[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 79 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5657-S5667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we will soon once again cast a historic 
vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It will be a 
historic vote. It will be a defining vote. Given the experience of the 
last 26 years, $5 trillion in debt, interest on debt that will soon 
exceed Defense Department spending, it is certainly an appropriate 
matter for the Senate to consider.
  I will not prolong my remarks right now, but, Mr. President, I will 
yield up to 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, 
if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for having 
this time for us to discuss this very important issue.
  For many years, I have supported the constitutional amendment for a 
balanced budget. The American people

[[Page S5658]]

have overwhelmingly indicated repeatedly that they support a 
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I guess it would be 
just as well, maybe better, if we had in fact been balancing the budget 
every year over all these many years going all the way back, I guess, 
to 1969 when we had a last annual balanced budget.
  There have been some very serious, some very credible efforts to come 
up with a balanced budget over a period of a number of years. Last 
year, the Congress passed a balanced budget resolution that would have 
balanced the budget in a 7-year period of time, with the plan to get 
that job done. Of course, that one was vetoed by the President. There 
have been other instances where we started toward controlling Federal 
spending. We had that effort in the early 1980's when President Reagan 
was in the White House. We had the Gramm-Latta bill that reduced 
spending by several billions of dollars and then after about 1982-83 
the numbers, the spending by Congress started going back the other way.
  And, of course, we had the Gramm-Rudman procedure whereby if we did 
not actually balance the budget each year, there would be an across-
the-board cut known as a sequester. This had an impact for a year or 
two, and then every time Congress would get up to the point where they 
were going to have to make decisions or allow sequester or cuts to go 
into effect, Congress backed away from it, just moved the dates until 
finally it was rendered useless.
  So there have been some good efforts, but the fact is it has not been 
accomplished. But yet almost every State in the Nation balances its 
budget every year. Even a poor State like my home State of Mississippi 
every year balances its budget.
  Why is it? It is because the constitutions at the State level require 
it. You cannot have deficit spending in so many States. A few of them 
that do not have it in their constitution do it anyway. Some of them I 
guess have it in their constitution and may violate what is required. 
But for the most part I believe that is the fundamental difference.
  It is time the Federal Government lived within its means. I think the 
simple solution is if you do not have x amount of revenue coming in to 
get the job done, you just make changes. You change priorities. If you 
do not have it, you do not spend it. It is real simple.
  I believe that putting this balanced budget requirement in the 
Constitution is the responsible thing to do, and it is the mechanism 
that will guarantee that Congress, working with the President, would 
have to do the responsible thing, and that is balance the budget each 
year.
  A week ago, Mr. President, I joined Senator Domenici and others in 
writing President Clinton one last plea that he support the balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution. That is what we need. Last time 
we had this vote, we were one vote short in the Senate--just one vote. 
And there were at least six or seven Senators who had voted for a 
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget in the past but switched 
and voted against it last year. So there is a pool of Democrats that 
could be convinced, and I thought that a plea from the President would 
make the difference.

  So far his reply has been silence, and that is disappointing, but it 
is not entirely surprising. But if he really agrees that we should have 
a balanced budget, which he has said that he does, then we need his 
help. Both as a candidate and as Chief Executive, President Clinton has 
talked a good fight about balancing the Federal budget. But when it 
comes to the one legislative veto that can get the job done, he has not 
been very helpful.
  It is often said that the Federal Government and the taxpayers, more 
important, are drowning in red ink. That is a good metaphor, but it 
needs one addition. That addition is President Clinton standing at the 
edge of the red ink ocean, feeling the pain of those who are drowning 
while holding behind his back the only available life preserver. This 
is that available life preserver. That is the balanced budget 
amendment. It is the only way that we have, that I have seen, to pull 
our children and our grandchildren out of the sea of Government debt. 
It is the only means we have to force Government to live within its 
means.
  An old song reminds us that ``It don't mean a thing if it ain't got 
that swing.'' By the same token, no amount of Presidential rhetoric 
about a balanced budget means a thing if we do not pass a balanced 
budget amendment. Opponents of the amendment know that and have known 
it all along. That is why they have been willing over the years to give 
lipservice to the goal of budgetary balance and even to endorse the 
balanced budget amendment itself as long as there was no immediate 
prospect of its passage.
  Now, I think a lot of credit goes to the Senator from Illinois; he 
has worked hard in actually trying to get this done. There are many who 
have said they would vote for it, but when it got to the time actually 
to vote for it, decided they better change their mind, especially last 
year when they saw it was about to pass.

  Then came the elections of 1994. The old order sort of shattered and 
the political landscape was transformed with the new majorities of both 
the House and Senate.
  Almost overnight, a balanced budget amendment was not just talk 
anymore. Clear majorities in both Chambers of Congress had pledged to 
vote for it. So the angry and aroused, energized electorate was finally 
going to get some action, action it had been seeking for a long time. 
That is what the American public thought was happening.
  But we were entering a period of second thoughts, a time when many 
Members of Congress revised their official positions on the balanced 
budget amendment. I already pointed out that six Senators who had voted 
for it in the past switched last year and voted against it. That was 
the key in its defeat.
  That is why I, along with others, are now publicly calling on the 
President, appealing to the President, to step forward and help us with 
this vote this week.
  I hope that we will have another vote on the constitutional amendment 
requiring a balanced budget this week, probably on Wednesday. If we 
could pick up just another couple of votes, the job would be done. The 
President can help us by making those contacts.
  I give the President his due. Whatever his problems with the American 
public may be, it is clear he wields tremendous clout with 
congressional Democrats, especially here in the Senate. Time and again 
his allies in this Chamber have come to his rescue, blocking bills that 
the White House did not want to have to deal with. Actually, it has 
been a remarkably synchronized operation--a real tribute.

  But, if you look at what is happening right now in the Senate, bill 
after bill after bill is being hung up by filibusters or failure to 
agree to procedures to allow those bills to be voted on. The White 
House Travel Office legislation is still, in effect, pending before the 
Senate. A taxpayers bill of rights No. 2 is pending and awaiting 
action. Repeal of the 4.3-cents-a-gallon gas tax is waiting for action. 
Many bills that the American people support overwhelmingly and deserve 
to have passed are in limbo here, and that has been the case with the 
balanced budget amendment.
  The letter we sent to the President last week asked him to address 
this issue in his Saturday radio address, to rally support for the 
amendment. In candor, we felt obliged to warn that, ``[f]ailure to do 
everything in your power to win this vote would send a clear signal to 
the American people * * * '' that he really did not want this balanced 
budget amendment to pass, even though he has said nice things about it 
in the past. Thus far, we have not heard from the President. He did not 
endorse the amendment in his Saturday radio speech and he has not 
lifted a finger, the best I can tell, to help us pass the amendment 
through the Senate so the American people can decide.
  Remember this, even if we passed it here in the Senate after it has 
already passed in the House, it still would have to go to the American 
people so the various State legislatures could vote on ratification in 
that amendment process. Should we not at least let the American people, 
through their State legislatures, have a chance to express themselves, 
to vote on this issue? So that is all we have been asking, is to allow 
us an opportunity to take up this amendment, debate it, vote on it, and 
hopefully pass it on to the States for them to pass judgment.

