live on, or having a little something to give you a decent 
life and give you an opportunity. That is what Social Security meant to 
them.
  I saw it when I was a kid. That is why the Social Security system is 
still important to me. I think it is the crown jewel of achievement in 
the last 60 or 70 years in this country for us to have constructed 
something that works the way this works, to give an opportunity during 
one's retirement years to draw on a stream of income that one 
contributed to during one's working years.
  We face challenges with Social Security, but the wrong way to 
approach those challenges is to say to somebody, ``You can take what is 
built up in the trust fund or what we intend to build up in the trust 
fund to save for the future, and use it to balance the Federal 
deficit.'' It is the wrong thing to do. I know the amendment might be 
popular, but there is a difference between right and wrong.
  It seems to me here, notwithstanding the strong winds, you need to be 
prepared to stand and fight for what is right. I respect everyone's 
views. Those who oppose me on this or dozens of other issues will not 
hear me denigrating the way they do business or the way they think. 
There is great room for disagreement. I have enormous respect for those 
who do disagree, but I also hope they will accord similar respect to 
the kind of debate that we have had.
  I think that we have a country in which people look at the 
congressional branch of Government these days and they say, ``You know, 
I kind of wish they could just make progress and get things done.'' And 
they probably know that there are many Members inside the institution 
who feel the same way. We understand what the problems are.
  Let Members find a way to coalesce to solve the problems. There is no 
reason that on the issue of a balanced budget, we cannot follow on from 
what we did in 1993. Yes, I voted for the Deficit Reduction Act of 
1993. That was enormously controversial. But I am glad I voted for it. 
It was the right thing, and it is still the right thing to have done, 
because It reduced the Federal budget deficit. I am glad I did that. I 
am prepared to do more.
  I hope there are many people on both sides of the aisle during the 
budget and appropriations process who will join hands together in a 
bipartisan way. We are prepared to march up the hill. We do not need a 
constitutional amendment to do that. No one needs a constitutional 
amendment to build the steps to a balanced budget. Those are decisions 
of taxing and spending that are made individually, day after day, on 
appropriations bills and on the budget bill.
  I guess my point today is to say there were conditions under which I 
was fully prepared to vote for this, and I described what those 
conditions were. They were not able to be met, I guess. I was not able 
to vote for it. That does not mean that we should not march together 
toward a balanced budget. Of course, we should. And we ought to start 
immediately. Some of us started in 1993. And we are pleased we did. 
Some who decided to vote for that paid a very heavy price for it. But 
it was a vote well worth taking as far as I was concerned.
  Now, the next question for all Members is, what are the subsequent 
votes by which we can, together, begin to climb those stairs and make 
progress toward balancing this country's budget, and not just balancing 
the budget, but starting at some point to pay off the debt.
  We need to create investment in this country. We need to create 
investment and growth opportunity. I started by talking about the trade 
deficit, because ultimately we are involved in world competition for 
the future. There will be winners and losers. I do not want this 
country to be a loser in the international competition. I want this 
country to win, because winners will be assigned new jobs, expansion 
opportunities, and hope, and losers will have the British disease of 
long, slow economic decay because they believe what is important is 
consumption, not production. That is another discussion for another 
time.
  I fervently hope that all Members can understand we wear the same 
jersey. We are on the same team. In international competition, we are 
fighting the same fight for the future of this country. The answer--
should we balance this budget and should we start paying off the debt--
is clearly yes, notwithstanding what constitutional amendment might or 
might not be debated or discussed now or at any time in the future. The 
answer is yes, that is our job. The sooner that we get that job done, 
the better it is for the American people and for our children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is entitled, under 
the previous order, to 15 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on Senator 
Daschle's time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute and thirty-two seconds.
  

                          ____________________