[[Page S5659]]

  Opponents of the balanced budget amendment tend to ignore that part 
of the constitutional process. Instead, throughout the Senate's year-
long debate on the amendment, they have come up with a number of red 
herrings. We have been told the amendment would imperil Social 
Security, it would devastate crucial domestic programs, that it would 
require tax hikes, and that it might hobble the Government in times of 
national or international emergency.
  Do opponents of the amendment seriously believe that three-quarters 
of the State legislatures would ratify a constitutional amendment that 
was going to harm Social Security? Would the Senate? Would the U.S. 
Senate vote for that? I don't think so. I know I would not.
  Do opponents of the amendment really think that 37 State legislatures 
would adopt an amendment that in any way cripples Government in times 
of crisis? Of course not. I think the opponents of the balanced budget 
amendment realize those arguments are, at best, irrelevant and, at 
worst, false. I guess we should be relieved they have not blamed the 
amendment for Britain's ``mad cow'' disease or global warming, but 
there is still time before the vote and we may hear that.
  Since these are all false arguments blocking this amendment, I urge 
that we take them up, debate them seriously here in the next 2 days, 
and have a vote on this constitutional amendment.
  Since those are all false reasons for blocking the amendment, why are 
its opponents so determined to kill it here in the Senate, before the 
States can even have a say in the process? I think the answer is 
obvious. The amendment is indeed a danger, a peril, and a threat.
  It endangers the entrenched interests that have called the shots in 
official Washington for most of the last half-century. It imperils the 
network of lobbies whose reason for existence is bigger and fatter 
Government budgets. It threatens to derail the Federal gravy train and 
make its relaxed riders walk for a change.
  They cannot survive under a balanced budget amendment, for it would 
take away their subsidized pulpits and make them earn their keep in the 
open marketplace of ideas. They cannot do that, and they know it. They 
do not have the support of the American people, so they cling to the 
support of the American Government.
  It is why the balanced budget amendment, almost overnight, changed 
from a bipartisan sure thing to an endangered species. And it is why, 
when we vote again on the amendment within the next few days, we will 
probably be two or three votes short of passage. Unless, that is, 
unless President Clinton steps into the breach and convinces his Senate 
allies to vote the same way they campaigned: for the amendment and 
against business as usual in Washington.
  The ball is in his court. If the amendment is defeated this time 
around, the whole country will know who bears the responsibility for 
its demise.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my letter to 
President Clinton be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 29, 1996.
       Dear Mr. President: You have been telling the American 
     people that you believe we need a balanced budget.
       With a decisive vote on a constitutional balanced budget 
     amendment scheduled for the Senate floor the week of June 3, 
     we now have a unique opportunity to exhibit leadership over 
     partisanship for the best interests of this nation and for 
     our children's future.
       If you are sincere in wanting a balanced budget, then 
     please use the power of your office to persuade Democrat 
     senators that this is best for our children and our nation. 
     As you know, six Democrat senators campaigned on their 
     support for a balanced budget amendment, but then helped 
     defeat it last year.
       Failure to do everything in your power to win this vote 
     would send a clear signal to the American people that you 
     place politics above country. Join us in passing this 
     necessary and historic amendment. We propose that you use 
     your Saturday radio address this week to rally support for 
     the balanced budget amendment, and Republicans will use our 
     response time to echo your message.
           Sincerely,
     Senator Trent Lott
     Senator Pete Domenici
     Representative Dick Armey
     Representative John Kasich
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to convey to 
him something that was not in that letter.
  I want to assure him that, even if he succeeds in blocking the 
balanced budget amendment, he is not going to block Congress' efforts 
to curb his tax-and-spend approach to Government.
  That is the meaning of the budget resolution the House and Senate 
have already passed. And it will be the clear and frugal bottom line of 
the appropriation bills we will send down to the White House over the 
next 4 months.
  One way or another, the taxpayers are going to win this fight. 
President Clinton and his Senate allies can delay that outcome, but 
they cannot prevent it forever.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I 
think he has hit on key features relating to the passage of the 
balanced budget amendment, the first being that this really is in the 
hands of the President of the United States. He was the reason that six 
members of his party changed their minds, and his rhetoric can now be 
the reason to support a balanced budget by speaking out and calling on 
his side to support it.
  I am very pleased that Senator Dole is fulfilling his promise to the 
American people and recalling it, even though the odds against getting 
over that hill are great.
  Now, Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes to the principal sponsor 
of the balanced budget amendment, its long-time and ardent supporter, 
the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to call on the Senate to send 
the Dole-Hatch-Simon balanced budget amendment to the States for 
ratification. We will have the opportunity to vote for it again soon. I 
am hoping that the Senate will respond to the needs of the American 
people.
  President Clinton has fought the balanced budget amendment every step 
of the way, and I would just like to ask, ``Why?'' The President says 
he is for a balanced budget. Yet, I suggest that the opponents of the 
balanced budget amendment are simply not ready to impose the kind of 
fiscal discipline on themselves that a constitutional amendment would 
require. It is tough to stop spending other peoples' money.
  Last year he succeeded in blocking the balanced budget amendment. 
President Clinton won but the American people lost. The American people 
will lose again if President Clinton has his way this year, if we 
cannot talk him into helping here. Unless he changes his mind and makes 
clear his support for the balanced budget amendment we will probably 
fail one more time.
  It is important for our country and our children. The subject matter 
goes to the heart of our Founding Fathers' hope for our constitutional 
system--a system that would protect individual freedom through limited 
government. In the latter half of this century, however, the intention 
of the Framers of the Constitution has been betrayed by Congress' 
inability to control its own spending habits. The size of the Federal 
leviathan has grown to such an extent that the very liberties of the 
American people are threatened.
  The other body has already given its approval to the amendment, so it 
is up to the Senate to follow and meet the needs of the American 
people, 85 percent of whom favor a balanced budget amendment. We need 
to relegate the spendthrift and tax-happy policies of the past to the 
dustbin of history. This amendment has broad support in the country and 
among Democrats and Republicans who believe that we need to get the 
Nation's fiscal house in order so that we can leave a legacy of a 
strong national economy and a responsible National Government to our 
children and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, our Nation is faced with a worsening problem of rising 
national debt and deficits and the increased Government use of capital 
that would otherwise be available to the private sector to create jobs 
to invest in our future. This problem presents risks to our long-term 
economic growth and endangers the well-being of our elderly,

[[Page S5660]]

our working people, and especially our children and grandchildren. The 
debt burden is a mortgage on their future.
  The total national debt now stands at more than $5.1 trillion. That 
means that every man, woman, and child in Utah and all of our States 
has an individual debt burden of $19,600. While it took us more than 
200 years to acquire our first trillion dollars of debt, we have 
recently been adding another trillion dollars to our debt about every 5 
years, and that is shortening as we keep going.
  Yet, Mr. President, opponents of the balanced budget amendment claim 
that there is no problem. They point to the marginal slowdown in the 
growth of the debt in the last year or so as if it suggested that all 
our problems are solved. Only inside the Washington, DC, beltway can 
people claim that we are on the right track while we add to a debt of 
more than $5.1 trillion. The President's own 1997 budget predicts that 
in the year 2000, total Federal debt will be more than $6 
trillion. That means a Federal debt of about $23,700 per person. Every 
one of us will owe that much when we get to that point. That is, if the 
President has his way. This would be nearly a tenfold increase in the 
per capita debt since 1975.

  When we last debated the balanced budget amendment, I gave a daily 
update of the debt increase as we debated. By the end of the debate, my 
``debt tracker'' was becoming unwieldy, so I have brought down a sort 
of summary debt tracker to bring us up to date since we began debate on 
this amendment in January of last year.
  As my chart shows, when we began debate on the balanced budget 
amendment, the debt was $4.8 trillion. As of this week, it stands at 
more than $5.1 trillion. That is an increase of $320 billion in a 
little over a year. It is absolutely incredible. Translated into more 
understandable terms, that means that the cost of the delay in passing 
this important amendment has been more than $1,200 for every man, woman 
and child in America.
  Put another way, over the 15 months that have elapsed since President 
Clinton helped defeat the balanced budget amendment, the debt has 
increased on average over $650 million of debt, over $27 million an 
hour, over $450,000 a minute and over $7,500 every second. This is the 
price of the delay caused by President Clinton and his allies.
  That increasing debt is not just numbers on a chart. Over time, the 
disproportionate burdens imposed on today's children and their children 
by a continuing pattern of deficits could include some combination of 
the following: increased taxes; reduced public welfare benefits; 
reduced public pensions; reduced expenditures on infrastructure and 
other public investments; diminished capital formation; diminished job 
creation; diminished productivity enhancement; diminished real wage 
growth in the private economy; higher interest rates; higher inflation; 
increased indebtedness to and economic dependence on foreign creditors; 
and an increased risk of default on the Federal debt.
  This is fiscal child abuse, and it simply must end.
  Mr. President, if one thing became clear during our recent experience 
in trying to enact the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, it is that we need 
a constitutional mandate. Some Senators argued during our debate last 
year on Senate Joint Resolution 1 that we did not need a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. ``We know what needs to be done,'' 
they said. ``We should just do it.''
  The trouble is that Congress did it and the President did not. But 
under a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, the words 
``just do it'' would have authority for both elected branches of the 
Government, both the executive and the legislative branches.
  In the year that has gone by since President Clinton helped defeat 
the balanced budget amendment, the country has witnessed one of the 
most contentious budget battles in the history of our Nation. President 
Clinton was willing to let the Government shut down twice before he 
finally agreed to work seriously toward balancing the budget.
  But what guarantee is there that the Federal Government will ever 
achieve a balanced budget? When the other side of the aisle controlled 
the Congress, we never had serious consideration of a balanced budget 
plan. President Clinton never proposed a balanced budget until he was 
forced to. The budget he first submitted when we debated this amendment 
last year had $200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see. Even 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognized this as an 
entirely inadequate approach and rejected it. In fact, the President 
submitted no fewer than 10 budgets in 1 year and a series of attempts 
to avoid the tough, but responsible, decision to balance the budget.

  Nothing shows more clearly how difficult it is to move in the right 
direction than the last 9 months. Mr. President, we need the balanced 
budget amendment to lock in the balanced budget rule now, or the future 
of our children will be bleaker and bleaker.
  The proposed constitutional amendment will help us end Congress' 
dangerous deficit habit in the way that past efforts have not. It will 
do this by correcting a bias that exists in the system, in our present 
process, which favors ever-increasing levels of Federal Government 
spending. The balanced budget amendment reduces the spending bias in 
our present system by ensuring that, under normal circumstances, votes 
by Congress for increased spending will be accompanied by votes either 
to reduce other spending programs or to increase taxes to pay for such 
programs.
  For the first time since the abandonment of our historical norm of 
balanced budgets, Congress would be required to cast politically 
difficult votes--one politically difficult vote a year at least as a 
precondition to casting a politically attractive vote to increasing 
spending.
  Mr. President, the Senate should approve the balanced budget 
amendment. It is the right thing to do for ourselves and our children 
and grandchildren, and it will give us back responsible and accountable 
constitutional Government. If we continue to play around like we have 
over the last number of years during this administration, with all the 
mouthing in the world about balancing the budget and all the action in 
the world not doing so, we are bartering away our future.
  Look at this growth of a little over a year--$320 billion more in 
deficits. Yet, they sit down there at the White House and act like 
everything is going just perfectly, like they are making real headway 
on the budgetary deficit. When this gets up much over $5.13 trillion 
into $6 trillion, the interest against the national debt is going to 
eat us alive. Then the pressure will be to monetize the debt--that is, 
print dollars like they did in Germany, where it took a wheelbarrow to 
buy a loaf of bread, so we can pay off our debt with cheap dollars and 
basically defraud all the people who rely on the valid well-being of 
the United States.
  We have to face this. This is the time to do it. I hope our 
colleagues on the other side will get real on this. Everybody in 
Washington knows, and I think most people out in the country know, that 
this argument over Social Security is a false, fallacious and 
ridiculous argument. We have to do what is right now.
  I thank my dear colleague from Georgia for leading this matter right 
now and having people here to speak to this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah, not only 
for his remarks this afternoon, but for the extended effort over the 
years to produce a sound fiscal policy in the United States in the 
management of our financial affairs.
  I now recognize the junior Senator from Utah for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for up to 
10 minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President. This problem, like the poor, 
seems to always be with us. I can remember debates about balancing the 
budget and dealing with the budget deficit that go back 30 and 40 
years. In the 1992 election, when President Clinton ran, this was a 
major issue, primarily because of Ross Perot. Ross Perot raised it, 
Ross Perot made an issue out of it and Ross Perot, I think, got his 
finest reaction on the television, when

[[Page S5661]]

he was being attacked for his lack of experience, when he responded by 
saying, ``You're right; I don't have experience. I have never run up a 
$4 trillion deficit in any of the businesses I have run. I don't know 
how to do that.''
  I am not a supporter of Ross Perot. I voted for George Bush and 
campaigned for George Bush and think the country would be better off if 
George Bush had won. But I do give Mr. Perot his due for having focused 
our attention on this issue.
  I ran in 1992 as well, so was heavily involved in it. At the time, 
the deficit was around $300 billion a year. I remember saying to those 
people who came to my town meetings and heard me as I was campaigning, 
``Let me make a prediction. I predict that no matter who wins the 
election, the deficit will go down, and it will go down fairly 
significantly, and every politician in Washington will take credit for 
having made it go down, and none of them will have had anything to do 
with it at all.''
  I think I predicted correctly. The deficit has gone down. It is 
roughly half what it used to be.
  Let me remind everybody, lest they fall into the trap of 
misunderstanding what I am saying, the deficit is not the debt. To say 
the deficit is half what it was in 1992 is like saying to your teenaged 
child, ``You're overspending by $200 a month your allowance, but that's 
all right because you used to overspend by $400 a month, so your 
deficit has been cut in half.'' No. The debt keeps going up with every 
dollar of the deficit. But the deficit has indeed been cut in half.

  Why was I able to predict that the deficit would be cut in half in 
1992 with such accuracy? Two things. As I say, the politicians had 
nothing to do with either one of them.
  No. 1, the cold war is over. President Clinton talks about the number 
of Government employees who have been severed from Government service 
since he has been President. He says, ``We've eliminated some 270,000 
civilian jobs.'' He is right. Over 200,000 of those are in the Defense 
Department.
  This is the so-called peace dividend that we heard about for so long. 
We are now at peace. The cold war is over. We are not spending nearly 
as much on the Defense Department as we used to. We have eliminated 
some 200,000 jobs of civilians in the Defense Department. As a result 
of that, the deficit has come down. Did any politician here have 
anything to do with it? No. In my opinion, the politician who should be 
most credited with ending the cold war is named Ronald Reagan. And he 
left town some time ago.
  The second reason the deficit has come down is because the savings 
and loan bailout has been taken care of. I am a businessman. Anybody 
who has been in business knows what an extraordinary expenditure is. An 
extraordinary expenditure is something you have to pay that is not part 
of your everyday activity.
  We had to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to the depositors at 
savings and loan institutions whose money was insured by the Federal 
Government. These S&L's went under, and while we can prosecute the 
owners and the managers of the S&L's if they have committed fraud, we 
have an obligation to pay off the depositors. So the cost of paying 
those depositors was going through the budget process like a pig in a 
python--a big bulge. Once it was digested, the python went back to its 
normal size.
  We paid off the last of the savings and loans obligations a year or 
so ago. Somewhat to our surprise, we found out the properties we were 
left with, those S&L assets we seized in order to pay off the 
obligations, are worth more than was anticipated. So we got more in 
selling those properties than we expected, and we did not have to pay 
as much as we had expected in the obligations.
  Put those two facts together and what do you get? You get a reduction 
in the deficit short term, one time. That is what I want to emphasize. 
This reduction in the deficit that was so predictable is a short-term, 
one-time phenomenon.
  Look at the future and you see what June O'Neill, the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, told us in the Appropriations Committee 
last week; by the time some of the young folks who are here in the 
galleries observing the Senate operate are into their careers, that is, 
in the year 2020, 2030, not that far away, if we do not do something 
about the structural deficit--not this extraordinary expenditure kind 
of deficit that we had--if we do not do something about the structural 
deficit, June O'Neill says, at that point the national debt will be 180 
percent of gross domestic product.
  In other words, we will owe 180 percent of everything we produce in a 
single year. That is the same as saying, ``OK, if you have a $100,000-
a-year salary, you have $180,000 in debt.''

  The highest point in our history in terms of our debt was at the 
height of the Second World War when our debt stood at 130 percent of 
our gross domestic product. That was when we were at war fighting for 
our survival. We were willing to risk the debt under those 
circumstances.
  The regular structural debt--that has nothing to do with war, nothing 
to do with emergencies, nothing to do with drought--in the working 
careers of the young people who come on their spring breaks and 
vacations to see us in the gallery, in their working careers you will 
see the debt higher than it was at the height of the Second World War 
if we do not do something about it.
  We do not seem to be able to do anything about it. We passed balanced 
budgets. The President has vetoed them. We have come up with ways of 
controlling the spending. The President has vetoed them. Again and 
again we have had a legislative fix, and the answer has been, ``We'll 
deal with that tomorrow.'' I have said on this floor before, I think 
the theme song of this administration should be from the musical 
``Annie'' because Annie was always singing about ``tomorrow, 
tomorrow,'' we will balance the budget tomorrow. It is always a day 
away.
  When we say, let us start today, it is always, well, if you start 
today, it will start to hurt a little bit, so we will promise to hurt 
you tomorrow, but we will continue to spend today.
  Apparently, the only way to get anybody's attention finally in this 
circumstance is to put it into our basic law. I have resisted this all 
my political career. I felt the Constitution should not be tampered 
with. I am a very reluctant and late-coming convert to the idea of a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I am there because I 
have come to the conclusion that there is, in fact, no other way.

  So I join with my colleagues rising on the floor today to say, not 
tomorrow, today, and not through hopes and pledges and expressions of 
good intentions, but through writing it into our basic law and putting 
into our basic structure on which all other laws are built the 
requirement that we get our financial affairs in order, so that the 
young people who come to see us can send their children to come to see 
our children and have the debates over substantive ways to spend the 
taxpayers' money, instead of being in a circumstance where we have no 
choices because everything has to go to service the enormous national 
debt that we are looking at if we do not get this circumstance under 
control.
  For that reason, Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in 
endorsing a balanced budget amendment and hope that we are successful 
this week in seeing it pass. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for a 
very forceful presentation.
  I want to reiterate a point, before I yield to the Senator from 
Idaho, that was made by the Senator from Mississippi when he opened 
this discussion. He pointed out that this vote is to allow the States 
to take up the issue of whether or not the Constitution should be 
amended. The other side does not even want the States to carry on and 
conduct the debate of this great national issue. They do not want to 
let it go to the States.
  I find that uniquely Washingtonian. ``No. We have to keep it all 
here. We don't dare let the States debate this great issue and make 
their voices heard.'' It takes three-fourths of them to ratify this 
before it would become an amendment to the Constitution.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator 
from Idaho who, I might add, has also been a

[[Page S5662]]

driving force behind the effort to secure a balanced budget amendment 
to the Constitution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Georgia and 
the Senator from Utah who has just spoken on this fundamental American 
issue.
  Mr. President, I had the privilege of beginning my service to the 
State of Idaho in 1981 in the U.S. House of Representatives. By 1982, 
it had become obvious to me that the collective bias, if you will, 
inside the Congress and elsewhere in the Federal Government, at that 
time and still today, was largely to spend money, to tax when you had 
to, but clearly to spend money on those programs that you felt most 
beneficial to your constituency. And when taxation was not popular, the 
bias was to go ahead and borrow the money because--that was certainly 
popular in the 1970's and 1980's and into the early 1990's--if you 
could bring home one Government program after another and deliver it to 
your constituency, especially if you did not have to pay for it in the 
form of taxes, you were just an extremely popular politician and you 
tended to get reelected year after year after year. Thank goodness the 
attitude has changed a bit in Congress.

  It was in 1982 that I and a Democrat Congressman from Texas, Charlie 
Stenholm, first introduced, and joined forces in a bipartisan effort to 
pass, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution on the floor of 
the U.S. House of Representatives. At that time, I and others traveled 
nationwide from State to State asking the State legislatures to 
petition the Congress for the very right that the Senator from Georgia 
has just spoken to--the right to speak to the Constitution, the right 
to amend the very basic document of our country.
  From 1982 to 1995, this Congress has been struggling with the fact 
that they really did want to deny the American people the right to 
speak their will on their Constitution, to reshape their Constitution, 
in a very important way, in what it would do to direct, to simply 
limit, the Congress of the United States and its activities.
  In 1982, if you looked at the polls, the public was somewhat 
concerned about a balanced budget amendment. It was not until the late 
1980's when the deficits were soaring to nearly $300 billion a year 
that this issue finally became an urgent issue with the American 
people. Even in a poll today, after 2 long years of struggling with 
liberal Democrats and fighting to try to balance a budget, the American 
people, now 83 percent strong, say, ``Give us a constitutional 
amendment for us to speak on, to debate and ratify, that would force 
the Congress of the United States to balance its budget.''
  From 1982 to 1996, this issue has become, without question, the most 
important, single, driving issue in the minds of the average person out 
there. That average American believes in a balanced budget, and 
recognizes the tremendous difficulties that the Congress itself has had 
in attempting to balance the budget, and therefore believes it will 
take the weight of the Constitution to balance the budget.
  What does it mean in real terms? Mr. President, we talk about a 
constitutional amendment requiring the Congress to function in certain 
ways. All well and good. Everybody wants a balanced budget and wants 
our Government to keep their fiscal house in order. Even this 
President, who only pays simple lip service to a balanced budget and 
does not really mean it--we saw between 1992 to 1994 when he was big 
spender No. 1 and big taxer No. 1. Now, of course, because of 1994 and 
the elections, he has changed his tune a lot. In fact, it is awfully 
hard to tell who he is these days, but we do know he at least says he 
is now for a balanced budget. Not for a constitutional amendment. Oh, 
no, do not force the Government to be fiscally responsible. Just trust 
Bill. Just trust the President that he will be a responsible public 
servant, along with the Congress, that for now, 36 years, has been 
unable to balance its budget. As critical as I am of this President, 
his own people said in his budget for 1995 that, because of the way 
Government spends, that future generations are going to look at paying 
82 percent of their income into taxation on an annual basis for all 
levels of Government service and to pay interest on the debt. I cannot 
imagine any one young person, let alone any adult, who would believe 
that to be acceptable. Yet the best minds from this Government 
supposedly say that is a fact, unless we change things.
  The National Taxpayers Union estimates a child born today, in his or 
her lifetime, is going to pay an extra $180,000 in taxes just to pay 
interest on the current accruing Federal debt. Those are the people 
reasons that we ought to do something. Clearly, the ability to keep our 
fiscal house in order, Mr. President, is of paramount importance to any 
one American's future and to the future and strength of this country.
  The balanced budget bill that the President vetoed this last year 
would have begun the very important process to lead us to the balanced 
budget we speak of by the year 2002. What does it mean to the American 
family if we would have been able to accomplish what the President 
vetoed on one side and then said he was for on the other? About $2,400 
a year in mortgage payments for a $75,000, 30-year mortgage. That is 
significant money. How about $1,000 on the lifetime of a 4-year car 
loan? That is big money to an American family. How about $1,900 on the 
life of a 10-year student loan? All we have heard from this 
administration when we tried to adjust the student loan program is that 
we were cutting the loan program, when we did not cut loans or 
eligibility a dime. Yet, they will not balance their budget to give the 
student who has to pay the interest on the debt that he or she has 
accrued the benefit of a $1,900 savings on a 10-year student loan. That 
is big money to real families, spread across millions and millions of 
students who need student loans to put themselves through their 
undergraduate years.

  How about 6 million new jobs by the year 2002--just from balancing 
the budget. And there are other kinds of growth or multipliers in the 
economy that will occur if we are able to do this. Those are the good 
reasons. That is why we ought to be balancing the budget.
  Now, can we get there without a constitutional amendment? Well, I 
think everyone watching today, and certainly the American people over 
the last 2 years, have watched us play the game. Some of us were deadly 
serious about a balanced budget. I am afraid the other side of the 
aisle was not at all that interested. We have heard one plan, two 
plans, four plans, six plans. Oh, there are all kinds of plans to 
balance the budget. But when that side of the aisle disagrees with this 
side of the aisle, and ultimately, in the end, with the President's 
veto standing there over us, balanced budgets simply do not occur 
because the Constitution does not require them. We have only our 
ability to work together to solve this, and that is not enough.
  I have always been convinced from the very day that I fought for a 
balanced budget amendment on the floor of the U.S. House in 1982 that 
we needed the extraordinary power of the Constitution to force the 
Congress of the United States and those who serve it to be fiscally 
responsible. We had learned--not this particular Senator, but a good 
many before him--that there were all kinds of ways to game the system, 
and in the end you could ultimately tell the American people you were 
doing one thing when, in fact, you were doing something different.
  It does not work that way when the Constitution requires you to 
respond in a certain manner. Oh, there are those who would say you can 
just ignore the Constitution. Mr. President, that is one thing that is 
not ignored around here. In the privileged time I have had to serve the 
State of Idaho in Congress, I have seen the Constitution is not 
intentionally ignored. There are times when what we do gets judged by 
the courts to be constitutionally lacking. When that occurs with a law 
we pass, we make the necessary decisions and adjustments to change it 
and bring it back into shape.
  Since 1969 we have had 27 unbalanced budgets in a row. From 1960 on, 
35 of 36 budgets have been unbalanced. A majority of the American 
people have seen the Federal Government balance its books only once or 
never. Yet, when our Founding Fathers created this great country, they 
did not require this as a constitutional requirement because they 
simply felt there would

[[Page S5663]]

never be a day when the budgets would not be balanced. If they did 
become unbalanced, certainly, the fiscally responsible Congress would 
move quickly to bring them back into balance.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by saying we will have an opportunity 
once again to vote on a constitutional amendment to require Congress 
and the President to balance the Federal budget. I know of no single, 
stronger way to allow the American people to debate the issue of a 
balanced budget in every State capital of this Nation, than to allow 
the legislatures of all of the States to move in the constitutionally 
prescribed way, and that is to ratify or deny a constitutional 
amendment--the 28th--to our Constitution, which would require the 
Government of this country to balance its budget on an annual basis.

  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona would like to speak on this subject 
matter. If he is willing, I would be pleased to replace him as 
Presiding Officer and yield up to 10 minutes from the Senator from 
Arizona.
  (Mr. COVERDELL assumed the chair).
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator conducting this 
special order, and I appreciate his yielding time for me to speak on 
the matter of the balanced budget amendment.
  I think the case for the balanced budget amendment is now stronger 
than ever. Many of the critics of the balanced budget amendment in the 
past have argued that it was unnecessary, that if Congress only had the 
courage and the will, it could balance the budget and do so without the 
explicit mandate to do so in the Constitution.
  Well, Mr. President, the majority of Congress did finally muster the 
courage and the will on November 17 of last year when it passed the 
Balanced Budget Act. For the first time in 26 years, a majority in the 
Senate and the House approved a comprehensive plan to begin to limit 
Federal spending and to balance the Federal budget.
  But courage and will--and the votes of the majority in the Congress--
were not enough to overcome President Clinton's dogged determination to 
spend beyond the Nation's means. A President committed to big 
Government can always be counted on to use every tool at his disposal 
to thwart progress toward a balanced budget, to wear down the courage 
and the will of even the most steadfast of the deficit hawks.
  On April 25, for example, a majority in Congress concluded that it 
was easier to yield to President Clinton's demand for more spending 
than to fight for maximum deficit reduction. The omnibus appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1996--a bill that I opposed--spent about $5 
billion more than was originally intended. The Senate added another $5 
billion to the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution 2 weeks ago to 
appease the President. Granted, the additional spending is offset by 
savings achieved in other areas. But if Congress had applied those 
offsets to deficit reduction instead of accommodating the President's 
demands for more spending, it would be that much easier to achieve the 
goal of balancing the budget. As it stands, it will be billions of 
dollars harder to achieve the goal of a balanced budget by the year 
2002.
  The balanced budget amendment would correctly put the onus on the 
President in future situations like this. Instead of requiring Congress 
to muster a supermajority vote to limit Government spending--for 
example, to override President Clinton's veto of more frugal 
appropriations legislation--the balanced budget amendment would require 
the President to orchestrate a supermajority to vote for his proposals 
to add to the deficit.
  Mr. President, this illustrates the problem. It is far easier to 
spend money than it is to save it. While it will take a supermajority 
to save taxpayer money and balance the budget over President Clinton's 
veto, it takes only a simple majority to spend hard-earned tax dollars. 
In fact, because so much of the Federal budget is on autopilot, the 
Government can spend more every year without taking any vote at all.

  President Clinton uses this fact to his advantage. He claims to 
support a balanced budget, but resists every effort to accomplish that 
objective, knowing full well that inaction means that the Government 
will continue to grow and that Federal spending will continue to 
escalate.
  The fact is, despite claims to the contrary, President Clinton has 
never proposed a budget that would actually achieve balance. Speaking 
about the latest budget proposed by the administration, the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office, June O'Neill, said in testimony on 
April 17, ``Under CBO's more cautious economic and technical 
assumptions, the basic policies outlined in the President's budget 
would bring down the deficit to about $80 billion by the year 2002 
instead of producing the budget surplus that the administration 
estimates.''
  In other words, the President's most frugal budget would still result 
in an $80 billion budget deficit.
  So for all of the President's proclamations that he is now a true 
believer in a balanced budget, the fact is that he has yet to offer an 
honest plan to achieve balance by any date certain.
  By contrast, the budget that the Congress passed last year and the 
budget we just passed 2 weeks ago, do achieve balance and they do so 
while protecting the programs that are most important to the American 
people. We promised not to cut Medicare. We do not. Medicare spending 
would be allowed to grow at twice the rate of inflation. In fact, per 
beneficiary spending would grow from $5,200 in 1996 to $7,000 in 2002--
a 35-percent increase. We allow it to grow, but at a sustainable level.
  We provide a $500-per-child tax credit for every child under 18 years 
of age. We protect Social Security. We reform Medicaid and continue 
progress toward more market-oriented farm policies.
  Mr. President, there are good reasons to balance the budget. The 
Congressional Budget Office predicts that a balanced budget would 
facilitate a reduction in long-term real interest rates of between 1 
and 2 percent. That means that more Americans will have the chance to 
live the American dream--to own their own homes. A 2-percent reduction 
on a typical 30-year mortgage in my State of Arizona would save 
homeowners over $230 a month. That is $2,655 each year. That same 2-
percent reduction in interest rates on a typical $15,000 car loan would 
save buyers $676. The savings would also accrue on student loans, 
credit cards, and loans to businesses that want to expand and create 
new jobs. Reducing interest rates is probably one of the most important 
things we can do to help people across this country, and reductions in 
interest rates are the first result of a balanced budget.
  With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to vote for the balanced 
budget amendment when it comes before the Senate later this week. It 
has been a long time in coming, and it is urgently needed.
  Before closing, I want to make one final point. Ideally, the balanced 
budget amendment should include a tax or spending limitation, or both, 
because it matters how we balance the budget.
  I have long advocated a spending limit as the best approach. The 
balanced budget spending limitation amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 
3, which I introduced in January 1995, includes such a limitation. It 
would require a balanced budget and limit spending to 19 percent of the 
gross national product, which is roughly the level of revenue that the 
Federal Government has collected over the last 40 years.

  Limit spending and there is no need to consider tax increases. 
Congress would not be allowed to spend the additional revenue raised. 
Link Federal spending to economic growth, as measured by GNP, and an 
incentive is created for Congress to promote pro-growth economic 
policies. The more the economy grows, the more the Congress is allowed 
to spend, but always proportionate to the size of the economy.
  A tax limit is the next best approach, and that is why we have 
advocated a supermajority to raise taxes.
  The tax limitation amendment that I introduced earlier this year--an 
initiative the House just voted on on April 15--would require a two-
thirds vote of each House of Congress to approve tax increases. It 
would make an important addition to the Constitution, whether or not 
the balanced budget amendment

[[Page S5664]]

is approved, but it is particularly important if the balanced budget 
amendment does become part of our Constitution. I do not believe that 
the balanced budget amendment should become an excuse to raise taxes. 
That is why I believe it should be accompanied by either a spending 
limitation or a tax limitation.
  Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is no panacea. A 
constitutional spending or tax limitation must follow to ensure that 
the budget is balanced in the right way--by eliminating spending. But 
it is essential that we take this first important step and pass the 
balanced budget amendment when it comes before us this week.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and hope that we can 
adopt it and change the Constitution, that the States will ratify it, 
and that we will in fact require a balanced budget amendment requiring 
the Congress to maintain a balanced budget for our Federal Government.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I compliment you on your remarks. I did 
not have a chance to do so to the Senator from Idaho and all the others 
that have risen in support of the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. If I could take just a minute to try to step back from 
this day-to-day routine and debate that we find ourselves in in the 
U.S. Senate in Washington, DC, not long ago--getting on to running on 
the second year--President Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on 
Entitlements issued its report. Mr. President, in that report it showed 
us--holding it right here in front of me--that in the year 2006, five 
Federal programs will consume 100 percent virtually of the U.S. 
Treasury. Though there is a little bit left--enough to run about one-
third of the current Defense Department--that is it. That is within all 
of our watch. That is just within a decade. The five programs are 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal retirement, and the 
interest only on our debt--the interest only.
  So we have in these Halls of Congress over the last 30 to 40 years 
put in place a potential catastrophe. We have talked about this for 
many, many years. Mr. President, the responsibility for addressing 
these problems can no longer be passed to someone in the future. We can 
no longer pass the baton. We are at the moment as we approach the new 
century of exercising prudent disciplines to bring into check the 
financial affairs of these United States of America of which the 
balanced budget amendment is a critical component. We have been joined 
by the Senator from Illinois who has been a dogged advocate of a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I am going to yield to 
him in just a moment.
  Let me just say, Mr. President, that when a generation of Americans 
consciously engages in consuming the resources of a future generation 
it is engaged in abrogating their freedom. This country was birthed in 
the pursuit of freedom, and thousands of its citizens lie under markers 
across the world in unending and exhaustive efforts to protect our 
freedom. What no country was ever able to do from the outside we are 
close to doing to ourselves. We have been engaged in a domestic abuse 
that could have the very effect that we fought for so long to protect.
  We just heard a Senator on this floor say unchecked a child born 
yesterday will forfeit 84 percent of their living wages to pay for 
this. That cannot happen. American citizens already work from January 1 
to May 7 before they get to keep their first paycheck. If we do not 
bring this into check they would only get to keep their paycheck in the 
month of December.
  This is just not a business about numbers, Mr. President. We are 
discussing freedom of the Americans who follow us. No generation of 
Americans I can imagine would ever consciously be engaged in robbing 
the future of the very freedom we fought to enjoy ourselves.
  Mr. President, I would like to yield up to 10 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, and my colleague from Georgia, I thank you.
  I am pleased to rise in support of this. Let me comment first of all 
on the politics of this because there are those on my side who say this 
is political. And I do not think there is any question that its timing 
right now is in part political. That does not get to the merits of it, 
however.

  I would have to say--and I say this as someone who is supporting Bill 
Clinton for reelection--that Bob Dole has been consistent on this. This 
is not a phony position that he is taking in order to gain a few votes 
in an election.
  Second, in terms of the politics, let me just add that if we should 
pass it we give Bob Dole a small victory in terms of politics because 
whatever has happened in the past people do not worry about that in an 
election. They talk about what is going to happen in the future. If we 
defeat it--and it is Democrat votes that defeat it--then you hand Bob 
Dole a much bigger issue. That is the political reality.
  A second political reality is the public image--I say to my friends 
on the Republican side--of Republicans is they simply are too hard-
hearted, are not considerate of those who struggle in our society, and 
too often candidly propose amendments and pass bills that confirm that 
impression. On our side, the public image is they are good-hearted 
people. But they are fiscally reckless. And too often we seem to go out 
of our way to confirm that. And if it is Democratic votes that defeat 
this tomorrow, or whenever we vote on this, we will have played into 
what is the worst of our perceptions.
  But aside from the politics--and the politics really should be 
extremely secondary--we are talking about something that is absolutely 
essential for the future of our country. This is not a new idea. Thomas 
Jefferson was the first person to suggest that we needed this kind of a 
constitutional amendment. He was not in the United States in 1787 when 
the Constitution was written. He was negotiating for us in Paris. When 
he got back, he said, ``If I could just add one amendment to the 
Constitution it would be to prohibit the Federal Government from 
borrowing money.'' He wanted an absolute prohibition which this 
amendment does not do. It leaves room for emergencies to have deficits. 
But he said one generation should no more be willing to pay for the 
previous generation's debts than for the debts of another country. That 
was a very interesting observation from him.

  I was reading the other day and came across where John Kennedy in 
1963 complained about the huge amount of money that was being paid for 
interest for which we got nothing. Do you know what the gross interest 
expenditure was in 1963? Mr. President, $9 billion. That is a terrible 
waste of money. But do you know what the latest Congressional Budget 
Office figure is for this fiscal year? Gross interest expenditure--$344 
billion. What if we had such a constitutional amendment in place in 
1963, or what if we had it in place in 1980 when the total debt was 
less than $1 trillion? And if we do not pass it tomorrow, 5 years from 
now or 10 years from now the situation will be much worse. And people 
will say, ``Why didn't they act?'' Why, indeed? Mr. President, $344 
billion--we will spend 11 times more on interest than on education, 22 
times more on interest than foreign aid, and twice as much on interest 
as all of our poverty programs. What do we get for it? Nothing other 
than higher interest rates.
  And I mentioned foreign aid. It is interesting. We now pay in 
interest to other countries somewhere in excess of $45 billion a year--
when I say other countries, I am including people who own the bonds; 
maybe individuals in other countries. In other words, we are spending 
roughly three times as much on interest for those who are more 
fortunate than we are spending on foreign aid for those who are less 
fortunate. And it is getting worse. One of the publications I receive--
and I am sure it has a very small circulation--is called Grant's 
Interest Rate Observers, published in New York City.

  The last edition has this very interesting statistic: May 17, 1995, 
foreign

[[Page S5665]]

central bank holdings of Treasuries, $444 billion; May 15, 1996, 1 year 
later--it was $444 billion--it is $553 billion. And it is not going to 
go on indefinitely.
  The distinguished economist Lester Thurow said that at some point 
other countries and people in other countries are going to say, ``We 
are not going to buy those bonds anymore.'' The question is not if they 
are going to say that; the question is when they are going to say that. 
We are headed for serious, serious trouble.
  If you read an Adam Smith quotation--I should have brought it over 
here--in his ``Wealth of Nations,'' 1776, he said this is the history 
of nations: They pile up more and more debt, and then they find out the 
only politically satisfactory answer to solving the debt problem is to 
debase the currency.
  That is where we are headed. Let no one make any mistake about it. 
Unless we have the discipline of a constitutional amendment, we will 
eventually do what the economists call monetize the debt. We are just 
going to start the printing presses rolling, because as you look at 
Social Security and other projections of entitlements in the long run, 
eventually some Congress--we may not be around at that point; I 
certainly will not be around--is going to face one of three very 
drastic choices. First, to dramatically increase taxes. And you know 
how popular that would be. Or to dramatically cut back on Social 
Security and other expenditures, and you know how popular that would 
be. And the third option, print more money, and that is where we are 
headed.
  Now, the opponents will say we can do it without it. Both sides have 
agreed we are going to have a 7-year balanced budget. My friends, the 
Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, will grow 
green hair before the budget is balanced in 7 years under this 
proposal. It just is not going to happen. Both parties put the really 
tough choices out to the end of 7 years. That is the politically easy 
thing to do. If it was politically easy, we would have balanced the 
budget a longtime ago. What we like to do is tell people we are for 
balancing the budget, but we are going to put off these really 
difficult decisions.
  We need the discipline of a constitutional amendment to force us to 
do the right thing.
  Now, some will argue, well, we ought to exclude Social Security. And 
we have since 1969 had a unified budget that has included Social 
Security. I have always favored excluding Social Security. Some of us 
who have been pushing this have tried to negotiate where we could over 
a period of years move in that direction to protect Social Security 
even more. But real candidly, we have been unable to pick up any 
additional votes by doing that. But let no one use the figleaf of 
Social Security to cover opposition to this. Bob Myers, chief actuary 
for Social Security for 21 years, said it is absolutely essential for 
the future of Social Security that we have a balanced budget amendment, 
because if we do not have a balanced budget amendment, frankly, we are 
going to monetize the debt, and that means just printing the money and 
the trust funds will just really move down.
  I see I am being signaled on time.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague.
  Let me just add two or three more points. We are spending an 
increasing percentage of our tax dollar on interest. I do not care 
whether you are Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. That 
just does not make sense. We ought to be spending our money on goods 
and services. And then let us differ on whether we have a national 
health program, which I strongly favor. Maybe my colleagues here differ 
with me on that. But we ought to have pay-as-you-go Government, and if 
we want to have a program, we have to pay for it. And if we do not have 
the courage to vote the revenue, we cannot have the program--just that 
basic. It is true for a family. It must be true for a nation.
  This is also welfare in reverse. The biggest welfare program we have 
in the United States by far is interest, and it is welfare for the 
rich, and increasingly the rich beyond our borders. I know there are 
some who argue this trickle-down economic theory: Give to the 
wealthiest and it will help everybody. I have never bought that theory. 
I believe if you give money so people can buy General Motors cars, if 
you give to the people at the bottom, the president of General Motors 
is going to do all right, too. But it does not necessarily work in 
reverse. Even if you buy the trickle-down theory, who can argue that if 
you give money to wealthy people in Japan and Saudi Arabia and Great 
Britain and The Netherlands, that is helping people here in the United 
States of America?
  We end up raising interest rates. We have seen Wharton and the other 
schools, the econometric studies that say if we pass this, when we 
achieve a balanced budget we will have interest rates--the largest 
projection--the prime rate dropping 3.5 percent. You have had the 
Concord Coalition study that says the deficit in the last 20 years is 
costing the average American family today $15,500 a year in income, and 
yet we continue dissipating our funds, violating the future of our 
children and our grandchildren.
  It just does not make sense. We ought to do the right thing, and the 
right thing is to have a balanced budget requirement in the 
Constitution unless there is an emergency. Then you can get 60 percent 
of the vote.
  I thank my colleague from Georgia for his leadership. And let me just 
add my thanks to Senator Hatch and Senator Craig and Senator Thurmond 
and others. Senator DeConcini, when he was here, was very helpful on 
this. Senator Heflin has been, and others. But this is one where I know 
politics rears its head at this point in our Nation. This is one where 
we have to say, what does the Nation need? And I think it is very clear 
what we need.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, before the Senator from Illinois leaves 
the Chamber, I wish to tell him that in his limited few minutes here I 
thought he made an absolutely eloquent presentation as to why our 
Nation, this generation, and particularly those yet to come, are so 
dependent on the type of discipline as represented by the proposal the 
Senator from Illinois suggests. The Senator referred to Thomas 
Jefferson and his desire to have had this in the original 
Constitution. The reason, if you read through his works, is over and 
over there was an abiding fear of government and its spending 
proliferation consuming the resources of the breadearner, himself or 
herself. You see it over and over and over.

  If he were here today on this floor, he would be a very disappointed 
gentleman, when he would know that the wages of a working family, 
currently almost half of them--it depends on who you are--are consumed 
by a growing and growing government. We just mentioned the data that, 
unchecked or unchanged, a child born yesterday will forfeit 84 percent 
of his or her working lifetime wages. That is not possible. There will 
be a revolution.
  This is going to be solved. I will stop addressing this just to the 
Senator from Illinois so he can get on with his day--but this is going 
to be solved. We have two options. One, which is the proposal of the 
Senator from Illinois, that we as a people manage this problem, that we 
institute new disciplines, that we have a process that assures the 
people that their financial affairs will be managed. When we do that we 
very quickly, as everybody has alluded to, produce positive benefits. 
Or we can ignore it, wait until that last 2 years of a 7-year plan, 
talk about it tomorrow, wait until someone else is in office, and we 
will create an absolute destabilized, wounded America that will trip 
into the new century instead of march into it.
  I admire the Senator from Illinois. As I said, those were eloquent 
remarks.
  Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield, I thank him for his comments. 
The reality is, we have already wounded America. But the wounds will 
become much more severe if we do not pay attention to this.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to 
the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

[[Page S5666]]

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Georgia 
for his leadership on this issue, and also for his statement earlier. 
In addition, I compliment the Senator from Illinois for his leadership, 
for his cosponsoring this resolution, not just today but last year, not 
just last year but the year before.
  For several years Senator Simon has been a leader in saying we should 
pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. He is right. He 
also makes it bipartisan, which is awfully important. I would support 
this amendment if it was offered by the Democrats. If you had a 
Democrat in the White House or a Republican in the White House or an 
Independent, this amendment should pass. It has passed in the Senate 
before. We actually passed this amendment in August 1982. It passed 
when Republicans gained control of the Senate for the first time. It 
passed with 69 votes, 69 to 31.
  The House never passed it. The House tried that year but they failed. 
They came up short. Then, after we had Republican control of both 
Houses, the House passed it. And I compliment the House. They passed it 
on January 26, 1995. The Senate again considered it and, unfortunately, 
it failed by one vote. Actually the final vote was 65-35. Everyone 
knows it takes 67 votes, but Senator Dole moved to reconsider it, which 
he has that right to do, so we can have another try at it. I compliment 
him for doing so. I believe this week we will have another chance to 
pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  I remember when we had this debate some of our colleagues said, ``I 
believe in a balanced budget, I just do not think we have to have a 
constitutional amendment.'' But I remember reading some remarks that 
were made by some people on the other side of the aisle that said we 
need a constitutional amendment. They voted for it. Actually, on March 
1, 1994, I had a resolution that said we should pass a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. Several of our colleagues on the 
Democrat side at that time supported it. But in 1995, when it was for 
real, after it had already passed the House, they voted no. That is 
unfortunate.
  You might say, why did they vote no? President Clinton was against 
it. I wish he was not against it. Everybody in America should know that 
President Clinton was against a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget. If he were in favor of it, I am sure some of our colleagues who 
did not vote for it would vote to pass it and we could pass it this 
week. And we should pass it this week.
  Maybe there will be an election conversion. I think we have noticed a 
great deal of flexibility on the part of President Clinton on a lot of 
issues. Maybe on this issue he would see the wisdom, supported by 80-
some-odd percent of the American people who say we should have a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Most all States have 
something like this in their constitutions. That happens to work. And 
we need it in our Constitution.
  I look at the words of one of our forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, who 
said, in 1798:

       I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our 
     Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for 
     reduction of the administration of our Government to the 
     genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional 
     article taking from the Federal Government the power of 
     borrowing.

  Thomas Jefferson, 1798. He was exactly right.
  I have seen Government spending grow a lot, even since I have been 
here. If you look at the total amount of Government spending: In 1960 
we spent less than $100 billion, in 1970 we spent less than $200 
billion, by 1980 we spent almost triple that and went to about $600 
billion so you see it growing rather substantially. By 1990 it grew to 
over $1.2 trillion, and last year we spent over $1.5 trillion. So we 
have seen spending grow, and grow dramatically.
  The present occupant of the Chair, Senator Kyl from Arizona, said: 
Wait a minute, we should have a limitation, a limitation on taxes. I 
figure maybe a limitation on spending. But we both see the growth of 
Government growing substantially. For every dollar that Government 
spends, we have to take it away from the American people, either in the 
form of taxes today, and/or in borrowing, both of which are taking 
money from the private sector and putting it in the hands of the public 
sector.
  I happen to think that is part of the problem, because I think that 
the private sector can spend money a lot better. Families can spend the 
money a lot better than Government can, than bureaucrats can. I happen 
to think families care a lot more about education than the bureaucrats 
in the Department of Education. I think families are a lot more 
interested in the health of their families than some bureaucrat in the 
Department of Health and Human Services. I think families are a lot 
more concerned, families and local communities, about welfare than the 
massive bureaucracy that we now have, that has 334 federally 
controlled, Federal defined, federally determined benefits of welfare. 
I think States and local groups can do a lot better job in job training 
than when we have 156 different Federal job training programs. They are 
stacked on top of each other. That is the reason we see spending just 
going through the roof. So we need to reform it.

  How can we do it? If we have the majority votes we do not need a 
constitutional amendment. Maybe not a simple majority, maybe we need 60 
votes because in the Senate sometimes it takes 60 to pass legislation. 
That is unfortunate. We passed a balanced budget resolution earlier, 
last month. It was a good resolution. It does lead us. It shows how we 
can get to a balanced budget in 6 years; not in 7 years, in 6 years. I 
support that. I think it is a giant step in the right direction.
  Some people would say President Clinton offered a balanced budget, 
and is that not good? I would say it is a marked contrast to what he 
offered a year ago in January, which had $200 billion deficits forever. 
So we are making progress. But if you look at the details you realize 
his budget is not really balanced. The Senator from Arizona quoted the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, who says, ``No, it does 
not come into balance. Actually his budget, by the year 2002, has an 
$81 billion deficit unless you have automatic tax increases.''
  So, if the economy does not perform as well as President Clinton had 
anticipated, instead of having automatic spending reductions he has 
automatic tax increases. I do not think that is a good idea. Then, if 
you look at some of the other things he has in his budget, they are 
purely smoke and mirrors. He plays games with Medicare, taking home 
health care and moving that away from Medicare part A, moving it out, 
$55 billion.
  That is surely a charade. He cannot be serious. But we do have a 
serious budget.
  Some of our colleagues said, ``I support a balanced budget, not the 
amendment, but I support a balanced budget.'' Well, we passed a 
balanced budget and we did show, yes, we would cut actually some 
discretionary spending--it is almost a freeze--but little more than a 
freeze in discretionary spending.
  Take the total amount we spend on discretionary spending, about one-
third of the budget. We spend $1.5 trillion, a little over that, one-
third of that is discretionary spending. We basically freeze that for 6 
years. We cut a little bit more than that from a freeze. President 
Clinton spends more than a freeze, and he cuts a lot more in defense. 
But we make that.
  Then we curb the growth of some entitlement programs. Some people are 
really playing scare tactics, trying to scare senior citizens saying, 
``Wait a minute, those policies the Republicans have, they're not fair, 
they're not realistic, they're cutting Medicare too much.''
  It is totally false. For example, in Medicare in 1996, we are 
spending $186 billion. Under our budget in 2002, that figure increases 
to $279 billion. That is an increase of 42 percent. That is not a cut. 
That is not a cut. If you look at per capita, last year it was $4,800 
per senior. By the year 2002, it is going to be over $2,000 more. That 
is not a cut. If you go from less than $5,000 and you are spending 
$7,000, that is over a $2,000 increase per capita in Medicare alone 
under our budget.
  What do we do? We keep Medicare solvent for at least 10 years. 
President Clinton does not do that. Medicare is going to go broke. 
Those are just the

[[Page S5667]]

facts. He may want to put the facts off, but you cannot fool the 
people. Actually, Medicare in the first 6 months of this year paid out 
$4.2 billion more than it took in. You cannot do that indefinitely. You 
cannot sit back and just let that happen. If that happens, then 
Medicare is going to be broke and the hospitals and doctors will not be 
paid.
  To me, that is not responsible. Some people may want to play politics 
and they may think that is going to help them in elections, but I found 
seniors in my State of Oklahoma are very realistic. When you tell them 
the facts, they are very mature and very willing to do what is 
necessary to save the system. Certainly, when you tell them, ``Wait a 
minute, Medicare is going to grow from $4,800 to $7,000,'' they do not 
think that is a cut.
  What about welfare, Medicaid spending? Actually, in 1996, Medicaid 
spending was $95.7 billion. Under our proposal, in the year 2002, it 
grows to $139.5 billion. That is a 46 percent increase. That is not a 
cut. Medicaid goes up 46 percent in the next 6 years. That is not a 
cut.
  So I just make those two points, Mr. President, because a lot of 
people say, ``They are slashing the budget.'' Actually, we do not slash 
the budget. In 1996, we spent $1.57 trillion. In this one year what is 
estimated to be spent is $1.57 trillion. In the year 2002, we are going 
to be spending $1.846 trillion. That is an increase of $271 billion, or 
2.7 percent per year.
  So spending grows every single year. Entitlement spending grows every 
single year, and we are able to save and keep Medicare solvent for 10 
years. And we are able to deliver a balanced budget. And we are able to 
give some tax relief to American families. We are able to tell 
families, almost all working families with incomes less than $100,000 
in America, if they have children, they will get a $500 tax credit per 
child. That is in our budget. That is our statement that we really and 
truly believe American families can spend this money better than 
Washington, DC, and we can do that and balance the budget.

  I have heard President Clinton say he supports a tax credit for 
children. He campaigned on it in 1992, but he did not deliver it in 
1993, 1994, or 1995. As a matter of fact, in 1993, instead of giving a 
tax reduction, as he campaigned for, he gave the largest tax increase 
in history, and he hit American families right between the eyes.
  He gave an increase in gasoline taxes, an increase for families that 
are on Social Security income, and a big hit on other families. That is 
not fair, that is not right, that is not what he campaigned on. 
Actually, he campaigned, and in his book said, ``We're against 
increasing gasoline excise taxes.'' Lo and behold, if you look at his 
tax increase in 1993, there was an increase in gasoline taxes.
  Now he says he would be willing to support reducing them temporarily. 
To me that is not good enough. It shows very much a strong 
inconsistency on the part of the President. Maybe he was not telling 
the truth. Maybe he did not level with the American people, but he did 
exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do. In his book, 
he said he was opposed to gasoline tax increases, and in his tax 
increase, it had a 4.3-cent gasoline tax increase.
  The total net amount of tax reduction that we have under the budget 
proposal that has already passed is $122 billion. President Clinton's 
net tax reduction in 6 years on his so-called budget is $6 billion. 
There is no net tax cut for American families under President Clinton's 
proposal. I think that is unfortunate.
  We do have a balanced budget proposal. We do have a road map on how 
we can get there. We should do it. Thomas Jefferson was exactly right--
exactly right. I just hope that my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will look at this and ask, ``What is in the best interest of the 
United States? Should we not pass a constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget?"
  I think we should, and we should do it this week. Thomas Jefferson 
was right, Mr. President. I hope that our colleagues will reconsider. I 
am proud of the Senators on this side of the aisle. We had 98 percent 
of the Republicans, all but one, voted for a constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget. I hope that we will have that strong support on 
this side of the aisle, and I hope a few of our colleagues who 
supported a constitutional amendment to balance the budget in the past 
will likewise vote for it this time and give the American people what 
they really want. And that is a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). All time given to the Senator from 
Georgia has expired.
  Under the previous order, there will now be 30 minutes for debate 
under the control of the Democratic leader, or his designee.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________